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.

Indo-Pakistani War of 1947

• Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article was tagged by user HotRaja (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (same as below) but there has been no constructive criticism forthcoming from any editors, and I am beginning to feel that NPOV is being abused by some editors to somehow prove their POV. Though the article does have a plethora of unreferenced information (it may merit a "Refimprove"), I believe tagging an entire article as POV is blatant abuse of WP:NPOV. Once again I seek an independent settlement and to get on with adding material. Nshuks7 (talk) 08:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Kargil War

• Kargil War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article was tagged by user HotRaja (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) but there has been no constructive criticism forthcoming from any editors, the "tagger" inclusive. Please help resolving this once and for all. Thanks. Nshuks7 (talk) 08:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Removing "neutrality nomination" box from your Wikipedia page.

“This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality. Discussion of this nomination can be found on the talk page.”

When the box containing the above notice appears on the top of your page, and for discussion purposes is caused by someone who simply wants to injure the page, how long does it stay there as a "red flag" to the page?

If the person who caused it to go on the page in the first place either drops out of the "talk page" or keeps the discussion alive in order to keep the page "red flagged" by having the box at the top - is there a point in time of resolve to get the page back to its normal and proper appearance and purpose.

Assuming the charges are unfounded - who decides this and who is in charge of removing the box - and how? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mainman20 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Presumably, the editor who added the box made some kind of comment on the discussion page for the article. If they didn't, I would feel comfortable removing it from a low priority article - but I personally would bring it here if it were a high priority article and ask for help in what to do next (or even to the help desk or both). I've added neutrality boxes to articles, I usually write one or more paragraphs on why. If anyone wants to remove it, they should address the concerns I listed. Usually, it's because the article is a biography and the only source of material is the person in question and only quotes and citations from their own work is referenced. Or, it's because someone says something like "So and so successfully shows that Kant is wrong on X," when Kant isn't quoted and the person quotes only so and so. More is needed.Levalley (talk) 01:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)--LeValley

Gilad Atzmon

Whitewashing of notorious antisemite occurring. WP:NPOV does not require mining Mein Kampf for quotes justifying Hitler's anti-semitism, but that's exactly what's happening to this article, where reliably sourced material is being removed in favor of primary source quote-mining to create a fake "balance" in favor of fringe thinking. Compare old version to new version. THF (talk) 23:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please somebody not involved comment on my revisions, motivated originally by the substantial BLP issues (reported at WP:BLPN, which is how I came to the article). Thanks. Rd232 ^talk 04:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, the major BLP issue which prompted me to get involved with editing heavily was the NPOV problem that the quotes used to characterise the subject's positions in the old version consistently omitted context to make the quotes appear (more) damaging, plus were arrayed in the lead almost like a charge sheet (instead of a short summary of the issue). "Blackwashing", one might call it... Rd232 ^talk 05:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm been editing on this that for the last year with several editors and the main consensus has been to present his views and let them speak for themselves and then have a separate section on accusations of antisemitism and response. There was a recent misunderstanding about use of primary sources, but that has been resolved.

Yesterday User:THF comes along and declares that Atzmon is most notable for being an antisemite (without providing WP:RS) and therefore in effect all the political edits must be written to prove that point and any other views of his are simply fringe and not worth much mention. If that isn't POV I don't know what is. In fact I was considering quoting some of his statements to that effect here for comment myself. See all the talk entries from here on. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Please check out talk entry on Using WP:RS interviews in NPOV way without WP:OR

And feel free to comment as a third opinion since at least two editors continue to assert or don't seem to understand that just because a few opinion pieces published on WP:RS say he's an antisemite, it is Not ok to take quotes out of context of these interviews to prove that point. See Using 3 recent WP:RS interviews in NPOV way without WP:OR CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

RFC regarding WP:TERRORIST

An RFC has been opened regarding the guideline WP:TERRORIST on the talk page at WT:WTA. To all viewers: your comments are welcome. Ray^Talk 18:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Second opinion needed at Meat

In coming across the article on Meat especially the "Nutritional benefits and health concerns" section, I felt as is that part of the article was written by a devoted vegetarian: there is hardly a sentence about the benefits of meat in a balanced diet, and the section waxes verbose on a slew of primary sources that report a correlation of some aspect of meat eating with a disease as if meat eating was in all cases causing the disease in question. However, I would appreciate a second opinion to gauge whether I might be too easily offended. :) --Ramdrake (talk) 18:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the section is very one-sided POV. A tiny blurb at the beginning about being high in protein is followed by paragraphs of "meat is bad because..." Definately needs cleanup. The Seeker 4 Talk 18:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The section also has some problems with WP:MEDRS, especially the use of primary sources. -Atmoz (talk) 22:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I've started work on the section. Additional help and/or feedback would be most welcome.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that the Nutrition section 3:3 might better serve as the first subsection under the Nutritional benefits and health concerns as section 7.1. Much of the existing section 7.1 could then be relabeled "Health concerns” as section 7.2. But I'm afraid that the section citing various studies might become unmanageable, as both pro-meat and anti-meat people will always have a fresh study to back up their positions. Astynax (talk) 21:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Separation of Indology and Indian Politics on Subhash Kak

A user or users have used language in the past that conveys their POV. We discussed some things, and most were obliged. However, he/she/they will not allow the ToC subjects of Indology and Indian Politics to be separated. These are inextricably linked, but mutually exclusive subjects. Please make note of my previous edit, and how it was reverted.

Also, several people were engaged in off-topic discussions that at times got quite personal and nasty, which should have at least been discussed more privately.

NittyG (talk) 21:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Since nothing has been discussed, I went ahead and changed the article.NittyG (talk) 15:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia terminology on articles relating to Greece

A straw poll is currently ongoing about how the Republic of Macedonia should be described in the article Greece and related articles. The name of the Republic of Macedonia is a controversial issue in Greek politics and a number of articles relating to Greece use a different terminology from that in operation in the rest of Wikipedia. The straw poll proposes that the terminology should be standardised across Wikipedia to meet neutral point of view requirements. Please leave comments at Talk:Greece#Straw poll on the application of the name "Republic of Macedonia" on the article Greece. -- ChrisO (talk) 03:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

NPOV issue from WikiProject Firearms (section 24 "navbox" related)

{{USgunorgs}} nominated for NPOV-check because of additional problems with the template beyond layout. Trying my best to do this right, sorry if did it wrong --Kuzetsa (talk) 19:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

So...what are the "additional problems with the template beyond layout"? Aside from two comments made in September 2006, I don't see any discussion of POV issues with the template. --Hamitr (talk) 13:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

removing the controversy section from a company article

See Talk:Websense#.22Controversy.22_section. Someone wants to remove all the controversies around Websense, a software that is know for all the controversies around it. Removed sources include Amnesty International, internet free speech defender Peacefire and political scientist Norman Finkelstein. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Not quite accurate, Enric. I don't feel the Controversy section (or, indeed, the article as a whole) is neutral and it gives undue prominence to very minor matters.

• Websense is a software product that gets installed on web gateways - it can be done by companies (or schools, or libraries, or public service/government organisations) to stop their employees/users browsing for porn, or non-work sites, or illegal download sites, or whatever.

• Websense, the company, filters websites into predefined categories (and administrators of the software can put any site they wish into any category they wish). The categories get downloaded onto the local copy of the software at predefined intervals.

• The administrators of the installed software decided what categories get blocked, or don't get blocked. (Or, IIRC, that some categories get blocked during working hours but are fine on lunch/after hours).

So why is the article NPOV?

• Inaccuracy: The lead says "This enables its clients, businesses and governments, to block user access to chosen categories of website." Websense's clients are organisations. Businesses, schools, colleges, ISPs, libraries, voluntary and public sector organisations. Not governments. I'm not aware of any government that acts as an ISP.

• Bias: A screenshot is captioned "Having been set up in this instance to filter the category "advocacy groups," Websense is seen preventing access to the human rights organization Amnesty International at http://amnesty.org/" That would be because Websense (the company) correctly placed the Amnesty site in the category "Advocacy groups". Some admin in the organisation where the screenshot was taken decided that the category "Advocacy groups" should not be available from that organisation's web connection. I.e., not the fault of Websense (the company). A fairer screenshot and caption might be of Websense blocking access to some adult/porn site...

• Undue weight: From the reference, Norman Finkelstein's blog was apparently placed in some category that got it blocked - by some unspecified organisation. A user complained to Websense that the blog was in the wrong category. They fixed it the next day. Websense categorise thousands of sites every day - I'm sure they'd admit they're not 100% accurate, but when it was brought to their attention, they changed it. How is that noteworthy? They've mis-categorised several sites I've needed for work, and an admin either changes it themselves, or gets Websense (the company) to do it - no real hassle, or conspiracy. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 21:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The controversies are sourced, so I don't think they can be removed outright. Fair or not, the media has covered these criticisms, so the best thing to would be to include answers to the controversies (even cited to the company itself would be valid as long as the answers are noted as being the company's answers) in the controversies section. I think that would be more fair, and more balanced, since removing this content would be ignoring the very real coverage of these issues. Just my uninvolved opinion :-) The Seeker 4 Talk 03:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed that the material should not be removed. Public sector organizations are also called governments,and I'm highly skeptical of the assertion otherwise. You apparently didn't notice the full-text link to the Amnesty International ref [1]. Fortunately Enric has been doing good work here, and I hope these references are not removed again. II | (t - c) 08:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Article lead seeming to attempt to exempt article from NPOV and RS.

I came across an article which desires to be a List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience. It has 2 major problems as far as I can tell, but I could be wrong, 1. It defines a limited number of 'appropriate sources' from which these characterizations may come from, rather than relying on RS and Notability. 2. Some of these characterizations come from non-RS sources but these 'characterizations' are not in-text attributed to those that made them. I believe that no matter what is written in the Lead, the WP policies regarding attributing 'opinion' still holds. There is a bit of back and forth on the talk page which may be of interest, the current discussion starts here Unomi (talk) 07:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The Church of Scientology is generally not a RS for subjects related to science and pseudoscience. It's a pseudoreligion that pushes pseudoscientific ideas.

WP:RS states that sources must be "generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand", and WP:V that "[t]he appropriateness of any source always depends on the context". Those important phrases obviously are requesting editors to make common sense judgment calls each time they edit. Especially the first one requires that sources that misuse information and twist words cannot be considered "trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand."

No pseudoskeptical sources can be considered "trustworthy" or "authoritive" on the subjects of science or pseudoscience, since they don't understand them and they reinterpret the words to mean whatever they wish them to mean. Humpty Dumpty is not a good source. Through the Looking-Glass-type sources only create confusion. -- Fyslee (talk) 14:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

@Fyslee: I am going to ask you one last time to cease and desist with using strawman tactics and attributing statements or intents to me which you do not back up with diffs. I have never sought inclusion of Scientology sources. I repeatedly stated that the Scientology discussion was silly. But nor do I accept that a non-rs source is used as an RS, and further, to the exclusion of other sources of similar RS-status on the basis of your special pleading and irrelevant thesis. The source which you seem to hold in such high regard was held in such low esteem by California Superior Court Judge Hon. Haley J. Fromholz that he saw fit to write

“ the Court finds that Dr. Barrett lacks sufficient qualifications in this area. Expertise in FDA regulation suggests a knowledge of how the agency enforces federal statutes and the agency’s own regulations. Dr. Barrett’s purported legal and regulatory knowledge is not apparent. He is not a lawyer, although he claims he attended several semesters of correspondence law school. While Dr. Barrett appears to have had several past conversations with FDA representatives, these appear to have been sporadic, mainly at his own instigation, and principally for the purpose of gathering information for his various articles and Internet web-sites. He has never testified before any governmental panel or agency on issues relating to FDA regulation of drugs. Presumably his professional continuing education experiences are outdated given that he has not had a current medical licence in over seven years. For these reasons, there is no sound basis on which to consider Dr. Barrett qualified as an expert on the issues he was offered to address. ”

and

“ Dr. Barrett’s heavy activities in lecturing and writing about alternative medicine similarly are focused on the eradication of the practices about which he opines. ”

This is not some woo-woo propaganda. You bandy his website around on the feeble excuse that there are 'no better sources', seeing as how he is presumably (one can hope) used as a secondary source I find that somewhat hard to believe. If anyone is trying on a No true scotsman type fallacy it would be you with your tenuous grasp of 'trustworthy' and 'authoritative'. Now I have not tried to stop you from using Barrett as a sources if that is what you wish, but you must realize then that in-text attribution of the opinions must be given and further that this opens the door for other sources as per WP:NPOV. It is exactly to exclude Scientology etc. that I argued for the strict adherence to RS, and that RS/N was the place to go for confirmation of what constitutes RS. You consistently indicated your unwillingness to abide by wikipedia guidelines and policy and seemed to imagine for yourself some loophole where you could cherry pick sources without going to RS/N. That is why we are here at this noticeboard; if you continue to make unfounded and slanderous accusations we will very quickly see ourselves at yet another venue for dispute resolution. Unomi (talk) 18:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Unomi has a habit of sounding a lot like other (in this case banned) editors. Both points of Unomi's are misleading and at best show he is working under a misunderstanding of wikipedia policies and guidelines. Quackwatch has been found to be, on and off wikipedia, a reliable source. Fyslee is correct, and is referring to a recent discussion on the article talk page. There is no NPOV-problem at this article (except with the occasional edit that is quickly fixed or reverted), the article after extensive discussion was renamed and edited to more than address any possible NPOV concerns. In my view it went to far, and we're now seeing editors with a certain view trying their luck at taking the next mile. Verbal chat 19:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

My points are not misleading, they are exactly the heart of the matter. That you seem to exhibiting signs of Ego defence to the point of mis-characterizing me is troubling. If you do a search on RS/N for QuackWatch you will find that it has indeed never been held as a reliable source on Wikipedia, and I think that the quote of the judge above paints a rather different picture than the one you are trying to paint. As the article is currently having its NPOV status questioned by multiple editors on its talk page it certainly does seem to have an NPOV problem. Unomi (talk) 19:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

What is this dispute about? I mean, I see what you're arguing about, but what specific Wikipedia content or policy is at issue here? Actually, I see that User:Eldereft made the same request. Quit mining court decisions, which even with the ridiculous contextomy you've performed have no bearing on the matter at hand, and try making a specific suggestion in a reasonable tone. Is your point that you don't think Barrett is an appropriate source? I might agree with that, depending on the circumstances, but when you start mining court decisions you're essentially warning me not to take you seriously. MastCell ^Talk 21:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem as I see it is that it seems like we are using non-rs material in an RS fashion, ie without direct in-text attribution. It also seems like there is confusion as to which entities may have their characterizations included. This is a direct consequence of not, in my opinion, adhering to RS and/or NPOV. The quotes which you found absurd in the highest degree are, I believe, representative of the Judges assessment of Barrett, but you are right that it does not belong here, I was merely trying to make Fyslee see that what I saw as his appeal to authority was unfounded in more ways than one. Unomi (talk) 21:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any non-RS sources used in an RS fashion, I just see a POV-pusher trying to label any RS he disagrees with as being unreliable. DreamGuy (talk) 00:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• DreamGuy which 'POV' do you believe that I am pushing and based on which actions of mine? Unomi (talk) 05:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Unomi, you really do need to read the contents found at the link listed in this box (copied from the top of the Quackwatch talk page: -- Fyslee (talk) 03:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I have read it, perhaps you should take the time to read it again. Let me summarize my understanding of it again and perhaps this time you will have the courtesy of responding to my comments regarding it. Arbcom found that they should not make content rulings, and as such should not characterize QW as reliable or otherwise. The fact that they don't say that it is reliable does not mean that they found it to be reliable nor does it exempt it from being used in accordance to WP guidelines or policy or being subject to the findings of RS/N. If you believe my summary is incorrect here and now would be the time to point it out to me. Unomi (talk) 05:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a rather selective and twisted interpretation. You're welcome to be more specific on my talk page. This is not the right place for this discussion. -- Fyslee (talk) 06:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Unomi, I have some questions for (only) you here. -- Fyslee (talk) 05:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I have replied to your questions. Unomi (talk) 02:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

What is the difference between a list of pseudosciences and a list of topics characterized as pseudoscience?

What would be the difference(s) between a "List of pseudosciences" and a "List of topics characterized as pseudoscience"? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it's the words "topics", "characterized" and "as"? Shot info (talk) 03:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice one. Allow me to rephrase. What is the difference(s) between a list of pseudosciences and a list of topics characterized as pseudoscience? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Levine2112, please refrain from changing the topic of this thread. While this might be a remotely related matter (because it comes from the same article talk page), it only muddies the waters and sidetracks the discussion to bring it up here. I'm already having trouble figuring out what Unomi really is after without you bringing this other topic up. -- Fyslee (talk) 03:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I have posed a valid question which - as I mentioned before - directly relates to topic of this thread. I have have posed this question (or an amalgamation of such) several times in the past day or two, but no one has yet answered it for some strange reason. If you would be so kind to answer this time, I'd greatly appreciate it. What is the difference between a list of pseudosciences and a list of topics characterized as pseudoscience? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 04:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Probably the work "characterized"??? One would be a list of X. One is a list of somebody saying it is X?????? The reason why you probably haven't received an answer is possibly as it is self evident. But what do you propose, that the two lists (assuming there are two lists) are merged? Or created? Or modified in some fashion. Don't forget that here in WP, you have the right to ask a question (numerous times in fact) but you have no right to an answer. Shot info (talk) 05:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The answer can be found in the long discussions that led up to the change of title, which made the title NPOV (it violated it before) and brought the title into line with the existing inclusion criteria and content. You were an active participant in those discussions, so this is a disruptive discussion here, and knowing you it's probably a trick question. Go and reread the discussions and you will find the answer. Why should we do your work for you? You're misusing this board. The community of editors who discussed the whole matter made a decision. Just because you don't want to abide by it doesn't mean you can legitimately misuse this board now, so long after the decision. Abide by the results of that decision and start editing in a collaborative manner. This nitpicking, stonewalling, and general disruptiveness is very tiring. You're not getting your way there, so now you are spreading your dissatisfaction to this board in a form of forum shopping and it shouldn't be encouraged by legitimizing your question with an answer which you already know. -- Fyslee (talk) 06:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The answer to the question is that "characterised as PS” equals, “attributed by someone as PS”. The implication is that the party making this attribution should be made explicit.MaxPont (talk) 06:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I more or less agree with the substance of what Fyslee is saying, sans the personal comments. I believe this is a general dispute: When we found this compromise title, did we intend to change the contents of the list substantially by including what all of us agree are bad sources if they are notable? My comment re Scientology on the list talk page was from the position that we didn't, but Levine's position also makes sense. From the notability (rather than correctness) point of view allowing sceptics' organisations but not Scientology makes no sense. I hope that with a bit of good faith from all sides we can find a compromise. --Hans Adler (talk) 07:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

"Characterized as PS" simply means "described as PS". The question of attribution is another matter, one which I do support, but it isn't inherent in the phrase. Whether to attribute a statement or not is a matter determined by common sense and to some degree by policies here. See below. -- Fyslee (talk) 14:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• I haven't gotten deep into this and hopefully won't in the future but shortly: there's nothing sacrosanct about CSICOP and the Skeptical Inquirer as arbiters of The Truth. Dubious positions are expressed in these articles, in some cases positions against the mainstream (e.g. econometrics is pseudoscience). Presentations on a each topic should be balanced and the specific pseudoscience characterizer should be attributed. Like Middle 8 [2], I think topics which have been notably characterized as pseudosciences, as reported or expressed in reliable sources, may be included even if they aren't considered so by mainstream authorities, as long as it's a balanced presentation. Obviously dubious pseudoscience assertions from dubious sources shouldn't be used (e.g. HIV research is pseudoscience from the Journal of Scientific Exploration). Scientology and the anti-psychiatry movement are notorious for calling psychiatry pseudoscience, and I recall seeing an article in PLoS Medicine from an anti-psychiatrist, which should then be includable. As far as Quackwatch, while one can invoke WP:PARITY to use it in some cases, it remains a self-published website by a psychiatrist with an agenda and proof of major bias. Undue reliance upon it can lead to factual errors. For example, Quackwatch's Feingold diet article excludes or misinterprets (e.g. ref 6) supportive evidence of it which our article documents and which includes a 2004 BMJ meta-analysis and 2 subsequent studies. When the Feingold article was created it relied exclusively on Quackwatch. II | (t - c) 08:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

No one has claimed that they are the arbiters of truth, and of course sources should only be used where appropriate. Your opinion of QW is not shared by eminent mainstream scientists and organisations, and is another mischaracterisation, which shows your bias. Scientology is not a reliable source for anything other than Scientology articles, I strongly disagree with Levine, II, and Hans on this point. Verbal chat 08:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry? If I said anything anywhere that can be read as support for using a Scientology source outside a Scientology article, please give me a diff so that I can clarify. However, Scientology's anti-psychiatry nonsense was widely reported in the media. This obviously presents us with the problem of deciding how to deal with it. I think it should be mentioned, but with proper framing.

"Your opinion of QW is not shared by eminent mainstream scientists and organisations" – Could you please clarify? Are you trying to say no such scientist or organisation shares II's opinion, or that most of them disagree with II? I don't think you can prove either. Or do you mean something much weaker, such as some mainstream scientists and organisations don't agree with II? In that case your conclusion is faulty. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

@Verbal - Scientology is a reliable source for what Scientology thinks, and they think that Psychiatry is pseudoscience —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.22.45 (talk) 04:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I am a bit disappointed that Verbal doesn't respond, but I guess he just didn't notice my question. In case anybody is still confused about my position, here is something I said a few days before Verbal's comment: "Does anyone really believe that anti-psychiatry sources from a hermetic science fiction religion are reliable in any reasonable sense of the word?" [3] --Hans Adler (talk) 14:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification and I apologise for my misunderstanding of your position, but the above makes it very clear - I missed the earlier comment also. I have stricken your name from my comment, and thank you for AGF. Yours, Verbal chat 14:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

@Verbal - All I am saying is that "Characterized" suggests opinion, just as Shot info suggests above. Thus, in the "List of topics characterized as pseudoscience", opinion is the basis for inclusion. Yes, Scientology is not anywhere near an RS for science, but it is an RS for its own opinion. Just as Quackwatch has been deemed an RS for its own opinion. Above, Hans Adler rightly points out that Scientology's "psychiatry is pseudoscience" opinion is well publicized and rather notable. So why shouldn't we include their opinion in this list? Excluding their opinion (or point of view) seems like an obvious NPOV violation and that is why we are here on this board; to get input from outside editors.

Again, if this list were just a "List of pseudosciences" then absolutely in no way, shape or form would I be advocating for the inclusion of Scientology's opinion about psychiatry or any other science-related topic for that matter. Per WP:PSCI, Scientology does not even remotely come close to representing the scientific community and is thus not a reliable source for determining what is generally considered pseudoscience. But that's not the article we are discussing. We are discussing "List of topics characterized as pseudoscience" and there, Scientology is clearly a reliable source for its own notable characterization. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

This discussion should be occurring at the WP:RS/N, since it involves a question about the reliability of a source, and the consequences of allowing such sources on the list. You have admitted that Scientology is not a good source:

• "I certainly agree that Scientology is not the best source of science (or even a good source, for that matter). But this article is a list not dependent on science, but rather dependent of characterization -> hence opinions -> hence points of view. CCHR is a reliable source of their own point of view, and they have characterized psychiatry as a pseudoscience. CCHR is a notable organization with a significant POV. I would be happy to bring this to NOR/N, but we have to be clear that this is not a list dependent on science, but rather a list dependent on points of view Agreed? -- Levine2112 discuss 00:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)" [4]

Yet you insist on allowing it and just such unreliable sources. The problem is that allowing such sources would be a violation of WP:RS, which states that sources must be "generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand,..." (Emphasis original.) How can a source that is from a pseudoscientific source be considered reliable to express themselves about the subject of pseudoscience? Pseudoscientists lack the ability to recognize the fault of their own reasoning in such matters, and their expressions are thus classic pseudoskeptical opinions. If we were talking about the individual articles which are all wikilinked in the List, then this would be a different discussion, where Scientology's opinion about psychiatry would be given very brief mention as a notable fringe opinion, but this is a list, which by its nature must be rather brief and on-topic in its mention of each subject, leaving the longer discussions for the main articles.

How can you suggest we include unreliable sources in this list, just because they express an opinion? Common sense and WP:RS dictate that we limit ourselves to opinions expressed in RS which are "generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand", not just any unreliable, but notable, fringe source that has expressed an opinion. "Opinion" is not the only inclusion criteria, and even if it were, we should only use reliable ones. Those are provided by the scientific community. Only those informed by and allied with the scientific POV can be considered reliable to express themselves about the true nature of science and pseudoscience.

Your misguided belief that "this...list [is] not dependent on science" is an absurdity. One must understand "science" to be able to properly identify something that is "pseudo" science. Science is the inevitable starting point, and only the scientific mind can direct the pejorative "pseudoscience" arrow at the proper target. I won't deal with your strange idea (hopefully a momentary glitch in your thinking) more here, since I have already done so at the List's talk page-- Fyslee (talk) 02:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

How can I suggest we include unreliable sources in this list, just because they express an opinion? Because this is a list where inclusion criteria is based on opinion - it is based on notable sources which have made a characterization. It is NOT based on notable sources which have made a reliable characterization, for if the characterization was reliable, it wouldn't be a characterization; it would just be true. If a source was reliable for characterizing a topic as pseudoscience, then using that source, we could just call it a "pseudoscience". And if all of the sources we used in this list-article were reliable as such, then the "characterized" portion of the title would be completely unnecessary. It would just be a list of pseudosciences. However, that is not the case right now. Right now, we are using several other sources which are not "generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to" pseudoscience. Quackwatch - since that keeps getting brought up - is not generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to pseudoscience. If it was, then we could use Quackwatch's assessment alone to label scores of topics as pseudoscience. Yet - despite it being a partisan (i.e. militantly prejudiced) site - we are using Quackwatch in this list-article as a source. But that's okay. Because "pseudoscience" is not the subject at hand...

The subject at hand are "topics which have been characterized as pseudoscience". Anyone can make such a characterization. However, we currently (and rightly) limit "anyone" to only those people and organization which are notable. And the fact remains that like Quackwatch, Scientology is a notable organization which has characterized a topic as pseudoscience. Their characterization is notable and like Quackwatch, Scientology is a reliable source of its own opinion on this matter. WP:RS is not the issue...

WP:NPOV is the issue. Why? Because some editors want to exclude certain significant views. This is expressly verbotten per NPOV which states that content must represent fairly and without bias all significant views. "This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors." This is why we are here and not RSN. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You write: "Quackwatch - since that keeps getting brought up - is not generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to pseudoscience." Totally false. That is your personal opinion, and it is only shared by sources criticized by Quackwatch. Many scientists and other notable scientific skeptical sources and societies share the POV of Quackwatch. It is those who push pseudoscientific and pseudoskeptical positions that are criticized by all of them. Those who criticize QW are indeed correctly judged to be unreliable, and numerous mainstream RS consider Quackwatch to be a reliable and trustworthy source to quote as an authority on such matters. You're just plain wrong. -- Fyslee (talk) 06:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

And that is your opinon. But alas, this is not what this discussion is about. Instead, please disregard any mention of Quackwatch in my last post and please reply to the substance of my position on the article in question and NPOV. Thank you. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 07:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It is an opinion backed up by facts, and correctly frames your opinion of QW, and it does seem to be rather central to this whole discussion. It also highlights the bias of your position. Using Scientology as a source for what is PS and what isn't is a ridiculous suggestion, and doesn't fit with our policies and guidelines. Verbal chat 07:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but as far as I know QW has not been found an RS by RSN, feel free to point out where it has. It is a logical fallacy to think that because arbcom withdrew content rulings that it then defaults to being an RS. Again, considering that there seems to have been atleast historically a lack of against QW on RSN and the language that arbcom members used in their discussions, I think it would be prudent to have QW validated as RS. This would save us all a lot of time. Again, I am by no means trying to *exclude* QW, but I don't think it is prudent to include it as anything but as a source of opinion, until such a time we have word from RSN. I am sure that RSN will approve it right away based on its merits as you state them. This is not WP:RSN. Unomi (talk) 09:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to take it to RSN, but I rather feel the consensus will be the same (please leave a note here if you do). Until then the working consensus seems to be clear. The NPOV issue seems to have run dry at least. Verbal chat 13:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Took it myself, see WP:RSN#usage of Quackwatch as RS in medical quackery. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom doesn't technically make content rulings, but since a well-functioning Arbcom is quite good as a predictor for community consensus, it makes sense to look at individual arbitrators' opinions on a content question. What I see there is an inofficial, and definitely not binding, finding that QW is indeed a reliable source, but a partisan source. That an earlier finding against Fyslee, in part for using QW, was still correct (not because of general reliability issues, but because of COI issues and its partisan nature), but that an inappropriate heading that implied a content ruling (and a wrong one, too) had to be fixed. The partisan nature of the source makes it necessary to decide its usability on a case-by-case basis. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Unomi, you seem to repeatedly imply that we're claiming that QW can be used as something other than a source of opinion. That it can be used as a source of its own opinion is already established through many RSN and the ArbCom Amendment. That applies to nearly all sources we use. Hardly any of them can be used as other than that. It is only in matters of scientific nitty gritty that MEDRS requires better sourcing, IOW using actual reviews and research regarding matters that are not just opinion, and even then, scientific research can be disputed and revised. Wikipedia contents are all sourced opinions, with few exceptions. Opinion is not a bad thing. QW, just like most other sources, should not be used for MEDRS purposes. MEDRS requires that we use the research when it's available. You seem to be attempting to deprecate QW as a source, something which the ArbCom Amendment fixed. The original findings contained improper wording that was being used to deprecate QW, and now that is changed. The usual precautions that apply to all other sources also apply to QW. There is nothing unusual about that. What you do need to recognize is that QW happens to publish some of the most notable, widely cited, and highly regarded mainstream opinions on matters related to quackery, health fraud, consumer protection, and pseudoscience, and that's how we should use it. That's why pushers of fringe POV don't like it, and we know what Wikipedia thinks of their opinions (not very highly). The opinions published by QW aren't even very controversial in the mainstream world, only in fringe circles, where those criticized do alot of complaining.

What specific wordings are you having problems with? Where is it being used improperly? Please be specific. We need an example to start with so we can understand you. If it's being used improperly, that should be fixed. Normally this should be done at the article level, not here at this board. -- Fyslee (talk) 13:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impression that QW and most other sources were indeed being used as an RS of fact, I came to that conclusion because of the fact that even though I hear that the article in question is more than a year old there are only 4 items on the list which have in-text attribution of 'characterization', perhaps I made a storm in a Japanese teacup, but it seemed very inappropriate to me, further there seemed to be an inconsistent manner of recognizing that it was a list of characterizations, not 'truths' which could be used to exclude sources containing characterizations. I am now under the impression that we are in broad agreement with regards to the necessity of in-text attribution. I can't currently point to any pressing example with regards to sources which are being suppressed, it was more a matter of principle and an effort to align the article snugly with general wikipedia policy and guidelines so we wouldn't be forced into these discussions repeatedly down the road. Perhaps I was stressing prevention over ad-hoc 'cures' needlessly. In any case I consider the horse if not dead then at least knocked out cold and I am backing away from it. I want to thank everyone for indulging this discussion. Unomi (talk) 14:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

There is more information about attribution in this essay:

"All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source; in practice not all material is attributed." (Emphasis original)

and here:

"Wikipedia:Verifiability says: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation."

"The need for citations is especially important when writing about opinions held on a particular issue. Avoid weasel words where possible, such as, "Some people say ..." Instead, make your writing verifiable: find a specific person or group who holds that opinion and give a citation to a reputable publication in which they express that opinion. Remember that Wikipedia is not a place for expressing your own opinions or for original research. Opinions, data and statistics, and statements based on someone's scientific work should be cited and attributed to their authors in the text."

While the essay and policy refer to in-line attribution as the use of sources with in-line references that refer to text at the bottom of the page, it can also mean identifying the source in the text of the article, as in "Quackwatch has stated this about Applied kinesiology: quote....[1]" While the first is an absolute requirement, the second isn't always required, but I generally support doing so. -- Fyslee (talk) 06:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

No, not Barrett again!

(moved to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Usage of Quackwatch as RS in medical quackery) --Enric Naval (talk) 02:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but this is NPOV/N, RSN is over there.

That said, no one is quite sure that the requirement will be RS, Fyslee seems to argue for it, personally I don't care what it is, as long as it is applied consistently. Unomi (talk) 05:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Moved to WP:RSN --Enric Naval (talk) 13:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Christian Conventions

The article on Christian Conventions, which I reorganized and revised last Monday, has had someone put up an NPOV dispute tag. The previous article had turned into an unreadable, contradictory mess with few citations, and a lot of POV pushing from different directions (mystifying, rather than informative to read). So I thought I'd put it into some kind of order and pare it down to items where there were published sources which could be cited. But the note on the talk page seems to be mainly challenging something that I would think is undisputedly factual. So I'm at somewhat of a loss as to whether there is something else there that I need to address or tone down. My first experience with getting this tag, so I'd appreciate if anyone could give a look to see if they can enlighten me as to what needs to be fixed??? Astynax (talk) 08:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It's scarcely worth a dispute tag, IMO, but there's a lot of phrasing that suggests POV. The article reads more like student's paper than an encyclopedia article. There are lots of adjectives, for example, and people tend to dispute adjectives. Also lots of asides, lots of summary, and lots of "quoted words" all of which might appear POV. Examples:

• this group had not yet acquired its secretive nature
• the new doctrines caused a considerable stir
• it was noticed that the requirement to “sell all” was starting to be downplayed
• This eventually, and naturally, led to...
• Little mention was made of the schisms, and silence proved to be an effective tool in smoothing over the splits.
• increasingly replaced with less confrontational “Gospel Meetings”

And so on. The editor in these instances is adding a (fairly reasonable) POV and (fairly reasonable) editorial guidance, but it's a POV nonetheless, and it really doesn't need to be there. I know nothing about the subject, but as I read the article, I began to know something about the editor. This suggests to me: POV. --nemonoman (talk) 10:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

PS. You're messing around with Religion when you edit this article. Unless the neutrality is fastidious, there will be plenty of kindling ready to flame. So do your best, encourage other editors to revise (and then revise THEIR work) but Be Prepared for the fire. --nemonoman (talk) 10:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

PPS. More citations will mean fewer disputes. --nemonoman (talk) 10:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

MORE: I have gone back and read the complaint on the discussion page. Your response was correct and in keeping with good standards and good faith. To dispute the article's content, which is reasonably well cited, but NOT present any RS's in support of the assertion is just flaming without substance. I'd advise:

1. A sweep of the article's language, removing as many asides and opinions as possible, and adding citations were helpful 2. A soothing statement on the Talk page that you've had a go at NPOV'ing the article, but it's up to other editors to provide reliable sources for their assertions 3. Remove the NPOV tag.--nemonoman (talk) 11:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed and well-reasoned suggestions. I'll make the edits as soon as I have a chance, my object being an article which presents information in readable format. When I came across this section a month or so ago, I was shocked at the mess it had become. And no one wins if flames from either side of whatever disputes and controversies within this sect turn it back into a bunch of conflicting, vague claims. Maybe I should have tackled a less sensitive subject, but I did have access to citable material and so jumped in with both feet. I really appreciate the help. Astynax (talk) 17:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome and good luck. I empathize. I tried to make some sense of Aurangzeb, a very controversial figure. A saint to the Muslims, a demon to the Hindus, and every little tribe or caste in India has something to say on the matter as well. I pulled that article together, and then the nihilists barged in and peed on the rug. I have not had the stamina to maintain it in anything approaching proper form. On the other hand, Jooperscoopers and I managed to get Taj Mahal squared away quite well, and I and number of editors got Meher Baba to GA status. So sometimes the magic works. Good luck, bud!--nemonoman (talk) 19:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The dispute tag has been put up again with no new citations. I understand that this person is really convinced that the sources are all wrong and that his or her position must be the only truth. Perhaps it is an article of faith with this person, but I'm not sure what is the purpose behind just tagging the page in order to underline that this person disagrees with something(s). Ah, well, I suppose I'll wait and see if others comment. Astynax (talk) 09:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi astynax. Suggest this matter be handled on the article's talk page. It's a petty dispute, and doesn't really merit constant updates here. I think it will be resolved -- at least temporarily -- there. If it turns into an edit war, I'll join you in referring the matter here. --nemonoman (talk) 12:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello Nemonoman. I have no intention of starting a edit war, which is the very reason why I tagged the article so that it would first prompt some discussion about it. If you would prefer I didn't create this discussion, but go ahead and edit the article, that is what may invoke an edit war. I am not interested in that. I would prefer that Wikipedia remains a reputable resource of information which is not likely if we don't encourage editors to first discuss changes. Most of the discussion so far has been that the NPOV tag shouldn't have been put there, which has suppressed any useful discussion about the article. Maybe I was wrong to use the NPOV tag, and I have changed that. Tmtsoj (talk) 23:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm grateful for your decision to alter the tag to a factual dispute. I can certainly understand that facts can be presented with an unfair slant, but I really believe that this is more a dispute over fact than over neutrality. It isn't hard to assume good faith on Asynax's part -- he appears to have tried to do the right thing in so far as his skills and knowledge allow. So please help fix the facts. More cited information should resolve the issue, and I look forward to your edits. --nemonoman (talk) 23:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Three Mile Island accident

An editor is verging on hysterics over my major expansion of the health effects section of Three Mile Island accident (touch of WP:OWN I think). I'm not claiming it's perfect now, but he seems uninterested in discussion, instead slapping on POV tags without explanation and putting this comment on the talk page. External input would be nice. NB for reference, here's the last version of the article before I started editing a couple of days ago. Rd232 ^talk 20:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Gah. Wow. Um. You don't need a third opinion here, you need an expert opinion. I think disagreement is primarily about the scientific credibility of sources, and that's a matter which generalists are not able to easily judge. Ray^Talk 00:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Umar Ebn El-Khattab page being plagued with Shia stories and fabricated references to Sunni books

Page: Umar User: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pashtun_Ismailiyya

The user has mentioned over and over that he is a secular source, but he is not. He has been editing the page which details the biography of one of the Khalifas of Islam deliberately to apply certain myths that are only found in Shia mythology. No historical evidence of these incidents is there in any bookd up to 200 years after his reign and death. However, that is NOT the main form of dispute, the dispute is that he is fabricating references, and despite being warned several times on the talk page by more than 4 users, he keeps coming back and reverting the page with such nonsense references. He refers to a book called Mosnad Ahmed Ibn Hanbal, which I have a copy of and I have proven to him that his story doesn't exist.

All I am asking is to keep Shia stories UNDER SHIA section, and not to fabricate statements that say the story is validated in Sunni Muslim books. He persists, and the page at its current state has been reverted three times in under 24 hours (actually four, but the last time is a tag addition), and you can find clearly that in one area it still mentions the fabricated reference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umar#Caliphate_of_Abu_Bakr "According to the narratives written in the Shia books and notable primary Sunni sources including Ibn Qutayba's Al Imamah Wa'l Siyasa, Tabari's History and Masudi's Muruj Ud Dhahab as well as the great Sunni legislator Ahmed ibn Hanbal, following his election to the caliphate", and made a correction in another by removing the reference, HOWEVER still falsely claiming that it exists in Sunni books (beginning of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umar#Shia_Views section: "According to the narratives written in the Shia books and a substantial number of primary Sunni histories, following his election to the caliphate, Abu Bakr and Umar with other companions went to Fatimah's house to forcefully obtain homage from Ali and his supporters." This is a great falacy and a matter of huge impact for the religious accuracy of Islamic history and needs to be corrected.

I am not censoring the page from mentioning the story, but he CANNOT fabricate validity of these myths by saying it exists in Sunni books when it does not, or use references of modern secular books (which is fine) however calling them Sunni sources.

I will await your action to revert the page and put it under protection until you at least contact a Muslim scholar to authenticate the page. I suggest you use official sources such as CAIR in the states or the Canadian Islamic council of scholars.

--Sampharo (talk) 09:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Homeopathy

The article on homeopathy is an attack piece. Every statement is criticised and no POV tag is being allowed an insertion there (you can compare it to the articles on chiropractic, osteopathy and naturopathy). Please look into it. Thanks in advance for the help.-NootherIDAvailable (talk) 10:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Cross-posted on WP:FTN, I suggest that is the more appropriate venue to continue. Thanks, Verbal chat 11:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of a subject that has no scientific backing and is widely considered psuedoscience is not NPOV, it is required to adequately explain the majority view on the subject. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I was just looking at finding someone neutral who could insert a POV tag, as is the case with chiropractic, osteopathy and naturopathy (despite the fact that they're more NPOV).-NootherIDAvailable (talk) 01:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Iraqgate

It appears that over the last few days much has been posted by User:Dynablaster about an alleged conspiracy involving the U.S. government and Iraq. Most of the stuff written is cited pretty well, but has a clear anti-US bias. Another example is United States support for Iraq during the Iran–Iraq war. Not sure how we should go forward, but it would nice to have a few more eyes on this. --Mblumber (talk) 22:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

In fact, multiple articles were created (see this table) with the specific purpose of documenting support each side received during the war. There is zero dispute that the Soviet Union, France, United Sates and Germany etc supported one or more sides during the conflict. Countless reliable sources provide a wealth of information on this notable topic. These pages settle a longstanding dispute on the main Iran-Iraq War article (r.e. how much space to afford each side). All daughter articles were created through consensus. Furthermore, I have been careful to provide high quality sources throughout, and correctly attribute words to authors. Again, to emphasise, the intent of these pages is to describe the type of support each belligerent received. On the other hand, "Iraqgate" has broader scope and is more amenable to describing the controversy as it unfolded (it might seem laughable today, but George H. W. Bush initially denied having supported Iraq in any way). In this light, Iran-Contra affair is to United States support for Iran during the Iran–Iraq war as Iraqgate is to United States support for Iraq during the Iran–Iraq war. If editors wish to expand latter page to include initial denials, please feel free, but on specific country support pages, no such scope exists. See International aid to combatants in the Iran–Iraq War for a list of pages. Dynablaster (talk) 23:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

By the way, most of these pages were created by a chap from Wiki military history, er, project thingy. Dynablaster (talk) 23:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Ning

Please help resolved the NPOV dispute at Ning. Centralize discussion at Talk:Ning#NPOV dispute - Controversy section. - kollision (talk) 02:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Mohamed ElBaradei

There is currently a discussion about NPOV template usage at Mohamed ElBaradei#Template usage.--99.130.163.56 (talk) 23:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Comedian Marty Simpson

I am brand new to wikipedia and have read many tutorials. I was wondering if someone could help be get the Neutral POV removed from the article "comedian marty simpson."

I don't mean, "How do I delete the warning?" -- I mean, can you help me get the article in such a place editing wise that it will meet the standards. I am trying to do this properly and with good intent. Jim Nayzium (talk) 14:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Škoda Auto

Dispute over what should be included in the Škoda Auto article in the criticism section. Seems to be India-centric right now, and specifically around one particular website forum. Maybe this is more an issue about a worldwide view and not about NPOV, but an extra set of eyes would be appreciated. Thanks! If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 18:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Military ranks of the Swedish armed forces

At Talk:Military ranks of the Swedish armed forces, there's been a long-standing content dispute between User:Malin Tokyo (who seems to be acting, or at least coming dangerously close to acting, as the owner of the article) and several other editors over, mainly, how Swedish ranks compare to those of other countries. Sections of the article are being removed and restored (the lead section has disappeared twice), sources questioned and accusations of OR and bias given on both sides. There are so many issues here and frankly the talk page layout is giving me a headache. I hope someone might be a better person than I am and make something of the situation. —JAO • T • C 10:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

About everyone's user pages?

Does every user has to refrain from putting political & right wing links (Blogs etc) on to their userpage? as this could offend anyone?

Off Topic Please forgive me that if I have posted this at a very wrong area of Wikipedia as I am very new to this. Apologises in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZacharyKent (talk • contribs) 15:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• In general, those sort of things are discouraged. See Wikipedia:UP#NOT for more information. Arakunem^Talk 20:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

1993 Murders in Prashanthi Nilayam

Can anyone have a look through 1993 Murders in Prashanthi Nilayam and make sure it isn't leading the reader to a conclusion. The facts seem to be disputed but the article seems to be somewhat unbalanced. I'm also a bit concerned about some of the statements we're quoting too. Appreciate as many experienced eyes as possible, ta. Hiding T 22:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Strengths and weaknesses of evolution

I'm curious what people think about a recent edit (and immediate revert) at Strengths and weaknesses of evolution. There were three changes to the article's lead that I was trying to make in the original edit: 1) replacing normative attributions (one side "proposes"; the other "rejects", "views", and "concludes") with something more neutral ("says"). 2) Removing the prominent pullquote from the lead, since I think it creates the impression that the article is passing judgement on the underlying controversy. 3) Removing the third paragraph from the lead, moving it lower down in the article, again, to avoid the sense I get from the current lead that it is promoting one side to a degree that is problematic for WP:NPOV. These changes all seem pretty straightforward to me, but I'm having a hard time reaching consensus with the reverting editor, and would appreciate an outside perspective. Thanks. John Callender (talk) 15:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

If I were to guess, the challenge with finding consensus is coming from your trying to give Undue Weight to a minority view. Especially with evolution articles, hundreds of hours of work have gone into finding reliable sources, reaching consensus about how to integrate them, and finding an appropriate ballance that does not misrepresent what experts in the field have said about these issues. For your first suggested change, there are many sources to show that the scientific community doesn't just "say" creationist claims of a "controversy" are bunk, science does reject, view, and conclude. Quietmarc (talk) 16:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The article should make it clear that there is no controversy within the scientific community regarding the validity of the theory of evolution. That said, I think the original wording might come on a little too strong. Instead of...

"Scientists are always probing the strengths and weakness of their hypotheses. That is the very nature of the enterprise. But evolution is no longer a hypothesis. It is a theory rigorously supported by abundant evidence.",

...how about...

"Scientists always probe the strengths and weakness of their hypotheses. That is the very nature of the enterprise. Evolution is no longer a hypothesis. It is a theory rigorously supported by abundant evidence."? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Holy/Maundy Thursday

Hello, I am looking for some advice on a naming issue that has NPOV connotations. I posted this same message on the WP:Naming Conventions talk page, but also am interested in soliciting your input. There is currently a major debate going on regarding the article title for Maundy Thursday; see the talk page. It is my feeling, and that of a significant minority of editors, that the title violates NPOV as reflecting particular linguistic, religious, etc. traditions, and that "Holy Thursday" is a better, fairer title that encompasses religious traditions that do not use the "Maundy" label. A majority of editors disagree, but it seems to me that their argument relies on their perception of the frequency of usage of one as opposed to the other. My feeling is that, irrespective of frequency issues, the usage of both is close enough that we are obliged to use the more neutral of the terms. It is clear enough to me that this is not going to go anywhere without getting some of WP's dispute resolution running; this strikes me as a very similar debate to the aluminium/aluminum debate (or airplane/aeroplane), where neither side is likely to be convinced by the other's logic, at least without some authoritative interjection/interpretation of Wikipedia's policies on this matter. I thought it would be helpful to get the input of people who regularly attend to these concerns. Thank you. MrArticleOne (talk) 19:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Admin user account Jersey_Devil invalid blocking

Admin Jersey_Devil is blocking users without giving reason on the block page. I suggest you take up this person's admin privilege and revoke his administrator right immediately. This block violation by Jersey_Devil was caused by the discussion on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hispanic_and_Latino_Americans#SamEV. He shouldn't violate his admin privelege by blocking someone when that user didn't insult anyone on this matter. The user blocked is: 24.9.96.166.

I immediatily request Jersey_Devil's violation and revoke of admin privilege immediatily. He also reverted this very contentious topic with "npov" tag and removed the npov tag where there is heated discussion about the article going on for days. Here is his unexplained gross negligence revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hispanic_and_Latino_Americans&diff=283512854&oldid=283470015 Someone people respond to this matter appropriately and revoke this user's admin account asap. Onetwo1 (talk) 06:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring on Hispanic and Latino Americans and NPOV dispute

There has been heated edit warring on the Hispanic and Latino Americans, which resulted in user 24.9.96.166 being blocked by Jersey_Devil without any sort of explanation. We need administrator look into the edit warring on that article. The dispute has been between user "SamEV" and 24.9.96.166 and IP starting with 6 over on that article. Please help with the edit warring dispute on the article and see the talk page under "SamEV" and "Jersey_Devil." There is still NPOV dispute but users SamEV and Jersey_Devil (admin account) are removing the NPOV tag and reverting the article to their liking many times now. Please help. Onetwo1 (talk) 07:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

University of South Carolina

I am attempting to remove POV content from the University of South Carolina article. User:ViperNerd continues to remove requests for citations and repeatedly reverts revisions that are attempted to remove POV statements from articles. In addition to WP:NPOV, I believe this author is in violation of WP:OWN, WP:CIVIL, and WP:3RR. Thank you for your time Fletch81 (talk) 05:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

This user is making contentious requests for citations after his initial requests were addressed. This can obviously get to the point were it becomes ridiculous. Are we to believe that every word or phrase of every sentence in an article needs an outside source? I really don't think that's what Wikipedia was created for. This user is nitpicking down to an absurd level, and I believe there is a personal agenda at work here. ViperNerd (talk) 05:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

You demanded sources on every sentence in an article I have invested time in, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and I gladly provided them. When you make claims that are from a POV, you most certainly need an outside source. Check WP:VANITY for further clarification. There is no personal agenda here, I am simply trying to remove POV words from articles, and you continually revert them to their previous versions. Fletch81 (talk) 05:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, really? You are on a POV quest across Wikipedia, are you? Then why don't your user contribs reflect this noble crusade? Nevermind, I think we all know the answer to that question. Why don't you stick to improving UNC-CH articles and let people who truly care about other articles worry about improving them? Thanks. ViperNerd (talk) 06:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I seek to improve articles of interest to me, and articles I feel I may be of benefit to as I come across them. I have a right to attempt to improve any article as much as you do. I have maintained civility throughout this process, yet your tone is not conducive to mutual resolution. This is why I have sought opinion from others. Fletch81 (talk) 06:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

But you aren't "improving" anything except articles of IMMEDIATE interest to you. That's quite apparent from just a cursory look at your user contribs. You seem to have no trouble at all finding numerous sources for nearly any statement in the UNC-CH article, but you would have us believe that you can't improve other "articles of interest" by likewise sourcing them? That's pretty disingenuous. ViperNerd (talk) 06:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance of interest in this discussion. Interest has no bearing on wikipedia's core policies. Fletch81 (talk) 06:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

But you are the one who brought interest up. And now it's suddenly not relevant? Why am I not surprised by this coming from you? ViperNerd (talk) 06:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I used the word interest first, yes, as you certainly questioned my motive in editing articles. My follow-up may seem like an odd juxtaposition and wasn't well-worded, but it was intended to clarify that even though I edit articles I stumble upon of interest, that interest is irrelevant to wikipedia policy. Thank you. Fletch81 (talk) 06:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

And I'm still questioning those motives. Because you still haven't addressed the simple question of why you seem so adept at providing sources for some articles, while being apparently unable to provide anything except fact tags and templates for others, even though you have "interest" in all of these articles according to your claims. It's a pretty straightforward question, care to help us out with a straightforward answer? ViperNerd (talk) 06:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The main reason is familiarity. I am very familiar with UNC sources. I know where to look for them. But once again, this is irrelevant. I won't ignore bias when I see it. WP:PROVEIT states "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." You have failed to do so. Thank you. Fletch81 (talk) 06:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

After viewing the article, I have a concern that is slightly different from the question of whether facts are properly sourced and cited. I'm concerned by an editorial tone that in places sounds more like a promotional brochure than a neutral encyclopedia article. That issue can only be partially addressed by adding references. I've put more details (including examples of the language that concerns me) on the article's talk page. John Callender (talk) 07:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed its filled with peacock terms. Fletch81 (talk) 16:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Assyrian people

The Assyrianist majority has managed to arrive at a "consensus" among themselves of trashing the carefully balanced neutrality at our article on the "Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people". Unless this is undone, we are predictably headed for another year of edit wars, confusion and ethnic hatred in these topics as soon as the Aramaeanist faction kicks into action and starts recreating their Syriac people counter-article. (background, this is an ethnic group that cannot agree what they want to call themselves. See Names of Syriac Christians). Left to themselves, they just tend to create parallel walled gardens, under "Syriacs" and under Assyrians", in obvious violation of Wikipedia's one-article-per-topic policy). Forcing them to work together rather than creating parallel versions of Wikipedia draws the hatred of both factions of angry young men to the brave admin. I have been handling this for the past year or so, and I am well hated by both factions for my pains by now, so I would appreciate if some previously uninvolved admin could try to undo the worst damage here. --dab (𒁳) 09:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

While estimating my decision (which I still believe was based on consensus), please read the relevant discussion here and examine not only WP:NPOV, but also WP:NAME, and which title fits better to the latter as well. Thanks.--Yannismarou (talk) 10:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Can't we solve the POV-fork problem by simply protecting the current redirects? I just protected Syriac people (which indeed had seen an attempted re-fork just today). Are there any other candidates? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The term "Assyrian people" is really not neutral, and arameanists will not get satisfied.

Since the article "Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people" article has been moved to "Assyrian people", then the best thing to do is recreating "Syriac people" article to avoid all forms of conflicts and editwars etc from Aramaeanists. The people is known as "Syriacs" or "Syriac people" by many journalists, historians, scholars etc. A google test showed that term "Syriac people" got 12.000.000 hits [5] and term "Assyrian people" only got 2,480,000 Hits [6]. An article like "Syriac people" must be re-created to avoid editwars and conflicts. Otherwise the arameanist side will never be satisfied. JeanVinelorde (talk) 12:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, if your goal was to confirm Dab's fears about continued disruption, you couldn't have chosen a more efficient way. Look: POV forks won't be accepted. I said on the other page that I would consider blocking people who rallied for POV-forking or otherwise kept making unconstructive noise. I mean that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)