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.

High Stakes Testing

I was wondering if some people with experiance in ensuring that NPOV regulations are followed, especially people who have accounts with Wikipedia, took a look at High-stakes testing. I feel that the article is extremely biased at the moment, and that this fact will be patently obvious to anyone who looks, but without an account, I am concerned that my claims may end up being ignored.

I'm pretty sure the article has been written to make opponents of High-stakes testing look like idiots. 173.45.201.98 (talk) 07:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I had a look, and made a few edits. I have removed the POV tag, however, because what is CAUSING the POV is that the editors involved are making assertions that have not be sourced to references.

If the many tags can be replaced with actual sources that confirm these assertions, then the article would probably get a low pass on a high-stakes NPOV review.

Editors should source the article, or you should FEEL ENTIRELY FREE TO REMOVE uncited statements after allowing a reasonable time for the statements to be cited. --Nemonoman (talk) 16:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. Healthy debate continues, but we've managed to avoid a revert/edit war, thankfully. 173.45.201.98 (talk) 00:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it looks like healthy debate may be breaking down. I would greatly appreciate it if others could join in on the discussion over there, because it's just the two of us and we're fast approaching an impasse. 173.45.201.98 (talk) 10:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Richard Stallman

We've got an attempt to exclude a recent controversy from this article. Since it has been reported in the tech media, specifically in a Datamation article, I'd say it's properly sourced (though I'm checking on the BLP noticeboard to be sure). Discussion is at Talk:Richard_Stallman#.22Controversy.22_section. Yworo (talk) 17:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I would say it is not encyclopedic material however well source it is.--LexCorp (talk) 17:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Given that Stallman is a living person, I think that it would be a bad idea to include allegations of sexism based solely on reports of people's reaction to a single speech. Aren't the standards for such allegations far more stringent when reporting on a still-living individual? ~ Hyperion35 (talk) 22:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

William Greer

Long standing attempt by an IP editor to use this article to promote a fringe view with excessive undue weight has flared up again. The short version is there's been a theory flying around internet forums over the last couple of years that he shot JKF from the front seat of the car. This doesn't seem to be supported by any credible sources, but has been covered by a vanity publisher on Lulu. The disputed version of the article can be seen here. In that state it ceases to be a biography of Greer, and is a vehicle used to promote this fringe theory and is completely undue weight. To see how desperate the IP editor is to make Greer look guilty, you only have to look at sentences like "The FBI interviewed Greer after the assassination and, although agents Kellerman and Behn were also interviewed, Greer's interview is unique in that his physical description is also recorded in the 11/27/63 FBI report" which is a clear attempt to make him look dodgy. I earlier suggested here how this theory should be dealt with, if at all, and it was ignored and reverted to the disgusting version again. More eyes welcome on this, thanks. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Request to have WP:UNDUE updated to reflect proper etiquette concerns

I wonder if those who run Wikipedia might consider updating WP:UNDUE to indicate that, although giving undue weight to the claims of actual Holocaust deniers is, of course, a good example of what this policy is trying to prevent, it nevertheless is bad Wikipedia etiquette to imply that a person who is advancing a claim thought to be WP:UNDUE is somehow a supporter of Holocaust denial or engaging in anything akin to Holocaust denial.

What I'm concerned about is that some editors invoke this in order to put a chill on debate on the Talk pages, e.g., "No one believes that but you, you're just like a Holocaust denier." A Holocaust denier is someone who wants to spread the manifest falsehood that millions of people were murdered. The average person whose edits manifest a potential issue over WP:UNDUE are people who have merely not sufficiently demonstrated that a substantial minority of people agree with some specific statement. I'm okay with the principle of WP:UNDUE, it's the tenor of the discussion that I have a problem with.

We shouldn't be here to belittle people's edits, but to tell them what will fly and what won't. In the specific case I've confronted (on the 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis page) I've found that some elements first criticized as WP:UNDUE turned out not to be as reliable sources began to report on those elements in more detail. In other words, the "Holocaust deniers" turned out to be people trying to report a dimension of the crisis but simply not having enough evidence yet to make their point. It was legitimate of people to make edits citing WP:UNDUE until those sources emerged. It was not legitimate of those people to compare their adversaries in an editing dispute to the Nazis.

Is there something that can be added to this policy to make it clear that name-calling and guilt by association are not okay according to WP:UNDUE? Zachary Klaas (talk) 18:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Anthony Watts (blogger)

I address this to an editor who considers themselves to be neutral on the topic of climate change (pie in the sky perhaps). I am involved in a dispute with Kim D. Petersen (yet again) over what appears to me as a very basic, trivial point of logic. The argument is very simple, and it is certainly very frustrating to have to escalate something of this nature here, but as a matter of principle, I persist.

a. the Watts article currently attributes to the subject a view that "some global warming may be the result of measurement error".

b. a statement from NOAA has then been inserted into the page by another editor (not Petersen) stating, I paraphrase, that despite Watts work in qualifying measurement error, "the evidence for human-caused warming remains robust."

Now, Watts, who is a supporter of the views of both Lindzen & Pielke, almost certainly expects, regardless of what his qualification of measurement error finally reveals, that evidence for human-caused warming will remain robust. Both the current wording of the article and Petersen himself in the talk page are trying to imply, falsely, that Watts holds a view that human-caused warming will be shown to be in fact "insubstantial". It is possible that Watts does hold this view, but as far as I am aware, he has never said so. Thus, there is absolutely no justification for attributing directly (or by suggestion/implication) a view to Watts that he has never publicly assented to.

Finally, Petersen is also defending the inclusion of an obvious factual error, apparently out of sheer stubbornness (i.e. the wording has it that despite NOAA revelations that Watts work is making no difference (I paraphrase) Watts "still" believes that "some global warming is a result of measurement error". Trouble is, the source given is dated 2007, and thus the word "still" is being used to imply that it is something he has said recently. Stupid stuff, really; it's in there as a result of very sloppy, lazy editing, and regrettably I've had my edits to clean this up reverted twice, with Petersen not interested in discussing it or re-adding it. So... having wasted about 6 hours of my life on this nonsense now, can someone neutral please assist? Thanks. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

LACK OF OBJECTIVITY

7-26-09

Dear Editor:

When "Pastor David" rejected my resource of WHO'S WHO IN THE WORLD AND WHO'S WHO IN AMERICA, he showed either a lack of knowledge about these sources or bias against them. These reference works are reliable and are NOT VANITY publications. I paid nothing to have my name entered. I was approached by the publishers and asked if they could publish my biography.

This complaint is in reference to THE HEVENER CHURCH article that is now labeled stale. Please put it in the active file.

Thank you very much.

DR. FILLMER HEVENER, FOUNDER, THE HEVENER CHURCH

(Note: We have members/friends/supporters in many countries including: Kenya, Uganda Brazil, Ghana, The United States, Canada, Pakistan, Tanzania, and others.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.105.12.125 (talk) 17:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

To keep other editors from being as confused as I was, I think this complaint is referring to this response, which was written in December 2007. Looie496 (talk) 17:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Porfiry Ivanov

This page is an egregious violation of neutral point of view; with lines like "a religious leader, who conquered Nature, wrought wonders, and healed people". It also violates many other wikipedia policies of style. Almost all the current content has been added in a long series of anonymous posts from IPs in Moscow, and it seems likely to be the work of a single religious follower of Ivanov. All content from before these edits started has been removed, and edits made by other people to this page are immediately reverted and termed "vandalism" by more anonymous edits from Moscow IPs, again indicating the work of a single person to prevent balanced discussion of this topic.

Aidan (talk) 20:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the subject is even noteworthy enough for an encyclopedic article. All the citations point to statements, rather than links... Soxwon (talk) 21:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I noticed this because of the content RfC, and I tend to agree with Soxwon. In any case, semi-protection might be a good idea, given the conduct of the IP. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely normal situation for a small cult leader. He's not Ron Hubbard neither Sathya Sai Baba so the cult followers have the initiative. NVO (talk) 09:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Please note that the page has been nominated for AfD. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Genetic history of Europe

This article has a number of editors posting to the article that share a common inability to compromise with each other. Recently they have been engaged in manipulation of the wiki-bureaucracy in order to war with each other.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe (2nd nomination)
• Talk:Genetic history of Europe
• User talk:Small Victory#Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe
• User talk:Muntuwandi#Your remarks on Sub-Saharan DNA
• Edit Warring
• False allegations of sockpuppetry (associated with the Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe AfD)
• Conspiracy to attempt to gain admin status (Small Victory and SOPHIAN) obviously not credible, but . . .
• In Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Analyzing_charts the claim of WP:FORUMSHOP

My involvement began with the E1b1b page which began with an accusation of COI against another editor, which I found to be baseless against the individual; however the page was a trainwreck. I have partially cleaned up that page to make it more encyclopedia and reduce opinion and NPOV material. Much of the problem has now moved to the new page A1b1b1a (which desperately needs attention)

Next the sub-Saharan DNA admixture article was brought to my attention and soon-there-after a AfD appeared. It appeared this article lack suitable reliable sourcing for its existence. Consequently I sided with others the page should be deleted and the topic should be handled on the GHofE page.

My attention has now been called to this Genetic History of Europe page. Despite the opinion that this topic was minor, there is an edit/beaurocracy war that has now erupted on this page. The individuals that are involved in this edit/opinion war have been battling over several pages of Wikipedia where the topic of African contributions has been raised. These pages are generally poorly written pages in which the edit warring creates less encyclopedic content.

I have moved the questionable material of both parties to the Talk page so that they can hash things out. However, unless these editors can come to some kind of ability to work together, ultimately this page will suffer, the page may need to be locked or restrictions placed on editing. In addition the talk page has become a surrogate for the edit war on the main page, and claims of personal misconduct by participants are repeatedly made.

This page deserves administration attention.PB666 ^yap 17:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Henry Louis Gates image

There has been some dispute of the use of the image used in the infobox of the Henry Louis Gates Jr. article.

There are some editors who think that the use of Gates's mugshot as his infobox is "accurate," there are others who think deem this to be a reflection of bias, as according to the Wikipedia standards, "Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view" and Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight." The racial undertones of the event deem this image inappropriate for the info box. Help resolving the subject is appreciated. BFeen (talk) 13:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I've posted a response there. In gist: no, we shouldn't use mugshots on people articles unless the person is primarily famous for criminality, being arrested, civil disobedience, etc. --FOo (talk) 20:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Persecution of Falun Gong (2)

This has been brought up numerous times by various users and little seems to have been done thus far by administrators. The article Persecution of Falun Gong is only one of a family of Falun Gong related articles that are constantly being disputed for their NPOV. Sources from Falun Gong-related organizations and advocacy groups are openly used and presented as fact. In my view these articles seem remarkably similar to Falun Gong pamphlets that I am receiving from solicitations, and are attempting to promote Falun Gong's cause. It would not be unreasonable to say these articles now serve as handy companions to a massive public relations campaign put on by Falun Gong against the Chinese government. In any case, there is already a mediation happening at Talk:Falun Gong. My view is that Falun Gong-related groups should only be sourced if they are used in a context to present Falun Gong's view, not in a context where they present facts. This is a chronic issue that have been RfC'ed and disputed endlessly. Can someone do a POV check? Colipon+(T) 17:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed here: Noticeboard#Persecution_of_Falun_Gong_(1), Talk:Persecution_of_Falun_Gong_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China#Requested_move, among other places. Any independent assessment is welcomed. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 08:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Also Colipon, as a suggestion, maybe you can ask Vassyana the mediator on the Falun Gong pages, see: Talk:Falun_Gong#Topic_area_review to help you formulate this issue on the noticeboard, and maybe then you will not get in complete duplicates like the one here. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 08:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Vassyana told us that these noticeboards were underutilized. So I came on here. Colipon+(T) 17:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep, you're right, then just as a reminder this topic was also discussed here. Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_6#Persecution_of_Falun_Gong_.281.29 --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

No. That was not the same issue at all. That issue dealt purely with the name of the article, not its contents, and it turned out to be more or less just another unproductive back-and-forth exchange of rhetoric between FLG regulars. Here I am asking uninvolved users to do a POV check. Colipon+(T) 08:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

NPOV dispute on Ron Paul article

I'd like to get some feedback from some uninvolved editors regarding our Ron Paul article. For those that don't know, US Congressman Ron Paul appeared in Sacha Baron Cohen's latest film, Brüno. Ron Paul's segment has been covered by dozens of (if not hundreds) of reliable sources including Slate, The New York Times, Time Magazine, The Boston Globe, Political Intelligence, Huffinton Post, The Guardian, The Independent, San Francisco Gate, Forbes, Entertainment Weekly, Phoenix Times, The Star, Variety Magazine, Newsweek, The Wallstreet Journal, etc. Last week, an editor included a single sentence reference [1] to Paul's appearance in the movie which was promptly removed. Since then, there has been an ongoing debate on the article talk page about whether to mention Paul's appearance in Brüno. Although various (and sometimes creative) reasons were given for its exclusion, it all seemed to boil down to a case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Now there's talk of a filmography which honestly sounds like a bad idea for a politician. Can we get some uninvolved editors to weigh in on the discussion[2], please? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the reason why I think this is a NPOV dispute is that Ron Paul's appearance in Brüno is a bit of a political embarrassment to Ron Paul. Although many reasons were given to exclude this information from the article, I think it ultimately boils down to the fear that it might make Ron Paul look bad. The Slate article goes into some detail about Paul's use of the word 'queer' along with with Ron Paul's spokespeople either denying or explaining the usage of the term.

Also, to clarify further, the edit[3] that was immediately reverted[4] was extremely benign and didn't mention anything controversial. It only mentioned that he appeared in the movie. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not an NPOV dispute. The issue is whether Paul's appearance in Brüno is worthy of mention. This same issue was previously posted at the RfC noticeboard. The resulting discussion can be found at Talk:Ron Paul#Brüno incident. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

This is such a joke. A Quest is running home to momma here simply because he got outvoted. The proposal on the RP talk page is to have a compromise edit which includes a TEXT section (not a listed filmography) which covers appearances in film and documentaries (particularly I.O.U.S.A. and American Drug War, in addition to Brüno). The rationale behind the compromise is that there has always been tension between two camps of editors on RP's page over piddly issues; adding Bruno only will antagonize one side, while not including Bruno at all will antagonize the other. By proposing a comprehensive, film appearances text section, one side gets the movie they want in, and the others can't point at the mention of Bruno only as a means of claiming bias on the part of the adding editors. That's the proposal. There's more in favor than against. A Quest is the minority of one and has come here to round up the posse. Those are the facts. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 18:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Foofighter: Wikipedia is not a democracy and getting opinions from outside editors is a valid part of the consensus-building process. In any case, can we please wait to hear from some uninvolved editors to take a look at the issue? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

And? I made a proposal and a rough consensus was reached. Within that consensus you were the minority of one. You lost to a well-reasoned middle ground and apparently were displeased enough to bring this here. Thus, here we are... -- Foofighter20x (talk) 03:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

And...you made a proposal and consensus was not reached. Your solution included giving equal weight to non-notable film appearances with that of notable film appearances. Clearly, your argument lacked merit so we need the input of uninvolved editors to settle this dispute. If you are so sure of your opinions, why are you so addiment against allowing outside editors to weigh in on the issue? I am fully confident that if we can find editors who can take the time to read everyone's opinion, they will agree that Ron Paul's appearance in Bruno is note-worthy and should be included in the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor: I agree that it would be obvious bias to mention a film that a person appeared in unwillingly (as our article about the film states he was "deceived" into being filmed) but not to include the documentary films that he apparently appeared in willingly. A film appearances paragraph or filmography is not merely a compromise, but a neutral and encyclopedic response.

Foofighter20x is cautioned to maintain civility even when dealing with people with whom he disagrees. The "running home to momma" remark is outside the bounds of acceptable conduct on Wikipedia. --FOo (talk) 19:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

This is an interesting issue. As someone who is not involved, I would say this almost qualifies for "WP:Lamest edit wars". I would suggest that the Bruno reference should be put into the article provided it can be worked into the context of the article itself, and not inserted as an offhand attachment - as is the chronic case on a lot of wikipedia articles. For example, you cannot have a heading like "political positions", then suddenly "Appearance in Bruno". The article perhaps most infamous for this is Ray Nagin, mayor of New Orleans. Colipon+(T) 20:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Can do, Fubar. All I'm trying to do here is make it clear for everyone to see how this is a non-dispute without any need to be resolved here. It's been resolved already: a general consensus was reached, but apparently for some wasn't good enough. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 03:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

It has not been resolved because my concerns have not been addressed. Thus far, this NPOV dispute has attracted the attention of two uninvolved editors, one of whom seems to lean with one side and another that seems to lean with the other side. I'm not sure that really qualifies as a consensus. Ron Paul's appearance in Bruno (whether wittingly or unwittingly) has attracted lots of media attention from reliable sources. It's against WP:NPOV to exclude or eliminate information from WP:RS just because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. A one or two sentence reference to this very notable event is all I'm asking for (which, to be honest, is already a compromise. I could have just as easily asked for a full section, but have not). I have dozens (if not hundreds) of reliable sources to back my claim that it's notable so I believe that it obviously belongs in this article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

While it may be wrong to exclude notable information from a BLP, in this case, it's my view that the WP:RS contain only trivial mentions on Mr. Paul's involvement in the film. He is notable as a politican, not as a film actor. Jogurney (talk) 16:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The Slate and Huffinton Post articles feature 14 and 10 paragraphs on the incident (respectively). The fact that Ron Paul's spokespeople were forced to issue issued public comments on the incident indicates it has some notability. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Do those meet WP:RS? Perhaps they do, but I'm at a loss as what you mean by spokespeople being forced to issue comments? Who forced them? I trying to follow WP:AGF, but those type of comments make me wonder. Jogurney (talk) 05:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can change the verbiage to "issued" but the sentiment is still the same. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

A Quest: Your concerns were addressed because you got what you wanted in the compromise proposal on the talk page, which is that the Brüno appearance gets into the article. That's what you wanted, that's what the consensus on the talk page got you. Why you feel that other film appearances can't be included is the real issue. Of the four editors on the RP talk page discussion this, three settled on meeting you halfway. When you didn't exactly what you wanted, you bolted and brought the issue here.

And accusing me and the other consensus editors of attempting to exclude information is an outright lie, and you know it. The consensus on the RP talk page decided not only to put in the information you requested, but to put in more than what was asked. Quit twisting what's really happened in order to save face here in the hope of vindicating yourself. And the reason I'm adamant about my proposal's pending approval on this dispute board is that any editor who checks out the RP talk page can easily verify what I've just said. You version of the events don't fit the facts. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 18:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Foofighter20x:

• "Why you feel that other film appearances can't be included is the real issue." As I already explained on the talk page, I looked up the two other film appearances that were mentioned and they aren't nearly as notable as the one in Brüno. Ron Paul's appearance received coverage by literally dozens (if not hundreds) of reliable sources, many of which are major news outlets. In contrast, these other films received scant converge.
• "And accusing me and the other consensus editors of attempting to exclude information is an outright lie, and you know it." Hmmm...these edit diffs seems to suggest otherwise: [5], [6], [7]. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me sum up. "Brueno" was not a notable film and therefore Paul's appearance in that film was not notable. Any discussion of Paul's appearance belongs in the "Brueno" article. Your argument was Well, I would imagine that a lot of the viewers of the Bruno movie who have never heard of Ron Paul apart from this movie and are curious as to who Ron Paul is. Please remember that this is an encyclopedia, not a journal of undergraduate humor and that standards must apply. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

A major box-office film is notable, arguing otherwise is disingenuous. Ron Paul's appearance in it was notable, it's an arguable, but ultimately silly point to argue. The information should be included. Irbisgreif (talk) 05:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Please take a look at our FA on Barack Obama. Even though press was all over Ayers issue and you might deem it as notable, it is not even mentioned in the article. -- Vision Thing -- 11:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

If lots of reliable sources mention one film, and the others do not, then UNDUE says only mention that one. As an aside, keeping Ayers out of BO's article is probably the biggest NPOV violation on this whole website, and I'm a die hard democrat. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

And I was a volunteer for the Ron Paul presidential campaign. In fact, I walked door-to-door getting signatures so he could be on the ballot here in Illinois. If anything, I should be advocating the omission of this as well, but I'm not. It's clearly notable, is clearly supported by numerous reliable sources and adding one or two sentences hardly violates WP:UNDUE. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, it sounds like our policies would lead to just Bruno being included, but I'm getting the feeling this noticeboard has no teeth. If this little discussion solves the problem, I'd be curious to hear about it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Figures and references

A lot of times I notice that users change population, religion or ethnic figures without giving a source/reference. A lot of times there is already a source, but people just ignore it. Please revert all these kind of edits. For instance I have found a lot of false edits in India related articles. E.g.: Example user 1 and Example user 2 - Cheers, Jeroen (talk) 00:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep up the good work. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

assistance requested on Unmanned aerial vehicle

There is an edit war on Unmanned aerial vehicle involving at least five editors, including myself, as well as some anonymous IP's who have also been participating. The edits center around material I added to the article, which is being repeatedly removed from the article with accusations of POV. There is a discussion on the talk page but it doesn't seem to be moving the discussion away from continuing the edit war. Editors removing the material seem to contest both the reliability of the sources used, as well as whether it is inherently POV for me to include the material on the page that I did. Their argument seems far-fetched to me, but of course I'm biased as I added the material. I would appreciate some outside perspectives here. The discussions begin with Talk:Unmanned_aerial_vehicle#drone_attacks_often_kill_civilians and continue into the section Talk:Unmanned_aerial_vehicle#POV.2FNPOV_Discussion. Thanks for your help! Cazort (talk) 13:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you summarize the issue? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

See this edit. I don't know how to summarize it because people have made a lot of arguments on the talk page, people seem to be changing their arguments, and since I am biased here, I feel a summary would necessarily not paint the whole picture. Cazort (talk) 14:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok I'll attempt to summarize: (1) The edit war started by people removing the material under accusations of POV. (2) in the face of a consensus that the material itself is NPOV and well-sourced, their arguments have shifted to arguments of UNDUE weight and inappropriate context/placement, claiming the material doesn't belong on the page. But there is no consensus about where the material belongs, and currently, much of it has been deleted and is up nowhere. ViperNerd suggested Drone attacks in Pakistan, but I objected as under half the material I added is about those instances. I suggested Unmanned combat air vehicle, but ViperNerd objected that none of the UAV's involved in the conflicts I cited are covered on that page. I and others have proposed creating new pages such as Civilian deaths in drone attacks or UCAV targeting controversies, these haven't received much attention. The discussion seems to be less active now that the page was semiprotected but I'm reluctant to just add back material to the main page when it caused an edit war to begin with. Cazort (talk) 21:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, as you say, the sources are reliable. Some mention of casualties in muslim countries is warranted. It depends on how many of the articles on the vehicles decide to include info on the casualties. I'm getting the feeling that this noticeboard is kinda useless for problems such as yours. I asked about it here. I think that if impartial editors such as myself could determine the amount of weight that is correct, it wouldn't effect the edit war, other than possibly adding editors. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Mentioning there is no physical examination for ADHD in the lead of the diagnosis section.

The first sentence in the diagnosis section of the article ADHD is currently: "ADHD is diagnosed with a psychological evaluation because there currently is no physical examination for it." An editor has raised the issue that this sentence may cause create an undue weight issue because it mentions there isn't a physical examination for ADHD. Please visit the talk page discussion here and here for further information on the various points of view. Sifaka ^talk 15:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you summarize the issue? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure, why mention what a diagnosis is not, in the opening sentence of that section? My line of reasoning would be that one should start with an opening sentence, describe how a diagnosis is made, and then add other information. That is, unless there is an a major issue that needs to be addressed first. Another editor did a fine job in explaining why a physical exam has no special bearing here. [8] So, if the fact that ADHD, and a whole host of conditions (ie - migraine headache or Schizophrenia) don't have a 100% fool proof test for diagnosis, a physical test is of less significance then the actual info of how one does a diagnosis. I'm not objecting to it's inclusion but think such info should come after you describe diagnosis. To do otherwise creates undue weight. That's my take on it, others may see it differently.--scuro (talk) 06:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, it depends if most sources describe it that way. They probably just describe the diagnosis that exists, and maybe mention the physical aspect later. If that's true, we should too. If most sources say diagnosis of ADHD is fundamentally flawed because there is no physical aspect, or something, then it should be included prominently. Try a google scholar search for "adhd diagnosis", and check the first ten applicable hits. If most put it very prominently, do so as well in the article. If they mention it later, do that instead. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd go one better and point out that the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-IV), the official text recognized as being the gold-standard diagnostic criteria for this condition in the US, doesn't make any mention of physical aspects. It discusses symptoms as well as guidelines for when and where the symptoms must be present. The DSM is published by the American Psychiatric Association, and as far as I know, it is endorsed by the American Medical Association as being the standard diagnostic criteria. While one single source should of course never be the sole arbiter, I would point out that you'd have a hard time finding a source of similar authoritative weight, especially in the English language. ~ Hyperion35 (talk) 22:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Obama's beer

Got a little disagreement over at Talk:Arrest of Henry Louis Gates about whether to include which beers each participant drank at the "Beer Summit". Basically, I feel that whether the information is WP:DUE or not should be based on secondary sources, and whether they find it salient to include, whereas another editor feels that it would be UNDUE to include such a trivial piece of information. How is NPOV appplied in such a situation. Editors are split about half and half on their preference, so WP:CONSENSUS isn't making it super clear. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE applies. The question to ask is "how often do reliable sources about this event mention the type of beer?" If the answer is "few", I would leave it out. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The answer is tons, including many articles exclusively about the beer. Does that mean put it in per UNDUE? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide a diff between the version with the beers listed and without the beers listed? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I think WP:DUST might be appropriate as well, especially given the article is about the arrest not the "summit." ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 01:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Having learned about this discussion after the fact, I would add that the info about the choice of beers was preserved by a quick-thinking editor (oddly enough, not me ;)) in the footnoted references. That way, it is out of the article, but those readers interested in the minutiae of the subject can find immediate satisfaction. I thought that the footnoting provided an awesome compromise. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

As Arcayne says, it's vs. in the articles body, and hidden in the footnotes.diff - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

"hidden in the footnotes" is of course a little misleading -- the exact question before the house over at Arrest ... Gates is whether the beer brands the participants chose belong in the article text, in a footnote that sources that and some other main text information, or should be left out entirely as trivial detail. Further comments, here or there, welcome. Pechmerle (talk) 03:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The main arguments for inclusion in the text are:

• The brands of beer have been the topic of numerous news reports and analysis
• The brands of beer is of interest to WP readers, as evidenced by several IP's adding the information - not knowing that a debate is ongoing
• There are symbolic back-stories related to the choices of beer (which have been analysed by several articles)
• The White House meeting is unique (and captured the attention of the public) because of the sharing of beer. Leaving out the type beer consumed leaves the story incomplete. --SharkxFanSJ (talk) 03:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

ArcLight Theaters Article

Just wanted to let someone know as I wasn't sure how to just flag an article, if that's even possible, but the ArcLight Theater article, about the movie theater in Los Angeles feels like it was written by a publicist, or someone working for the theater. The language sounds like an advertisement; not wikipedia. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.11.8.10 (talk) 19:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Unless you've got an edit war or something, just tone down or remove anything that sounds like an add. You may also want to consider putting it up for deletion if you think that newspapers, magazines, and whatnot have never covered it enough to allow us to write a non-ad sounding article. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Communist genocide

I would like to point out this article. It was created as a blatant soapboxing POV propaganda fork by a user whose sole edits are POV warring on Communism related subjects. Surely this page is not acceptable per Wikipedia guidelines? Triplestop x3 00:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Communist genocide will decide what to do. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Recent Deletion On Wiki Talk Page Josip Broz Tito

Dear reader just recently my thoughts on talkpage Tito have been deleted and it seems it’s going to stay that way. Since I am faced with the fact that my opinions are being suppressed and then eventually will be blocked, I’ve decided to put this out there so these events may be known to the wider wiki community.

The article in question is Josip Broz Tito (the former Dictator of Yugoslavia- East Europe). He was commander of the partisan forces during world war 2 and later a Stalinistic style dictator of the former Yugoslavia. The Wikipedic article is biased and does not mention crimes (Bleiburg massacre & foibe massacres)) against humanity that were committed under his leadership. I registered that this should be part of the article and as a result I have been deleted. One writer was very abusive and deleted my writings on talk back pages. His name is DIREKTOR. He was supported by Ruhrfisch ><>°° I would like to quote some of the Direktor’s statements regarding this article just to inform you of what we are dealing with here.

“Find yourself another one of your crappy "forums" to talk about your presumptions. Just forget about this, Luigi/Brunodam, you're not annoying anyone - you're just turning out amusing. I think I'll file a checkuser in an hour or so, you'd better believe it when I say I'll delete everything you wrote if you're a sock. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)”

These events are not some conspiracy. They have been part of the western media since the break up of the former Yugoslavia. They have been presented as TV documentaries, on talk back shows and in general writings in England, other parts of Europe and USA, Australia and other parts of the free world. They are backed by eye witness accounts by people who were actually caught up in these events.

The Croatian government is addressing these issues with investigations and financial reimbursement is being given to the victims. These are facts and should be present in the article and not deleted when someone points them out. These actions mirror the attitude of the regime that I am trying to expose.

The Josip Broz Tito article is a dangerous biased piece of writing. It would fit perfectly in any article of the old the Yugoslavia or the old Soviet Union propaganda machine (Cult of personality). Why is it there? The only answer it seems is that Wikipedia has some writers of extreme views (Stalin Style) who don’t tolerate being questioned.

Regards Sir Floyd

Sujiatun Thrombosis Hospital and the organ harvesting allegations

User:Ohconfucius has kept insisting on his version of the page that seems to construct a narrative debunking the Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China. He says that mentioning the United Nations reports or the independent research by David Kilgour and David Matas is a breach of WP:UNDUE, see Talk:Sujiatun Thrombosis Hospital#This is a hospital FFS!. However, he keeps inserting three paragraphs that only attempt to discredit the allegations. A version with only a link to the main Wikipedia article discussing the organ harvesting is not alright with him, either. For more information, see the edit history. I would like to get some comments on this matter. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 10:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• We obviously have very different ideas of what constitutes 'balance'. I am not trying to establish or debunk anything, but in creating an encyclopaedic article. I unwittingly walked right back into another article protected by the Falun Gong cabal, which I'm beginning to detest more and more. I'm outta here. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I believe focusing more on the organ harvesting allegations than the hospital itself makes sense, since that's what it's famous for; as far as I know, most hospitals are not notable just for being hospitals, and even if they are that's not what this one is notable for. Of course, a section ought to be added (if such information can be found) detailing the basic hospital information. And, given the focus on organ harvesting allegations, perhaps a change of the article title is also in order (such as Sujiatun Thrombosis Hospital organ harvesting controversy or whatever).

I just woke up and haven't really looked at any actual diffs of the August 7 edit warring. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 10:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

This seems like a good idea. Irbisgreif (talk) 10:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Fellow Wikipedians, kindly wake up and smell the coffee. This article was about the hospital, and has become an attack page controlled by devotees of Falun Gong used against the Chinese Government. The hospital isn't "famous" for anything. The allegations are unfounded and have been largely disproven by, inter alia, a US Government Commission, and I see no need to move the article to another title as there is already an article with the weasely title 'Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China' which deals with the wider subject in great length. As the article stands, I suggest a redirect to the 'Reports' article would be a reasonable compromise. Ohconfucius (talk) 11:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

All the references I tried to insert into the article are more recent information than anything you insisted on having there. However, I support the redirect to the 'Reports' article.

Oh, and your comment "this article was about the hospital" is simply not true. The hospital itself is not notable at all. See the first version of the page. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 11:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The article's title says "Hospital" -- what do you think people expect to read in an article about a "hopital" -- my guess is about a "hospital"... am I so totally from Mars?Seb az86556 (talk) 17:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me rephrase: the article was not about the hospital as such. It would never have been created just to have an encyclopedia article on this particular hospital. The sole reason for creating this article was because of the organ harvesting allegations. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 17:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

(out) Regarding the claim that this has become an "attack page"... not sure if this helps, but I should just clarify that although the article focuses mostly on the organ harvesting claims (and thus might rightly be called a coatrack), most of that discussion is geared towards debunking those claims, or summarizing the reports that did so. At least, that is how it was back in October 2008, the last time I looked closely at this article.

As for redirecting to the "reports" article...I support that, given that there is nothing else to say about this hospital. We should just make sure not to lose any decent content in the move. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I must say that OhConfucius' position on this article is very reasonable. The allegations about Sujiatun is circumstantial and unverified (and according to some sources, disproven). It very much seemed like an attack page and I think it should be redirected as per Rjanag's suggestion. Colipon+(Talk) 23:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the allegations are true (they're probably not), the investigations happened and the controversy is probably notable. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I support the redirect to the report page. Rjanag have you read this report? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 09:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

(undent) how many pages on organ harvesting does FLG need? I support OhConfucius' position.Simonm223 (talk) 15:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Gerald Celente article as of August 7, 2009

Gerald Celente is a talking head, a gloom-and-doom prognosticator, a business consultant who has made appearances on TV, made statements in newspapers. But the Gerald Celente Wikipedia page is being used by several of his supporters as an advertisement. These supporters have make repeated claims about the accuracy of past predictions without proper attribution to sources. The pro-Celente supporters have reverted well-researched articles, added statements with no reliable sources, used YouTube videos as "sources", have undone repeated "citation needed" tags. They have repeatedly replaced fair and neutral statements about Celente (which had references) with unsupported statements. The result is an article highly biased towards Celente. It's not NPOV. It violates the Wikipedia policy against original research. See history and talk page of Gerald Celente.Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer

more eyes needed

the Little Richard article is having ongoing NPOV issues that could really use input from more experienced editors. please see the edit history and these talk-page sections: Talk:Little_Richard#Testimonials_Section, Talk:Little_Richard#comment_from_Smoovedogg and Talk:Little_Richard#improving_the_.22Influence.22_section. thanks Sssoul (talk) 10:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Islamofascism

Are we blurring the line between description of a political epithet and discussion of an actual school of political thought? Compare Israel and the apartheid analogy, which was once Israeli apartheid.BYT (talk) 11:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Lithuania and Russia

Please keep an eye on 2009 Lithuania–Russia crisis. It reads like a soapbox against Russia. All the references are in Lithuanian, which means that very few people are able to verify that the sources actually state what we say they state. I think this is very little for bold assertions like "The Russian Federation has officially declared that they are targetting Lithuanian truck drivers on purpose." 94.212.31.237 (talk) 22:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

If this article is not sufficiently updated it may actually warrant deletion. It honestly doesn't say much, there is no background, and extremely lacking in NPOV. Colipon+(Talk) 03:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Russian media covers (present tense) the topic as well (i.e. in Russian in English) and there's no POV conflict. Yes, it's a unilateral action against Lithuanian-registered truckers. But it appears that the govt hasn't yet explained WTF is happening (really happening) and perhaps they never would. Does the case warrants a wikipedia article? Wait and see, it's a current event. NVO (talk) 05:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Got worse today, now they embargoed Lithuanian dairy products. Again, plenty of English sources. NVO (talk) 08:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It's turning into a real POV-fest. See for instance this edit by Samogitia (talk · contribs) at Portal:Current events/2009 August 14: "Lithuanian carriers are forced to look for the assistance from foreign colleagues who could help to deliver cargo on time. Due to this our state is losing revenues into the budget and Lithuanian carrier companies are being harmed." 94.212.31.237 (talk) 15:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Leslie Van Houten questionable tone

A first read of portions of this article Leslie_Van_Houten, especially the Parole section seem to be written with a bias. There has been discussion in the talk sections but I thought it might be prudent to get a bunch of new eyes on the subject. It just generally strikes me as written to portray a particular point of view by its language. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.226.129.208 (talk) 05:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

“Reception” or “Criticism”

We have a dispute over whether the article Academic views on Falun Gong should be renamed to Reception of Falun Gong or Criticism of Falun Gong. A group of editors advocate the latter, while some (including myself) disagree. Some points here, in no particular order, just points of discussion:

1) Reception is suggested because it avoids a WP:POVFORK, where "A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts."

• On the other hand, it is argued that the term "criticism" in this case does not refer to "negative criticism," (thus avoiding a POV fork) but could also include positive criticism, neutral criticism, and general commentary. In this interpretation, "criticism" does not have to have a negative interpretation (or, maybe they are arguing that it simply does not?) In this interpretation, "criticism" does not actually mean what is usually meant when we say "So and so criticised John the other day," but refers to the neutral appraisal of a topic, as we would talk about Literary criticism.
  • • In response to this it is argued that this is an argument over defitions, and that criticism does have a negative connotation a lot of the time. Calling the article "Reception of Falun Gong" simply avoids this entirely.

2) There are arguments advocating both Criticism and Reception, and arguments against Criticism, but no arguments against Reception that I am aware of.

3) The essay on criticism says: "Often Wikipedia articles separate the description of a topic from a description of how the topic was received. This is often the clearest (also, this often helps to keep the description of the topic itself neutral). Another advantage might be that a general "reception history" section usually avoids being "all negative" or "exclusively laudatory" about the topic." and makes a recommendation on this. John Carter, who supports Criticism of Falun Gong and opposes Reception of Falun Gong, points out that essays are not policies.

4) Some attempt has been made to summarise the dispute here, but this strikes me as rather biased. Why are red crosses next to the arguments in favor of reception, and green ticks in front of those in favor of criticism? I have issue with how some arguments are dismissed and how straw-men are put up for others. There's no sense reiterating them one by one here (I started but deleted it all). The crux of the whole issue is really about the definition of the word "criticism." So let's look what the dictionary says: The Free Dictionary (primary meaning of the noun: "1. fault-finding or censure") [9]; Merriam-Webster (primary meaning: "1 a : the act of criticizing usually unfavorably") [10]; Dictionary.com (secondary meaning: "the act of passing severe judgment; censure; faultfinding") [11]; Answers.com (primary meaning of the noun in thesaurus: "A comment expressing fault: blame, censure, condemnation, denunciation, reprehension, reprobation. Informal pan. Slang knock. See praise/blame.") [12]. This is"the context which the vast majority of English speakers deploy the word in on a daily basis". Presumably I don't need to provide definitions of "reception" to show that it has an exclusively neutral meaning.

5) There also appears to be some doublespeak here on the part of proponents of the Criticism of Falun Gong title. It is at once argued that "criticism" in this context is not supposed to be negative commentary, but all commentary, however, the list of articles which follow this model of "Criticism of...", which the Falun Gong page is supposed to fit into, are all almost exclusively negative commentary on the subject, such as that for Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, which I just checked. Secondly, proponents of the "Criticism" title use the word "Critics of Falun Gong" to refer to someone who has commented negatively on Falun Gong, as evidenced by the list of proposed named in that proposed category (of "Critics of Falun Gong"), and also by PerEdman's suggestion that this would be a "POV magnet."

So does "critic" and "criticism" mean someone who makes negative comments, and negative commentary, respectively, or anyone who makes comments, or commentary generally? In arguing for the page to be called "Criticism of Falun Gong" the term is given a neutral meaning, but when defining categories of people and in the examples of criticism of other religious gropus, it is used in its conventional, negative sense. This strikes me as doublespeak.

6) With an article entitled "Criticism of Falun Gong," which is focused on negative criticism of the subject--as in all the other articles referenced to other religious groups--would we then not also have a "Praise of Falun Gong" article, which documents the positive criticism the subject has received?

...

It all boils down to this: to be able to have the article titled "Criticism of Falun Gong" the word "criticism" has to NOT be given the meaning of "the act of passing severe judgment; censure; faultfinding", "A comment expressing fault: blame, censure, condemnation, denunciation, reprehension, reprobation," as defined by several dictionaries, but given the meaning of "both... positive, negative and neutral commentary on a subject matter," as defined by user:PerEdman. Yet PerEdman regards "Critics of Falun Gong" to be a POV magnet, the list of "Critics of Falun Gong" are all people who have made negative comments, all the articles titled "Criticism of <topic>" are all actually criticism of that topic, and not general commentary on that topic. There is a clear inconsistency here.

"Reception of..." is a standard formula on wikipedia, it's recommended by an essay, it prevents a POV fork, it is unambiguous in being an article about all commentary on the topic, i.e., the reception that topic has received rather than soley the negative reception the topic has received. It seems to me that it solves the POV issue entirely to call the article "Reception of Falun Gong," and avoids having to split hairs over the meaning of "criticism," and even making seemingly contradictory statements, where it means neutral in one context and negative in the next. "Reception" includes no hint on the tone of the reception. If they are essentially synonymous, except for the problems with "criticism" discussed above, the question is, really, why not call the article "Reception of Falun Gong"? Does it have a particular flaw? Why not call the article that?

I bring this case here for the community to discuss.--Asdfg12345 16:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

My only comments would be that the objection to the word "criticism" seems based on an essay, which by definition pretty much has little weight, and that I see only two articles (not counting redirects), Reception of J. R. R. Tolkien and Reception of country music as per this page, which follow the "reception of" title format, while at this point 55 articles (not counting redirects) use the "criticism of" format as per this page, with an additional 15 articles (not counting redirects) using "Criticisms of" as the beginning of the title as per here, and one article Criticisms and theories on Yahweh, using a variant form of that title. To say that a format which is used by 2 of the 73 articles using one or the other model is the "standard" is to my eyes a bit of a misstatement of fact. John Carter (talk) 17:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Asdfg12345 forgot to mention that "Criticism of..." is more common than "Reception of..." and is the defacto standard, despite the good ideas in the WP:Criticism essay. I have found eight or nine "Criticism" articles on religion and philosophy.

I also argued that the risk of the word "Criticism" being misunderstood to mean only negatives is significant only if there is a number of readers who would make that interpretation AND if the article itself is so poorly written that it is not immediately clear that it contains all forms of criticism (correctly sourced and notable, of course). Not to mention that an "all-negative" article would definately not be very wiki.

To me, this is a discussion on style, readability, standards and presenting articles in a manner that readers will be familiar with.

Finally, I do not disagree with the suggestion of a Critics of Falun Gong article or the suggested Practitioners of Falun Gong because they would contain "all people who have made negative comments", but because they would excessively attract point-of-view discussions (something I never explained, sorry). There is no inconsistency: The word "critic", just as the word "criticism" encompasses both positive, negative and neutral commentary or film critics would all be in advertising. PerEdman (talk) 17:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, all of these arguments have been heard on the page and openly addressed in more than one way, by a wide range of editors. To rehash all of these opinions seems rather time-consuming and unecessary to me. Colipon+(Talk) 18:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It is the case that many articles begin with the "Criticism of..." title; please check the articles that you referenced, like those to Islam, Buddhism, Christianity etc.. They are almost solely based on material critical of those subjects, not the general material on the subject. This isn't an issue of style, readability, and standards, it's an issue of bias or neutrality. The reason for bringing it to this board is to get some wider views about the issue.--Asdfg12345 20:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I really have not read all 72 of them, but even if this were true, it says nothing of the content of a similarily-titled article on Falun Gong. This is a request for comments about the title of the page rather than the content, unless I've misunderstood. / PerEdman 21:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

btw, PerEdman, your view about what a "critic of Falun Gong" is, is apparently not shared by your peers. The people listed as candidates for that category have only negative things to say about the subject. You guys are basically tying yourselves in knots, denying that "criticism" means "negative" and trying to say that it means positive, negative, and neutral. "Reception" also means positive, negative, and neutral, and even no position at all. Let's not argue against "criticism," let's hear what is wrong with "Reception."--Asdfg12345 20:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

In general, most religious groups or philosophies have primarily negative response from others, at least the majority of time. After all, if someone really praised any belief system, they would be, more than likely, going to become adherents of it, and thus would no longer be external to it. So, on that basis, I'm not sure how well the objection applies. If I were to see a significant amount of information regarding any religion/belief system from outsiders which truly spoke well of the belief system as a belief system, then perhaps I would change my mind. I have not to date however not seen particularly much evidence that this belief system has received an unusual amount of commendation from outsiders strictly as a belief system, so I'm not sure on what basis it is being argued that this must be treated as a special case, and think that perhaps it might be more useful to present the material regarding outside commendation first, and establishing that it is greater than that of other such entities, before criticizing the standard title format.

And I do believe that what we would be looking for would be outside commendation of the belief system as a belief system. The Catholic Church and other entities regular receive commendation for their charitable, civic, and cultural work, but that is not praise of the practices/beliefs, and thus generally isn't counted as "commendation" of that group. I don't think it should be any different for this one.

Also, and this might be a side issue, the issue of whether something is particularly different enough to be treated as notably different must be considered. I think it is generally agreed that "prayer", if done right, has psychological benefit. I do not however see that included in articles relating to religious groups that emphasize prayer, because it is so standard. So it would probably also be indicated that reliable sources indicating that the commendation this group receives are substantially more frequent than that of most similar meditation/philosophical systems before this potential issue becomes one which has to be considered a factor. John Carter (talk) 20:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Asdfg12345, I cannot identify with your comment above. If you believe I speak for any person or group other than myself, you will find plenty of apparent contradictions and I will not be able to explain them to you. / PerEdman 21:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Arguments we've heard so far... (Summary for reference)[13]

• The word criticism has more than one meaning and could lead to misunderstandings, such exclusively negative criticism
• The word criticism has been redefined by the Chinese government and can therefore not be used in this context
• The word reception is neutral
• The word criticism will invite a POV-fork
• Any Criticism of-article mandates a Praise for-article
• The word reception would allow for inclusion of pre-persecution events
• WP:CRITICISM is a rule that strictly forbids such wording
• The word reception is a better choice because of historical circumstances and the topic's recentness
• A majority opinion is to be overruled since wikipedia is not a democracy, and the minority should prevail

Number of individuals holding these opinion(s): 4

• Many other articles concerning religions/belief-systems are titled Criticism of and this one should be in line with that de facto standard
• The possible different meanings of criticism are "fringe-meanings" and do not apply for most readers
• In common English usage, the word criticism has not been appropriated by the Chinese government
• The word reception constitutes a euphemism
• Criticism of-articles do not mandate Praise for-articles because the word criticism simply means any commentary by outsiders, negative and positive
• Not using the word criticism will be to the detriment of the majority of readers who are not intimately familiar with the Chinese context
• WP:CRITICISM is not a rule but an essay, a recommendation
• Not using the word criticism would be a tacit endorsement of Chinese newspeak

Number of individuals holding these opinion(s): 9

Seb az86556 (talk) 17:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

What is this list and how is it relevant? Who put the ticks there, and who decided these were the locus of the dispute and the conclusions reached? Why does this seem like an overly simplistic attempt to carve up and dismiss the bones of contention with flashy symbols and a claim to greater numbers? Sorry, I don't want to give an overly negative assessment, but it may help if you clarify how this is a useful metric for people wishing to engage in an unbiased evaluation of this issue. Please feel free to elaborate.--Asdfg12345 17:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a simple list of arguments used in the discussion. It was created by Seb az86556, unless I'm mistaken, but this should also be clear from the article history. It is an "simplistic" overview of a convoluted discussion. It lists the arguments used and their adherents, which could be used to focus the extremely hard-to-read Talk thread. PerEdman (talk) 17:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to attack the list, asdfg. It was created for reference purposes; please assume good faith. I actually think it summed up all the arguments quite coherently. Colipon+(Talk) 18:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I find it dismissive and misrepresentative. Sorry.--Asdfg12345 20:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Uniformity suggests we should use Criticism for the article title rather than some other compromise. The tendency of the FLG to try and avoid any sign of criticism is rather disconcerting.Simonm223 (talk) 21:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Like I said elsewhere, I went through all the article pages that linked to Falun Gong. In that process, I didn't find any that I remember that related to content in which Falun Gong was particularly commended. If I missed any, I would be more than happy to be told what they were. Yes, it and its practicioners have been defended, and in some cases commended for resisting the Chinese government, but I'm not sure how that would directly related to Falun Gong itself, but just those individuals basically standing up for their human rights. Is it notable that people may have commended the practicioners for doing so? If such commendation has been reported in the press or reliable sources, yeah, it is. But we would want to be careful in differentiating between commendation of practicioners of Falun Gong and Falun Gong itself, unless there is clear evidence or statement from someone that Falun Gong with its unique characteristics is somehow necessarily a part of the actions resulting in the commendation. I have no particular objections to considering a change like that proposed above if I had such material, but I haven't seen it that I know of to date. John Carter (talk) 23:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, if you look here you will notice that this content fits in into a Reception article not Criticism article. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 15:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

We are getting lost here. There is a very important principle. Writing about criticism of a subject is NPOV. Writing to support criticism of a subject is not NPOV. The title of the article that is under discussion was originally meant to be a "criticism" article, until it was unilaterally moved to the euphemism "Third party views" and then to another even more shady euphemism called "reception".

The article we are talking about here will address many of Falun Gong's controversial sides that do not fit under any other title. In addition, it will discuss all the academic treatments given to Falun Gong. The title "criticism" will address everything from the cult question to other topics of Falun Gong that have generated significant notability to warrant inclusion. There is no need to pretend that the article itself will give "equal treatment" to "praise" and criticism. Its contents are meant to objectively present criticisms of Falun Gong, not to highlight criticisms of Falun Gong in comparison to "praise". I feel this is especially important because Falun Gong "does not accept criticism" (Rouseau, 2006). "Reception" in this case is a euphemism, a weasel term if you will, that avoids the use of the word "Criticism". In this sense, reception, then, is actually the non-NPOV term to describe the type of article we are talking about, while Criticism is NPOV. Colipon+(Talk) 00:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

What is the main source of criticism against Falun Gong. I guess it's undoubtedly the propaganda war generated by the PRC to justify its persecution. Should Falun Gong practitioners accept that criticism and do things contrary to what they know is right, aka. ZSR? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

If there was no criticism against Falun Gong before 1999, what then was it that caused 300 protests against media criticism between 1996 and 1999, culminating in the protests against He Zuoxiu? Did the justification precede the action, or not? / PerEdman 17:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

He Zuoxiu had nothing to do with the PRC government, unlike what FLG likes to make people believe. I read He's critique in 1999 when it came out. Falun Gong later propagadized that he was a "marxist-atheist", used to be a communist propagandist, and then labeled him as such on Wikipedia. He Zuoxiu's essay is still available online in its original text. It mostly criticized Qigong and zoomed in on Falun Gong. The man was a pseudoscience critic, not a Falun Gong critic per se. Colipon+(Talk) 17:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I would also call attention to the text Digging Out the Roots from 1998 where Li Hongzhi, founder of Falun Gong, talks about the critical media attention received by Falun Gong and how to handle it. It's jargon, but its existence can hardly be contested. / PerEdman 17:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Although I think we are going sidetrack with the discussion, it's arguably not that simple, see Digging Out the Roots and http://adecadeofcourage.com/ which I think contextualizes very well the weight and the intention of the PRC Mass Media before 1999. That is even if the persecution officially began in 20 July 1999, it's simplistic to think that the preparation for it started then. The documentary, which is substanciated with some evidence, like banning the Falun Gong books, suggest that the preparation started as early as 1996. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

WP has its own language and conventions, and that alone is enough of a reason to stick to 'Criticism'. What is more, WP is not censored, and does not do euphemisms. I have suggested 'Critique', but that seems unconventional; I guess 'Critical evaluation' or similar terms would be too. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

True WP has also its own policies, and this is what we are discussing now. Just because what is fair can not be discussed under these policies. But the good point is that nobody can censor anything and that the euphemisms you bring up it's just a word, because so far I don't see it substanciated with facts. For it to be substanciated with facts there first would need to be an article called reception and then point out why reception does not really reflect the content of that article. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It's unclear how "reception" is a euphemism here. What is being pointed out is that "criticism" means negative commentary; and in all the articles that follow this apparent convention--which does not even have a wikipedia essay on it--the article is about just that: negative commentary. The issue here is that if you are arguing that "Criticism of Falun Gong" is to follow the convention of "Criticism of Islam" etc., then you presumably mean that it is to be an article principally about negative commentary on Falun Gong. If not, then it's not an article in line with that apparent convention anyway. There are other article titles which do not include criticism in the title, thus not implying that the article will be about negative commentary on the subject, like: Reception of Falun Gong, Commentary on Falun Gong, Representations of Falun Gong, or something else. Unlike other topics, there is no history of "Criticism of Falun Gong" (as in, negative commentary on the subject), probably because it has such a short history; such an article would attempt to fit into the convention for which there is a history of content, but be unable to. There are neutral article naming possibilities which would indicate to the reader what the article is about, and what it isn't. Mainly, I am interested in thoughts on the observation about the other articles cited going along "Criticism of..." -- did you guys look at them? Do you realise they are principally documenting negative commentary on those subjects (referring to, for example, Islam, Buddhism, Christianity)?--Asdfg12345 21:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, I must ask, so?Simonm223 (talk) 21:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

And I am interested in seeing what sort of "positive" material would be included in the article. I think it would probably be reasonable, and possibly in accord with WP:BURDEN, to at least give an indication of what material one would see in the one article which would be seen as dubious for inclusion in the criticism article. I am myself interested in seeing an answer to that point, which I had earlier raised above and still not received any response to. John Carter (talk) 22:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that Falun Gong practices have merits as well as any qigong or meditative activity. Improved resting pulse, controlled breathing, better general wellbeing but results mainly in-line with placebo. I would like to see both opinion pieces and research, if any, on this. / PerEdman 22:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I never said otherwise. But biological data would probably not qualify under "reception" as it has little if anything to do with "reception" of the movement by other people, but rather analysis of biological phenomena. And I think most of that material would also probably be more relevant for an article on either qigong and its medical benefits (unless there is clear and specific material indicating that Falun Gong has benefits which general qigong does not) or some other article. But I have no reason to believe that there is any reason to believe such material would qualify for inclusion in the proposed article. John Carter (talk) 22:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we'll find much biological data on medical benefits, but all the more acclaim for its existence. / PerEdman 16:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi John, is this the content you where looking for? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure specifically which material you are referring to. I see some basically "neutral" material, and material which contradicts other negative proposals, but I don't immediately see anything which would appear to be "commendation". While saying "they're not an evil cult" isn't negative, it's more or less a response to a negative criticism, and thus kind of dependent on it. The argument as I have understood it is about whether what might be called positive comments about Falun Gong have been made which might not belong in a "criticism" article, but criticism of criticism isn't quite the same thing. John Carter (talk) 16:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you are looking specifically for material that does not fit in Criticism and fits in Reception, right? If that is the case here is one short concrete example: "Livia Kohn, Professor of Religion and East Asian Studies at Boston University and a scholar in Daoism, claims Falun Gong has "a high success rate in creating friendlier people, more harmonious social environments, and greater health and vitality." Benjamin Penny considers many aspects of Falun Gong "deeply traditional", at the same time, the system, "completely modern." According to him, "The best way to describe Falun Gong is as a cultivation system. Cultivation systems have been a feature of Chinese life for at least 2,500 years." " --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Basically, I got the impression that "reception" was to be used because of material which some would argue wasn't "critical" enough to be included in "criticism", yeah. The impression I got was that positive commendation of Falun Gong was what would be, as it were the turning point. Of the two citations you produce, Penny's seems to be, basically, neutral, as neither "deeply traditional" nor "completely modern" are necessarily commendations, but rather just observations.

The quote from Kohn is more useful. The one comment I have regarding it whether the same statements might relate to other Qigong practices. If the commendation is more or less a "generic" one for Qigong, even if only Falun Gong is named, I'm not real sure that's a real commendation of Falun Gong. There's also the question about whether "reception" should cover what seem to be medical/psychological effects. Like I said before, I know that several people have indicated prayer in general is a good thing, as per efficacy of prayer, but don't know that such is mentioned in any articles on specific religions which engage in prayer as a positive for that religion. I do think a medical benefits of Qigong article or some similar content would be a very good idea if it can be sourced, and I have no doubt it can, but am not as sure that it would have much place in an article of this type.

I realize the above might sound needless contentious and nitpicking to some, and apologize for that. I hope it is just realized I'm trying to look for something which really, as it were, cries out that "criticism" would be a bad title to be used on the content which would be contained in this article. John Carter (talk) 17:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I think any neutral reception, which I think you observed that there are quite a few, would not fit well in an article named "criticism". What do you think? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Asdfg, are all 72 "Criticism of"-articles entirely negative of the concept they describe? I find that difficult to believe. Again: This is a discussion about the name of the page, not the content. Furthermore, what you "point out" is rather a claim than a pointing out. / PerEdman 22:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Uhm, a second comment. You cannot possibly be serious in claiming that "Unlike other topics, there is no history of "Criticism of Falun Gong" (as in, negative commentary on the subject)". There is plenty of such criticism, too, much of it already sourced on the wikipedia page. What edits have you been reverting as slander, POV and propaganda, if there is no negative commentary on Falun Gong? I'm sorry, this comment completely baffles me when I thought I had grown unbaffleable. / PerEdman 22:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no history if by history people usually mean at least 100 years. There is criticism, mostly from the PRC due to the persecution, and there is praise, as I pointed out above. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

If that was what people meant by history, then yes, but I feel you may be trying to sidetrack the discussion here. I would say all things have history, including Falun Gong, even though it only goes back to 1992. Hm. Are you now saying Falun Gong isn't related to ancient chinese traditions going back than more than 100 years? / PerEdman 17:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, come on, who is trying to sidetrack the discussion? Before 1992 it is said that it was kept secret, so if nobody knew about it do you think there will be any critics that you can cite? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Dave Warwak

The original version of this article looked as if it had been copied from somewhere else, including footnote numbers in brackets, but I couldn't find the original source. It has since been rewritten enough that I supposed it's no longer a copyright violation, but its pro-Dave Warwak tone is rather nauseating. I've put a POV tag on the article I think three times, now, and the author keeps removing it. This reads as if it was written by Warwak himself, including mentions of his trying to teach the kids "kindness" and a discussion of his trying to show them "the plight of the animals". This thing needs to be toned way down, or else deleted. I do agree that he's probably notable, but none of the claims is cited to a specific source, and all of the references at the bottom of the page don't link to any lines in the article. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Eco-terrorism claims against Sea Shepherd

An IP is duplicating information that is already in the article Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (in a relatively NPOV form). The IP is putting the duplicate information into a new second section, entitled "Eco-terrorism". I have already reverted twice, in part because of BLP concerns. I was going to take this to AIV, but now the IP is showing some limited signs of intelligent reaction to what I am writing. But not enough, so additional eyes are needed. Hans Adler 19:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The IP is also persistently adding inappropriate POV information about Sea Shepherd to the Ecoterrorism article. --Geronimo20 (talk) 21:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I have been involved in the sea shepherd conservation society page for a little while now. I have been doing my best to adhere to WP:EXTREMIST and others have noted that I have done so with success. Furthermore, I feel like the two above editors had been consistantly POV pushing and personal attacking in the discussion. The personal attacks have died down now and I've addressed the issues on both of thier talk pages. They have also relented from deleting the well cited information of the notable experts and have begun to work towards consensus. Still, recent comments by Geronimo in talk worry me that it might soon start up again. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 15:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I certainly didn't say that you were successfully trying to adhere to WP:EXTREMIST. The eco-terrorism accusations against Sea Shepherd were already in the article (one of them even twice). You insisted on putting them in again, so that one was covered twice and the other three times. You insisted to do this in a short section you created for the purpose, whose title Eco-terrorism jumped out of the page with an unattributed accusation. (You can't attribute such an accusation in a title, so using the word in the title at all is the problem.) You only calmed down after I removed the mission statement along with your problematic section. And you are quite liberal with inappropriate templates to user talk pages. I am not impressed with your conduct. Hans Adler 00:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

University Canada West

An editor with the IP address 99.225.138.205 has continually edited in unsubstantiated and biased content meant to damage the reputation of the school. I know the people who run the school, so I suppose I have a conflict of interest, but I'd like to request arbitration in this regard. Ingoman (talk) 13:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

This you should take to the admin's noticeboard, not here. It may be best to block that IP altogether. Colipon+(Talk) 13:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Concerning Wikipedic Article Josip Broz Tito

Wikipedia states all articles and other encyclopaedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. The above mentioned article is not. Important factual information is missing thus making it biased and lacking in objectivity. This then results in an overall inbalance. Here are four examples of 20th century European Balkan history that are missing (which all can be referenced): 1. Cult of Personality (of the dictator Josip Broz Tito) 2. Bleiburg massacre (Operation Keelhaul) 3. Foibe massacres 4. Josip Broz Tito’s failure in addressing the ethnic tensions and economic crisis of Yugoslavia (section Ethnic tensions and the economic crisis of Yugoslavia)

Also there are other facts missing as mentioned on the talk page by other previous writers such as; UDBA’s full role in the former Yugoslavia, which he established (a notorious secret police), and his immensely luxurious life style as a dictator.

My attempt to start improving the article’s inbalance on the talk page (Talk:Josip Broz Tito) was eventually met with abuse and then deletion. If I have crossed any of Wikipedia’s protocol etiquette I apologise (I am new at this). I just wish to express my concerns to Wikipedia and also to try to improve the Wiki articles if I can. If Neutral point of view/Noticeboard finds that the article is fine I shall then accept it gracefully also I would like to thank Simon Dodd for undoing what was done on the talk page. Thank you for your attention dear reader.Sir Floyd (talk) 01:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Gibraltar

(Changed the wording; previous version -even longer, more complicated & boring- here)

There is a (very heated and very long) discussion in the Gibraltar article regarding the first sentence of the lead.

All editors agree that Gibraltar is not 100% self-governing. The Government of Gibraltar has said that it does not control external affairs, defence and internal security. The UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office adds public service to that list.

The current version reads: "Gibraltar is a self-governing[14] British overseas territory" (it explains details of governing status in the Politics section and wikilinks). Supporters argue that, in the context of British Overseas Territories, the expression "self-governing" will be understood as not really 100% self governing and, anyway, details are below in the same article and in wikilinks.

I (and other editor) think that this is ambiguous, as self-governing can be misinterpreted to 100% self-governing, sovereign, etc...[15][16]. I also think that this ambiguity benefits the Gibraltarian POV, that claims that Gibraltar should be delisted from the UN "Non Self-Governing Territories List." I also think that -if you look at it- the current citation is not valid for saying that "Gibraltar is a self-governing territory" but that "once in 2001 a UN officer called Ambassador Donigi proposed a text for a referendum that mentioned the current status of Gibraltar as self-governing." Furthermore, the current lead does not include the UN POV. (The limits to Gibraltar self-government and the UN list are mentioned in the Politics section and in wikilinks, but I think that this does not make the lead NPOV if it includes the governing status but not al POVs about it).

I propose an alternative sentence: "Gibraltar is a British Overseas Territory. It has self-government in all areas except external affairs, defence, internal security and the public service" [17] (the citation is of the UK Foreign & Commonwealth country profile of Gibraltar). And add "Gibraltar is on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories since it was nominated by the UK in 1947, though politicians both from the British Foreign Office and Gibraltar wish to see it removed citing that Gibraltar has effectively been decolonised." in order to include the UN POV (and its criticism by others).

What do you think? Thanks!! --Imalbornoz (talk) 17:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Only other contested overseas territory I can think of are the Falkland Islands. That article saus self-governing OT. Maybe that could be a guide. Seb az86556 (talk) 09:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! It just seems that many people that support the current version in Gibraltar also usually edit the Falklands article. So unfortunately it probably is not an independent example... --Imalbornoz (talk) 10:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The UN list was drawn up as part of the process of de-colonization following the Second World War. Since the process is now complete the list is now merely a curiosity. The remaining "colonies" have chosen to retain their status. So I would omit it from the lead. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Its only a 'long argument' because of one editor's flawed POV and despite trying to educate him he does not want to hear.

• Britain does not have any colonies.
• The elected Government of Gibraltar control internal security.
• If Spain abandoned its silly 305 year old claim which is going nowhere, life would be a lot easier for everyone.

--Gibnews (talk) 16:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your opinions with us. Please keep them off of Wikipedia. We don't decide whether Gibraltar should belong to Britain or to Spain, and it's not for us to tell Spain what to do. You should read Wikipedia:Beware of the tigers. One sentence perfectly describes your most recent comment here: "You don't see yourself as having an opinion; you see yourself as bearing the Truth. You perceive your biases as neutral." 94.212.31.237 (talk) 16:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Please read wp:civil and also note that the difference between facts and opinions is that the former can be established. --Gibnews (talk) 17:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

How is what I wrote incivil? Inconvenient for you perhaps, but incivil? 94.212.31.237 (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I would note that:

• "Self-governing" is accepted by sources.
• The lead need not describe the situation in detail if such description is available later in the article - as in this case.
• Limits on the extent of self-governance are common to many jurisdictions in the world that would generally be considered "self-governing", including sovereign states. The phrase is commonly used in reference to Gibraltar by sources (quoted on Talk:Gibraltar). We have an article dealing with the concept of a Self-governing colony, which cites Gibraltar as an example (though noting that the UK no longer calls its overseas territories "colonies").
• There is benefit in distinguishing a British Overseas Territory from the overseas territories of other states, many of which are treated as integral parts of the sovereign states concerned.
• There is benefit in distinguishing a British Overseas Territory that is self-governing (such as Gibraltar) from a British Overseas Territory that is not self-governing (such as South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands). Pfainuk talk 16:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Myself, Gibnews and Pfainuk are part of the discussion in the Gibraltar article (the last two are also contributors to the Falklands article). I will welcome if they say where my introduction to this section is wrong or non NPOV. Otherwise, I would thank other uninterested opinions. Thanks!!--Imalbornoz (talk) 17:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with them that there is a benefit in distinguishing Gibraltar from other less autonomous territories -but it is both in theirs and my own proposed texts! --Imalbornoz (talk) 17:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

There is very little need to go into gory detail about the exact mechanics of Gibraltar self-government in the lead. You wouldn't start an article about Spain by describing the precise mechanics of the Cortes Generales, nor by describing the precise mechanics of Spain's relationship with the EU. Nor would you start the article about Wales by listing the limits of its devolved government. Nor would you start an article about Indiana by detailing the relationship between a US state and the federal government. There is no reason why Gibraltar should be different. Pfainuk talk 17:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Imalvornoz seems to be flogging a dead horse. There is no consensus to remove "self-governing" and no arguments have been posited that refute the abovementioned points by Pfainuk (which have already been made on a number of occasions). Whether or not certain users also contribute to the Falkland Islands page—which as it happens, I don't—is neither here nor there. RedCoat10 • talk 17:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:COI at New Chronology (Rohl)

More eyes please. --dab (𒁳) 16:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia bias actively being practised?

I point you to the Cybersquatting discussion page. As you can see, there was an uproar when Wikipedia decided that Domaining (the 100% legal, as per many news sources, and multi-million dollar industry) was equal to "Cybersquatting" (the 100% illegal and wrong practise) and put in a re-direct as such.

After a lot of proof was shown, a Domaining page was set-up. However now, the same biased Wikipedia admin who caused the wrongful re-direct is now pushing to delete the Domaining page, probably to re-direct it back to the cybersquatting page. How is this in-keeping with Wikipedia's policies?

Please look at all the reputable links and proof given to support the fact that "Domaining" is a reputable and legal practise.82.15.29.29 (talk) 18:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Tristan Perry