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.

Summary of Josip Broz Tito Article

Additional Info on Cult of Personality (Communist propaganda within the Former Yugoslavia)

The Yugoslav Communist state propaganda machine shared much with the Soviet Union. The Soviet format was imposed and then slightly modified. The Yugoslav Communist state used youth indoctrination, which were all too similar to the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China. Communist political, historical and philosophical courses were all part of general education. They can be found in any Yugoslav primary school textbook from the 1970s.

Media and arts were used as a powerful means of propaganda and were all placed under heavy censorship. Josip Broz Tito was the main subject. Images, monuments, towns, street names, endless awards were given and a never ending production of books, films and poetry were created. Financially a huge amount of resources were used to keep the Communist propaganda and political activities running on a daily basis. Glorification and hero worship of the leader Josip Broz were a constant diet for the former peoples of Yugoslavia.

Most of Josip Broz’s images, monuments, town names and street names are now being removed. This started after the fall of the Berlin Wall and after the break up of Yugoslavia.

Summary

The Josip Broz Tito article represents old views from the cold war era and by default wikipedia is pushing a political agenda. This information is now part of the Josip Broz Tito article, thus making the article biased and lacking a NPOV. Also there are parts of history from that era and region that are missing.

Administrators should give attention to these issues? Qualified references such as Encyclopaedia Britannica and BBC history are being presented here and are met with silence.

Summary of the other qualified professional authors, who have expressed a more current scholarly view:

1. Ivo Goldstein a Professor at the University of Zagreb & former Director of the Institute for Croatian History of the University of Zagreb.

2. Jasper Godwin Ridley (1920 –2004) was a British writer, known for historical biographies. He was educated at Magdalen College, University of Oxford & Sorbonne. He received :the 1970 James Tait Black Memorial Prize. He trained and practiced as a barrister & professional writer.

3. Paul Hollander is an American scholar, journalist, and conservative political writer. Ph.D in Sociology. Princeton University, 1963 B.A London School of Economics, :Professor Emeritus of Sociology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst Center Associate and Davis.

4. David W. Del Testa has a Ph.D. in History from the University of California at Davis; and

5. Rudolph Joseph Rummel is a Professor Emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii.

I have come up with a legacy''' chapter. This might give the article more of a modern scholarly feel.

"One of Josip Broz Tito’s legacies was to bring peace and stability to the region, be it in Soviet style governance (following years after World War Two). In subsequent years he and his government started political reform and came up with their own brand of socialism. This was created hand in hand with his cult of personality.

At first, it seemed that things were working out but in the end the economic political decisions that were made were flawed. Josip Broz’s style of economic socialism just could not compete in the world economic climate. Yugoslavia’s economic situation from the late 1970s onwards worsened with every year passing. With ethnic tension not resolved these were some of the factors that contributed to Tito’s Yugoslavia breaking up. Since then events such as Bleiburg and Foibe massacres that happened during the last days of WW2 have come to re-surface, which have now cast a dark shadow over his military leadership.

Nevertheless at the time of his death he was much loved by the majority of the citizens of Yugoslavia"

Thank you.Sir Floyd (talk) 11:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear reader I will be requesting an Editor’s Assistant on the Josip Broz Tito article. My request to add a Legacy Chapter to the article in question has been refused. Qualified references such as Encyclopaedia Britannica and Tim Judah of the BBC (The Times & The Economist) are being met with heavy resistance! Also other qualified professional references from USA, Great Britain and Croatia are not being taken into account. Consensus style of work is not present here. Regards Sir Floyd (talk) 00:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Kongu Vellalar

First, I'm hoping I posted this in the correct place. I came across an article, Kongu Vellalar that has some atrocious aspects mostly POV. But I do not know about the topic and wouldn't want to make changes. The article is: Kongu Vellalar It appears to deal with an India sect. Even though I know nothing about this topic it, surely it should not contain sentences such as:
"The government of India census wants to keep its people ignorant on this aspect "
"which has aroused considerable jealousy and fear among the real holders of Power"
"which mostly go unresearched partly due to the heavy stench of ideological biases of contemperory Tamil historians"
The article also has NO references for anything.
There is a Neutrality warning at the top of the article, but is this sufficient? How can sentences like the above be left in? These might be the worst, but the entire article is absolutely filled with unreferences and sometimes absurd statments like:
"Concerned scientists have warned the community to have at least two children per family to maintain steady trend"
I thought I'd mention this as I've honestly never seen anything quite like this on Wikipedia. BashBrannigan (talk) 05:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree this is pretty extreme. Much of it reads like an advertisement, e.g. "The Kongu region flourishes mainly due to their extreme hard work, commitment, objective nature and innovation in their fields." People have every right to be proud of their ethnic or religious heritage, but statements like that illustrate the opposite of the neutral point of view standard that applies on Wikipedia. For others who might like to weigh in here, I note that there's a much more reasonable and well-written article about the Vellalar caste as a whole, of which Kongu Vellalar appears to be a sub-caste. The articles List_of_Vellalar_sub_castes#Vellalar_Sub-castes_using_Gounder_title, Gounder, and Gounder_(title) may be of help as well, although it appears that the latter two are (almost) identical, and should be consolidated. Ohiostandard (talk) 19:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

May i suggest blanking some sections or removing everu offending statement? the article is uncomfortable to read and difficulty to verify some claims using google. Thank you. 09:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Torchrunner again.

Torchrunner (talk · contribs) keeps running into WP:SOAP and WP:SYNTH issues with his edits with regard to 19th century northern European Christian Mystics. There have been repeated attempts to direct him to the appropriate topics but he seems not to be listening. I am on the verge of taking it to WP:ANI but before I did I thought I'd get an outside opinion as I am struggling to remain civil throughout this debate as-is.Simonm223 (talk) 16:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've made some attempts to explain things to Torchrunner, such as here. So far it hasn't seem to have worked, but I just took his most recent edit, and broke it down to explain how it was contrary to WP:SYNTH. We'll see if that works. It appears to be a situation where the editor means well has a POV that could be managed, but is too involved in the topic to understand the big picture of Wikipedia. He may need some mentoring if anyone is up for that.... Singularity42 (talk) 19:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I have put it up at WP:ANI although I may have some bias because of my own issues with his POV, which I admit, I believe a firm, good faith, effort has been made by 3 different editors (including you and I) to guide him as to the issues his POV is causing with his edits. Despite this he persists in constantly inserting POV edits. I've felt like I had to camp out in these articles just to keep them from being taken over by one editor's POV and I do have other things I'd rather be doing. If I get an opportunity I think I might request a topic ban for a month or something like that to give Torchrunner some time to reflect on how to go about editing Wikipedia appropriately.Simonm223 (talk) 19:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Well the ANI dropped into the archives without substantial discussion and Torchrunner continues to try and post fringe evangelical positions on these pages. I sort of don't know what the next step should be.Simonm223 (talk) 13:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Without checking this particular issue, you can: gather a consensus of involved editors at the appropriate talk pages, citing WP:TE and WP:EW if they refuse to discuss; request additional input at WP:WikiProject Christianity; or call a Request for comment on either the editor or a specific issue. Sorry, I wish I knew an easier way to discover and enforce appropriate weighting. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Torchrunner seems to be winding down a bit but if there is another issue that gives me avenues to approach.Simonm223 (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Conversion Therapy

Amongst academics and practitioners, a large majority believe that conversion therapy (or reparative therapy) should be avoided, and that there is potential for harm. Because of the emphasis on self-control in many religions and particularly Christianity, elements exist who claim benefit for therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation. On the page given over to represent this debate, some are resisting the inclusion of material that represents the minority view, calling it fringe. Wikipedia policy seems to suggest that all views should be described, and that appropriate weight should be given to them based on their acceptance by their prominence. It also says "In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive more attention and space." How should the article reflect this? How can we break the deadlock? Hyper3 (talk) 15:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with including material that represents the minority view; I do have a problem with including this material in a misleading way or in parts of the article where it does not belong. It would help to realise that the Conversion therapy article is in no sense about the minority view of conversion therapy; it is about conversion therapy as such, and it needs to reflect the mainstream view. The title of the article isn't, "Views supportive of conversion therapy", after all. Born Gay (talk) 19:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes but it should represent both views in favour and views against, without undue weight. Currently, it doesn't, and attempts to introduce such material is removed. What you have said shows that you do not understand that both views need to be represented. Thanks for putting it so clearly, so others can see the problem.. Hyper3 (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Your edits at that article appear to be crossing the line into vandalism, notably the removal of material on ex-gay ministries. If wasn't deliberate vandalism, it was very, very bad editing. Yet you complain of my removing material? Born Gay (talk) 20:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I would say that "conversion therapy" nonsense doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia at all. A better place to discuss this would be the Fringe Theories noticeboard. Because "conversion therapy" is about as fringy as it gets. Irbisgreif (talk) 22:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Oops - I just referred them here from RS/N, but you may be right that the Fringe theories noticeboard would be better. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

There may be "fringe" issues but there are also serious NPOV issues. Born Gay (talk · contribs) is making edits that use judgemental terms outside of direct quotation, and then cries "vandalism!" when the edits are reverted -- that isn't acceptable. It would be impossible for this article to be useful without describing both competing points of view, but any statement that expresses a point of view needs to be attributed directly in the article text to a specific source. Looie496 (talk) 18:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Be specific in your accusations. Don't make vague claims. Specifically what am I doing that you object to, which terms? If the reliable sources use them, we can use them. The vandalism I was referring to was the attempt by Hyper3 to totally remove all criticism of ex-gay treatment, for instance here [1] and here [2], an outrageous and unacceptable form of behavior. If isn't vandalism, it is POV pushing of a particularly crass and obvious kind; the material may need to be reworded, but removing it is illegitimate. Hyper3 seems to have no understanding of NPOV whatever. Born Gay (talk) 04:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Non-citizens (Latvia)

I question neutrality of expression "With regard to international law, non-citizens are not considered stateless." (section "Non-citizens (Latvia)#Status", below). This statement is currently being presented as truth.

However, the source directly given to it (6th footnote) is not online and even not about international law - according to the citation given it says "in Latvia, non-citizens under the 1995 Law on Status of citizens of the former USSR who are not citizens of Latvia or any other country are neither citizens, nor foreigners, nor stateless persons". I admit, however, that there is one more source for this point of view in the article, by Latvian court "15. [..] Latvian non-citizens cannot be compared with any other status of a physical entity, which has been determined in international legal acts [..] Latvian non-citizens can be regarded neither as citizens, nor aliens or stateless persons" (11th footnote), and this POV, of course, deserves the mentioning it has.

Still, there is a contrary and significant POV, also already present in the article (2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th footnotes). In these sources, Amnesty International (Amnesty International Report on Latvia) and then-UN Special Rapporteur on racism Doudou Diene (Report on mission to Latvia (2008) see Para. 30 and 88 are directly speaking of Latvian "non-citizens (in Latvian, nepilsoņi)" as of statelesss persons, and OSCE Parliamentary Assembly (see para. 16 of the Resolution on national minorities) and Council of Europe's Commissioner for Human Rights("No one should have to be stateless in today’s Europe") speak about problem of statelessness in Latvia - it's difficult to believe that they mean some hundreds of Latvia-admitted stateless persons (in Latvian, bezvalstnieki), not about hundreds of thousands of "non-citizens".

So I proposed to rewrite the phrase in question in order not to present one POV as fact. Quoting WP:NPOV section 1.1.: NPOV requires that all majority- and significant-minority views must be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material. The neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor discourages its subject, nor does it endorse or oppose specific viewpoints.

The contrary opinion was held by User:Vecrumba, asking "Please don't indicate Amnesty International declarations et al. are authoritative with regard to the legal status of nepilsoni are concerned". An attempt to seek WP:3O hadn't been successful (see Talk:Non-citizens (Latvia)#Major Copy Edit). Fuseau (talk) 20:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not certain that I understand the question. If the article is describing how the Latvian state defines a non-citizen, this is the only thing that should be discussed, and should be phrased as "with regard to Latvian law...". International law is irrelevent to how Latvia defines a citizen or a non-citizen, since UN law does not over ride the laws of individual member states. A "Non-citizen" in Latvian law is a permanent resident of Latvia who has limited rights, and cannot vote. It appears that they are not considered stateless in international law because Latvia is considered their state, whereas stateless people actually lack a state (like Palestinians). That is the technical explanation for it. The Amnesty International view is that these people are stateless because they do not have citizenship of any state. However, the legal classification of "Non-citizen" is not equal to "Not a part of the Latvian state". Arguably, they have more "rights" than citizens of the Soviet Union did, or that citizens of many authoritarian countries have today, but they do not have equal rights to Latvian citizens. This is probably more akin to the situation of Kurds in Turkey, who are Kurdish to each other and around the world, but Turkish in the eyes of their state. A Kurd does not have equal rights to a Turk, but a Kurd is not stateless. Likewise, citizens of countries with stratified rights are not considered stateless if they lack equal rights to the highest strata. Take women who live in countries that do not have universal suffrage, for example. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

If the article is describing how the Latvian state defines a non-citizen, this is the only thing that should be discussed It is not only on how the Latvian state defines a non-citizen - it is on the group of people whom Latvian state describes so. It is significant for this group of people, if they are stateless under international law. If they fall under definition of stateless persons given in some UN conventions ratified by Latvia, then Latvia has to respect certain their rights foreseen in these conventions. And, as you see above, for example, UN Special Rapporteur connects situation of non-citizens with obligations of Latvia concerning stateless persons, disagreeing with Latvian Constitutional court. So there are different significant opinions. Eventually, a dispute on whether certain group are stateless under the definition of UN 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons can be resolved by International Court of Justice according to convention's Article 34, but as of now, no member state of this convention has raised the question before the court.

P.S. A country may call a certain group to be "stateless persons" or "citizens" or somehow else in its own laws, but it doesn't free the country from obligation to respect rights of citizens or stateless persons found in the international treaties (if ratified). And a country may not say unilaterally "We don't call the group X citizens (or stateless) in our law, therefore we aren't obliged to grant to them rights provided by some treaties for citizens/stateless" - it has to abide ratified treaties and give rights provided by them to those who fall under treaties' definitions of citizens/stateless, not some own arbitrary definitions. Fuseau (talk) 00:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

That is a fine ideal. However, that is far from a reality. Let us be straight about this... You are talking about Russians, on behalf of Russia. Russia is a terrible place, full of autocrats who abuse their own people for personal gain. Disgusting. Latvia and Estonia have some equally repugnant laws regarding citizenship. I'm an American, and I can also tell you that the United States is the most free country in history, yet even the US has restrictive laws and policies that target specific groups (gays, for example, or Indian reservations). Rights are not an international norm. Most of the world is far from free. Most humans are a pathetic lot who have failed to reign in their own autocratic governments (see Russians and Chinese). The Baltic articles all reflect this opression of the human will... as do the Russian, Soviet, Chinese, Saudi, Syrian, Burma, Congo, etc.. articles. Much of this planet is poppulated by cowed, overwhelmed people who's governments disrespect rights and human diginity on a daily basis. The day these monsters take a bullet to the head will be the day we have an objective encyclopedia. Until then, we are at the mercy of ignorant morons. C'est le vie. Wikipedia is the encylopedia anyone can edit... this is particularly exciting to the most disgusting nationalistic racists we can find. Wikipedia is a strange mix of well-intentioned geeks, and vile racist asswipes. We can't make personal attacks. We also can't keep the vomitously racist ignorants off the website. Go figure. Wikipedia's fatal flaw is that innocent and objective minded people come here looking for unbiased information, and they walk away disgusted because they find the horrid detritus of 19th century eugenics have contaminated the entire project. So... I ask, what do you intend to do here? Hiberniantears (talk) 06:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

You are talking about Russians As one can see at Non-citizens (Latvia)#Demography, non-citizens are not only Russians - more than one third of them are Ukrainians, Belorussians and others. on behalf of Russia. Russia is a terrible place [..] Latvia and Estonia have some equally repugnant laws [..] the US has restrictive laws and policies that target specific groups I see no connection of Russian, Estonian or US laws with the subject of this article, and no "behalf of Russia". what do you intend to do here? I wish to get community opinion on the question which was debated on the talk page - is the phrase I've mentioned in the very first message neutral? If not - how to rewrite it.Fuseau (talk) 11:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

"With regard to international law, non-citizens are not considered stateless." is probably not acceptable. If there are significant reliable sources like Amnesty saying that these "non-citizens" are in fact "stateless" under standard interpretations of international law, then we clearly can not present it as a fact, which on wikipedia is something about which there is no serious disupute, as there seems to be here. The citation for this statement does not seem entirely clear to me either. The Latvian government's view that these people are not stateless should be presented too of course, but not as the sole one or even the dominant one without careful exploration of the reliable sources on the matter. Of course the Latvian government is authoritative for the Latvian view of the matter, but that is not in question here.John Z (talk) 21:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Sea Shepherd Conservation Society

There is a dispute as to whether categorizing the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society as "Category:Eco-terrorism" is in violation of WP:NPOV.

What the debate has boiled down to is that while some feel that categorizing an article is simply making use of an organizational tool, others feel that a categorization is a type of unqualified label, and thus goes against WP:Words to avoid/WP:TERRORIST and is a WP:NPOV violation.

Please note that there are several governments and organizations, mainly those who support commercial whaling or the tradition of whaling, who have deemed some tactics of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society as acts of Terrorism. These statements are properly sourced. We also have a statement from the FBI that says they're "keeping an eye" on SSCS, but the article clearly goes out of its way to avoid declaring them "eco-terrorists" (while having no hesitation in doing so with organizations like the Animal Liberation Front. MichaelLNorth (talk) 01:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up on the talk page MichaelLNorth. Just a quick follow-up, the label has been applied by officials from several whaling nations but have also been called it by others. They are now well known for the campaigns against Japan but before that they were fighting against seal hunters and fishermen. It is well documented by reliable sources that they have called them eco-terrorists. I don't know if the group is or not I'm not a published source so it doesn't matter.Cptnono (talk) 01:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Cpt, I'm really just trying to clear up the use of categorization here, and whether or not it is an "unqualified label" as described (and discouraged) in WP:TERRORIST. Whether Japan thinks that they're terrorists is neither here nor there. We can directly attribute this view to them in the article, but we can't put an asterisk next to the category to indicate that there is not a global consensus by any measure as to whether their actions are terrorism. MichaelLNorth (talk) 01:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

My previous edit was just to clear up that it wasn't only whaling nations that have raised concerns with your initial statement. Writers, this leader, that leader, and so on have said it. I agree there is definitely not a global consensus on it. The asterisk is the reader clicking on the link and reading the facts laid out to form their own opinion.

Also, I wouldn't mind having a subcategory be renamed "alleged" eco-terrorists or "groups called" eco-terrorists since we don't have a disclaimer and that would clear this up nicely. The only concern I have at all with that is giving the US's official position (terrorist watch list or however it is done) more value than other nations so that would have to be figured out.Cptnono (talk) 01:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I would ask that interested parties please read the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society talk page item #66 'Eco terrorism category'. This talk page item sparked the current debate and includes both pro and con arguments for using the category 'eco terrorism'. I disagree that the category should be used and advance a line of argument to support that view. I include two of my comments here to encapsulate my argument, both of these quotes come from the talk section I mention above.

1.

'To sum up, I am not actually taking a position on if Sea Shepherd is/isn't an eco-terrorist group. I am taking a position on Wikipedia as an encyclopedia and how it says what something is. This issue is not really about Sea Shepherd or eco-terrorism, it is about how an article is categorised. Since eco-terrorism is a contentious word, since there is no agreement in the wider community (UK, France, Germany, Australia, US, etc.), that Sea Shepherd is an eco-terrorist organisation it is not proper position for Wikipedia to take by categorising them as such since there is no agreement on the application of the term to Sea Shepherd.'

2

'The reasons why Sea Shepherd should not be categorised as 'eco-terrorists' are clear:

1.Categories are labels. Without qualification or citation. Categorising Sea Shepherd is labeling them 'eco-terrorists', is calling them 'eco-terrorists'. This is not something Wikipedia should do as there is no agreement in the wider community on this label and this would mean that Wikipedia is taking sides, setting the agenda, and deciding an issue. This is not Wikipedia's role and is the same as calling psychoanalysis 'pseudoscience'. The reasons for not calling psychoanalysis 'pseudoscience' apply across all articles and apply in this case.

2.Wikipedia:Words to avoid; 2.4 Words that label; WP: TERRORIST. The terms "extremist", "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" are often particularly contentious labels that carry an implicit viewpoint. "Extremist" and "terrorist" are pejorative labels, frequently applied to those whose cause is being opposed. The rules around using the term 'terrorist' in Wikipedia are clear. The word 'eco-terrorism' derives from 'ecological terrorism' and people and groups accused of this are called 'eco-terrorists'. It is a word to avoid. When it is used in an article, then the description must be attributed in the article text to its source, preferably by direct quotation, and always with a verifiable citation. This cannot be done in a category, categories cannot be qualified or cited or attributed to a source. Categories label unconditionally, no ifs or buts. There is no agreement on the term being applied to Sea Shepherd and as a word to avoid it is not appropriate or correct for Wikipedia to use it.

3.WP:BLP; Sea Shepherd is a group comprised of thousands of supporters, volunteer crew, volunteer shore-based workers, and paid staff. For Wikipedia to categorise, to label, Sea Shepherd as an 'eco-terrorist' organisation is to label these people as terrorists. It is not for Wikipedia to label people with such a negative, perjorative, term when that term is not accepted as a term to describe Sea Shepherd in the wider community.'

Tranquillity Base (talk) 04:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I would also add that, in my view, the category 'eco terrorism' as it is inherently not neutral is a candidate for inclusion in CfD. As in the case of the category 'war criminal', a more neutral and precise category may be appropriate. Tranquillity Base (talk) 05:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Relevant background regarding the application of disparaging categories to articles:

• WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE#Obvious pseudoscience and the following sections of the same Arbcom decision gives guidance in the special, but analogous, case of Category:Pseudoscience.
• Essentially this Arbcom decision is policy as WP:PSCI.
• Cfd for Category:War criminals.
• CfD for Category:Terrorists.

Note that "eco-terrorism" has much the same demarcation problem as "pseudoscience", "war criminal" and "terrorist", and according to the first two items and the way they are routinely applied the resulting NPOV problem can't be discussed away by claiming that categories are "only" a navigation tool. Hans Adler 08:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

On the talk page I highlighted that the category is a topical category on "eco terrorism", it is not a list of "eco terrorists". This is demonstrated both by its adherence to the naming convention for topical categories and its link to the "eco terrorism" page. Wikipedia:Categorization & Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(categories). Eco terrorism is not a very developed category and currently does not provide many subcategories such as eco terrorist, claimed eco terrorists, etc., but such subcategories likely should exist under the parent, topical category. Listing this group under "eco terrorism" will not and cannot mean they are "eco terrorists", only that its relevant to the the discussion of eco terrorism. In fact, select groups completely in opposition to SSCS can be listed under "eco terrorism" since those groups too may be relevant for someone researching the topic. Mdlawmba (talk) 12:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It's quite possible that you are proffering this pedantic argument in good faith, but it is just that. Note that the analogous case in which there is a long established, strong consensus concerns the topical category Category:Pseudoscience, not a non-existent "list" category Category:Pseudosciences. The CfDs I linked above demonstrate that the two subcategories you are proposing would likely not survive a CfD, and for good reason. Hans Adler 13:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

As I said on the talk page I don't believe the categorization to be appropriate.Simonm223 (talk) 14:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Mdlawmba, your idea would make sense if no major viewpoint believed SSCS to be eco-terrorists, as there would be little or no chance that readers would be confused about the meaning of the category. However, that's not the case we're dealing with here. It is as if you categorized an individual like George W. Bush with "Category: War Crimes" (NOTE: I am not endorsing this categorization). The reason it is misleading is because there are some who believe him to be a war criminal. You can say that the category only indicates that his biography is a topic relating to "war crimes", but that is not the obvious and common conclusion that many readers will come to. MichaelLNorth (talk) 14:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

While I stand by my belief the category is a benign topical category intended to aid those using Wikipedia, my belief should only be viewed in the alternative to the other reasons why SSCS should be included in the category. There is sufficient evidence the group is "generally considered" to be an eco terrorist group and, more imporantly, has performed acts "generally considered" eco terrorism. "Generally Considered" being a term used in the psychoanalysis ruling allowing inclusion. I will let others make the case in that regard, because I have not been central to that discussion. But I do maintain that, since this group would fit within possible subcategories of this category, it should be considered fair to place it in the current, parent category, both in spite of and because there are major viewpoints and official contentions regarding the organization.Mdlawmba (talk) 17:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Concepts like "sufficient evidence" and other rationalization for being "generally considered" eco-terrorists are both subjective, and unrelated to this topic. We are talking about whether the application of a category defined with a pejorative, charged word like "terrorist" is an "unqualified label" as described in WP:Words to avoid. Just to reiterate for clarity this is not a discussion about whether or not SSCS are generally, specifically, sometimes, often, occasionally or rarely considered, called, referred to as and/or thought of as "eco-terrorists". The number of countries that consider the organization or their acts to be terrorism, and whether their acts are deemed by some as "terrorism" are neither here nor there for the purposes of this NPOV noticeboard discussion. If it helps, please think of this as a discussion about whether it is appropriate to start categorizing certain articles as "Stupid people" or another pejorative and charged descriptor unrelated to Sea Shepherd. I would be happy to discuss the elaborating of existing material on Sea Shepherd Conservation Society regarding various countries' views of the organization on the article's talk page, as it is clear you have strong views regarding the organization, but it is of topic when placed here. MichaelLNorth (talk) 18:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It is hardly off topic and please do not paint me as some type of extremist, whether I have strong views or not is very much off topic.Mdlawmba (talk) 18:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I apologize if you take offense to my saying that you have strong views on this topic, but that isn't tantamount to being an extremist. Would I be correct in saying that you believe the application of the "eco-terrorism" category to the article is appropriate, as long as you have several reliable sources to back it up? MichaelLNorth (talk) 18:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I outlined my belief that it is appropriate under the circumstances and why. I do not believe we have to, or can, label them eco terrorists by using this category. If the organization committed one documented act of eco terrorism as "generally accepted" in meaning during its 20+ year history I believe it can rightfully be placed under the category. There are many living persons in that category who have committed but one act, and this is not a living person. Especially considering the persons associated with it today may not have been born when the act was committed.Mdlawmba (talk) 19:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

2 Questions:

• If it is demonstrated by people on both sides of the argument (that is if notable experts have written papers about why SSCS are eco-terrorists or why they aren't) then what is wrong with categorizing THE ARTICLE as an article that pertains to the discussion on eco-terrorism? The words "Ecotage" and "Radical Environmentalism" are (at the present) uncontested articles within that category. The SSCS are self-proclaimes Radical Environmentalists and have made their own extensively reported statements on "eco-terrorism". There is no contest about whether or not they are part of that debate, why not categorise it as such?

• If it were a list of eco-terrorists, how many notable sources would you need that call SSCS eco-terrorists? I'm hearing from some that no matter how many reliable sources you get, it doesn't matter, they don't think they should be labeled as terrorists. Well that's just against WP:Terrorist. So my question again, how many notable sources do you need for that category? Or should we just delete the category? --68.41.80.161 (talk) 21:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

  Excellent point. I think if the US instead of Norway would have attempted to jail Watson their would not be an argument about the label.

  It also occurred to me and I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts regarding readers understanding of the group. Do you think some of the editors who do not want to categorize them as eco-terrorists are taking their information from watching Whale Wars and not looking into previous actions which involved more aggressive tactics? I was telling MLNorth earlier that I personally couldn't label them as terrorists if it was just bottles of rotten butter involved but bombing typically = terrorism.Cptnono (talk) 23:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

  Elaborating on exactly that idea, we are not talking about the DPRK calling Amnesty International a terrorist organization, we are talking about multiple democratic governments describing SSCS as terrorists. Sure it may be a 501(c) charity in the United States, and I have no doubt that many feel the SSCS's actions are fully justified, but government officials in Canada, Iceland, Japan, and Norway have all described SSCS as terrorist, so lets call a spade a spade. — Kralizec! (talk) 00:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

That is indeed what I believe this has come down to. What do the experts say? The problem is that editor POV (lots of editors like what the SSCS are doing and don't want them labeled negatively) conflicts with much of the notable opinion that is out there. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 02:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

68 - to answer your question, my position is the category should not be applied to anything, for the same reason that I believe it would be against wikipedia policy to create a "Stupid people" category and go around categorizing various articles with it. I believe that the name of the category its self brings with it a POV. — Mike :  tlk  00:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

So you are in favor of the category not existing. Let me ask this then, if the category "stupid people" existed and there were government agencies set up to deal with "stupid people" as well as PhDs who specialised in stupid people, how many well cited, notable, major news source refferences would you require of the experts before you would allow the wiki category to reflect their opinion? ;) And yes I agree the category most definately carries a POV, but it's that of the experts. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 02:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I hope I am not appearing to dodge the question here. The point is not number of sources, it is that "stupid people" is an inherently subjective term. Various government experts may have a different criterion as to what defines a "stupid person", and it is virtually certain that not all experts will have identical lists of who is a "stupid person". There may be some people who want to use SAT scores, and others who think IQ is a better metric.

This is precisely what WP:TERRORIST suggests we avoid. Using a term like "People with IQ below 75" instead of "Stupid People" is the recommended course of action, in the case of our example. Everyone's definition of IQ is the same, and there's no disagreement over whether 62 is below 75. A more realistic example directly from the guideline is choosing a term like "Suicide Bomber" over "Terrorist". There's no grey area in terms of whether someone detonated a bomb, and in the process took their own life or not. There will never be a lack of consensus as to what this term means, and thus there is no need to figure out "how many well cited, notable, major news source references" are necessary before we violate WP:NPOV by adopting a particular POV as "the truth". — Mike :  tlk  03:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

OK good point, there is a very specific word for people who 1.strap bombs to themselves and 2 detonate 3. in the name of Allah. Different generalized words are used for people who preach hate and don't blow themselves up. But there's only one commonly used term for people who affix "can opener" devices to thier hulls before ramming fueling ships in the name of whales. So at what point in our lexiconological evolution does a word become "specific" enough for use? How well defined by notable sources does this term need to be to satisfy that requirement? A scan of online definitions will show that it usually means "sabotage, terrorism or violence" against "people or property" in the name of saving the environment. Multiple dictionaries use that definition, the FBI seems to use the exact same definition. It's not some broad term like "stupid people". It has a very specific meaning with three common qualifiers 1. Violenvce/terrorism/sabotage 2. People or items being targeted for damage. 3. For the purpose of saving the environment. That's like between 63 and 65 iq dumb. Not just vaugely "kinda dumb". Peace. :) --68.41.80.161 (talk) 03:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

This is not an issue of specificity, it's an issue of objectivity. You could get as specific as "People who are so stupid that they can't figure out how to use their toaster", and it would still be subjective, and thus still inappropriate as an unqualified label like a category or a Wikiproject.

"But there's only one commonly used term for people who affix "can opener" devices to thier hulls before ramming fueling ships in the name of whales."

This is moving back to the argument of "surely the must be terrorists if they do XYZ". No matter how sure you are of the validity of this idea, it is still subjective, and thus still advocating the use of "Stupid People" instead of "People with IQ below 75" because you believe that having an IQ below 75 surely makes one "Stupid". You keep asking me "how many sources", and again, the number of sources is irrelevant. You should need no sources to justify applying a category to an article, which makes sense since there is no mechanism for attaching a reference to a category in Wikipedia.

I'd also like to thank you for helping to keep this surprisingly civil for what could be a very controversial topic. — Mike :  tlk  03:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:CIVIL and consider it before posting random insults regarding the relative intelligence of editors who disagree with you.Simonm223 (talk) 03:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Please reread Simonm. I'm not calling anyone stupid, I'm using "Stupid people" as a hypothetical example category with a subjective name, and "People with IQ below 75" as what WP:TERRORIST recommends as a WP:NPOV improvement. — Mike :  tlk  03:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

My appologies. It's been a long day and I misread your statement.Simonm223 (talk) 03:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

"still inappropriate as an unqualified label" The question I am posing then is what would it take in your mind for a label to be appropriate and qualified. If not common use in liturature with well defined boundaries and scholarly enough for sociological journals and congressional reports alike then what? I'm trying to figure out what sort of objective qualifiers you are applying to see if the word is appropriate and then apply those qualifiers to other categories in WIKI to see if a president has allready been set. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 22:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC) Also, thank you as well for your civility. This is fun when people are respectful. :) One other thought as well, applying this same strain of thought on the word "Terrorist" instead. Would your argument lead you to the same conclusion that the word should not be used? --68.41.80.161 (talk) 22:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

There's a question I can give you an answer to.

what would it take in your mind for a label to be appropriate and qualified.

It would take an objective and NPOV category label. This will result in little to no explanation or elaboration required for a full and accurate understanding of what the category is, and why it has been applied to the article.

I'm trying to figure out what sort of objective qualifiers you are applying to see if the word is appropriate and then apply those qualifiers to other categories in WIKI to see if a president has allready been set.

• OBJECTIVE: First off, it's very important that everyone be able to agree on the definition of the category name, and all concepts involved with the definition. It should not be a component of the article that needs to be supported with references, which seems fitting as there is no mechanism by which to cite a category as it applies to a particular article. This issue is addressed in WP:TERRORIST, and is the reason they suggest using "Suicide Bomber" instead of "Terrorist". Examples of messing this up: "Stupid people", "Poor countries", "Confusing political issues".
• NPOV: Second, it should not bring a POV along with it. This another the concept described in WP:TERRORIST. Al-Qaeda may refer to Osama Bin Laden as a "Freedom Fighter", but I think of him as a "Terrorist". Neither is appropriate for a WP:NPOV encyclopedia. I understand that sometimes a majority viewpoint may seem to be so widely and thoroughly supported as to seem like fact, but having a lot of references is not license to violate WP:NPOV.Examples of messing this up: "Politicians with un-American views", "Fair and balanced cable news channels" (zing), "People who are in jail, but are innocent", "The best soccer players in the world".

You shouldn't find yourself asking "how many sources do I need before this is OK?". That is a strong indicator that you may be looking for license to present a POV (even if it is an expert one) as fact. When WP:TERRORIST uses the term "unqualified label", this is exactly the type of thing they're referring to. WikiProjects, categories and article section headings among other things often don't have citations, and are meant to stand on their own without any further elaboration.

To answer you final question, yes, I do have the same problem with any entity or event being categorized, with an "unqualified label", as "terrorism" on Wikipedia, because the term is both POV and subjective. — Mike :  tlk  00:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

So here are some new questions, please select a word that you believe fulfills all the above requirements that we could name a category that would include organiations that blow up buildings in the name of ecology, organizations that sink other people's ships in the name of ecology, initiatives to stop those organizations and experts on those types of activities. But NOT non-violent organizations and NOT organizations that blow things up for non-ecological reasons. The "so how many" question was meant to (and did) demonstrate that no number of reliable sources using any such term would suffice because someone would be able to make the same arguments as above. Leaving these very related categories sorely uncategorizable. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 23:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

"Militant environmental activist". — Mike :  tlk  00:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought everyone could at least get a laugh out of this: "It can also be used as a euphemism for the word terrorist.[1]". Militant. Personally, I think eco-terrorist is better defined than militant environmental activist, and as soon as ELF, ALF, OLF, ULF, etc. are all thrown into that category, then it will be equally negative. It's not the neighborhood, it's the neighbors.Mdlawmba (talk) 01:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I didn't realize they're interchangable. Wikipedia defines it here

A militant is an individual or party engaged in aggressive physical or verbal combat.

which is completely objective. I see that you have selected an excerpt from the "Mass Media Usage" section of Militant. Just about everything that precedes it is NPOV, objective, and in agreement with the definition above.— Mike :  tlk  01:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice. OK back to you I suppose, are you proposing that we use the new invented term in an attempt to make the notable sources more NPOV? That somehow doesn't sound right.. :) Can we take a consensus on that one?

Whoa there, I didn't "invent" this term.

are you proposing that we use the new invented term in an attempt to make the notable sources more NPOV? That somehow doesn't sound right.. :)

Could you please rephrase. The current meaning sounds like you think I'm trying to alter the sources that the article uses as references. Somehow that doesn't sound right. 68 stated a list of characteristics, and I replied with an objective and NPOV term that encompasses them properly. I was reluctant to even play that game, since it is almost asking a rhetorical question since the criterion was so specific to Sea Shepherd. In the interest of reaching a consensus, I gave an answer, and it seems that you may not find it acceptable. Is this accurate? Could you elaborate? — Mike :  tlk  07:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not mind restating. I did not mean to imply any foul play with the previous question. I was asking if instead of using the common term "Eco-Terrorism" that is currently used by the majority of law enforcement, with a specific agreed upon definition (and thus quite objective in my anon opinion) that we instead search for a new term not currently used by the community of law-enforcement, government and private agencies.. We could call them "violent direct action envoronmental protesters" We could call them "Politico-Environmental demolitinsists"(<-- my favorite), "millitant eco-protectors" we could call them anything we want really (and probably find some obscure reference to demonstrate that we weren't the first to come up with that term) but we'd have to stray from the common used word that describes someone who blows junk up for environmental reasons and for some reason, avoiding using the word eco-terrorist because we don't want to adopt the POV that the government might be taking.. seems kinda like forcing a false NPOV (which is really not neutral IMHAO). I mean I get what you're saying, that you believe the word is inherrantly Subjective but I strongly disagree, believing it to be quite objective (when you look at the definition). But I tend to think that if the phrase "Ship sinker" is POV, well there's nothing we can (nor should) do to protect an organization from well documented intentional ship sinkings. It's not our job to fluffy up their image. I'm not accusing you of doing that. I'm saying that if we take your proposed actions (creating a less mean sounding and less relevant category) that the effect would be us protecting them from the flood of media categorizing them with something else. I hope this didn't come across offensive, I like to use humor but don't like to be insulting. Hope I'm making sense. :) Peace and happy editing. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 18:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

_________________________________________

Republican Senator Scott McInnis is an ardent advocate of laws to control 'eco-terrorism' in the United States. In a recent interview he was asked by a journalist; Should these groups be lumped in the same category as what, you know, we have come to know after 9/11 as terrorists?

McInnis replied: Sure, absolutely, I mean they are the number one, the eco-terrorists, these types of organisations, you know, ELF some of these type of groups, absolutely, they are the number one domestic terror threat we have. Those people that flew that airplane in, they weren't in to die for money, they were in to send a message, disobedience, civil disobedience.

Note two things: people and groups accused of eco-terrorism are terrorists , the same as the 9/11 attack; and McInnis equates civil disobedience with terrorism of the 9/11 type. Ron Arnold, who created the word 'eco-terrorism' (not covered in the very bad Wikipedia eco-terrorism article), makes the same point. In a 1985 article he wrote: Ecoterror crimes range from misdemeanors—such as criminal trespass and obstruction—to felony equipment sabotage, bombings, and attempted murder. He reinforced that definition in testimony to the US Congress in 2000 when he said, ...ecoterrorism, that is, a crime committed to save nature. These crimes generally take the form of equipment vandalism but may include package bombs, blockades using physical force to obstruct workers from going where they have a right to go, and invasions of private or government offices to commit the crime of civil disobedience. So you can see, Mr. Chairman, the range of ecoterror crimes spans the most violent felonies of attempted murder to misdemeanor offenses, such as criminal trespass, but they are all crimes. In the conservative view, any act in opposition to business enterprises that involve the natural world is terrorism.

Categories label. The definition of 'category' is: a class or division of people or things having shared characteristics. — ORIGIN Greek kategoria “statement, accusation”. (Oxford English Dictionary). Categorising a group like Sea Shepherd is accusing them, labelling them and their members, as terrorists. The category is inherently not neutral, it labels groups and the people who are their members as terrorists in the same way that the category 'terrorist' did. The word 'eco-terrorism' is a portmanteau word that combines 'ecological' and 'terrorism'. It is a political word used to label environmental groups as terrorists.

In the UK, if Greenpeace (as they have) entered an agricultural plot and uprooted plants being used for research into genetically-modified organisms as a protest, they would be charged with trespass and, possibly, criminal damage. In the US they would be called 'eco-terrorists'. That is, as terrorists.

Labelling a group or an individual as a terrorist is a way of playing on people's fears. As Professor Sharon Beder notes: Propaganda aims to “persuade not through the give-and-take of argument or debate, but through the manipulation of symbols and of our most basic human emotions.” There are a number of basic techniques identified by the Institute of Propaganda Analysis, many of which are used in public relations. Two examples of these are “name-calling” and “glittering generalities”. “Name-calling” involves labelling an idea or a group of people so as to get others to reject them or treat them negatively without evidence being put forward to support such a label. (Global Spin: The Corporate Assault on Environmentalism page 122). The word 'eco-terrorism' is a propaganda word that labels groups and people as terrorists.

This technique was used by the public relations firm Ketchum Communications when it advised the Chlorox Corporation when it faced protests from Greenpeace. The advice was to run a campaign labelling Greenpeace as terrorists by using the word 'eco-terrorist'. Labels such as “extremist” or “terrorist” are examples of the propaganda technique of name calling ... It is, according to Penny Cass, an attempt to activate preconceptions and stereotypes already held by the public. “Category-based expectancies define a group in such a way as to predict future behaviour and to interpret ambiguous information in the shadow of pre-existing stereotypes”'. (Global Spin: The Corporate Assault on Environmentalism page 134). The list of sources that call Sea Shepherd 'eco-terrorists' is nothing more than name-calling and amounts to nothing more than an attempt to categorise the group as terrorists, which is what the category 'eco-terrorism' does.

For example, Japanese whaling interests first started out by calling Sea Shepherd 'vigilantes' then 'pirate-terrorists' then, after a Western public relations firm was hired, settled on the perjorative term 'eco-terrorists'. As Roescke points out, Today, Americans tend to have a heightened, almost Pavlovian, sensitivity to any use of the word “terrorist”.(Roeschke, J.E. (2009). Eco-terrorism and Piracy on the High-seas: Japanese whaling and the rights of private groups to enforce international conservation law in neutral waters. Villanova Law Review 20 pp. 99-136). He suggests that the Japanese whaling interests use this word to gain a negative image of Sea Shepherd in the US. He points out that laws concerning 'eco-terrorism' exist only in the US and, as such, there is no 'eco-terrorism' outside of the US. Outside of the US, the word only exists as a label used by vested interests and conservative (right-wing) anti-environmentalists to paint environmental protesters as terrorists to try and isolate them from public sympathy.

By using the category 'eco-terrorism' Wikipedia is labelling groups and the people who are members of these groups as terrorists, which goes against WP:TERRORIST and against the reasons for the decisions made in the cases of the former categories 'terrorist' (see: CfD Terrorists) and 'war criminals' (see: Cfd war criminals). By using this category Wikipedia is using a word invented as a propaganda tool to marginalise and isolate groups and individuals engaged in environmental protest. By using this word as a category Wikipedia is using a term invented in and isolated to the US in law; it is not a recognised word in law anywhere else in the world and is only used outside of the US by vested interests, and their supporters, as a derogatory propaganda term. This is a violation of WP:NPOV and the WP:Worldwide view position.

I would ask that a person with the authority to do so to please nominate the category 'eco-terrorism' for CfD. As well, the article eco-terrorism is a poor article, deficient in fact and showing a POV bias so if someone with the authority to do so, could you please put the NPOV and factual dispute flags at the top of the article; they would be doing Wikipedia readers a good service. TranquillityBase ^Message 06:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Are the opinions of Japan, Canada and Norway no longer valid becauset they have "interets"? So any country who gets thier stuff blown up is not allowed to have a notable stance? And yes, terrorism, violence, millitancy, these are all words with negative connotation that suggests intentional destruction to make a point.. but isn't that exactly what the sources say ELF, ALF and SSCS do? Blow stuff up to make a point? It seems ReAAAALLY common sense to allow a category to adress the issue. It seems really POV to me to disallow that category when the word has a clear definition and is used by so many reputable sources. --35.12.54.53 (talk) 00:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course those governments are allowed to have a stance. Wikipedia can even report their stance ("The government of Japan has charged that...."), because we report facts about opinions (see WP:NPOV). What we don't do is to adopt those opinions as true. Therefore, to state as a fact that SSCS is engaged in eco-terrorism would violate NPOV. Governments are entitled to express opinions but are not entitled to have their opinions on controversial subjects enshrined in Wikipedia as fact simply because the opinion comes from a government.

If we thought it worthwhile to have a category like "Individuals or organizations who have been accused by at least one government or prominent NGO of being eco-terrorists", then we could include SSCS. We don't have such a category, though, and I see no reason we should.

It's no answer to say that Category:Eco-terrorism includes all articles of interest to the subject of eco-terrorism, not just articles about eco-terrorists. I don't notice anyone rushing to include Scott McInnis in the category, although by that logic he'd fit (see discussion above about his advocacy of legislation relating to supposed eco-terrorism). Plenty of people consider the government of France to be culpable in a specific act of eco-terrorism, namely the murder of Fernando Pereira. Try including Government of France in the category and see what happens. Let's be practical -- a huge number of readers would see that category and take it as Wikipedia's endorsement of the truth of the assertion that SSCS engages in eco-terrorism.

The trouble is that a category appears as a simple yes-or-no entry on the article's page. As MichaelLNorth mentioned, we can't put an asterisk on it. It's therefore a pretty blunt instrument for dealing with nuances and controversial subjects. The better approach instead is to omit the category and give a full presentation of the controversy in the article. Assuming proper sourcing, it's perfectly proper to say in the text of the article something like "The government of Japan has characterized Sea Shepherd as an 'eco-terrorist' organization." Of course, we would also report the facts about SSCS's side of the story. JamesMLane t c 04:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

So I went to the Scott Mcinnis page and I noticed that no where in his article did it mention actions taken against eco-terrorist or his contribution to the discussion on eco-terrorism.. otherwise I would have added him to the category Eco:terrorism. Because that's exactly how such a category should work. Unfortunately for this discussion though, eco-terrorism isn't such a big part of his story. I would love to add more opponents of eco-terrorism to that list though to make the list more comprehensive.. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 02:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC) I see Operation Backfire in the category which was an FBI mission and not an "eco-terrorist".

Editors have really tried to use a neutral tone to meet the guidelines of this project and to not offend supporters of the SSCS. Ideas proposed and implemented by editors who are admittedly not fans of the group include adding a disclaimer to and reorganizing the category. My position has been that it is a navigational tool and now it is properly labeled with consideration given to the most knee-jerk of readers. The use of the term in the article has even been kept to a minimum when the sources requested on the talk page show a decent amount of usage. The argument against it is clear, readers might jump to the conclusion that this label is the opinion of Wikipedia. To my knowledge, Wikipedia does not have an opinion. Contributors of this project use sources to present information. Sea Shepherd has been labeled by some for acts such as bombing and ramming their enemies in different industries in different countries. Scholars and the media have frequently commented on this label and if it is appropriate. We are simply doing the same. To not use this category prevents neutrality concerns.

The precedent set is also a concern if we do not use the category, is setting a building on fire (with nobody in it), spiking trees, and ripping down radio towers "terrorism" when done by another group referenced in this discussion? Is it for us to decide (it could be argued that they are not causing injuries and simply fighting for what they believe in) if it is or do we simply go by the sources?Cptnono (talk) 03:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It's been a few days since I posted in this topic (took a little break for perspective), so I'll mention that I'm replying to this comment from 68. I didn't intend to imply foul play, just that I was unclear as to what you meant.

• You assert that the common term "eco-terrorism" has a well-defined definition that is widely accepted by "the majority of law enforcement". I'm surprised that you haven't brought up this point before, since our discussion revolved around the subjectivity of the term "eco-terrorism". You even gave me a list of characteristics and asked me for an objective NPOV category, and I abliged. What is this widely-accepted definition? WP:TERRORIST is all about this. Your "terrorist" may be my "freedom fighter". It's really a "good guys" vs "bad guys" thing. Neither should be used, especially in a situation where you are asserting the term as fact (like -- a category). Mick Jagger, Martin Sheen, Darryl Hannah, Christian Bale, Anthony Kedis, Heath Ledger, Edward Norton and Pierce Brosnan have donated money to the organization, so they clearly don't share this apparent global consensus. The Discovery Channel profits from the organization's video footage (and I'm sure pays SSCS for it), so they clearly are not part of this global consensus. If we do decide to keep "eco-terrorist", shouln't someone go through all those celebrities' articles and note that they support terrorism (WP:POINT-violating joke)? Should The Discovery Channel be investigated, and their assets siezed?

• There are some high school troublemakers in my town that keyed a few gas guzzlers. Was this an act of "eco-terrorism", since they devalued property in the name of the environment?

• "Regular" terrorism has as a key tenet the use of fear to bring about political change. Do we have to figure out whether these kids were trying to strike fear into the hearts of SUV owners before labeling them as "eco-terrorists"?

• You say "it's not our job to fluffy up their image". I can only assume that when you say this, you are referring to the removal of the category from the article. Thus, it's continued presence on the article is sullying their image. This is not an appropriate use of categories, even if you believe that their image should be sullied to remain WP:NPOV.

• Finally, I ask that you acknowledge or at least consider two things. First, if this were a clear cut issue it would have been settled a long time ago. You would have spit out the widely agreed upon objective and NPOV definition of "eco-terrorism" and I would have shut up. This debate would never have gone on for multiple talk page sections and multiple NPOV Noticeboard discussions unless it was truly a contentious term. Second, I would like you to consider the option of simply un-tagging the article, instead of finding an "appropriate" replacement for the current category.

This seems to be reverting into an argument about whether SSCS is in fact appropriately deemed an "eco-terrorist" organization, by various definitions, press releases, statements, etc... Perhaps it's a good time to go back to the "Stupid People" abstract example?— Mike :  tlk  03:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Fluffy up their image is actually a pretty funny line. If they wanted a nice image they wouldn't be bragging about sinking ships. That really has nothing to do with it though. I can't reply for #68 but I do agree that this is not a clear cut issue. That is why the category got reworked. Even if it didn't it wouldn't mean that they shouldn't be included but that seemed like the right thing to do and I commend him for doing it. In regards to you shutting up, so many people on so many pages on such a contentious subject with so many recycled and modified arguments had no chance of working out perfect the first time viewing. As long as no one is trying to win (not even going to wikilink it since we are all big boys) and do what is best for the article and its readers I am happy. Also, what I said after #68 directly touches on some of what you just said so please read that if you skipped through to respond to an earlier point.Cptnono (talk) 07:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Cpt-- It's obviously still not a clear cut issue, even after whatever category reworking you're referring to (please give me a hint as to where I might read about this, so I can be better informed). We should all re-focus here. This isn't about whether SSCS is an "eco-terrorist" organization, it's about whether an "unqualified label", like the "Category:Stupid People" example, should be subjective and carry a POV along with it. Also, we should decide the point at which we escalate this in the WP:DR process. It feels like we're in limbo here, and there's no point in continuing this discussion if it's clear there will be no consensus. I'm not saying we're at that point yet, but there's a good chance that we'll find ourselves there soon — Mike :  tlk  14:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's another thing to think about. Labeling SSCS with "Category:Organizations comprised of stupid people" is, in essence, placing an unqualified (needing no elaboration or explanation) label, "Stupid people", on its members. Since WP:BLP applies to all content written about a person, throughout wikipedia, this guideline seems relevant:

From: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Categories

"Caution should be used in adding categories that suggest the person has a poor reputation (see false light). For example, Category:Criminals (or its subcategories) should only be added for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability; the incident has been published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal."

Also, it seems that another guideline speaks to how we should should properly "label" organizations

FROM: Wikipedia:Words_to_Avoid#Words_that_label

"Some words may be used to label a group from an outside perspective, even though these words are used in accordance with a dictionary definition. For example, 'The Peoples Temple is a cult, which...', 'The Ku Klux Klan is a racist organization.', 'Pedophilia is a sexual perversion...'. Such terms, even when accurate, often convey to readers an implied viewpoint: that of an outsider looking in and labeling as they see it. The fact that a term is accepted "outside" but not "inside" is a good indicator that it may not be neutral."

The guideline then provides possible solutions to fixing these types of problems

"There are at least three ways to deal with this: attribute the term to reliable sources, replace the label with information, or use a more neutral term."

Attributing the term to reliable sources is not an option with a category, since there is no mechanism by which a reference can be added. The last two options are to replace with information (I'm not sure how this would work in the context of a category), or to use a more neutral term.

— Mike :  tlk  15:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for responding to me Mike.. I'd like to adress the issues you wrote a little bit above.

• "You assert that.. "eco-terrorism".. definition.. is widely accepted.. I'm surprised that you haven't brought up this point before.." Actually the reason for me asking so many questions on why you felt it was subjective and to define Subjective and bringing up "number of sources", etc.. was my way of understanding why you thought it wasn't. The term used by the FBI, DoD and the majority of news outlets and government agencies is all comptatible. Folks who blow up other peoples stuff to make a point about the environment.. roughly. Sure there are other people who twist words around and put spin on things.. "You're a bad guy.. no YOU'RE a bad guy" but that's a separate issue becaue we're not using those incidents, we are using the double strong, 1. well accepted state of affairs, that they blow stuff up to make a point and 2. government agencies and experts in the field recognize the term as applicable.. (not just some yahoos with a blog saying "you are.. no YOU are".)
• ""Regular" terrorism has as a key tenet.." Good point with regular terrorism. But with eco-terrorism the target is not generally people. It's usually stuff. But that's not really our discussion because Eco-Terrorism is not the same thing as regular terrorism, nor is it treated the same by governments, etc.. Not our discussion though.
• "You say "it's not our job to fluffy up their image". "I am referring to the long history of 2 editors in removing anything potentially negative sounding from the article. It's part of the reason I got involved in the article. I was looking on wiki for more info on thier past actions and found what was close to a recruiting brochure. I didn't start editing the article from passion on the subject so much as the desire for an article that actually demonstrates the information that was available. I learned allot as soon as I started looking for sources. Every news source I started adding was deleted more times tha I could count with SOOOoo much arguing and bullying. Eventually though they had to give in because it's what the reputable experts and notable sources were saying. They removed every instance of the word "eco-terrosim" from the page so many times qupteing every wiki policy they could link from "PSuedo science" to BLP to NPOV to seriously everything.. even getting a well sourced article took practically WEEEKs to establish. So what we're looking at now is the tail end of fighting POV pushing. So when I say fluffing the image up I'm referring the long battle to actually get reputable and sourced info in the article that didn't come directly from their webpage. :)
• I will most certainy acknowledge that this is not a clear cut issue and I respect your back and forth with me and I respect your stance that the word should not be used in a category. I see that as your good faith interpretation of the policy. With others (see above rant) ^ I have been steadily coming to the conclusion that anything that would stall a negative sounding remark will be used in good faith or not.. after having witnessed edit wars, deletions and personal attacks on myself I've started to see the edits of some as less than well intended for wiki, just well intended for the beloved org. I do not apply that thinking to you though and am completely enjoying your well laid out viewpoints. I still disagree with finding other wordings for the category for two reasons. 1. Other wordings mean different things and will include articles not directly related to eco-terrorism. For instance radical environmentalists will include green peace, vegans who radically abandon "normal" life and other radicals who may not be blowing stuff up. 2. Any other wording will not be as widely used and could be confusing. There are only two phrases I have heard used by governments for people who blow up other peoples' stuff to make an ecological point. "Eco-terrorists" and "Single issue terrorists"(of the ecological variety or something simmilar) Single issue terrorism is not as widely used and also includes other varieties. I believe there is not other acceptable word for this category for those two reasons. Peace and happy editing. :) --68.41.80.161 (talk) 01:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Mike, you wrote above what I think is the important part here: From: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Categories "Caution should be used in adding categories that suggest the person has a poor reputation (see false light). For example, Category:Criminals (or its subcategories) should only be added for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability; the incident has been published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal."

I think we've demonstrated in the article that most of their notabillity comes from international accusations of eco-terrorism and that it is well covered in reliably third-party sources. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 01:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Terrillja just removed it and I revertedd. I won't edit war over it but thought it was appropriate since consensus does not look like remove and the eco-terrorism category has received the appropriate information to let the reader know what they need to know.Cptnono (talk) 23:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

And he reverted. I think this is inappropriate considering the (WP:BOLD) practice and the exceptional amount of effort to clarify this to the reader. Per my message on his talk page: "The edit warring finally stopped on this page some time ago and consensus seems to be going in the direction of keep. Mike is still active and has given up his opposition (got bored, was OK with what was done, or had no rebuttal) All measures have been taken to make it crystal clear to the reader what the categorization is and all info in the prose is done properly. If you haven't had a chance to read through the edit history, multiple talk page discussions, POV noticeboard, and the cleaned-up catagory you should." I won't revert but would appreciate it if this was addressed sooner than later.Cptnono (talk) 00:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is a quick recap for Terrillja

• They have been called eco-terrorists by multiple officials in separate governments, scholars have discussed the issue in depth, books have been written about it, newspapers and other media mention it often.
• The category now has a giant disclaimer that you should read laying out that the category is not a label assigned by Wikipedia but a tool for correlating subjects in the topic for the reader.
• The group has done more than what is seen on Whale Wars (bombing vessels, destruction of property, etc)Cptnono (talk) 00:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Regia Anglorum

This page is still reading like an advert. Very little Encyclopedic information, all just comment and possibly original research. The primary source is their own webpage. Can someone with some authority have a look please. Noble demetia (talk) 12:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Tamar.com - self promotion only

I did not want to do anything to this entyr, but it appears to be blatant self promotion. An seo compnay that prides itself on inbound links putting it's own links on Wikipedia - there is not benefit to this company being listed. Any company of a reasonable size could find a few flowery press articles. The whole entry is designed to game the search engines - not inform the user. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Insuranceuk2009 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Steven Cohen (soccer)

The article regarding Steven Cohen (soccer) does not seem to be neutral particularly in the Controversy section. The reason why I believe this is because of the selective citing which paints a skewed picture towards an anti-Cohen belief. The page cites a number of anti-Cohen and boycotting websites that have valid points, but fails to use sources that are more neutral. Unfortunately the article is locked so I personally can't do anything. There are articles that are more neutral from the LA Daily News and the Examiner.

http://www.examiner.com/x-4128-Boston-Pro-Soccer-Examiner~y2009m8d27-Steven-Cohen-talks-about-threats-boycott-of-WSD-and-Fox-Football-FoneIn-sponsors-new-radio-show
http://www.dailynews.com/sports/ci_13204726

Thank you for any help fixing this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oar39 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Golan Heights

NPOV review is requested on this article; also have concerns about WP:UNDUE with the insertion of massive quotes like here. --Nsaum75 (talk) 08:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Amygdalin

This article does not seem to be particularly neutral, and in fact seems biased against the substane Laetrile as an anti-cancer treatment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.26.219.98 (talk) 12:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

That would be because Laetrile is not considered a viable cancer treatment. There should be in that article a number of high-quality review articles discussing this - are they omitted? Neutral point of view requires us to reflect the totality of sources accurately and weighted according to their reliability. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

A recent Cochrane review and a white paper from the National Cancer Institute are both cited. Under the guideline Reliable sources (medicine-related articles), that is pretty much the last word barring some very exciting new research. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Palm oil

The Palm oil entry is spun in such a way as to de-emphasise the negative aspects of palm oil, particularly health issues.

• The oil's less unsaturated nature is presented primarily as an advantage since "it can withstand extreme deepfry heat and is resistant to oxidation"
• The Social section reads like propaganda
• The Blood cholesterol controversy section quotes studies including a WHO report in the first paragraph, then dedicates three paragraphs to an alternate viewpoint from sources such as the Malaysian Palm Oil Promotion Council

The page is already semi-protected, but should at least have a notice at the top about the unbalanced view it presents.

—60.242.143.81 (talk) 09:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Getting some academic refs. Give me a day or two to get my ducks in a row and I'll come lend a hand.Simonm223 (talk) 03:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Think there really should be some mention of the threat posed by palm oil production to the orangutan. This is noteworthy enough for there to have been a UN report on it [3]. --FormerIP (talk) 21:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Shinwar Shooting or Shinwar Massacre

This article is factually incorrect, defamatory, and libelous to the Marines of MarSOC-Fox company who were exonerated at a Court of Inquiry which found the Marines “acted appropriately and in accordance with the rules of engagement and tactics, techniques and procedures in place at the time in response to a complex attack.”

The Court of Inquiry concluded that there was no evidence to suggest the level of force was unjustified and recommended everyone in the March 4, 2007 convoy be awarded the Combat Action Ribbon and that a sergeant injured during the blast receive the Purple Heart. Following are references:

[1] “Marine Corps unit cleared in Afghan shootout” http://articles.latimes.com/2008/may/24/nation/na-convoy24 [2] “Marines who killed civilians were attacked” http://www.examiner.com/a-744305~Marines_who_killed_civilians_were_attacked.html [3] “Secret Report Criticized Army General” http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=28460 [4] “Lawmaker: Investigate general who booted MSOC” http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/10/marine_jones_msoc_071003/ [5] “Congressman tells Army: Stop MarSOC comments” http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2007/05/marine_marsoc_jones_070516/ [6] “Spec-ops Marines tell their side at inquiry” www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=127150 [7] “Marines were shot at, Army expert testifies” http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jan/26/nation/na-inquiry26 [8] “Witness: Casings Tossed in Afghan Deaths” http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Jan28/0,4670,AfghanMarineShooting,00.html [9] “Did Marines go wild, or simply follow the rules?” http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-warfog5feb05,0,2046631,print.story

I have tried twice to correct this, but it reverts back to the original libelous copy, which violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view. I see in history several others have attempted to correct the article:

(cur) (prev) 18:22, 18 May 2009 Randy2063 (talk | contribs) m (9,032 bytes) (moved Shinwar Massacre to March 4, 2007 Shooting in Shinwar, Afghanistan: NPOV -- not ruled to be a massacre) (undo) cur) (prev) 02:56, 6 July 2008 Randy2063 (talk | contribs) (6,014 bytes) (rv -- I did read it -- a "war crime" has to be intentional; I don't see a prosecution under the War Crimes Act) (undo) (cur) (prev) 10:18, 12 May 2009 64.39.139.181 (talk) (9,043 bytes) (This so-called "massacre" was undisputably an accident. Does the author want to suggest that Marines are murderers? I changed the opening sentence; the entire article is hardly useful. Emckenny7 (talk) 15:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)) (undo) (cur) (prev) 02:20, 9 November 2008 Randy2063 (talk | contribs) (6,101 bytes) (rv no legitimate legal body has yet ruled that this was either a deliberate killing of civilians or a technically war crime) (undo)

I ask that this article be deleted. (Emckenny7 (talk) 15:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC))

Note: The attack took place in Bati Kot, Nangahar, Afghanistan. Shinwar refers to a tribe and an area 20 miles from where this attack on the MarSOC Marines t took place. --Emckenny7 (talk) 15:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emckenny7 (talk • contribs)

The article in question is 2007 Shinwar shooting, for anybody who wants to find it -- also I've moved your talk page section to the bottom of the page, because people will have trouble finding it at the top. Thanks for bringing this issue here, that's the right approach. Let's now give people a day or so to look this over and check the sources etc, okay? There has been some edit warring in the article, and continuing that won't be productive -- let's try to find a consensus on the talk page, if possible. Looie496 (talk) 18:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I've taken a shot at addressing the issues here. It wouldn't hurt to have more eyes on this. Looie496 (talk) 17:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Yeago

Yeago (talk · contribs) is repeatedly removing [4][5][6] any analysis of health care and illegal immigration from Barack Obama speech to joint session of Congress, September 2009. In particular, Yeago is deleting analysis from Annenberg Public Policy Center's FactCheck[7] and PolitiFact.com, which is published by the St. Petersburg Times.[8] The findings of FactCheck and PolitiFact regarding Obama's speech and Joe Wilson's reaction have been covered by many reliable sources. For example, staff writer John Ward of The Washington Times covered the FactCheck report on Obama's speech[9] and staff writer Ben Szobody of The_Greenville_News discussed PolitiFact's analysis. Those are only two examples of secondary source coverage. Nevertheless, Yeago justifies deleting this material because "the content represents a non-neutral dissection and gives undue weight to the illegal immigrant aspect of the healthcare debate".[10] However, the topic of illegal immigration and health care was part of Obama's speech, and Google's news archive shows that it has been discussed in every major reliable source that reported on the speech. A general overview of the topic in relation to the speech can be found in The New York Times by David M. Herszenhorn.[11] According to Herszenhorn:

The question of how illegal immigrants would fare under a proposed overhaul of the health care system came into sharp focus on Wednesday during President Obama’s speech to Congress. Representative Joe Wilson, Republican of SouthCarolina, shouted “You lie!” when Mr. Obama insisted that his health care overhaul would not insure illegal immigrants.

Yeago maintains that it is NPOV violation to include any material on the subject, while my position is that it is a NPOV violation to exclude it. Viriditas (talk) 01:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Any material would be fine, however, the sources in question are used to corral the reader into immediate disagreement with the outburst. I am attempting to bring this article into synchronization with the Joe Wilson article, which is also plagued with politically motivated edits. These articles are not forums for healthcare debate analysis. Sources should deal and elaborate upon the phrase in question: "You Lie!". There is no evidence that the sources which the complaining editor is arguing for have anything to do with Wilson's motivations for the outburst. It is synthesis to present them in the manner they have been.Yeago (talk) 01:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The sources are not being used to "corral the reader" into any disagreement, and one of the sources that you removed, (NPR) provided a competing POV that supported the Republican opinion that Obama's health care proposal provided coverage for illegal aliens. The article on the speech does not have to be "synchronized" with the Joe Wilson article, nor does it have to conform with your unique POV. Your use of the word "plague" to describe POV that differs from your own personal, political beliefs, tells me you don't understand how Wikipedia works. There is no "synthesis" being presented here at all, and as the sources above demonstrate, the topic has been discussed widely in the media. I appreciate that you have self-appointed yourself as the defender of Joe Wilson (U.S. politician), but Wikipedia isn't a battleground or a place for you to promote the interests of political figures. This is an encyclopedia where we cover notable topics that are sourced to reliable sources. Many sources on the topic of Obama's speech analyze the immigration coverage question, which only received the amount of coverage that it did because Joe Wilson called Obama a liar during the speech over his disagreement with the President's position. This is relevant and topical to the article, and the sources make that clear. Contrary to what you claim, the article is not about Wilson, or the motivation for Wilson's outburst. I think you are confused about the purpose of Wikipedia and what the terms "non-neutral", "undue weight", and "synthesis" mean. Unless you can demonstrate that there is actual synthesis taking place here, I must continue to believe that you are POV pushing. Viriditas (talk) 02:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Disagreed, per above.Yeago (talk) 02:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

That's not good enough. Show me the synthesis, the non-neutrality, and the undue weight. Otherwise, I will conclude that it does not exist. Viriditas (talk) 02:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Already have. This is a noticeboard and we have both weighed in. Please allow the normal mechanism of oversight to join in without further regurgitations and repetitions.Yeago (talk) 02:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

You haven't shown anything. You just made assertions without evidence. Viriditas (talk) 02:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep, whatever you say.Yeago (talk) 02:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

You said, "the sources in question are used to corral the reader into immediate disagreement with the outburst". I said and showed that the sources and statements from FactCheck and PolitiFact were represented by secondary sources, and I showed that you removed a source from NPR supporting Joe Wilson's position. So, your statement in defense of your edits is not only false, but a violation of NPOV. How do you respond to that? Viriditas (talk) 03:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Shhhh already. We get it. You disagree. You've explained yourself. Gotchacool.Yeago (talk) 07:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you Americans please just get yourselves a public option for health care and stop making it into WWIII that the scary Centrist-Capitalist President wants to give poor people a chance not to die young of preventable illness? Seriously it's getting boring.Simonm223 (talk) 03:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Spoken like a true Canadian. :-) Have you spent much time in South Carolina, Simonm223? Viriditas (talk) 03:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Totally off topic, but I must certainly agree. The horror!Yeago (talk) 04:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted the current private insurance system allows illegal aliens to purchase insurance. The change under a public option would be the exclusion of illegal aliens from the public system. (The ref for this is in the NYT blog post). --Jatkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 09:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted as an opinion, attributed per NPOV to a reliable source, in direct relationship to the speech. Viriditas (talk) 10:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Real Clear Politics Bias in the lead

A few editors have been trying to insist that because they found a couple of sources that state Real Clear Poltics to be right-leaning that they can label the organization as such. I initially removed the section because there are far more sources that either make no distinction or make a statement of non-partisan or independent. I have discussed this at length in the talk page and most recently here with little success. In my most recent attempt I gave several specific examples pointing to reporting of them being independent or non-partisan to no avail. There seems to be a belief that if a majority of editors there think they are biased than that is what needs to be in the lead.

I have done numerous searches and have only been able to find a few instances of any mention of right-leaning or conservative in any MSM over the history of thier existance. To me this smacks of a fringe belief and original research as well as a netural point of view violation. We cannot simply go around and say a valid business is biased regardless of our personal belief. Arzel (talk) 15:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I have added a list of organizations that label RCP here to futher show the violation of NPOV that is being pushed onto this page. Arzel (talk) 03:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Death panel

The article had until recently been a redirect to America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009#Living wills because it referred to Sarah Palin's charaterization of this bill as requiring the Federal government to cut medical services by so requiring a "death panel" made up of bureaucrats to decide who should live and who should die. The article section discusses the issue in some detail.

Now some editors have re-written the Death Panel article treating the subject as something tangible and existant in many countries, including the U.S. The article wrongfully stretches the interpretation of the term "Death panel to NICE (which never hears indiviual cases when determining what expenses will be covered by government in the public health system), and even to death penalty appeals processes in criminal cases, and to bodies set up for the purposes of legal assisted suicide. None of these is what Palin what referring to!

To my mind, this article re-write is merely attempting to imply that Palin's death panels do exist and to segreggate the discussion of "Death Panels" from America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009#Living wills where the truth is actually detailed.

Clearly these panels do not exist in the way Palin use the term and it is wrong to imply that they do.

Opinions re POV please!--Hauskalainen (talk) 18:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Redirect was appropriate. I've restored it for you.Simonm223 (talk) 18:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

"Death Panels" have nothing to do with living wills. To imply otherwise is flagrant POV pushing, and misrepresentation of fact. — Mike :  tlk  19:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The redirect to America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009#Living wills is bizzare. If anything, it should be redirected to Political positions of Sarah Palin#Health care. --Evb-wiki (talk) 21:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree. This is about Sarah Palin's definition of a death panel, so it should redirect to Political positions of Sarah Palin#Health care. Redirecting to America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009#Living wills is violating NPOV and is misleading. Is there an article covering conservative opposition to the health care reform? It may redirect to a section of such an article then, as Palin is not the only person talking about death panels.  Cs32en  21:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead, I won't revert if the redirect is changed to the above.Simonm223 (talk) 22:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

With respect the last two editors have been involved in an attempt to move the nonsense that was in the death panels article to a new article List of panels making life or death decisions where thy hope to pervert the purpose of Wikipedia. I am confused by the AfD process so if anyone knows how to get rid of the nonsense article List of panels making life or death decisions please do so. It is WP:POV and WP:OR and is being done to link spam. The redirect back to the Palin article is clearly intended by Evb-wiki and  Cs32en  to avoid linking the false allegation of a "Death Panel" to the article about the very bill that Palin alleges introduced the idea. The section where it was directed of course clearly debunks the idea. I will ensure the article reverts to the proper place!

Your accusation is offensive. Please assume good faith. A simple step-by-step guide to creating an AfD is here. --Evb-wiki (talk) 22:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

And done.Simonm223 (talk) 22:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm confused why this content is being ridiculed as nonsense. I had 12 WP:RS's until User:Hauskalainen started blanking content, prior to submitting what he left behind for WP:Speedy deletion. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 22:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Which redirect?

As the editor who created the article as a redirect, I obviously agree that the anon IP's content about capital punishment, etc. is inappropriate. The term should be a redirect. The issue of the target of the redirect would be better discussed at Talk:Death panel but has progressed here, so I'll chime in.

My original redirect was to America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009#Reimbursement for counseling about living wills. If a redirect to a "Living wills" section seems bizarre to Evb-wiki, let me explain that the section title (and hence the redirect) have since been restored to "Reimbursement for counseling about living wills". The reason to redirect to that section is that, when Palin was challenged about where these alleged "death panels" were to be found in the bill, her spokesperson responded by pointing to this provision. [12]

I don't think the redirect gives credence to Palin's ridiculous charge. It's somewhat better than a redirect to Political positions of Sarah Palin#Health care because a reader who types in "Death panel" is more likely to be looking for information about what's in the bill than for information about what Sarah Palin thinks. JamesMLane t c 02:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Palin's argument about death panels has a lot less to do with living wills and a lot more to do with end of life counseling issues that have appeared in a few of the proposals submitted in Congress. It would be erroneous to assume that this concern is Palin's alone..though she has been more visibly associated with the comment than others have.--MONGO 02:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that others besides Palin have addressed this issue, which reinforces my view that the redirect should be to the article about the bill rather than to an article about Palin. JamesMLane t c 04:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

In that case, perhaps Health_care_reform_debate_in_the_United_States#Arguments_regarding_rationing_of_care would be more appropriate. That would put it in the article about the debate, where IMO it really belongs. --Evb-wiki (talk) 19:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Igor Panarin

Issues with WP:DUE given to primary source material espousing views of this fringe theorist in a way that causes the article to be a soap box for theorist's views. Experts in neutral phrasing needed to help preening out peacockery and generally correcing various neutrality problems. Simonm223 (talk) 14:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Rashidun Caliphate article: not sure about neutrality

I was just reading the article about the Rashidun Caliphate. It seems to be written from a religious persective, and biased towards certain individuals and against others. I could not see verifiable sources to support the information in the introduction and in the section Early history: Succession of Abu Bakr, which features the particularly worrisome sentence: 'The chief cause of the apostasy was lack of true faith.' This does not sound like an encyclopedic article to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siriusregent (talk • contribs) 09:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Philbox17

Would you please block User:Philbox17 account, he keeps deleting cited information from the article Réseau de Résistance du Québécois. This person is practicing article ownership, which can be confirmed by reading the editors user talk page User talk:Philbox17 and the lengthy problems this editor has had with this article. I believe this editor is a member of Réseau de Résistance du Québécois and lacks a NPOV. Thank you. 76.64.152.111 (talk) 20:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Aquatic ape hypothesis

The article violates the rules of a neutral point of view, because the author is biased against the theory, states his own opinion and ignores recent archeological evidence in favour of the AAH.--87.188.197.220 (talk) 22:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I think this article falls within the domain of WP:FRINGE. Looie496 (talk) 22:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

"far-left" and "far-right" at English Defence League and elsewhere

I've been quietly WikiGnoming the mangled/incomplete/mis-linked citations at English Defence League. The content editors, in the meantime, have been swinging the content like a pendulum here. There are basically two forms of the article, depending from who edited it last. The first has no mention of "far right" against the subject, but calls all of its opponents (a government minister, a mainstream U.K. political party, and so forth) "far left" or "left wing" or "Trotskyite". The second has no mention of "far left" against the latter, and calls the EDL "far right". Editors with experience of applying the NPOV to stop an article swinging between such diametrically opposed extremes are invited to address the article and contribute to the talk page discussion.

And when you're done with that, there's another problem with "far right" labels at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#zombietime as well. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 02:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• You make a good point here. I think the sources should indicate the coverage. It's easy to source the EDL being far-right, that's how they are described by all the news media. Unite Against Fascism is self-evidently of the same cloth as the Anti Nazi league and of course has its roots in the political left. I haven't seen any reliable sources for it being far-left, though, and the editor who wants to call it a "front" for one specific party has failed to make his case thus far without resorting to novel interpretations of the sources. Guy (Help!) 06:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
• I just made some changes, when government ministers who criticise a group have to be labeled as "Left wing" we have a POV problem. At the moment I think its manageable, but we might have to request semi-protection or a 1RR rule if it gets out of hand. --Snowded ^TALK 08:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Presumably others have noticed the user name of one of the editors involved, in the context of this. Hmm. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, one learns something new and depressing each day --Snowded ^TALK 13:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• There is another, IMO even more important, point against any labeling of "far-(left|right)": what is considered an extreme on a political scale is very much a matter of entirely subjective social perspective. From a typical Québecois point of view, for instance, the American political spectrum ranges from "Moderate right" to "OMGWTF extreme right nutcases" with nary a centrist or leftist anywhere in sight. Any such labeling is fraught with, at best, systemic bias and is at worst nothing more than political posturing. In other words: POV by definition and thus to be avoided systematically. — Coren ^(talk) 13:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

That's nonsense. Such labels for positions on the political spectrum are routinely used and quantified in the real world. NPOV policy means we can't slant coverage of topics, but if the terms are accurate to real world coverage then there are no POV problems. Your argument seems to be in line with claims made by others in the past that we can never use terms like "terrorist," "conspiracy theory" and so forth because someone somewhere might object, which is not true. DreamGuy (talk) 13:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying that the labels are always meaningless outside the very specific society that applied them. Obama, for instance, has been called a communist by (some) americans over a healthcare proposal which, here, would be dismissed as right wing drivel. Those labels are not quantified, because they are not quantifiable: they are always relative to the one placing the label. Describe, don't label, and you've solved the problem. — Coren ^(talk) 13:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree, also the use of labels to explain away criticism etc is a common example of a POV edit on WIkipedia. If a government minister says something (to take a case here) then their political party is not relevant. Material needs to be cited in context. --Snowded ^TALK 13:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The term far-right has a meaning in positioning them relative to the rest of the English political spectrum. EDL are to the right of the BNP, who are to the right of the Tory Party. There are no real absolutes in these terms for sure - what is now considered the political centre would have been considered the political right in the 1940s. But as a marker of relative position, it has value. Incidentally, I find the parroting of their "open to all" claim rather uncomfortable. It is pretty plain that no Muslim or Jew would feel comfortable in the company of these people and the "English way of life" they claim to espouse is not even vaguely Christian, either. Guy (Help!) 20:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I think its important to note that Britain is currently under the regime of a party which openly describes itself on its website as a "democratic socialist party". I think its fair to mention that Denham by virtue of being a member of a self-proclaimed socialist party, is to the left of the spectrum and that is the point of view which his comment comes from. Currently certain people want to remove any mention of his political party from the article at all. - Yorkshirian (talk) 14:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

By that argument, any mention of current official UK government policy on any subject should be prefaced by the words "left wing". Of course you're entitled to that view - but it is not at all relevant to the process of constructing an encyclopedia. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

In matters of foreign relations and so on, perhaps not. But in a civil conflict between Christians and Trotskyites, the fact that Denham is himself a socialist politician, is explicitly relevent in this specific case to present a NPOV. Its as relevent as saying that Thatcher was a member of the Conservative Party in an article about the miners strikes during her administration. - Yorkshirian (talk) 14:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

And I have no doubt that according to your own personal internal model the National Socialist German Workers' Party was also a bunch of Trotskyites. After all, they use the S word in their name, and there can surely be no more damning term in the whole political lexicon, can there? But once again you use the term Christian as if it were the opposite of Trotskyite. I am a Christian, I have been in a minor position of authority within the Anglican church, and I fail to see where you get this idea from. The Anglican church contains very many people whose political views are to the left of centre, I would go so far as to say that the Christian position on most tings is centre-left, with Nulabour well of to the right of it. The Political Compass agrees. Guy (Help!) 20:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

uncorroborated claim of racism

Tiye#Monuments starts in with the uncorroborated claim that Tiye is not well-known because of her Nubian origin, stated as "her having been a black woman". While I cannot offer any contradictory evidence concerning the biases of Egyptology, I challenge this statement as 'fact not in evidence'. While I feel that the language itself is superfluously inflammatory and/or overgeneralizing and/or technically inaccurate, I reserve specific judgment in anticipation of needed citation and correction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.231.133 (talk • contribs) 17:14, September 17, 2009

I'm taking a look, but it looks like this article has some issues. Irbisgreif (talk) 21:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Sungazing

The article for Sungazing was edited 22 times by User:Skinwalker in a one hour period. During which he/she removed any explanation of the practise itself, ie. when to do the practise and any safety guidelines stated by known sungazers. With this done, the way has been paved for the article to take on his opinions of a practise that he seems to know little about (ie. safety guidelines, the actual process of what to do and when to sungaze etc...) As is seen with the statement "The practice of sungazing is dangerous". this is then followed by criticism of the practise with out any explanation of the process itself.
He/she has taken out entire sections of the process of how to sungaze saying 'wikipedia is not a how to section', yet on the page for Driving, room is given on how to instruct somone to drive, optimising driving performance. The same is true with sungazing, the safety lies in the proper process, with that removed any opinionated view can be propogated. No one drives 90mph out of their drive way and the same goes with sungazing, there are safety guidelines and limits...
Another example of the opinionated editing, User:Skinwalker writes, "it has undergone analysis - staring at the sun is bad for you". i agree that staring at anything is bad for you, but if the practise entailed "staring at the sun" it would be called "sun staring".
It seems this editors opinion comes first and then the rest of the article is to follow.
i would like to note that the criticism section has went untouched.
There is almost nothing left of the original article, and its current state does not allow for any genuine and legitimate information on the process and practise of Sungazing. i was wondering if someone could give any advice on how to stop these edits or how to procede.

Thanks.

J929 (talk) 01:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• I suspect the problem is that Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Guy (Help!) 20:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Sungazing is a practise, much like yoga Asanas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asana Wikipedia discusses some techniques on this page (Common Practices). What is the difference? If sungazing is practised within 'safe limits' as prescribe by knowledgable and established sungazers, it is a legitimate practise. The results are secondary. Skinwalker says its a fringe subject, yet there are plenty of people who sungaze and many who practise yogic asanas. if everyone who pulled a muscle or in someway made a postural mistake resulting in uncomfort doing asanas, the reports would be too much to publish, yet Skinwalker dwells on his results putting an umbrella like opinion on every aspect of the practise. Staring at the sun at noon and gazing at a setting sun (ie 5-10 minutes ) before it sets are two completely different actions, with different results/consequences.

J929 (talk) 17:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Réseau de Résistance du Québécois

Hi, members of the Réseau de Résistance du Québécois keep deleting information from the article about their organization. These RRQ members do not have a NPOV. One guy keeps creating sockpuppets and shows up a few times per day. Can you send some administrators over to monitor this article. A similar issue happened on the Scientology article a while back. Perhaps, you can just block all IP's that start with "70" that would probably stop the sockpuppet. Thank you. 76.64.152.111 (talk) 20:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

This is at ANI, so it shouldn't be dealt with here. Looie496 (talk) 18:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Chile's race

User User:Kusamanic first erased informations which reports that White people are a minority in Chile, and replaced them with other informations that Whites are majority[13] [14]. Then, I re-posted the information that Whites are minority, and I also posted a genetic resource that conclude that people from Chile are usually Mestizo (Amerindian and White mixture). The user is once again erasing these informations, and saying that I should use the talk page (I did use the talk page, but the user did not even answer me there)[15].

It seems they are racially biased edits from this user. Please, opinions about it. Opinoso (talk) 21:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I suppose the issue is whether the majority population in Chile are white, Mestizo or both? --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

First of all: the Chilean government does not ask their citizens about race. Then, any "study" reporting figures and percentages about "races" in Chile are based on nothing. However, there are sites on the internet giving different percentages about Whites in Chile. The User:Kusamanic choose to post only the sources that claim that Whites are majority, and he erased the sources that claim that Mestizos are majority. Now he is erasing my edits. This is obviously a racially biased post. Opinoso (talk) 22:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, User:Opinoso doesn't act in good faith in each case. It imposes his personal opinion for on the mentioned sources and he has an appreciation preconceived on the population from Chile according to his point of view like we can observe here. ←Of course my personal opinion is not a source, but I have been to Chile myself and there's no way that 60% are Whites. Even in the areas of "German settlement" of Southern Chile, the local population looks more Amerindian than anything else→.This not only happens to the articles Chile it also has more than enough with other what has cost him multiple blockades for not respecting sources.[16] it is necessary to remark that this multiple war of editions on the part of the User:Opinoso began here. When I don't respect the mentioned sources and delete from of white population's category to Chile in the southern cone edition [17]. I reverted him, as we can observe here: [18], from today it began to follow my editions. This i denominate it sabotage by User:Opinoso, when harassing me and to follow my editions [19][20][21][22][23]. Without respecting the sources where they write of a white majority in Chile that varies from 52,7% and 90% to the population´s [24][25][26] finally remarking that Chile is amerindian-mestizo like he writes here in one of its summaries of editions saying this without any source to back it up.←Chile is mostly Amerindian-mestizo→.-Kusamanic (talk) 00:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

If there are sources claiming Whites are majority, and others that claim they are minority, all the sources must be cited in the articles. You choose to cite only the White majority, for some reason you decided to erase the source that reports Whites are minority and also to erase the genetic resource that actually prooves that Chile is a Mestizo country. And I'm not following your edits, and I do not want troubles. Just leave all the sources there, all the informations there. If you believe Chile has a White majority, and if there's a reliable source saying that, it's ok. But, do not erase other sources only because they claim the opposite. Bye. Opinoso (talk) 02:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

If there are no reliable sources regarding the racial composition of Chile, Wikipedia should be silent on the issue, we should certainly not reference all of the conflicting unreliable sources. If there are conflicting sources both of which stand the criteria for WP:RS then, and only then, should we be showing evidence of a conflict. _{Disclaimer:I have not looked at the sources in question and am categorically not commenting on the quality of any of the given sources at this time.} Simonm223 (talk) 16:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. No informations about racial composition of Chile should be posted, since the country does not even ask its citizens about race. All the sources about race come from nowhere, they are based on nothing. Like the rest of Latin America, Chile must be influenced by "whiten ideologies", which led these "scholars" to report ficticious "White majorities" or to enflate their real number, which is of course very small, because Chile has never been a country that received large numbers of European immigrants, such as the USA or Argentina or Australia. It's impossible for that country to have a White majority. White people did not come from nowhere. They came from Europe, and their presence in Chile was quite minimal to have produced a White majority. (from 1881 to 1930, 183,000 immigrants (mostly from Europe) settled in Chile,.[27] compared to 30 million in the United States, 6 million in Argentina or 5 million in Brazil).

We need more opinions about this subject. Opinoso (talk) 16:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

This is rather simple. If there are some sources listing, say 30% of the population as white while others 50% then you list both as per WP:NPOV.

I would also suggest that user Opinoso stop making up his own theories and stick to what the sources say. At this point it seems to me that he's obstinate with correcting the record. Likeminas (talk) 01:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Polite society in Chile is mostly White; however, this does not make the entire country so. I do expect that both sources are exagerated.--Die4Dixie (talk) 02:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

If neither source is reliable then, I reiterate, use neither.Simonm223 (talk) 02:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Both sources, Lizcano (that says 50%) and the other by the University of Chile (which says 30%) are academically written papers. So, I don't think it's a question of reliability but of presenting them all. Likeminas (talk) 02:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

There's a third source being used around, in several articles, and it claims that Whites make up from 64% to 90% of Chileans [28]. I wonder if the author of this "resouce" was not confusing Chile with Iceland or Norway...with so many sources, with different figures, some claim 30% White, others 50%, other 64%, other 90%, there's something wrong about them. Since Chile does not have a Census about race, these figures are based on what these authors think, or desire or want to sell that the population of Chile is. None of them are realible sources. Opinoso (talk) 03:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Opinoso, if you're now claiming that the sources are not reliable then you're asking your question in the wrong place.

I haven't looked into the last source that claims a 90% white population, which, seems dubious to me. But my opinion on the matter is as irrelevant as yours. Now in reference to the others two, You seem to be very quick to discard them.

The first one (Lizcano) was conducted by Francisco Lizcano Fernández, a proffesor at the National Autonomous University of Mexico whom, may I add has written quite a few books on the ethography of the Americas.[29], the other number of 30% was published by a magazine of the department of Chemistry and Pharmacology of the University of Chile.

As you can see, both of these come from academia and if academic studies cannot be considered reliable, then I don't know what can.

Lastly, and as it has been polite and extensively explained to you at least twice on two different articles[30] [31] the racial composition of Chile is not easy to determine, even the CIA worldfact book has another number. Nonetheless, you seem to have developed a personal vendetta in which your mission seem to be revolving in correcting the record in regards to demographics of Chile. Please stop, that's Tendentious editing. Likeminas (talk) 03:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok then print both results and note sources, confirming in article that there is disagreement over ethnography.Simonm223 (talk) 17:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

My edits are not tendentious. I am here because I realized some other user was simply erasing the source that claimed Whites are minority in Chile, and replacing them with other source claiming they are majority, including the bizarre source which reports 90% are Whites. Yes, opinions are not important. But personal experiences leads a person to distinguish what is a reliable source and what is not. If there's a source claiming 90% of the population in Sweden is Black, through the personal experience you know that the source is wrong. The same can be applied to Chile. A source claiming 90% or 50% is White is out of the reality.

There's a clear conflict of sources out there: 90%, 64%, 50%, 30%? We cannot choose a few of them and post them and ignore the others. Given that Chile has no racial Census, all these sources may be based on nothing. All these different figures come from "scholars". But it is obvious that somebody is lying out there. To post in articles four different percentages for Whites in Chile is ridiculous. It makes no sense to say 30% is White, and then say 90% is White. I agree with the other users who says that Wikipedia should be silent. Opinoso (talk) 04:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is to mirror sources, not to make a judgment calls on whether someone is “lying” or not. And let's not forget the basics here. The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. Likeminas (talk) 12:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Jews for Jesus

Yesterday I came across Jews for Jesus and found it extremely biased. You don't have to take my word for it; take a look at the article as I found it. I think any reasonable person can see in a few minutes that it's a complete hit piece. The external links section is the official website followed by 12 anti-sites and negative articles. Jews for Jesus aims to combine belief in Jesus with being Jewish, but the article tells the reader over and over that this is not possible, which is an opinion. There is very little information about Jews for Jesus, but an extremely long criticism section. There is a promotional section about the unrelated Outreach Judaism. The references are cherry-picked quotes or from opposing organizations. I attempted to clean up and rewrite using independent reliable sources, but I was reverted with the edit summaries "nice try - now please just edit and not purge", "tweak" (for a mass revert) and "rv per WP:BRD; please discuss these changes before you edit-war" (I have reverted only once). I haven't been able to get much explanation on the talk page either. Some outside comments would be much appreciated. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

You are purging the entire page without consensus. You were bold and you were reverted - now you need to discuss with the many editors who have written the page...who, by the way, are established editors from varying backgrounds, including Messianic Jews. What it looks like is as you said: you came across the page and decided to change the entire thing - no discussion, no time allowed for...just you purging. Is that NPOV? Best, A Sniper (talk) 23:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the article for the first time, my impression is that the complaints are overstated. "Complete hit piece" and "very little information about Jews for Jesus" are clearly not true; however, "extremely long criticism section" does seem to be. There may well be weight issues that are worth discussing, but I don't see anything to justify the chainsaw approach you've been taking. In short, if you show a disposition to be more reasonable, you might find it easier to get support. Looie496 (talk) 18:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Grain (surfboard company)

The article was tagged with "{{Newsrelease|date=August 2009}}" which means that it reads like a news release or is written in an "OVERLY PROMOTIONAL TONE". I cannot see anything in it that sounds overly promotional, or reads like a news release. I've rewritten the article many times to make it as neutral as possible but the facts entered probably seem to make it sound otherwise. Please review the article, and maybe remove the inappropriate tag. WHY? Because the article, when viewed for the first time by someone interested in the subject, is more likely inclined to lose a considerable amount of interest because the tag that sits at the very top of everything else, appears to be telling him that HE'S ABOUT TO BE BORED. Any contribution to make it better would be very much appreciated. ≈ Commit charge 00:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I also hate tags like this -- I think they should go on the talk page, although Wikipedia policy disagrees. Anyway, I think the complaint was basically correct -- the article was written in a tone that said "we are proud of ourselves", which is not suitable for an encyclopedia. I did some editing to tone down the peacockery, and then removed the tag. I removed some overly specific detail about environmental friendliness from the lead -- I wouldn't object to adding this material somewhere in the body, but it doesn't belong in the lead. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 17:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Smiley face murder theory

Over on Talk:Smiley face murder theory a couple of people are arguing repeatedly that the line in the WP:UNDUEWEIGHT section that says "In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive more attention and space" should be interpreted to mean that the views of the minority should get more space than the views of the majority because the title of the article is about the minority view. This, to me, is completely opposite of what that section is intended for. The same people are also arguing if the topic is really about a WP:FRINGE view that the article must be deleted completely. They seem strongly opposed to having the article adequately document the clear majority viewpoint of police investigators across several jurisdictions and the FBI. they instead favor the well-publicized but claims advanced by a few private consultants on talk shows and the like. We could use more input over there from people who deal with NPOV issues more regularly. DreamGuy (talk) 21:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a case where the correct question is how best to serve the reader. In an article about minority views, they need to be given enough space so that the reader can fully understand them. The majority views should also be given enough space so that the reader can fully understand them, no less and no more. To chop out essential material from the minority view in order to make it shorter than the majority view, or to inflate the majority view just to make it longer than the minority view, are neither one conducive to writing good articles. Looie496 (talk) 22:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident

Article background: This article is about a self-immolation incident in Beijing, which was used by the Chinese government to defame Falun Gong. The event itself is a blur because only the Chinese approved media could research and report on it inside China. So there are several opinions regarding what happened actually, this varies from the fact that the immolators were Falun Gong practitioners as the Chinese media stated, to the fact that this event was completely orchestrated by the communist government in order to justify its persecution (torture, labor camps, etc. etc..).

Situation: I think the article would fail NPOV, if the opinion of Karen Parker the chief delegate of an organization that is accredited with the United Nations, would not be included in the lead more exactly see here. This addition was resisted by some editors, and I did make some changes to it [32] [33] [34] [35] in order to comply, but whatever I did this information is not allowed to be added. See Talk:Tiananmen_Square_self-immolation_incident#This_event_was_staged_by_the_Chinese_government.

My perception: I think that without this addition a significant view will not be presented fairly.

Question: What do you think?

Thank you! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I think a lot of effort has gone into fixing the POV of this article and that the changes you reference improve the WP:NPOV compliance of the article. Simonm223 (talk) 16:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

We do not have a Wikipedia article on Karen Parker (the human rights attorney) nor on International Educational Development. Google tells us very little about the latter group, and we do not know if anyone besides Ms. Parker is a member. If Parker's views were cited in newspapers, magazines or books things might be different. If Parker is not widely known, it does not seem that it helps the neutrality of the article to include her views. EdJohnston (talk) 20:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

For the credentials of Karen Parker, see here. Regarding notability the point is that she is a field specialist, she is accredited by the UN and her statement was published in the UN press release. Also here is a sample of her work quoted. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that it would be wrong to have no reference to what Karen Parker says at all. It shouldn't be too long, but she spoke before a UN committee and offers an interesting view of what happened. Provided there isn't too much weight placed on it, what's wrong with it? John Smith's (talk) 20:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean in the article, or in the lead of the article? I don't think anyone is questioning the inclusion of the material in the article itself, just whether to mention it in the lead, and, presumably by extension, how to phrase the mention in the lead. John Carter (talk) 20:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the article, it seems to be neutral enough. I understand the problem is regarding a human rights attorney's report on the matter? Well, I agree that she is a reliable enough source to merit possible inclusion in the article. But consider: too many viewpoints make an article seem like it's dissociative. In this case, I believe Parker, and just her, merits inclusion in the article. It would be too much, though, to include any more. Incidentally, the lead section needs a small rewording where it says "and some third-party commentators" to avoid WP:WEASEL. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is regarding whether to include Ms. Parker's statement that the event was staged in the lead of the article. I don't think anyone is necessarily arguing that it doesn't deserve mention somewhere in the article, but whether it is significantly important and separate enough from Falun Gong's own claims that it should be mentioned separately in the lead of the article. John Carter (talk) 22:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

She probably would merit inclusion in the lead if she was included in the body of the article. Very few things should be in the lead and not the body, and opinion is not one of them. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The lede should not contain anything that is not elaborated in the body; it should be a fair summary of the article. Therefore, the question about whether it should go in the lede is a moot point; if the info on Parker was in the body, then of course it should be adequately summarized in the lede.

Now, as to how much should be said about Parker in the body, well, that depends on keeping a balanced view. I would imagine that Parkers statement may warrant a very brief mention in the article, but bear in mind that there are certainly lots of other prominent people who could also be quoted; without care, the article could descend into a 'quote-fest'. Per WP:TIGER, these arguments need careful presentation to maintain neutrality.  Chzz  ►  00:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Happy, please consider what you meant by "significant view" - who determines which views are significant. That way, madness lies - all we can do is state well-reported views, ie with plenty of WP:RS. If we start to debate what does and does not constitute a "significant view", we run into all kinds of trouble; hence, we do not care about truth per se, just verifiability.  Chzz  ►  00:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Chzz, thank you for your input! I would add that beside verifiability there is also the WP:NPOV which requires that the article should "representing all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias". To do that here I thought it would be required to actually present all the significant views. Here I thought significant is something that shows from where to where do they vary based on the amount and variation of opinions that was thrown around in this case, by different WP:RS. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 07:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

@Sceptre and @Chzz, thank you, you are right, it is my mistake, first it has to be mentioned in the body of the article then in the lead. I guess I'm still learning, so thank you for that! Also another mistake is that I did is that I considered this sole source too good, and was somewhat disturbed when I saw the amount of resistance to it, on grounds, that I considered invalid, ranging from WP:NPOV, WP:OR to WP:N. So I asked for a neutral evaluation here. The opinion here vary too, but they are also a precious insight on how things should be considered. And the first step is to get lots of WP:RS on the subject, then compare them in quantity and essence. So thank you all! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 07:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Per what the source stated:

KAREN PARKER, of International Educational Development, said State terrorism in the form of Government terror against its own people produced far more gross violations of human rights than any other form of terrorism; an example was China's treatment of the Falun Gong. The Government had sought to justify its terrorism against Falun Gong by calling it an evil cult that had caused deaths and the break-up of families, but the organization's investigation showed that the only deaths and resulting family breakups had been at the hands of Chinese authorities, who had resorted to extreme torture and unacceptable detention of thousands of people. International Educational Development had discovered that a self-immolation cited by the Chinese Government as proof that the Falun Gong was an evil cult in fact had been staged. The international community and the Subcommission should urgently address this situation..

What HappyInGeneral tries to add:

Karen Parker the chief delegate of an organization that is accredited with the United Nations was quoted in a press release issued by the United Nations on 14 August 2001 saying that this was a clear expression of state terrorism, and that the event was staged to justify the extreme torture and the unacceptable detention of thousands of people.

A simple rhetoric, claiming that they "discovered" that the incident was staged, with no references or evidence whatsoever. Furthermore the "state terrorism" claim was about China's treatment of FLG, not the Tiananman Square self immolation incident, which HappyInGeneral tried to synthesis. Parker is a lawyer, whose job is to take a client's POV and argue for them. There is little information on Parker's studies or academic credentials, and should not be placed an undue weight.

Furthermore, HappyInGeneral is a dedicated FLG activist, as his user page describes, and is the only one trying to add the material on the Tiananman Square self immolation, despite the fact that nearly every other user was against him. This source should not be used to push a pro-FLG POV and advocate the view that the self immolation incident was staged, as HappyInGeneral is trying to do.--PCPP (talk) 01:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

@PCPP

1. "claim was about China's treatment of FLG, not the Tiananman Square self immolation incident, which HappyInGeneral tried to synthesis." => well I argue that common sense here is that the whole paragraph is about state terrorism
2. "Parker is a lawyer, whose job is to take a client's POV and argue for them." => Are you implying that Falun Gong hired her?
3. "There is little information on Parker's studies or academic credentials" => See here and here.
4. "Furthermore, HappyInGeneral is a dedicated FLG activist" => I am a self declared Falun Gong practitioner. True. But how about the source? Can we discussed that?
5. "advocate the view that the self immolation incident was staged" => I'm arguing WP:NPOV here. That is I'm fine with mentioning sources that say that the event was done by people who practice Falun Gong, as that is actually stated in the article and I did not remove anything like that, I only thought that a source that is stating that the event was staged should be mentioned as well, that is when I saw this statement from an UN accredited human rights lawyer. However I'm a bit disturbed when things are phrased that this source, saying that the event was staged, "cannot be allowed" and was actually removed repeatedly, and claimed to be WP:OR, WP:NPOV, etc. (my impression was at some point that just about anything will be raised just as long as that source is not quoted). Of course, per WP:LEAD this first has to be also in the body, and yes, I agree, that this is a valid reason for not putting it into the lead.
6. Regarding: "that this was a clear expression of state terrorism," - I thought I have deleted the word clear, my mistake, again. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 07:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

This article doesn't strike me as neutral enough - it appears to be pushing hard against wikipedia policy in order to criticise the Chinese government, and to defend falun gong. An example is the phrase, of one of the survivors:"He denied having been bribed to stage the incident", which although well sourced, seems to me weaselly, as it doesn't go into any more detail than that - who had accused him, etc etc. The article uses a lot of words like "capitalise", "use" (i.e. exploit) about the Chinese government's actions, which is also rather weaselly. Secondly, the link between falun gong and the immolations is not presented very cleanly. The background is all about falun gong persecution, yet there is prominence given to denials that falun gong supporters would ever protest in that manner. That is, there appears to be a subtext of "FG practioners would never do something like this, but if they did, they'd be perfectly justified anyway". The Falun Gong connection is there, one way or another, but it needs to be dealt with more objectively. Finally, the reporting and analysis section lacks structure - it flits between the credibility of the FG claims on either side, the presence of cameras, and the state reporting of the event. That's not an NPOV issue in itself, but chaotic organisation makes POV easier to insert.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree the article still has problems, I only looked 2 days (the last 2 days) at the lead, and was planning to go from top to bottom. Some of the things you mention should be fixed, while others are according to WP:RS, which state that Falun Gong would not do this anyway (especially the burning girl, which is just monstrous for a genuine appeal to be effective) --HappyInGeneral (talk) 08:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The event is largely a conspiracy theory, with no conclusive evidence on whether the event is genuine. The PRC government says the immolators were genuine FLG practitioners, FLG says that they are not and the even is staged. The article's bias comes from the little avaliability of PRC material, which would be dismissed as propaganda, vs FLG's easily avaliable information in the West.--PCPP (talk) 02:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

However, it certainly seems notable. Work needs to be done to improve it.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The lead doesn't accurately reflect the contents of the article. The article explores the incident and portrays the confusion and lack of evidence as to what really happened, and that there is a dispute between the Chinese government and Falun Gong as to the way the incident has been portrayed in the Chinese media. The lead should neutrally cover the confusion and lack of evidence, and that there is a dispute about the way the Chinese media has handled the incident. But it's inappropriate to target the Chinese government with the claims that have been made, as though these claims are fact, and to use the emotive language of the second paragraph - "Capitalizing on the incident" is not neutral, "created a plethora of printed materials" is not neutral "repeatedly broadcast" is not neutral, "vivid images" is POV and original research unless some reliable source can be found to support the word "vivid", and even then it's a very questionable use of language in this context in an encyclopedia, etc. I feel a little bombarded, and that I have to accept the version of events as presented to me, rather than allowing to me to make my own decision by presenting to me the facts. SilkTork *^YES! 02:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a very useful discussion to be having, as the article is currently being nominated for WP:FAC. I have been concerned about the article's neutrality for some time, it is a rather delicate balancing act here. I would thank VsevolodKrolikov and others' advice on how to neutralise the article, and I will edit the article accordingly. I agree that it is a very notable topic, and important historical marker in the battle of the Chinese state against a quasi-religious group. Vsevolod rightly mentions that the link between falun gong and the immolations is not presented very cleanly- this is certainly to a conscious effort on the part of Falun Gong editors and a subliminal effort on my part to capture the element of doubt about the true facts behind this event.

Happy and I have been disagreeing about the text to be inserted which I felt that it was done in complete violation of WP:LEAD, WP:SYN WP:NPOV and WP:RS. John Carter and PCPP have elaborated on these issues. Happy and I disagree over the cite in the lead, which was echoed by an editor reviewing for the FAC. What's more, I specifically disagree with the fashion how (pls refer to his four diffs above) Happy has attempted to insert the material. The text synthetised the assertion that Parker referred to the incident as "state terrorism". Note insertion two was blatant misattribution. The press release itself is a primary source which should not be used, particularly as it was not clear Parker was notable, or that hers was a "significant view" not already covered by others' - in fact, because of the perfunctory opinion [in the press statement], it is not detailed exactly what this view is. However, the summary position seems to mirror the Falun Gong view. Therefore, it could eventually be grouped together with FG if there is consensus that Parker's opinion warrants inclusion in some manner. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, where did you mention something specific from WP:Lead as being an issue before? I might have missed it. Thanks.

Also Thank You for pointing out: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident/archive1

Regarding the notability of the press release John Carter was kind enough to ask on the notability notice board.

PS: Thank you all! All of your insights are truly valuable and I think they will help us to move ahead and to get to a real good quality in this article. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 08:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Oldenburg Baby article

I'm having issues with the Oldenburg Baby article. Compared to the German version of the article it seems extremely biased towards a pro-life position. For example the article fails to mention the mother's preexisting condition of mental instability and her threat to kill herself should the abortion be denied. It also makes it seem as if the mother killed herself solely because of the events of the failed abortion. Also the time frame given ("the procedure took place less than four hours later") seems highly unlikely, isn't cited anywhere and gives the decision for abortion yet another negative spin. Could someone else look at this and tell me what they think?

Juan Manuel de Rosas

In the article History of Argentina the line "The dominant figure of this period was the federalist Juan Manuel de Rosas, who is considered by the traditional historiography a dictator. " (on the "Birth of Argentina" section) should be modified to something like "The dominant figure of this period was the federalist Juan Manuel de Rosas, who is portrayed under diferents angles by the diverse historiographic styles in Argentina: the canonic history usually considers him a dictator, while revisionism support him on the grounds of his defense of national soveregnity." to comply with the neutral point of view, as the consideration of Rosas as a dictator is not universal.

As it was long explained in the talk page, there was indeed a mainstream view of Rosas as a dictator in Argentina until the early XX century, mainly designed by Bartolomé Mitre and Domingo Faustino Sarmiento. Most of their views about history of Argentina, and specially the portrayal of Rosas, started to be hold in doubt by historians like Pepe Rosa or Scalabrini Ortiz during the 1940 decade, when Rosas was portrayed the opposite way. Modern historians like Felix Luna, Felipe Pigna or Pacho O'Donnell stay apart from both of styles, the once mainstream history and the revisionist interpretation of it, and refuse to make such categoric definitions.

User Justin A Kuntz rejects any mention to this, by pointing british authors. As it seems that the rejection of the original historiography hasn't arrived to England yet, he states that such is the "mainstream" view of the topic, and that the authors that reject it are just a minority viewpoint or a fringe or conspiracy theory. However, even if the viewpoint happens to be mainstream among the few english-speaking historians that worked with the history of Argentina, it wouldn't be a good idea to disregard sources that, even if written on another languaje, come from places where the topic at hand has been more deeply studied, checked and analyzed (wich in the case of history of Argentina means historians from Argentina). Wikipedia is written from an international point of view, and a local consensus on a subject shouldn't override a lack of it on a bigger scale.

Some books were Rosas is either portrayed as a heroe, or not portrayed as a dictator on an explicit manner (such as "he did wrong things but we won't call him a dictator", rather than simply a lack of the use of the word)

• Historia de los Argentinos, Vol 2, Cap 1, by Carlos Floria and Carlos García Belsunce
• Breve historia de los Argentinos, by Félix Luna
• Juan Manuel de Rosas, by Pacho O'Donnell
• Los mitos de la historia argentina 2, by Felipe Pigna
• Grandes protagonistas de la historia argentina: Juan Manuel de Rosas, by Félix Luna
• Historia Argentina, by Diego Abad de Santillán
• Mayo, la revolución inconclusa, by Alejandro Poli Gonzalvo

and so on.

The user is not willing to pay attention to the explanations given to him. He reverted my comments to him here and here. Afterwards, he added a template on his user talk page here, where he says "The more advanced at the game of righting great wrongs have enough grasp to read policy and decide that sourcing makes their edits bulletproof. Wrong again. Sources have to be reliable, so the conspiracy website or the book by a crank doesn't mean your edit is sacrosanct." Given the context, it seems clear that such mention was directed to me, and that the "conspiracy website" or "book by a crank" to the sources I had given to him. Here he declared his intentions to resist the proposed changes. here, after a long explanation by me, he did not reply to none of the points I made and instead try to refute the Clarin newspaper (wich was not provided as a source on the topic, but as a source that describes the debate itself as a legitimate scholar debate) as a reliable source by considering it a "tabloid", exploiting the confusion that may rise from the many meanings of the word (Clarin is indeed printed on a tabloid format, a size and shape of newspapers; but the negative implications of the word can't be applied to Clarin, and certainly not just with a google test). Here he does accept that he's working with english writers and acknowledge the existence of the dispute in Argentina, but cites NPOV as a reason not to mention it. Finally, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_Argentina&diff=prev&oldid=317050983 here he takes the critic on relying solely on british authors as an acusing of bias and a personal attack (even when he didn't mind accusing me of editing with a personal agenda here), and refuses to go on with the talking.

As trying to solve this by explaining things to him has failed, I request external intervention. I am well aware on the policies of minority viewpoints and fringe theories, but I'm also well interested in history and historiography of Argentina. I know for sure that revisionism does not fall in such category of viewpoints, and I can provide any reference that helps to check such a thing that you may request me. MBelgrano (talk) 15:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)