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.

Oldenburg Baby article

Resolved

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?

I think that the article has a bit more fact than opinion to it. But this definatly needs to be sourced properly. This is one of those cases that could probally be cleared up with references. I will keep watching this & the page. --MWOAP (talk) 01:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

No further comments have been made. Closing. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 02:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandalisation of Demonology and Demonologist

few months ago he/she already had waenings, now and again

Revision history of Demonology:

(cur) (prev) 04:05, 9 January 2010 Ian.thomson (talk | contribs) (21,632 bytes) (Getting rid of redirecting link.) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 03:07, 9 January 2010 Idot (talk | contribs) (21,706 bytes) (now it is not a redidirect!) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 16:31, 8 January 2010 Ian.thomson (talk | contribs) (21,632 bytes) (Removing a link that redirects here.) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 08:55, 8 January 2010 Idot (talk | contribs) m (21,706 bytes) (orpho) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 08:53, 8 January 2010 Idot (talk | contribs) (21,705 bytes) (agree) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 04:46, 7 January 2010 Ian.thomson (talk | contribs) (21,632 bytes) (This article isn't about the demonologist class in some games.) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 03:35, 7 January 2010 Idot (talk | contribs) (21,663 bytes) (Undid revision 336140734 by Gordon Ecker (talk)) (undo)

(cur) (prev) 04:28, 6 January 2010 Gordon Ecker (talk | contribs) m (21,632 bytes) (removing from the character classes category) (undo)

the sitation is following:
1. the Demonologist is a character class in D&D
2. Ian.thomson removes any info abot that fact from Demonology and Demonologist articles
which is a kind of vandalizm (Idot (talk) 03:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC))

Hi, might I suggest to use the {{about}} template to indicate that the articles are about real-world religion and to provide links to the D&D articles? Instructions here Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

There being a demonologist class in a number of games does not justify that the article about historical demonology be altered (as you have done in the past), nor justify that they have a separate article (which you have repeatedly tried to create with original research and some outright misinformation). Also, it is a lie and nothing more to say that I got any warnings from your actions in the demonologist and demonology articles. Adhering to notability guidelines and trying to ensure the quality of articles is not against POV. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia pro-Evolution?

The article Creation Museum contains the following statement: "In particular, exhibits promote the false claim that humans and dinosaurs once coexisted, and dinosaurs were on Noah's Ark." A select group of users are trying to keep this statement in the article. Is Wikipedia pro-Evolution? As it stands, nearly 2/3 of Americans believe in Creationism, and there is much evidence for it. I'm not trying to say Creation is the truth and Wikipedia should state Evolution is false, but I've always believed the Wikipedia foundation shrived to be neutral on the matter. I'm also not creating this topic to debate Evolution vs. Creation, but simply a question: Is Wikipedia endorsing the Evolution point of view, and saying Creation is false? Is this POV allowed? Should the statement be kept in the article, and in similar articles? Thanks. American Eagle (talk) 22:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

We go with what reliable sources say, and I don't think you will find a reliable source saying that humans and dinosaurs coexisted. How could they possibly have done so? I would be OK with changing the above to something like "the idea, not accepted by scientists, that humans and dinosaurs once coexisted", but it needs to be discussed on the talk page. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the statement "the idea, not accepted by scientists" is best in this situation. Krz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.207.228.153 (talk) 14:43, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

What Americans believe to be true is not a reliable basis for a global encyclopaedia. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

If we go by reliable sources, I'd go with "the absurd idea that humans and dinosaurs once coexisted", maybe with a footnote on cladistics and Aves. This is not even a question of evolution, but of basic geology and paleontology - claiming this as a pro-evolution issue assumes a wrong dichotomy.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Well said. If Wikipedia existed in the 15th century, we would be having this discussion about the flat Earth theory :D --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is indeed pro-Evolution, but it has to be because literally no scientists take into account creation in their publications. IOW from a scientific perspective, the debate on creationism ended decades or even 150 years ago, and current debates over creationism are social or political issues and not scientific. However, I do think that the statements included in the creation museum are trying to ridicule creationism. There has been a similar ongoing controversy whether the creation myths article should automatically assume that all creation stories are myths. The pro-Evolution crowd believes that every religious creation account is indeed a myth despite the fact the billions of people believe some of these creation stories to be true. Wapondaponda (talk) 12:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is definitely pro-evolution, because evolution is scientific fact. The saddening statistic that 40% of the American public deny evolution is because of public ignorance, not a scientific dispute. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no legitimate debate regarding evolution in any vetted scholarly text or legitimate scientific organization. The circumstance illustrates what concerns me most about how Wikipedia operates -- if Wikipedia is governed by consensus, and a frighteningly large multitude of editors believe in delusions that directly contradict all scientific evidence, then isn't Wikipedia necessarily bound to legitimize absurd "theories" by giving them equal voice? The democratization of fact is a dangerous thing... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Most of these comments are somewhat missing the point. The article in question is about the museum, not about evolution. The museum presents the stories and "legends" of a particular ethnic group (albeit a comparatively large group). I wonder how the above commentators would feel about an article that read "The creation story of the Lakota people presents the false beliefs of a primitive group and has been disproven by the scientific community; in particular, the backward-minded natives promote the idea that..." Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 01:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not quite the same thing, since there is no organized political movement pushing for Lakota creation myths to be taught alongside evolution in science class. On the other hand, I don't like the "false claims" wording either - it's intrusive. If people seriously need to be told editorially that dinosaurs and humans didn't coexist, then they are probably a lost cause - or at least beyond persuasion by a Wikipedia article. No one is going to come to the Creation Museum article with an open mind about the question, and then say: "Oh, Wikipedia says it's a false claim... now I get it." MastCell ^Talk 03:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The wording isn't neutral, and the clear condemnation in science can be well-presented neutrally.- Sinneed 04:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia also is pro-round earth, pro-gravity, and pro-cell biology. And that's okay with me! -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 06:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

It's okay with me as well... As a Christian I have no problem with Wikipedia being "pro-evolution" -- it's a matter of reputable science. However I have a HUGE problem with Wikipedia being "anti-religious". I know I can't stem the tide by posting this comment, but it is obvious to me from reading the replies above, most editors would rather consign belief in religion to a series of "delusions that directly contradict all scientific evidence" (while providing no actual evidence for this incredibly outlandish claim). Evolution does not shake the foundations of religion any more than heliocentrism did in the 16th century... and the sooner we ALL realize that, the sooner reasonable discourse and dialogue can resume. Awayforawhile (talk) 12:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with your reading. Yes, many of the commentators would probably see creationism consigned to the dustbin of history. But, while scientific explanations satisfy many, there is no conflict between science and a sufficiently unobtrusive religion. It's only when a religion make claims about the physical world that science and religion potentially clash. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I would be saddened to see Christianity or ANY honest religion reduced to being "sufficiently unobtrusive"!! God have mercy if we truly start believing our own science is the answer. Awayforawhile (talk) 16:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but you can't neglect context here the way you're doing. I would not go to a physicist or a chemist for advice about a moral dilemma, and I would be appalled by a physicist or chemist who insisted on pushing a mechanical or chemical solution to a moral problem (and yes, I am frequently appalled that way, both by people who think we can solve political problems with better weapons and people who think we can solve personal problems with better drugs). Religion and faith have an important place in our world, IMO, but are not well-designed for telling us about the nature of physical reality. It's religion's job to tell us what we ought to do with the world as we understand it; It is not religion's job to dictate how we should understand the world, and certainly not against all reason. --Ludwigs2 22:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The simple answer is yes, obviously, Wikipedia is pro-evolution in the sense that it's pro-gravity, pro-round earth, and pro-science, and in a way that contrasts with its distinctly ambivalent stance on religion. A general purpose encyclopedia without a strong pro-science stance is about as much use as a chocolate wristwatch, and an encyclopedia with a religious bias would inevitably encounter problems upholding the neutral point of view. --TS 22:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The statement labeling dinosaurs and humans coexisting should not be labeled as false, since the article is about the museum. Criticism about said museum I'm sure is present within the article. Ngchen (talk) 23:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. It isn't helpful to include the clause, "the false claim," in this particular article. If it's inflammatory, take it out, as it doesn't add to the article.--Heyitspeter (talk) 05:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe in evolution, I don't believe in a supernatural or divine being, and I don't believe in creation or intelligent design. But the whole article repeats its attacks on creationism in a rather leaden way in every sentence. So (1) there's no need for adding "false" (which has now been removed) and (2) this heavy-handed repetition, while it accurately reflects the utter exasperation of non-creationists and almost all life scientists, will probably drive some uninformed or undecided readers to think (rightly or wrongly) that the museum's sponsors are getting a pretty raw deal here and must have at least some truth on their side. Wikipedia isn't Pravda and shouldn't read like it, say I, because this unremitting fusillade is nothing like what I'd have written in a straight news story (as opposed to an opinion piece) when I was a minor-league reporter and editor. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Geibeltbad Pirna

Resolved

 – Currently in AfD/Not a neutrality issue

The article Geibeltbad Pirna looks like it has been written by a company employee (with a very poor knowledge of English, maybe using Google translate or something...) I marked it for NPOV but should it be deleted? There is a similar article on the German Wikipedia.--Lidos (talk) 17:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I would mark it for PROD - unless you can find some references to it on Google, it looks like just another swimming pool. JMHO Riverpa (talk) 15:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Unless more sources come out this does not look like material for an encyclopedia. Ludlom (talk) 19:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Not really an point of view issue becuase it is all just a list of unsourced facts. I Just marked it for deletion becuase I am not sure if all editors would agree. It's entry is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geibeltbad Pirna --MWOAP (talk) 01:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Narayan Dutt Tiwari

In the introductory para the statement 'With his recent sex scandal whole nation is angry and burning like any thing', reflects a more personal point of view. The para on Sex Scandal again contains statements that are non-neutral. Requesting a check on this.

'White Skin Privilege' Article Is Unacceptably Point of View; Suggesting Purge

I am hereby proposing a total purge of the article at "White Skin Privilege" on article-wide POV grounds. One can view the [Talk page] there for a more general idea of why, but here's the rundown as I've come away with it:

There seem to be two editors in particular editing to keep the article decisively weighted throughout in favor of WSP as a 'proven' theory, mostly by recasting the history of racism as one from which white people, by their ethnic "whiteness", automatically benefit — making that history of racism into one of 'white skin privilege' instead. Although I've been asked by administrators not to focus on who the two editors are, it's going to be obvious from the recent history as well as surrounding the unfortunate edit-war I got into with them (self-critically, I resorted to extreme measures that deflated my own reputation and made it so that they could afterwards even remove all POV warning boxes from the article without any contestation, even though those warning boxes had been there since before I'd got there).

One of those two editors' justifications for keeping the article as-is are self-justifying, arguing that since white skin privilege is supposedly a widely accepted theory — supposedly, that is, accepted as compared to other left-wing anti-racist ideologies like class-based multi-racial unity — the opposing view, being class-based multi-racial unity, is "minority", and further than that, "fringe." She shapes the situation so that the inability to find sources that objectively oppose White Skin Privilege naturally must mean that the opposition to WSP is a "fringe" view. But that's fallacious. If I were to ask somebody in an article about God who complained about the lack of views of the significant portion of those who don't believe in God, to prove that there is no God by finding sources that prove that opposition view, and the person was not able to find such articles in places that aren't specifically oriented towards the God question, and that finding those sources would be the only way the opposition view against God would be able to stand in the article, then I could then perhaps claim that the argument against God is a "fringe" argument. That would be a rough approximation of what that editor is doing in the WSP article.

I bring the article here to the NPOV noticeboard because I'd like it if a group of NPOV-sympathetic editors were to go over to the article and either 1) balance it out or 2) purge it and do it over. Because of the fact that these two editors in particular seem to be the only ones really working on the article, they have been able to keep it POV. The article should be worked on much more collectively and democratically than that in order to achieve NPOV status.

You'll notice, when you look at it, not only the tendency to re-cast racism as "white skin privilege" that I have noted, but also, and possibly more importantly, the fact that the "Criticism" section has been relegated to a two-paragraph piece of nothing in the middle of the article that doesn't do anything at all to balance it out — and also that apparently, no opposition viewpoint is allowed in the article's intro paragraph (not even one allowed to remain with (citation needed) next to it for a certain length of time like in other articles of this type).

Finally, if there were any doubt as to the POV intentions of at least one of those two editors, I was accused of having "white people head-up-the-ass syndrome" — if that's not an underhanded intent to keep the article POV, I don't know what is. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 22:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

well, I'm going to do a bit of editing there and see what happens. the idea itself is a theme in academic works (though I've never heard that particular name for it, which sounds awfully '1970's activist'). --Ludwigs2 23:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I admire your gentle handling of Marie Paradox, ludwigs (you undoubtedly see her and my brink-of-disaster arguments, which I do now realize was absolutely the wrong method). I just do hope that this report will encourage several more totally new editors besides yourself to come over and make edits. I do hope you agree that the ultimate goal should be a decidedly NPOV or minimally-POV article, which would probably mean attempting at some point to insert critical aspects directly into the article's most visible text elements. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 18:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Kikodawgzzz, actually, when you say "If I were to ask somebody in an article about God who complained about the lack of views of the significant portion of those who don't believe in God, to prove that there is no God by finding sources that prove that opposition view, and the person was not able to find such articles in places that aren't specifically oriented towards the God question, and that finding those sources would be the only way the opposition view against God would be able to stand in the article, then I could then perhaps claim that the argument against God is a "fringe" argument. That would be a rough approximation of what that editor is doing in the WSP article." you have it right: Wikipedia follows the sources, so if there are few sources it is automatically a fringe view. That does not mean it should not be covered though. Can you point me to which specific changes you would make in the article? Do you have a sandbox of it? Becritical (talk) 04:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I would love to say, Becritical, that I have a sandbox of it, that I could make one, or that I could point to specific line by line or section by section changes I would like to see made, but none of that's the case. However, neither does my inability to draw something up automatically make my argument that the article is unacceptably POV null and void. I can offer at least an approximate basis of changes in format and tone that could lend to a vastly more balanced article than it is currently, although obviously, the sources used in that balancing would themselves have to be sourced.

Do please take a moment to see my outline on the Talk page for exactly how the WSP article specifically and fundamentally violates pretty much all the tenets of Wikipedia's neutrality policy — which is one of its 'pillars' and is irrevocably relevant at all times in all articles that wish to stay on Wikipedia for the long term. Shabazz and Paradox, in their ways, as you can see from the comments they've made over time, have done their bit to try to word-dance around this pillar and also try to exert direct control over the tone of the article by being, basically, the two main people editing it at all times and adopting authoritative language to that end when talking on the Talk page and elsewhere. Such word-dancing doesn't do what Shabazz and Paradox intend it to do, because the POV pillar violations stand on their own, with or without my input on the article. So it is on the basis of that violation, and not ultimately on the basis of my opinions, that it needs a fundamental re-balancing in order to qualify for remaining an article on Wikipedia. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 06:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I tried to edit Wikipedia article on "Quackery" to be more neutral but my edit was reversed.Is Wikipedia not neutral?

Hi.

I'm new to Wikipedia so i hope i'm typing this in the right section. I came across a Wikipedia article entitled "Quackery" and i found it was bit biased,made unfounded claims and wasn't neutral. Wikipedia said that the articles on this site are meant to be neutral in point of view & when somebody creates or edits an article to make it as a neutral point of view. I then edited the article to be more neutral and objective in view by making a few minor changes. I changed the words "quackery" to "alleged quackery" because i didnt feel quackery was neutral as it was assumed but wasn't a proven fact based on evidence. I also removed the references to a site called Quackwatch by a person named Stephen Barret i think, as this website and man has been founded in the court of law to not have an objective,neutral point of view. There was also a definition of the word "Quackery" by this same above man,so i edited that out and replaced it with a more neutral definition by a dictionary because a dictionary would provide a more neutral,objective viewpoint versus an opinion. Also,i edited out a few things where the original article had made claims that a certain organisation or thing had said something but references wern't provided or the links to the references wern't working so readers wouldn't know if this was based in fact.

In general,i only made a few minor changes and tried to make it more balanced and neutral but where any readers would still get the origins of the word,history of the use of the word,how it has been used today in modern society and that there were allegations towards certain techniques or persons a "quackery" but i also made sure to add that these were just allegations and often wernt founded on evidence,so that way the article was more clinical,balanced and neutral rather then coming off as having a non neutral point of view based on personal opinion or emotion instead of neutrality,evidence and factualness.

I then received a message which said along the lines of Welcome to Wikipedia etc but beneath it was a somewhat hostile message which said:

"Vandalism warning regarding your edit at Quackery Information. Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Quackery. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. As your edits seem to be directed at removing references to Quackwatch, which is considered a reliable source when used as it is in that article, I suggest you do some reading on the subject:

• Usage of Quackwatch as RS in medical quackery
• Request to amend prior case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal.

As to the reasons why Quackwatch criticizes alternative medicine, Quackwatch just happens to be right. The criticized methods don't work, as illustrated by the old joke: What do you call alternative medicine that works? Medicine. Read the following section carefully, especially the part about where the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) (which is pro-alternative medicine!) hasn't found evidence for efficacy after ten years of large studies:

• Relation to evidence-based medicine

Happy reading, and Happy New Year! -- Brangifer (talk) 06:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

This message came as a bit of a shock. Does this person own or work for Wikipedia? Sorry i dont know because im newbie to this site & not sure how it works. I assume he works for Wikipedia because the message came with welcome to Wikipedia at the top. IS this correct or wrong? The message said Vandalism which i was suprised about because i had actually tried to make the article more neutral.I then looked up the Vandalism article which said it meant if someone on purpose tries to make Wikipedia look as if it lacks credibility but if someone tries to edit an article to improve it with genuine intentions,even if the edit is right or wrong,that it then isn't vandalism. I was genuinly trying to make it more neutral so i dont understand why this person in message said i made Vandalism. Also my edit removal of references to Quackwatch wasnt the only thing i edited but i had to do this too because of Court of Law ruling that that site is not objective. The person then made their own personal subjective opinion that the site Quackwatches views are right & gave their personal opinion regarding Alternative Medicine which isnt being neutral & objective if they work for Wikipedia.

Why does Wikipedia state that they want articles to be neutral point of view if they really dont? Does this person that sent the message to me work for Wikipedia? If he does then Wikipedia should state on their articles that they dont want NPOV because by saying they do they are lying if they then will not allow edits that make articles more NPOV.To say they want NPOV then just confuses people.The message also made a subjective opinion which is contradictory if Wikipedia is saying on one hand they want articles to be Neutral Point of View but then on the other hand giving/having non-neutral personal opinions. Can anyone help with this? Thankyou very much Severina —Preceding unsigned comment added by Severina123 (talk • contribs) 08:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Severina - these sorts of dicussions are best held on the talkpage of the pertinent article. You will probably find that all your questions have been asked by previous editors and answered. Ta Shot info (talk) 08:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I would question the use of a "vandalism"-warning, though. To answer your other question, nobody "works for" wikipedia, not as "paid employee" that is... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

When large amounts of properly referenced text are deleted, it sets off vandalism alarms. As you are new to Wikipedia, maybe that typical reaction wasn't quite on-target and I apologize. I see that Shot info has requested in his edit summary that you discuss the matter on the talk page of the article so that we don't edit war. You have already tried twice to make that edit and it has been reverted twice. A third time will violate our WP:3RR rule, so please use the talk page to discuss your concerns. In the meantime I will refactor the heading on your talk page. -- Brangifer (talk) 09:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou for your replies. I thought it belonged in this section because the article that i had edited named "Quackery" appeared to be a bit biased and not from NPOV so i thought it belongs in this section to see whether it could be reviewed. From now,regarding my edit & reversals,i will try to discuss it in the talkback section if i can figure out how to use it. UserBrangifer said that my edits were reverted by him twice and that if i attempted to edit again it will be a violation of WP:3RR rule but i feel that my edit were reverted twice unfairly and without basis so how could it be that someone would then be violating a rule if they were to edit again if the reversals of my edits were without fair basis in the first place? Then your being penalised for someones elses mistake for reverting edits that wern't Vandalism. My edits were to try to genuinely make the article more NPOV & i had no personal opinion/bias or intention to vandalise so on what basis was there to reverse my edits? I dont think its implausable to query whether they could have been done from personal bias & subjective opinion & not because of my edits breaking any rules because Brangifer said in his message

"As to the reasons why Quackwatch criticizes alternative medicine, Quackwatch just happens to be right. The criticized methods don't work, as illustrated by the old joke: What do you call alternative medicine that works? Medicine."

These are showing personal opinions,not NPOV so if theres a possibility that people can revert edits on personal opinions & not on objectivity then it shouldnt say on Wikipedia for people to edit articles to make them more NPOV.

On what basis or rule please have my edits been reverted if they wern't Vandalism?

Wikipedia "Revert" pages say "It should be borne in mind, however, that reverting good-faith actions of other editors (as opposed to vandalism) is considered disruptive when done to excess, and can even lead to the reverter being blocked from editing."

Since my edit was done in good-faith & not Vandalism,why was it reverted twice when Wikipedia revert page advises not to do that?

Wikipedia "Revert" pages also say if the edit was done on good faith but even if the edit was wrong or lacking in some way,to then edit the article again instead of reverting the persons whole edit but why was my whole edit reverted twice when Wikipedia suggested not to do that?

Can anyone please tell me where the section is,where you submit complaint that your edit has been unfairly reversed?

Thankyou very much Severina —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.110.50 (talk) 12:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Severina. First of all, you are encouraged to sign your own messages. Click on the pencil icon on top of the editing box for that.

That said, I try to answer some of your concerns:

UserBrangifer said that my edits were reverted by him twice [...] Then your being penalised for someones elses mistake for reverting edits that wern't Vandalism. - 3RR is a rule that applies no matter the content/quality of the edits (with some exceptions). Therefore if you push a version for three times, you are violating 3RR, no matter the quality of your edits. If you see that your edits are consistently challenged, the right course of action is going to the article's talk page and begin a discussion there to find a consensus between editors. I am sure you are in good faith and with good intentions, but so is the editor which is reverting your edits. You happen to disagree, and you maybe happen to be doing something not quite right in good faith just because of your inexperience (WP is quite a complex thing these days). So bring your arguments to the talk page of the article, and see what happens there, instead of pushing edits.

I dont think its implausable to query whether they could have been done from personal bias & subjective opinion & not because of my edits breaking any rules because Brangifer said in his message - Problem is, Severina, everyone of us has a subjective opinion. You, me, Brangifer, everyone. NPOV is not a feature of a single editor, it is an ideal objective that strives to be achieved. Your edits are no more NPOV than that of Brangifer, from what I can see. Also, NPOV does not mean "same weight and respect to every conceivable opinion". The article on Earth is not biased just because it says that it is a sphere and dismisses theories of a flat Earth.

On what basis or rule please have my edits been reverted if they wern't Vandalism? - Because maybe they looked like so, because maybe the editor overreacted. We're all humans. Looking at the diffs, your edits appear not vandalism, but they deleted references and changed lots of things in a single edit -both things make a LOT of alarm bells ring in many editors, including me. Again, the only way out of it is that you and Brangifer sit down, take a breath and discuss the matter in the article talk page.

but why was my whole edit reverted twice when Wikipedia suggested not to do that? : Probably because it is a huge edit. It is advisable that you edit articles a bit at a time. Reverting/discussing individual small edits is much easier than reworking a complete redesign of an article done in a single edit.

,where you submit complaint that your edit has been unfairly reversed?: Article talk page.

I hope this helps. --Cyclopia^talk 12:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Severina, I do feel your pain! Wikipedia is a very complex place, with its own social culture, myriad rules and policies, and even more possibilities for misunderstandings and conflicts. There are even situations where there can exist seemingly contradictory policies! It's not easy, and none of us is perfect or understands it all. We're all learning. I'll just comment on a few things here and leave the discussion of the content of your edits for the talk ("Discussion") page at the Quackery article.

For one thing, I only reverted you once, and when you tried again, another editor reverted you. Any time an edit of yours is reversed, you have potentially started what is known as the "BOLD, revert, discuss" cycle (but not always). If there's a potential for serious disagreement, don't repeat the edit, but move on to the next step, which is to discuss it. That cycle has only one cycle. It's not a revolving door. It doesn't contain two "BOLD" parts. Continuing to push the edit is considered edit warring, and pushing even proper edits (we all think our edits are "proper" ;-) can get you blocked. As to my opinions, yes indeed, I do have them, but I don't add them to article content. They appear in edit summaries and on talk pages. Within certain limits, we are allowed to express those opinions in our discussions about why we think certain content or sources should be included.

As to NPOV, it doesn't mean that an article is "neutral" in the sense that it is without biased or conflicting content. On the contrary, articles about controversial subjects, like quackery, alternative medicine, chiropractic, vertebral subluxation, pseudoscience, and religious and political subjects, all must contain the POV and facts related to the subject from all significant angles. Our articles must reflect the situation in the real world. They must not present a subject in only a favorable light. They must not be a sales brochure. Whenever differences of opinion between editors occur, which is quite normal and very frequent, they need to be hammered out through discussion and collaboration on the talk page, not by edit warring. We work by consensus here, not by pushing a POV through repeated attempts to force others to accept an edit. Even when that seems to work, the edit won't last long, and that's not your intention. You want the content you have added to remain and be protected by other editors, including those who have an opposing POV. The content must also be properly sourced and framed in abidance with our content policies. This isn't easy, and as a newbie you'll find that you'll run afoul of other editors. If you keep a good spirit, always assume good faith, and learn to discuss things, you'll find that this can be a very learning environment. Good luck. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Cyclopia and Brangifer for your assistance. Cyclopia,my edits were at least 90% NPOV and i took a very long time to make sure that my edit was that and that the article remained largely the same but with more balance,hard fact & NPOV. Substituting one biased POV for another biased point of view doesnt bring benefit to Wikipedia readers and that is unbalanced information so i tried quite hard to make it NPOV. I disagree that "NPOV does not mean "same weight and respect to every conceivable opinion" If thats the case,then it isn't truly a neutral point of view.There shouldnt be necessarily same respect, but there should be same weight to every conceivable opinion. Of course ,space page permitting. I did read on WikipediaNPOV article page though that Wikipedia holds this same view that you stated but that then means that Wikipedia is biased.On one hand it says dont post biased views/edits,but then on the other hand its saying that a certain view is more worthy of article space then another.Thats a contradiction and misleads and confuses people. Giving same weight,doesnt mean it is then validating or promoting the claims,it just means that it is objective,disinterested and neutral. Its different if Wikipedia was saying give more "popular" "opinion" more priority because of a lack of room(writing) space,that would still be NPOV,but it appears to be giving mixed messages on its NPOV page saying on one hand be disinterested & neutral but on the other hand saying along the lines of "theres certain views we dont want to be covering" which would have to involve some non disinterest & non-neutrality to come to that decision.

Your quote on "The article on Earth is not biased just because it says that it is a sphere and dismisses theories of a flat Earth." to me is not the same thing, because the Earth has been proven to be a sphere & when something becomes proven(if proven without errors)then it becomes a fact & less discussion/space then needs to be given to something that would say otherwise(flat etc).

My edits still shouldnt have been reverted, according to Wikipedia, but i now understand your meant to edit bit by bit.I thought that you were just meant to edit the whole thing in one go and that thats what everyone does.Sorry about that. Also,is there nothing at all that people can do if there articles or edits are reverted unfairly except discuss? I mean,discuss is better,but does everyone discussing willing to have same intention to make the articles NPOV and non-biased? If people arn't fair,then without any appeal rules etc in place,then couldn't hypothetically someone go & revert all the edit articles on this whole site if they didnt like them & as long as others agreed that what they did was right(even if it really wasnt) then nothing could be done about it to appeal wrongful decisions because "majority rules"? If thats the case then Wikipedia could never be objective & balanced,unbiased. I mean it could be if the people here you can have good faith that they will be non-biased & fair but if the people here wern't then it wouldn't be.

Thanks for your kind words Brangifer:) I understand that an article wont be without conflicting content but Wikipedia says the articles arnt meant to be bias and are meant to be disinterested. Everything else you said i agreed with and i agree that an article shouldn't be only presented in a favourable light.At the same time though if something is alleged i think it should say alleged but if something is proven i think it should say proven. For example,and this is really really bad example sorry, if there was a new brand of Exercise bike & lots of people had called it rubbish, I think the article should state 'Exercise bike "XYZ" ,which has been alleged to be rubbish by alot of people, is made by.........etc" instead of the article stating "Rubbish Exercise bike "XYZ" ,is made by..........etc" because the second one is a factual statement but i dont think a factual statement should be made unless it was absolutely proven beyond a shadow of doubt with testing that exercise Bike"XYZ" was rubbish.

i know the articles will be conflicting contents,but if a statement is made without evidence is it ok then to edit this or ask that evidence is provided? Some of the things i edited out or changed i did so because there was no evidence submitted but was just a sweeping statement or bias opinion.

Thansk all for your help. I am going to click the character button at the bottom because i cant find the pen at the top.I hope that is ok. Severina123 (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Severina, and thanks for signing (yes, the button at the bottom is perfect).

• Cyclopia,my edits were at least 90% NPOV and i took a very long time to make sure that my edit was that and that the article remained largely the same but with more balance,hard fact & NPOV. - Well, you may believe that they were NPOV, but that you believe them to be that does not mean that they really are. Note, I am not saying that they aren't, I am saying a different thing: that since every human being holds a point of view, you cannot really be sure they were. You can at most say that you tried, but it's really from discussion and compromise with other editors that something akin to NPOV comes out.
• On one hand it says dont post biased views/edits,but then on the other hand its saying that a certain view is more worthy of article space then another.Thats a contradiction and misleads and confuses people.: It may seem contradictory but really it isn't. Let me explain. There are two ways to interpret NPOV. One is the naive one you propose: give every conceivable opinion the same relevance. This has two enormous drawbacks. First, it would require articles to be practically infinite. Second, it would not give a really unbiased information, because the most probable/most relevant opinion would be drowned in a sea of almost irrelevant alternative points of view. The second way of interpret NPOV -and that's the one followed here- is to give due weight, reflecting what the consensus of reliable sources say on the subject. This has the advantages of yielding a finite-size article and of giving an unbiased picture of what the sources have to say on the subject. Which is the best we can do, since we're here to report what sources say, not to engage in original research.
• Also,is there nothing at all that people can do if there articles or edits are reverted unfairly except discuss? - Well, I'd say that discussing is pretty much all. Read WP:DISPUTE for more information, but practically all steps towards dispute resolution involve just more and more discussion with editors and asking for opinions. There is no way to decide what is "unfair" that isn't discussing with editors and following policies and guidelines.
• then couldn't hypothetically someone go & revert all the edit articles on this whole site if they didnt like them & as long as others agreed that what they did was right(even if it really wasnt) then nothing could be done about it to appeal wrongful decisions because "majority rules"? : Exactly, more or less. Wikipedia is based on consensus. When you edit here, you accept that your edits can be challenged, reverted, deleted, whatever. Wikipedia is in a constant state of flux. You cannot expect any of your edits to be set in stone.
• If thats the case then Wikipedia could never be objective & balanced,unbiased. - Severina, leave all hopes of absolute objectivity. Such a thing simply does not exist. We strive for the best approximation.
• but if a statement is made without evidence is it ok then to edit this or ask that evidence is provided? :If for "evidence" you mean reliable sources, you are absolutely right: you have the right to edit or ask for evidence.

Finally, I suggest you to spend some time becoming acquainted with WP policies and guidelines, at least the ones we linked you in this discussion for a start. WP is a really, really complex place these days, and everyone of us does mistakes: the more you read about this, the better. --Cyclopia^talk 21:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Cyclopia. Yes, by evidence i mean reliable sources,although my standard for reliable sources might be higher then Wikipedias.I guess it depends on what you term reliable,whether reliable means "reliable" as in their website doesnt breakdown often or reliable as in non-biased,reliable as in they check their facts or any other "measuring stick". I do still feel then Wikipedia isn't then truly NPOV and shoudn't say this as its misleading. I dont think believing in Objective,Neutral journalism is naive,it is ideal, and can be achieved if everyone has commitment to the same ideal and then points out or edits things if they see it is not completely objective but has emotion,unreferened claims/statements of fact or authors opinion added. I understand that nobody may be 100% nonbiased but some people are more non-biased then others i'm aware and we should all strive for everything to always be more balanced. I understand though that NPOV,being only a Wikipedia term,might have a different meaning then the words neutral & non-biases when used generally in the world. I still do think giving the every notion the same weight would give the most unbiased imformation,maybe not the most useful,but still the most unbiased. At the same time,i understand this is easier done with things which can have evidence provided-for example if the article is about Herbicides,then there can be all the angles given equal weight in the article because scientific sources can be given regarding the use of Herbicides,any drawbacks,any alternative options,conflicting opinions etc but with other types of articles-maybe things more cultural or opinion based/general interest etc, i understand that it could be next to impossible to give all sources equal weight as then the article could never be ending.Severina123 (talk) 09:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC) Thankyou very much

Hi Severina. I think you will find it really interesting to read our policy on verifiability WP:V, our guidelines on reliable sources (no, it isn't about whether a website breaks down frequently) WP:RS, and our neutral point of view policy WP:NPOV. All the policies and guidelines have been worked out together by contributors like ourselves over the years. You can comment on them on their talk pages, and even make changes (but if you make changes that haven't been agreed on the talk page they will probably be changed back again quickly). Nothing here is set in stone; it's all about community discussion and consensus. You might also find it interesting to look up articles on controversial topics not connected with alternative medicine and see how well you think they present the different points of view. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

All this consideration for somebody who barges into an article like a bull in a china shop, edit-wars, writes messages that are much longer than they need to be, and just generally wastes a bunch of time for a bunch of editors! Severina, the message you need to hear is to slow down and make small edits until you have learned how to work cooperatively with other editors. Looie496 (talk) 18:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Looie496: without disagreeing with your final point, please don't BITE the newbies. --Ludwigs2 18:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment: For a newbie user Severina123, I think you show significant clue. Have you participated substantially on Wikipedia before? I ask to get a better gauge of your familiarity so that time can be more efficiently devoted to addressing the key points. Lambanog (talk) 04:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, Looie, take a couple of deep breaths. Wikipedia is a complex place and certainly not the most user-friendly. The keys for the tank that can destroy years of work by hundreds of editors are handed to every person when they visit for the first time, and personally I feel it's very refreshing to have someone take the time to try to understand the rules and actually ask for help when they get confused. The project needs all the editors it can get, and established users should make it a point to assist rather than consistantly drive the new ones away. Rapier1 (talk) 07:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I can see at a glace that the sources used in the article are sometimes not acceptable, such as this one. The quackwatch site is also completely non-neutral, and should not be used as a source for articles. It seems to be a site dedicated to a particular viewpoint, and run by one individual, which seems to be against policy. Another source does not even currently exist [1] It is also amazing that the article speaks of "quackery" in an historical sense, because it was not quackery at the time, just medicine [2]. Becritical (talk) 04:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Another dead link! The article needs major overhauling [3]. Becritical (talk) 05:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the dead links and replaced the review with a better one from "The Consultant Pharmacist". --Enric Naval (talk) 16:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It should be possible to include a history section, because during the 19th century there was an increasing divergence between mainstream medicine and what was then called "snake oil" or perhaps "nostrums". But we need to find out if there is a scholarly history of this. I expect there is at least one, similar to the history of food adulteration that I read recently. I agree that the article needs attention. Questions about sourcing can go to WP:RSN and if a fringe viewpoint is being advocated as if it were mainstream, then post at WP:FTN. Quackwatch has been discussed on one or both of these before - we can search the archives. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, of course there is need for history, but calling it "quackery" isn't right if it was not called such at the time. It wasn't really quackery then, was it? Becritical (talk) 03:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

article on Human_rights_in_the_United_States

The article Human rights in the United States needs balancing to increase mention of direct and indirect human rights abuses within the country and decrease the "patriotic" feel of the introduction and other major sections. Please see the Talk page for my suggestionsKikodawgzzz (talk) 02:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

SOFIXIT. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

This is the POV Messageboard, where people are permitted to bring POV issues on articles to the attention of others so that those issues may be dealt with collectively. If everyone was capable of doing everything themselves, and didn't need to do anything in a collectively-sanctioned way, we wouldn't need each other, but we do need each other, and that's how it is. Please butt out if you don't want to help in that regard. I have done plenty of my own work on Wikipedia. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 07:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I offer here an update on the behavior of User talk:72.39.210.23, who immediately engaged in threatening language when I so much as stepped a single toe on the talk page to even suggest that the article might need re-balancing to restore NPOV. When I listed those suggestions, his immediate response was:

No. You won't be doing that. I'm sorry, but you cannot get away with that per NPOV. Anti-capitalist information you want to add? There's very little, if any, anti-capitalist sentiment in the United States. There are no reliable sources (leftist fringe websites do not count) that state capitalism is linked to racism or forms of oppression. Anti-immigrant sentiment is not isolated to the U.S. it is an issue in many western countries, especially in the U.K. however in the U.S. it is generally only an issue of illegal immigration. Illegally entering the United States and staying beyond the legal time frame specified to remain in the country is a violation of federal U.S. law. Anyone who engages in such a violation is a criminal, therefore it is not racist or wrong for people to be opposed to criminal activity. You will not be editing this article to suit your biased views. I'll make sure of that. 72.39.210.23 (talk) 01:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

This is gonna be a rough ride....! :) Any help please? Kikodawgzzz (talk) 06:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You really didn't help yourself when you brought WP:OSE into it and then proceeded to further shoot yourself in the foot by referencing the Black Book of Capitalism. That being said, your "additions" are both laughable and ridiculous. You might have had points with treatment of African Americans and indians in the past, but your penchant for hyperbole as you describe "mass arrests of left-wing dissidents," your insistence that the "current treatment" of African-Americans includes "widespread death and destruction" (last I checked we didn't have a genocide going), and the claim that reservations today are "oases of murder and horrendous poverty" (aren't a lot of them building casinos?) seriously discredit your arguments. What you say has a grain of truth to it to be sure, but you need tone down the rhetoric and actually try to hide your anti-US pov. Soxwon (talk) 07:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

While areas of the article can be improved, it should mention treatment of aboriginals and immigrants including attempts by the US to protect their human rights, the article does appear to show neutrality. The IP's comments are unfortunate because they do not reflect the tone in which the article is written. The Four Deuces (talk) 10:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

@Soxwon, actually, technically (and realistically) speaking, no, I don't need to do that. If I did need to do that, then the article on Human Rights in Cuba would have to tone down its "anti-Cuba rhetoric", which it certainly does not do, and no one actively goes up much against that article over there-- at least not actively. Your other points are textbook fundamentals of stuff spoken by pro-U.S.-system people (patriots or whatever it is you call yourselves; I have no respect for you and never will) and as such, I will ignore them and everything like them when talking about this topic. Separately, as far as The Four Deuces's comments, I would actually argue that it's entirely possible the article needs a simple rearrangement of paragraphs positioning to start, followed by sourcing and re-sourcing of proven accusations of the many horrendous negatives in the US's internal human rights record, which of course have nothing to do with their actions overseas and are thus much less in number than the latter, but do include things like MKULTRA. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 05:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Then instead of throwing out fantastic claims here and screaming bloody injustice, why not actually go to the article and (using reliable sources) actually add the material you claim is so readily available. However, I stand by the fact that we are A) Not jailing left-wing dissidents en masse, B) Actively killing off our Black population. As for the reservations, while what you say may be historically accurate, it is not necessarily true today. And again, the article about Human Rights in Cuba has nothing to do with Human rights in the United States so if continue to use that as a reason to insert material you will most likely be reverted. Soxwon (talk) 05:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

You keep talking like I've already made changes to the article.

And I've been to the rezzes. Have you? No. So STFU. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 06:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm addressing the changes you've insisted need to be made. And actually, yes, I've visited Indian Reservations, please refrain from uncivil comments like STFU. Soxwon (talk) 17:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

They do need to be made. That's why I've posted the thing here as something to be worked on. Do you have a problem with the probability that the democratic process when applied to this article might result in quite a bit of the more unsavory aspects of internal US history coming out? Too bad. That's what happens when a country behaves as the US has. Gotta be able to tolerate that "freedom and democracy" shticks are gonna get balanced with other truths and perhaps even outweighed by those other truths. That's ultimately what the Soviet Union had to do, what Europe's imperial powers had to do, and the US is no different. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 20:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I await these so called truths that you have yet to produce. Soxwon (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

As do I. I've been following this thread and I've yet to see a reliably sourced claim to back up the hyperbole I've been reading. I don't mind debating issues & facts, but as this isn't a freshman Philosophy course I won't debate rhetoric. Rapier1 (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

(←) I am curious to know why the Black Book of Communism is considered by many to be a WP:RS while the Black Book of Capitalism is not. Simonm223 (talk) 22:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Then I would suggest going to WP:RS and inquiring. Soxwon (talk) 00:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Giving background about source "Beijing Television" in context of Falun Gong persecution

The dispute is whether Beijing Television, a broadcaster which criticised Falun Gong in the late nineties before the persecution of Falun Gong began in 1999, should be noted as a Chinese Communist Party (CCP) mouthpiece, when the article notes its criticism of Falun Gong. A few wordings have been proposed. Here is the dispute in short: [4]. The source is David Ownby, who is probably the top scholar on this subject. I can't find the information I remember reading several years ago, but I seem to recall there being something in the old WP:RS or WP:V about how sources and their background should be identified. In this context, I think it's helpful and important for the reader to understand the context in which things are taking place. The narrative is of media criticism of Falun Gong, the consequent protests, and the escalation of these things until a full-scale persecution in mid-1999. It's been articulated in various sources, see for example, Ethan Gutmann's analysis, that it's significant who was doing the attacking at the time. I'm suggesting that Ownby's explanation of BTV is relevant (I think this is evidenced in the fact that he included it in his explanation, all), and plays a role in allowing the reader to understand the wider context of the issue. So, maybe Ohconfucius will have something more to add to the discussion. I'm looking for a third party to weigh in on whether this information is relevant, or is unwarranted. We can't seem to agree.--Asdfg12345 14:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Friendly artificial intelligence

This article is written from the point of view of a small group of individuals, Eliezer Yudkowsky et. al., contains original research, and contains a criticism section without any actual criticism of the validity of the concept or its status as fringe science. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.183.204.187 (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I've tagged it for notability, will look into it later when I can. --Ludwigs2 19:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Category:Indian_Marxist_historians

I doubt anyone in this category is an actual Marxist. It is popular among the nationalistic right in India to attach the epithet "Marxist" to anyone noticeably to the left of Genghis Khan. Actual Marxists will of course have no problem with the epithet "Marxist". You will easily recognize actual Marxists by their self-designating as Marxists.

The category is the brain-child of Defender of torch (talk · contribs), a user who is astoundingly fluent in wiki-jargon considering his less than 100 edits. --dab (𒁳) 20:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Within the category, D. D. Kosambi is the only one that can unambiguously be described as a Marxist. The others in the category are all described in their articles as "Marxist" on the basis of one source, added by Defender of torch. That source is Sreedharan, E. (2004). A Textbook of Historiography: 500 BC to AD 2000. Orient Blackswan. It looks perfectly scholarly, but the question is whether it supports the blanket description "Marxist" as currently added. It talks about a "Marxist phase" in Indian history and a "Marxist school", with which it associates these writers. From what I can see in google snippet view it also takes pains to explain the rationale behind this school of historiography, its influences, achievements and limitations, and also distinguishes different kinds of Marxism in different periods. From what I can see, the current reliance on this good source is cherry-picking. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I also just found this. --dab (𒁳) 18:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is the quote from the book (pp 482) "Bipan Chandra is another prominent member of the Marxist school of Indian historians". Does not it mean Chandra is a Marxist historian? --Defender of torch (talk) 18:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

No. It means he belongs to a school interpreting history in the tradition of Marx. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it does help to disavow Marxism these days, innit? Never mind that Sreedharan quotes Bipan Chandra in full flow: "However, many of them -- and Palme Dutt in particular -- are not able to fully integrate their treatment of the primary anti-imperialist contradiction and the secondary inner contradictions, and tend to counterpose the anti-imperialist struggle to the class struggle or social struggle. They also tend to see the movement as a structured bourgeois movement, if not the bourgeoisie's movement, and miss its open-ended and all class character." Gosh. Walk like a duck and talk like a duck, anyone? rudra (talk) 21:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, some "decoding" of modern Indian socio-political jargon is needed here. "Marxist" is an alias for "Leftist". In the Indian context, they are for all practical purposes the same. Erudite discussions of why this should not be so, and indeed is not so in the wider world, completely miss the point, which is labels, not philosophies. Until the '90s, most of the historians under discussion here didn't even mind if they were labelled "Marxist". This was because Marxism had (and amazingly enough still has) enormous cachet in Indian intellectual circles. Since the '90s, when everyone else segued neatly into post-Marxism and similar forms of cover-your-assism, the Indians have been following suit, so these days you might find them getting a bit touchy. But they still do dominate historiography in India. See, for example, this foreword to another book on the subject. rudra (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

"Czars" in US politics

This article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._executive_branch_czars purports to list the number of Czars appointed by recent President of the United States. "Czar" is a nebulous and informal political term in the USA referring usually to a high-ranking member of the executive branch whose title is long and cumbersome. President Barack Obama has come under criticism (whether fair or not is irrelevant) for his use of czars. It seems this list, which is almost entirely uncited, is meant to demonstrate that he and President George W. Bush used far more czars than previous Presidents. Regardless, it is an unverifiable and controversial issue and it is POV to try to nail it down with these numbers. DougOfDoom ^talk 22:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

the term has been widely used in newspaper and historical writing since at least Roosevelt. The present list seems very problematic and POV, and I think needs some stricter limits: possibly to the use in academic writing, or multiple sources of differing political views. (I am for example particular bothered by the first item on the list, used in a very expansive way to mean not someone in charge of a broad program, but someone promoting a particular view while in charge of a program--The Nation is not a NPOV source for this, even when I agree with it. and skipping, the very last item, though much less controversial, seems equally dubious. There's some interesting background at this opinion piece, dealing specifically with this Wikipedia article, (though I am certainly not proposing it as a RS.) DGG ( talk ) 03:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Alleged Militant or Convicted Terrorist?

WikiPeople,

This is my first post, so I hope I'm doing this right.

My comments are about this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Hakim_Murad_(militant)

(1) If we're not going to call him a "terrorist", then who can we call a terrorist? (2) The first sentence describes him as an "alleged conspirator"; however, the CNN article cited at the bottom of the page states that he was convicted. The top of the Wikipedia page should state this fact.

The Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid) says that "terrorist" should be avoided. However, it also states that "militant may also reflect a non-neutral point of view". How about changing it to "bombing plotter" or something like that?

Wikipedia says we need to avoid words like "terrorist" because they convey a value judgment (that is, a lack of neutrality). Being so militantly against describing terrorists as such, conveys a value judgment as well.

If one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter; then one man's Nazi is another man's German nationalist. Is it an acceptable value judgment to say that Hitler was evil; or must we remain neutral about him as well? Is moral relativism the only acceptable value? We can not escape making moral choices. We can not escape conveying value judgments.

I look forward to the discussion that I hope this post will generate.

Brian in NoVa (talk) 09:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)Brian in NoVa

I don't see militant as problematic here, in particular because it is used for disambiguation. If you find reliable sources that call him a terrorist, you can add them (attributed) to the article. To answer the more general point: Are the Nicaraguan Contras terrorists? Or the Sandinistas? What about the Mujahidin? What about them back in the 80s, when both John Rambo and Jame Bond helped them fight the Soviets? Nazis are much clearer to identify, for one because we have a better historical perspective, but also because they self-identified and were members of a formal party. Nazi also is not an inherent value judgement - the negativity associated with the term has been earned. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Instead of posting here, you should have started a discussion thread on the article's talk page. The noticeboards are generally used when editors are unable to resolve their differences there and come here to get a wider opinion. I agree that the term terrorist should be avoided for all the reasons stated. The Four Deuces (talk) 10:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Fidelity National Information Services

This page of A 30,000 employee corp has some dubious stuff in the history section. A lot of emails from someone guy Adrian Lofton addressed to the CEO casting all sorts of aspersions and soapboxing about them here too. I'm removing them, but more eyes are needed. Link to soapy version [5]. This is the kind of PR disaster waiting to happen that flagged revisions are supposed to prevent, but I'm not holding my breath. Pcap ping 02:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Short scale billion

This has come up on another article where I questioned whether "billion" should be used to denote the short scale version in areas of the world where the long scale version is in use. This manual of style clearly indicates the the short scale version should be used, but I feel this violates WP:WORLDVIEW. The majority of the world uses the long scale format i.e. 1,000,000,000,000 as opposed to the short scale i.e. 1,000,000,000 and I can't help but the feel that the adoption of the short scale format is biased towards the British and American convention. There seems to be no logical argument for adopting the the short scale version other than that's how it's done in Britain and the US. If we were to adopt a true worldview then the usage should depend on what it is relating to. If the numerical subject is US centric then short scale should be used. If French then long scale. If we were to adopt just one particular usage then it should be the long scale format since it is the most common usage. Since the phrase has two numerical equivalents maybe the best way to avoid confusion would be to write it as $1000 million or 1000 million euros since this would make the amount explicitly clear. I don't think it is correct to use a phrase to mean something where that usage is in the minority. Betty Logan (talk) 18:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

While I agree with the general sentiment, I think the example is misguided. France may use the long scale, but not necessarily when speaking English. I don't think there is significant long scale usage in English anymore - the only English-speaking country with ambiguous use is India, and even there long scale is rare. Since the short scale is nearly universal in the English language, I see no problem in using it on Wikipedia. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree to a large extent with Stephan Schulz; since this encyclopedia is written in English, only the style used in English speaking countries should influence Wikipedia style. Also, like any publication, Wikipedia has the right to choose its style. In many areas, Wikipedia has decided to follow the style of the English-speaking country most strongly connected to the article, or if there is none, the style picked by the first major contributor. But in the case of style matters that are likely to cause errors, such as short or long scale billion, or the choice of "." or "," as the decimal separator, Wikipedia has every right to pick one and ruthlessly edit any article to force conformance. --Jc3s5h (talk) 19:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Were writing in English what the word means in another language is of no relevance. For better or worse (I say worse) "billion" is generally taken to be a thousand million instead of (the more logical & original) million million in English these days. JIMp _talk·cont 19:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Schulz, and don't consider India to be English-speaking. It has both a smaller percentage of people able to speak English and a smaller number of native English speakers than Germany, for example. It is the second country by total number of people able to speak English, but it is the second country by total population as well. Among words whose cognates mean different things in most other languages are preservative (meaning "condom" elsewhere), actually (meaning "now" elsewhere), and so on. Do you (Logan) suggest we ban them all? ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 19:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict:) This should probably be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) which has discussed a number of similar issues. The question of non-Anglophone readers would be a significant point to bring up there. Another would be the earlier use in England (into the 1960's and well beyond) of milliard (as in French) for a 1,000 million, billion for one million million and trillion for one million times one million million (10¹⁸); in historical articles about Britain (e.g. Battle of the Atlantic, The Great Exhibition, British Empire Exhibition or Festival of Britain), one wouldn't be sure without some indication what a reference to "three billion" meant. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I did post a link to this discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Short_scale_billion. I didn't know where the best place would be to have the discussion. Since this is a noticeboard that specifically addresses point of view and gets more traffic I thought I'd get a better range of opinions here. But as you point out while Wikipeida demands that we use the short scale format that isn't indicated to the reader. English is a second language in many countries, and if the reader isn't aware that the short scale format is in use and their own country uses the long scale format then that is a potential source of confusion. Betty Logan (talk) 20:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Effectively communicating style conventions that could cause errors in interpretation, especially numerical errors, would require an enhancement to Wikimedia software to provide something akin to a map legend on every page setting forth those conventions. That would be the right solution, if one is required. Using long scale billion would be the wrong solution. --Jc3s5h (talk) 20:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes this can be a viable solution. (Note that, when "billion" is used several times in the same section, I only gave scientific notation on the first occurrence, as I expect the reader to be able to remember what is meant by "billion" at least until the end of the section.) ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 22:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I could live with that, but I daresay if I tried to introduce that notation into articles to clarify the terminology it would simply be reverted and I would be instructed to check the style guide. The question I suppose is Wikipedia there to serve as an encyclopedia just in English speaking countries, or is it there to serve as an encyclopedia anywhere in the world for anyone who can speak English? That takes us to the crux of the matter. If the former you can probably get away with short scale, if the latter then there does need to be some form of clarification for the terminology along the lines as spelt out by User: A._di_M.. Betty Logan (talk) 03:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Even if they learned it at some point in their school careers, there are many people who don't recognize scientific notation at first glance, so it may need a different gloss in articles that don't expect scientific proficiency (e.g. Solar System or United Kingdom budget.) I agree that when billion appears in a cluster, you should only need to convert/clarify once. (If it appears again in a different section, a second clarification might be advisable.) I went to school in London until 1960 when "billion" still meant a million million unless a U.S. context was explicitly mentioned and explained. While I understand that "billion" has come to mean a thousand million even in the UK (judging by the BBC and The Economist), there's enough uncertainty ("I may now use billion to mean 1,000,000,000 but what does the author of this article mean by it?") that even those who live in Anglophone countries need some kind of indicator. ¶ Again, this really has almost nothing at all to do with WP:Neutral Point of View and just doesn't belong here [especially at a noticeboard about specific violations]; no bias is involved, and it's the kind of bread-and-butter issue that Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) deals with every month. When that page discusses the meaning of "gallon", "calorie" or "karat", and how to make its meaning clear to as many different kinds of reader as possible when it appears in an article, neutrality and bias just is not an issue. —— Shakescene (talk) 03:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The discussion has somewhat evolved into a MOS issue, but I brought it to this board originally as a WP:WORLDVIEW issue on what I thought were valid grounds. I did link to it from the MOS page so they aware of this but I thought the issue extended beyond MOS. I still do actually, I don't think it's correct for Wikipedia to designate a particular usage when colloquially and through translations the term has another meaning, but if Wikipedia is resolute in using short scale I would be satisfied with a simple clarification, which obviously is completely an MOS issue. Betty Logan (talk) 04:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I went back to the beginning, and now I see what your original issue was/is. That does happen to be another kind of issue that comes up all the time on both WT:MOS and WT:MOSNUM, whether to establish a single standard or vary it according to context. If there's no chance of mistake, error or ambiguity, the bias seems to be towards fitting the convention to the context, as with British vs. U.S. spelling (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English) or where to give metric units first, but it's a much trickier question when different systems use the same names, such as "gallon" or "ton", or the same symbols, such as commas and stops to separate thousands and decimals (e.g. 62.123,7814 in a French source.) Even if Wikipedia did establish a universal convention and choose a single meaning, we should still make clear what that convention is. If you wanted to make a case for varying the Manual's current language to account for what you see as different expectations on non-Anglo-American articles, you could certainly do so. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent):I’m also English and old enough to remember when a billion was worth something, so no, it isn’t unambiguous at all. I think in cases of terms like this one which have more than one meaning then an explanation somewhere on the page is essential. A._di_M.’s notion of using (n×10⁹) or (n×10¹²) is good (though I notice some zealot has deleted it again),or we could use billion / billion, maybe. I also find UK and US tons confusing (does the author mean what I think it means?) And it also needs establishing that providing the link/explanation is a good thing, not a bad one. So how do we do that? Moonraker12 (talk) 16:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

PS I read somewhere the City of London uses the term "yard" to denote a short-scale billion (derived from "milliard" I suppose) to avoid ambiguity; does anyone know if that's so? Moonraker12 (talk) 16:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Sofia Rotaru article

I am having issues with the Sofia Rotaru article. It is written from a fan's POV and he or she keeps reverting every edit that tries to change that. He also has deleted maintenance tags without making any relevant changes. So I think the article in its current form is a disgrace to Wikipedia and someone should take a serious look at it. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

USCCB Comment

"Quote:"

In 2007, Office director Harry Forbes was sharply criticized for giving a too favorable rating on the Golden Compass movie, which strongly attacks the Church's teaching and Magisterium.

"End Quote"

Is this a quote from a particular article or person? The way it is worded now states as a fact that The Golden Compass is anti-christian. From what I understand most people, including myself, believe that this statement is of an opinion, rather than fact - and that there are also many who would disagree. If this is a quote, it should be presented as such, with citations. Otherwise, it should be removed.

Also, I would recomend changing "the Golden Compass movie" to "the movie The Golden Compass," as it is a title and should be written and italicised properly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Conference_of_Catholic_Bishops'_Office_for_Film_and_Broadcasting

NPOV in framing controversy

I'm having trouble at Climatic Research Unit hacking incident/E-mails. This is an introductory section that is supposed to frame the debate, yet all of the cites there are dismissive of the controversy, which of course, is one of the sides in the controversy (i.e. it's a tempest in a teapot). All attempts to frame both sides of the argument have resulted in reverts. Offers in compromise rejected (see here). Am I crazy or doesn't framing a controversy in a one side manor amount to WP taking the side that this is in fact a tempest in a teapot?Jpat34721 (talk) 03:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Alot of the article appears to be quite one sided. Particularly the section where specific emails are discussed. An email is quoted and then a quote in defence of or explaining the email immediately follows. The vast majority of the quotes in the article are from the 'tempest in a teapot' side of the argument.J Bird (talk) 11:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The article in question is a horrible example of "goal-tending" by a few POV editors and frankly serves as a caricature of the types of articles that give Wikipedia a bad name.--Textmatters (talk) 15:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Avatar (2009 film)

There are some POV issues surrounding Avatar. At the moment the critical reception section documents exclusively the US critical reception: Avatar_(2009_film)#Critical_reception An Indian editor (User:Cinosaur) has tried to add some details regarding the controversy the film has caused among Hindus in India, supplying sources from Indias top mainstream newspaper including the Times of India and The Hindu among others.

The other editors are refusing point black to entertain his additions on the stance they are not notable. Personally I think he's getting short shrift and the attitude of some of the editors violate WP:WORLDVIEW. If he can source the controversy through India's top mainstream newspapers then he's established notability as far as I can see. One of the arguments is that Hinduism is a minority religion depsite being the world's third largest religion, and Christian/Muslim/Jewish controversy has been documented on other film articles. It seems to me it is not being considered "notable" by virtue of the fact it is not notable within the United States, but I think this violates WP:WORLDVIEW.

If there is anyone with experience here who wouldn't mind looking into this and could offer an objective opinion I'm sure it would be appreciated by all parties: Talk:Avatar_(2009_film)#Reception Betty Logan (talk) 21:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Poso / Indonesia

There seems to have been a prolong omission of issues on the Poso article, while on the Portal:Indonesia page it states as 'fact' that Indonesia respects its diversity with the motto Bhinneka Tunggal Ika or "Unity in Diversity".

Many of the Indonesian related pages strike me as having a propaganda tone. I have added some links to the discussion page, I wish I could find some more positive things about Poso (city) in published works, unfortunately it has been in the media for the pass ten years for very unfortunate activities. The Wikipedia:WikiProject_Indonesia also seems infers that only people wishing to flay the Republic's seal on their home page should contribute to Indonesian related articles. 122.106.253.39 (talk) 01:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Somaliland

There is currently a discussion ongoing at Template talk:Africa topic regarding Somaliland.

As background, following Somalia's descent into anarchy in the early nineties, part of the north of that country declared itself independent as Somaliland. This territory has a functioning government that considers itself to be de jure independent, and claims borders corresponding to those of the former British Somaliland. It is in de facto control of a majority of that territory, but is not recognised by any outside state. Sources are generally available on the talk page, but it has become rather long-winded. Note in particular, however, that it is not argued that Somaliland is a micronation. Either it is an independent state or a state of Somalia.

Mainstream media sources tend to call Somaliland a "self-declared republic", an "unrecognised state" or a "breakaway republic". A lot of the discussion has centred on the Montevideo Convention, but now that we have (non-neutral) sources arguing both sides, this has rather closed down.

User:Middayexpress argues that all sources that support Somaliland independence (and in particular Somaliland government sources) are inherently unreliable on the grounds that many of their authors have a POV and (he argues) have links to the Somaliland government. In the case of the Somaliland government itself, he argues that their view that Somaliland is independent is unreliable because: "[o]f course they will say that it is; that is what their entire campaign for recognition is about." Having dismissed such view, he argues that the view that Somaliland is independent is a tiny minority view that should not be allowed for.

I argue that the fact that the Somaliland government considers itself independent, and that the rest of the world disagrees, is sufficient for WP:NPOV to require that we allow for the notion that the Somaliland government may be right. I argue that this should not mean that Somaliland be listed on a par with Somalia, but that Somaliland should be explicitly marked as is currently done with the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, or placed in a separate part of the template.

My questions. In the collective opinion of this noticeboard:

Is the view that Somaliland is independent a "tiny minority" view that need not be included per WP:V?

Should Somaliland be listed on the template, given that such listing would not put it on a par with Somalia and other states that are generally internationally recognised?

Thanks, Pfainuk talk 12:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I would say that it's not a tiny minority viewpoint, given that it's the official policy of the territory's government, but it shouldn't be included on the template given the complete lack of outside recognition. An appropriate comparison would be Transnistria, a breakaway territory of Moldova, which lacks any outside recognition and is not listed on Template:Countries of Europe. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd actually argue that Template:Countries of Europe is fairly seriously biased. It includes Kosovo as an independent state on a par with Serbia, but does not give equivalent status to Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Northern Cyprus, South Ossetia or Transnistria. The only ways in which Kosovo is distinct are the number of recognitions and the fact the United States and much of the rest of the Western World recognise it - indeed, the template accords exactly with the POV of the governments of most large English-speaking countries. Better to include all six in a separate section, below the list of those that are generally recognised, or to include them in italics with a note saying that entities in italics aren't generally recognised, or are disputed, or somesuch. Pfainuk talk 13:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you want to reopen that particular can of worms! The five territories you mention all have either minimal recognition (by one or two states) or none at all, in the case of Transnistria. There was a long debate about which to include in the template before it was agreed that a state should only be included if it has significant recognition. In fact, Kosovo has slightly more international recognition than the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic and it's recognised by all of its neighbours with the exception of Serbia. In the case of Somaliland the answer should be easy - it has zero international recognition and no state in the world recognises its territory as anything other than part of Somalia. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Abkhazia and South Ossetia each have four UN member states (Russia, Nicaragua, Venezuela and Nauru), plus Transnistria and one another. How many more do they need, exactly, to have "significant recognition"? Five? Ten? Why would you not say that recognition by a member of the P5 is significant? Why is it not significant that, like Kosovo, they are recognised by all of their neighbours except one?

Do you not think it's biased to definitively accept Kosovo as independent of Serbia, as that template does? Do you not think that appearing to take the US government's POV as fact and reject Serbia's POV out of hand - as we do on that template - is bad for Wikipedia? That it gives the impression of bias? Why should the Transnistrian and Nagorno-Karabkh POVs not be allowed for: why should we prejudge the disputes by declaring them definitively non-existent? No, I don't accept this as a sound reason to reject any of those five, nor as a sound reason to list Kosovo on level terms with Serbia. Pfainuk talk 22:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't shoot the messenger - I'm just telling you what the existing precedent is in this kind of dispute. The precedent suggests that Somaliland should be excluded from the template since it's not regarded by any UN state as independent, nor does it have any status in international law as an independent entity. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO, Transnistria is currently recognized by two non-UN members; Abkhazia and South Ossetia. It is not on equal par with Somaliland, in this case. Please see the List of states with limited recognition page to gain more knowledge on this subject. Outback the koala (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the subject, thank you. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I was a little confused I guess because above you stated that Transnistria lacks any outside recognition, when it in fact does. Sorry to bring up facts and all that. Cheers! Outback the koala (talk) 04:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I think I'll probably go template-fixing after this. We should definitely have a standard for all. I'd advocate sticking with the two Theories, like how its explained on the List of sovereign states page. Night w (talk) 11:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

There are articles on two competing definitions of statehood: The Declarative theory of statehood versus the Constitutive theory of statehood. Only the latter cares about counting votes to see how many other countries view it as a country. I think favoring one viewpoint of statehood is problematic. However, states with no/limited/disputed recognition should be footnoted or grouped separately so that readers have a clear understanding of their international recognition.RevelationDirect (talk) 23:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Harvey Whittemore

The neutrality of Harvey Whittemore (before deletions...compare with the current Harvey Whittemore) has been questioned. Wholesale deletion of amply-referenced sections of the article has also occurred. In crafting the biography, I used 27 of the most prominent and recent of over 300 reliable sources, every one of which covers the subject himself and/or his business or not-for-profit ventures. The sources include several articles from the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times and articles from Nevada's two major newspapers. Where opinions were stated in these sources, I was careful to attribute the opinions. When available, I included statements by the subject himself to give his perspective on controversial issues. I admit to having strong feelings on environmental issues, and the subject of the article has been criticised by environmental groups; however, I have made every attempt to avoid allowing my views to colour the language I used in the article.

I would appreciate an independent look at the biography as originally written. Thank you. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 13:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Can I just pick on one of the claims here. One of the other editors moved this "wholesale deletion" text into the discussion page WP:BLP and WP:Coatrack at 08:06 on 11 January 2010 and requested that the content be discussed and reviewed on these criteria before inclusion. Keepcalmandcarryon's response was to restore them at 16:00 on the same day without discussion.

The issue at hand here is not one of use of WP:RS, it's one of adopting a strong bias (instead of adopting an encyclopaedic and neutral stance) in selecting which sources to reference and the individual extracts from those sources that paint a quite different picture from the body of sources as a whole. Please review some of the discussion page as well as the history time line. I've given one example in the discussion, because you really need to read some of these references as whole to understand what I am talking about.

Also be aware that this article arose as a spin off of the Whittemore Peterson Institute (WPI) article (a medical research institute), which itself was a spin-off of the XMRV article.

A determined editor can pick a subject and get away with major distortion if willing to devote the time and effort, unless other editors are willing to fight and really understand how to prevent the Wikipedia processes being manipulated. I am a UK based IT professional, and I have absolutely no interest or opinion in this Nevada-based businessman (or common interests) other than the fact that he happened to help endow the WPI, the output of which does interest me. I certainly don't have the time or the desire to get into an edit war on this one. Yet I am defending Harvey Whittemore here because the reputation of Wikipedia is important to me and I don't think that the Wikipedia process is doing right by this individual. I've kind of run out of energy with Wikipedia for now, so I will take a editorial break pending a response. -- TerryE (talk) 16:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC).

Neutrality of company article

moved to Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Neutrality_of_company_article. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

BIAW

Appears on its face to have POV issues. For example:

The BIAW is Washington state's biggest lobby against climate change, open space, and other environmental legislation. The group's newsletter has gone so far to equate environmentalists with terrorists.[33] The BIAW is unlike other business groups in Olympia according to environmental lobbyist Clifford Traisman. "They are to the far right of most business in Washington state," Traisman says. "They believe the free market should rule supreme."[34]

In 2005, the southern resident orcas were designated an endangered species. In 2006, the BIAW along with the Washington Farm Bureau sued the government to remove orcas from the endangered list.[35] The legal challenge was thrown out of U.S. District Court.[36]

In 2007, the group challenged the Endangered Species Act (ESA) that protects threatened and endangered salmon across the West.[37]

In 2008, the BIAW, in their newsletter Building Insight, equate environmentalists with “Nazis and terrorists."[33][38][39]

In 2009, the BIAW has been fighting environmental legislation such as solar water heaters in new homes.[26]

and

The BIAW is generally anti-tax, but in 2005 they lobbied for an excise tax to replace so-called "impact fees" that local governments assess on new construction.[47]

I tried to clean up some of the worst offenses, but suggest other eyse would help a great deal here. Collect (talk) 15:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

This is going to be a difficult article to get right. There seem currently to be two sets of sources: BIAW itself, and Seattle newspapers. Both these are in principle appropriate. Does BIAW really get as bad a press as this in Seattle? If it does, then all we can do is reflect it and make sure that BIAW's own view is also in there, from its website or statements. (Perhaps they should change their PR consultants, but that's not up to us to say.) If there are also more positive articles in the local press then they should be in there too. One basic thing to do is to reorganise the section on the positions taken up under more neutral headings, and fewer headings. "Anti-union" won't do - what about "Labor policy"? One NPOV tag at the top of the article is more helpful than one on each small section. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Possible USA-centrism at demographics

Concerning the article demographics. Some other editors from as far back as 2006 have expressed concern about US-Centrism on this article

• diff
• diff

The article covers in some detail some of the demographic groups that are found in the United States in this section. However these demographics are not universally applicable all over the world and thus possibly undue weight is given to experiences in the United states. Some of the material is interesting but I have suggested is more appropriate in an article such as Demographics of the United States than a general demographic article. Watergate is not relevant in many parts of the world and so is McCarthyism. There is currently a dispute on how to handle this material and some outside input would be helpful. Wapondaponda (talk) 04:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

hmmm.. something I know a little something about. I'll take a look. --Ludwigs2 05:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Platelet-rich plasma

According to this article treatment with platelet-rich plasma fixes just about anything. Somebody with some medical beackground probably can better judge about the article's bias than I can. Also comments on talk page. --VanBurenen (talk) 12:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Ferdinand Nahimana

Ferdinand Nahimana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please review this article which looks to be written from the perspective of a supporter of Nahimana. A lot of good information, but should be rewritten for WP:NPOV. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Nazi Germany

Nazi Germany (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An editor claims that the article is not neutral. At Talk:Nazi Germany#Neutrality, User:Professional Assassin says that "The sources which have been used in this article are mostly from allied countries which is obvious that are not neutral. The current form of article looks like a war time anti-German propaganda". The user has made these edits, some of which I have already reverted. Could other editors please assess the merits of this claim that the article is biased in favour of the Allies, and whether this editor's edits were themselves neutral? Fences&Windows 22:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles should be based on reliable sources. As it turns out most reliable sources for Nazi Germany are written by scholars in Allied countries. However that does not mean that they are biased. I notice though that the article does have a lot of references and external links that are not high quality reliable sources. Better references should be found or the references should be removed, avoid using newspapers and revisionist historians. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

well, looking at that one diff you posted, I'm not sure why it was reverted. the additions seem (superficially at least) to be properly sourced, and the statements made do not seem unreasonable (Hitler was an immensely popular and effective leader in Germany), and the other points seem merely to be requests for clarifications, which aren't particularly objectionable in and of themselves. why was it reverted? --Ludwigs2 23:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

"Adolf Hitler was the most popular leader of Europe if not the whole world, and unemployment was just a thing of the past and German industries were the best and strongest in the world." is certainly questionable statements. The statement makes it sound like Hitler was the most popular leader across the world, which was not true in any sense, unemployment may have been a thing of the past for the average German (though not for for example most Jews and other undesirables), but the methods used is controversial and needs clarification. Also even at this time the industrial sector of the US was already stronger than Germany's. Corruption may have been reduced but it was certainly rife within the Nazi party. As you can see it seems a bit of a stretch to only apply one superficial newspaper citation for this. He also removed this section in the same edit: ""Between 1933 and 1945 more than 3 million Germans had been in concentration camps or prison for political reasons"<ref> Henry Maitles [http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/isj77/maitles.htm NEVER AGAIN!: A review of David Goldhagen, Hitlers Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust"], further referenced to G Almond, "The German Resistance Movement", Current History 10 (1946), pp409–527.</ref>".--Saddhiyama (talk) 23:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Saddhiyama. The Daily Mail is not an RS for qualitatiave historical analysis and the source is severely misrepresented (I imagine the author would be mortified). The removal of information about concentration camps has no apparent justification. The editor has what I would regard as a worrying (short) history. On the basis of this dif alone: [6], I believe that any NPOV concerns raised by the editor should be ignored. --FormerIP (talk) 01:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The edit inserted statements into the lead that favoured the Nazi government based on a Daily Mail article, an article that didn't even support much of what was inserted. 'Requests for clarification' are not always simple - the image that they want clarification of is annotated in the US government source as being the cremated bodies of anti-Nazi women, pray tell what they need clarified and why? In Gas chamber the same editor wants to state that it was "according to only the Allies and Jewish sources" that the Nazis used gas chambers; the edit serves no purpose other than to introduce doubt, and they are edit warring to keep it in.[7] They also inserted a statement that called the law in Germany against Holocaust denial a 'thought crime', sourced to a Holocaust denier.[8] There's a pattern here. Fences&Windows 01:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The reference to 3 million political prisoners, while probably correct, is poorly sourced. It's from a book review. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

ok, valid reasons all. Someone might encourage that editor to be a little less combative and a little better sourced, because I don't think he's wholly out in left field, just a bit exaggerated. what I've read on the subject (and it's not my specialty, no) leads me to believe that Hitler was popular in Germany and respected (with a degree of wariness) in the international community, at least prior to the invasion of Poland. And there's no doubt that Germany was technologically two steps ahead of the rest of the world (Allied arms were inferior for the entirety of the war, but the US had a significant advantage in output which negated the differences) This all should be very well sourced - WWII is a topic that a ton of scholars have worked on - so all he has to do is dig a bit and he can find better sourcing. --Ludwigs2 02:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

“there's no doubt that Germany was technologically two steps ahead of the rest of the world”

Que? And this is on a Neutrality noticeboard? Absolute rubbish!

The Germans had a technical advantage in some specific areas; in others they were markedly inferior. And the superiorities were not absolute, they mostly varied throughout WWII. Anything else just buys into the whole Wonder weapon myth.

Are you trolling?Xyl 54 (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Xyl - I understand this is a high-tension topic, but please don't jump on my ass for encouraging discussion and neutrality on the issue, particularly not when you yourself give a qualified restatement of what I said as an established truth. And no, I don't want to hear you justify why your statement was correct - we'll do that on the article talk page if the need arise. My only point was that the view might be extreme and improperly sourced, but it's not inherently a wrong opinion, and if it can be tempered and sourced better it should be considered for inclusion.

P.s. accusing me of trolling after two (2) posts on the topic is way off the deep end. I'd appreciate some acknowledgment that you erred. --Ludwigs2 19:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, the technology claim was yours, so if you reckon you can justify it, you can always take it up here.

As for the substantive issue, I agree with Narson (below). Xyl 54 (talk) 17:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll thumbs-up to your first point, but I think your second point is counter-productive. content, not editors. --Ludwigs2 17:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Guys, it is rather obvious he is a Nazi apologist and Holocaust denier using Wikipedia to prove a point. We probably should not humour him. --Narson ~ Talk • 16:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

People lists in the decade articles

While trying to improve the decade articles I've noticed that some editors insist on having lists of the most notable people in each decade. My problem with those lists is that they are not NPOV - they are an ever growing place for the editors to pick their favorite person of each decade. Therefore I believe that the lists of notable persons should be removed from all the decade articles. Even though a discussion on this matter has been taking place lately in the 2000s discussion page, the other editors are only willing to rethink the people section in the 2000s article. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 14:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Good point. A start would be if it is agreed to use reliable sources listing such people as "people of the decade", and including on the basis of these sources. --Cyclopia^talk 19:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Logic Pro

Crossposted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional sound production

An anon has been adding some inflammatory ranty soapboxy language to Logic Pro (e.g., this and this). While perhaps there is an underlying content issue which could be developed, the tone and sourcing is abysmal (and that is putting it charitably). Some eyes would be welcome, even if to develop the content properly, as I do not wish to edit-war even over such an obvious disruption to the article. Thanks, Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I added a comment to the discussion on the Talk page and I've reverted the IP editor's changes twice, but he seems hell-bent on getting his unsourced rant in the article. He's long since exceeded 3RR. May be time to involve an admin? - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Uggh. They added a reasonable source (a webpage by the manufacturer describing the issue — in notably more objective terms) and a dubious one (an online forum thread whose originator coined the disparaging moniker used on the page but whose other responders where considerably more tempered in their assessment). Semiprotection might be a good idea. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 21:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Not seeing much detail in the apple site. As for the other "reference", it's inappropriate. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Update I requested semiprotection here. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 21:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Semiprotected for a fortnight, should give time to clean up the page & move the discussion appropriately to the talk page Skier Dude (talk) 08:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Gas chamber

Gas chamber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

At Talk:Gas_chamber#Presenting Allied and Jewish claims as facts!, User:Professional Assassin says "It is obvious that those who fought against Germany can not be neutral to present their claims as facts". He has tagged the article as not being neutral a couple of times, and made several edits, presumably intended to balance it. Could the article be checked for neutrality please? Hohum (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

This is clear-cut Nazi trolling and should be ignored. The article should be reverted to a previous good version. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The artciel says that the letter said evidence" presented at Nuremberg and elsewhere for extermination and gassings in those camps is bogus. The letter (from the source providede) does not says this.Slatersteven (talk) 18:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

sigh... maybe he just doesn't understand wikipedia. I'll leave a note on his talk page. --Ludwigs2 18:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I am once again querying why we are humouring someone who is clearly here to push his fringe theory in such a disruptive manner. --Narson ~ Talk • 18:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Assuming the same kind of good fatih assumption we would hope for?Slatersteven (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Slatersteven - well said. --Ludwigs2 19:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for reform of problem editors, but there are a few classes of editors are inherently ill-suited for the wiki short a major personal epiphany. Holocaust deniers are one of those. They are a huge drain on the productivity of our good editors here. Auntie E. (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

How can some one have epiphany if we turn round and say "RIGHT THATS IT YOU'VE SAID THE UNSAYABLE AND I'M NOW IGNORING YOU"? We have to give all edds the benifit of the doubt, otehrwise whats to stop a another user saying the same when he disagress with you? We have to assume good faith from everyone, untill their actions become so disruptive that sactions become neccersary, if not then qwhy should any one else assume good faith based on a bad or iill consoderd edit?Slatersteven (talk) 19:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Auntie E.: I understand what you're saying: some people will just never get the wiki-thing. however, I think it's important to let people dig their own graves in that regard. I've personally had way too many editors label me as a this or a that (pugnaciously and unreasonably) to fully trust any argument based is labeling others. If s/he's a pro-Nazi troll, s/he'll prove it without any help from us; if not, then s/he just needs guidance so to look less like one. A reasonable and neutral editor could obviously add a Nazi perspective to an article, so long as that perspective is based in reliable sources and properly balanced with other sourced material - doing so would not make him/her a Nazi-POV-pusher. I'm just not convinced yet which way that cookie crumbles. --Ludwigs2 20:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Deepak Chopra

The article has severe POV issue as it is written from pro-Ayurveda POV and I noticed there is no criticism of a controversial fringe theorist like Chopra. There is a Deepak_Chopra#Reception section which deals mainly with praise and only one paragraph on criticism. Some more criticism should be included in the article in accordance with RS and BLP to present a balanced view. The career section reads like an advertisement by Chopra. And there were severe problem in this version of the lead. I think the lead should mention why Chopra is famous. Everyone knows him as an Ayurvedic thinker, whether he has certificate in endocrinology has nothing to do with his widespread media coverage. And surely he made no contribution in the field of endocrinology, but in the field of Ayurveda for which he is notable. --Defender of torch (talk) 04:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

To the extent that criticism of Chopra has been published by WP:RS I don't see why it shouldn't be included in the article. I just did a quick scan but didn't come up with anything substantive, however judging by the nature of his work and the length of his career there probably is something to be found. --Dailycare (talk) 22:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

José Piñera

The article on José Piñera, the brother of the Chilean president-elect, appears to be heavily biased in my view. I do not know enough of Chilean history to falsify the claims or complement them with compromising information. However, it seems highly inappropriate that someone who served on Pinochet's cabinet can present themselves as a guardian of human rights and democracy. Besides, most of the claims concerning Piñera's human-rights record come from his own personal website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.63.185.132 (talk) 07:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Dimitrije Tucović

Dimitrije Tucović was a Serbian social democrat, widely know for writing about the war crimes against Albanians. There is one user who constantly removing his quote from the article as "propagandistic". I didn't put this quote into the article but I think it should stay, because it represent Tucović's views.

Please, see page history and Talk:Dimitrije Tucović.

Thanks.--Mladifilozof (talk) 15:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Roblox

The article Roblox does not have a very neutral point of view, lots of citations are from the website itself. There are numerous criticisms around, there is no such section for this. There is also a "Premium Offers" section which simply lists what members could receive by paying the staff (it is not encylopedic and does not deserve its own section; a simple mention such as "Roblox has offered premium offers in the form of a 'Builders Club' subscription." would do the job fine).
~xantiss (talk) 20:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Philippeville

The only source cited in the article is the book Aussaresses, Paul [Gen.]. The Battle of the Casbah." Enigma Books, 2006, p.1. ISBN 1929631308.

The author of the book was one of the principals in the battle, and therefore cannot be considered neutral. Unfortunately, I know of no neutral source, but it seems to me that Aussaresses' claim that the fellagha were under the influence of narcotics sounds suspiciously like propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donprius (talk • contribs) 05:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC) --Donprius (talk) 05:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

NPOV in David

There has been considerable controversy recently over a pottery sherd *being spelled shard in the article, a minor issue) found at Khirbet Qeiyafa which is probably but not necessarily 10th century (at the time King David is supposed to have reigned) and may or may not be in Ancient Hebrew. It was found in a fortified city which is also part of the controversy as some see this as proof of a Kingdom of Israel at that time. My view is: 1.The real detail should be in Khirbet Qeiyafa, ie quotes, etc.

2.The section heading should not call it a Hebrew sherd as that is in dispute.

3.There should be no quotes in the David article or if there are they need to be balanced - as I've said, I think they belong elsewhere anyway. Reargun's edits keep putting Galil's quotes in without balancing quotes.

4.Statements such as "many see", which are not backed up in the cited sources, should not be continually inserted in the section.

5.Reargun keeps inserting " an earlier date for the first biblical writing than some believe" although the sources actually say "earlier than many modern scholars believe."[9] and " written hundreds of years before the dates presented in current research"[10] - using 'some believe' seems pretty clearly trying to put this as a minority viewpoint.

6.Although the fortified city is mentioned in the sources, my reading is that they generally emphasise the sherd and Reargun's opinion that the fortified city is more important is just that, his opinion.

I'd appreciate it also if people would look at the edit summaries [11] to see my reasoning (and I guess confirm that I'm not a vandal as accused). I also tried to discuss this on the talk page of the article (although my initial point was clearly incorrect, I was reading the wrong sources it seems). Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 08:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I can confirm you are not a vandal, and your version in the diff looks preferable to me. The use of the word "Herbrew" in the title is inappropriate, since there appear to be scholarly differences of opinion about this, as acknowledged in both versions. The Galil quote looks as if it should not be used without anything to balance it, and it also doesn't appear to draw conclusions about the histoticity of David from the shard/sherd but, rather, to assert the historicity of David (as has been said, the passing mention of David's reign should not be in the article) and then draw conclusions about how advanced the society was in terms of writing. A trimmed-down version of the quote could be used to make that specific point, perhaps.

The thing I'm not sure about is the emphasis on the fort. But it would seem logical that this can only be seen as evidence for the existence of the Kingdom of Israel if taken in conjunction with a certain interpretation of the sherd. This makes the sherd seem more important IMO, since that is the crucial bit of evidence which, it is said, may establish the existence of a Hebrew society at the site. --FormerIP (talk) 14:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe that my views are being misrepresented. Dougweller originally tried to suppress the information, now I think he is misrepresenting the facts. I did not jump in, I asked everyone, they agreed and we changed it. The facts as I see them are that this inscription was dated in the period we believe of King David in the 10th century BCE. It was found in a strata in a fort making it an extremely reliable dating. Such a fort would require a considerable state to construct it. Clearly the context of the fort is as important as the inscription. Linguistically, the debate is primarily on the dialect is it Hebrew or not? Most of the experts do feel, I think overwhelmingly agree that it is Hebrew. The wording itself is considered close to the Bible.

I think most experts would agree that we probably have a large fort requiring a sizable state, probably Hebrew, with writing close to the Bible all at the time of King David. Reargun (talk) 14:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Apologies if it seemed like I was questioning your conduct in any way, Reargun. I've looked at the actual content, but only skimmed over the talkpage discussions, and I don't mean to suggest that you have not gone about things properly. However, in my view, Dougweller's edit seems preferable. You say that you feel that experts overwhelmingly agree that it is Hebrew, but that doesn't seem at all clear from the sources. If you were able to find sources that clear demonstrated this, then that would change the picture quite significantly. But your feeling about the matter is not an RS. --FormerIP (talk) 14:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Whatever my feelings, I do believe and hope that I am objective. I am very keen on the wikipedia.

Okay let us start, I am not so sure that written Hebrew issue is so important. In the 10th century it was not as distinct as a language as today, that is why I said *dialect*. As far as experts, I think all these can be accepted as such by the wikipedia.

This one has some very good links for people to examine who are interested in this topic.

http://robertcargill.com/2010/01/07/earliest-hebrew-inscription-reported-found/

http://asorblog.org/?p=18

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-01/uoh-mah010710.php

http://digs.bib-arch.org/digs/khirbet-qeiyafa.asp

They are saying it is Hebrew.

I feel that if these experts say that it is Hebrew and shows something about King David, we should put it in and if others such a Dougweller who feel that other experts disagree he can put in those experts. It is not our job in the wikipedia to decide this question.

What I told Dougweller and what I believe is this find does not prove the existence of King David but what it does disprove are claims that a strong central monarchy in Israel in the 10th century did not and could not have existed.

I would go further now and say because of the similarity in language to the Bible we would have evidence of a culture similar to references of the claimed King David's culture in the OT. Reargun (talk) 16:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Your first source says "(if it is determined to be, in fact, hebrew and not some canaanite dialect)" and that it doesn't prove the existence of King David or argue against his existence.. The second source is dated 2008, before a lot of the other commentaries and trnaslations. The 3rd source is the press release from the University of Haifa and not surprisingly only mentions Galil's opinions. The 4th is BAR advertising a dig, and does make the assumption the language is Hebrew but doesn't actually discuss it. None of these justify Wikipedia deciding it is Hebrew, which is what we would be doing if we called it that at any point.

As for your last point your first source speaks to that when Cargill says " what we can say is that the themes of social justice and care of the poor and marginalized that would later be echoed in the torah and by the prophetic books were already in the consciousness of the peoples that would later comE to identify themselves as jews." Dougweller (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Check the heading on the first reference it calls it "earliest-hebrew-inscription". If you are happy with that, then I have no objection to changing it to that. Also the article "King David" we have now states that there is some dispute over the language too. Also never in the article did it state that it proves King David, the closest is in the section is a quote by a notable expert Gershon Galil. I might add too that putting his quote in was agreed in an earlier discussion here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:David#10th_Century_Hebrew_pottery_shard

For the second reference it was because of the dispute by several experts that Gershon Galil was called in.

The 3rd source the University of Haifa and Galil's  are both notable. They were selected because of their reputation for this find which was seen as highly signification. 

BAR is certainly a notable source, it is made for the public but is highly regarded in Biblical archeology. If they say it is Hebrew, then that alone would be grounds to put it into the article.

The 4th is BAR advertising a dig, and does make the assumption the language is Hebrew but doesn't actually discuss it

Finally Cargill comment " what we can say is that the themes of social justice and care of the poor and marginalized that would later be echoed in the torah and by the prophetic books were already in the consciousness of the peoples that would later comE to identify themselves as jews." I have no objections of putting that into the article too. Reargun (talk) 06:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The basic point is that while the experts disagree on what language this is then the section heading should not be taking sides. And the first reference does not say 'earliest Hebrew inscription', it says 'Earliest Hebrew inscription reported found, but the section heading should be completely neutral. Where does it say that Galil was called in because of the dispute? Can you give me the url? Dougweller (talk) 06:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I did a google search on the name you suggest "10th Century Khirbet Qeiyafa pottery shard" and got

No results found for "10th Century Khirbet Qeiyafa pottery shard".

People do not know it by that name, Dougweller I think you are making up a name for possibly political positioning.

About Galil, I know because I have been following the dig for a number of years now. Once the importance of the inscription was realized he was called in. Many others have also worked on it even before him too. No doubt the arguments are just starting. Reargun (talk) 10:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Summers memo

Somebody might want to deal with this. I think the problems with it (e.g, stating that the memo was written by Summers when this is in doubt) are pretty clear if you read it and read some sources about the subject, but convincing the people who maintain it of that would take more time than I have.Prezbo (talk) 23:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Sexual abuse scandal in Selwyn House School - appropriately named?

Is this article's title appropriate NPOV? How do you define "scandal"? If it is not, can a user move it to an appropriately titled article space? Thanks! (As a non-registered user, I could not start a talk page to bring my concerns there.)207.69.137.27 (talk) 01:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures

Edits are being made to advocate or hide a position here and removing relevant material. And actually seems to have engaged in retributive edits on other pages I have touched.

--Outsider10 (talk) 12:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)