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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

Neutrality of company article

moved to Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Neutrality_of_company_article. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:12, 14 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: [1], 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.[2] They also inserted a statement that called the law in Germany against Holocaust denial a 'thought crime', sourced to a Holocaust denier.[3] 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."[4] and " written hundreds of years before the dates presented in current research"[5] - 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 [6] 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)

You know, I'm getting a bit tired of what I perceive as insults and attacks by you. Why in the world are you searching for that name? I did have it as an article heading because at one point there was an article by that name, but the section heading isn't meant to be the same as the name you would use to search, although without the quotation makes you get almost 3000 hits. In fact I see there is a dispute over the date, we shouldn't have 10th century in the section heading, probably just Khirbet Qeifyafa, nothing else, as the secion would cover the sherd and the fortification. I did ask for a reliable source about him being called in, preferably saying who called him in, if that is something you think should be in the article. I note that you haven't replied to my point that we should have a statement or section heading that takes sides in the dispute over the language. Dougweller (talk) 18:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no objections to just Khirbet Qeifyafa. I already explained the rest Reargun (talk) 10:44, 24 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)

I do not think it is appropriately named and that it would be more appropriate to include the information in the main Selwyn House article. I had set up a discussion thread at the article's talk page. The Four Deuces (talk) 07:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the title fits perfectly with the existing category about school sex abuse scandals. Many of these types of events involve a large number of people over an extended period of time, with multiple arrests, inquiries and trials, therefore it is more than appropriate to refer to it as an abuse scandal of sexual nature. Besides, there are very similar article titles like this that were written for Catholic sex abuse cases, such as the sexual abuse scandal in Boston archdiocese for example. ADM (talk) 01:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I have nominated the article for deletion.[7] The Four Deuces (talk) 08:29, 25 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)

Outsider10 has accused me of non-neutral editing at this article. It is not entirely clear what their point is, however the user's initial edits of the article in question involved removal of statements from the article that were supportive of the article's subject. Please see Talk:New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures#Kingdom Interlinear.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes I did remove those. Anyone who works with linguistics will know that one language doesn't translate precisely to another language. When arguments that language can be translated precisely are made they should be taken with a grain of salt. Regardless that tidbit has very little to do with your removal of cited information and is not much more than a red herring which I did not attempt to propagate. They were afterall cited sources. I was certainly in error to remove them. As have you been to remove other cited sources and to attempt to redefine things for sake of your own concept of relevancy.

--Outsider10 (talk) 13:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

You've demonstrated that there is little point in direct discussion with you. I will await comment from third parties both at the NWT request for comment, and at this noticeboard.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Both of you should add some difs demonstrating your points. It will make it easier for third parties to understand the timeline of events. Sifaka ^talk 22:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

PoV problem at “Austrian School”

Over at “Austrian School”, we have a couple of editors trying to have a criticism presented in non-neutral language:

• diff by Lawrence Khoo
• diff by BigK HeX

I carefully explained the problem after the edit by Lawrence Khoo and before the edit by BigK HeX, using three sorts of statements:

There is, of course, a difference between identifying an actual feature and asserting that the feature is bad, and merely claiming that a bad feature is had. Consider these three claims:

• One criticism was that Gerald Ford had pardoned Richard Nixon.
• One criticism was that Pete Seeger was a communist agent.
• One criticism was that Pete Seeger was ostensibly a communist agent.

The first is of course a plain fact; whether one agreed with Ford or not, he was criticized for something that he clearly did. The third is also a plain fact; whether Seeger was a communist stooge or not, he was criticized as if he were one. It's the second that's problematic. It looks like the a criticism of the first form, implying that Seeger were a stooge and were criticized for it.

There was no response other than the reversion by BigK HeX. —SlamDiego_←T 17:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Since the Austrian school criticizes the "scientific" approach used by other schools it is not biased to say they are criticized for their lack of scientific rigor. (The Austrian position is that economics is too complex for acientific analysis to be appropriate.) Incidentally your choice of examples to explain your position does not give me confidence that you are interested in neutrality. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The Austrian School does not claim that economics is too complex for scientific analysis. Some of them do claim that the methods applicable to some sciences are not applicable to economics, but that's a different claim (and not an extraordinary claim about differing sciences); and v. Mises claimed that other sciences were making inadequate use of his method, which shows that he considered his method scientific. In cases where they use the term “scientistic” or put scare quotes around “science”, they are not demonstrably rejecting science, but rejecting what they believe to be a misrepresentation of unscientific method as science.

As to my choice of examples, it was chosen exactly to illustrate how the same practices can gore the ox of the other side. Instead of inferring bias, you should have seen the exhibition of symmetry. —SlamDiego_←T 18:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge Pete Seeger was never accused of being a "communist agent" and the term "stooge" is pejorative. Pete Seeger was a Communist at one time so it is the same category as Ford pardoning Nixon, a fact about someone that may attract criticism rather than an accusation that may be untrue. However you now add to the the problem by grouping your opponents with Communism. In fact none of them are supporters of Communist economic theory.

The lead states:

Austrian School economists argue that the only means of arriving at a valid economic theory is to derive it logically from basic principles of human action, a method called praxeology. Additionally, whereas mainstream economists often utilize natural experiments, Austrian economists contend that testability in economics is virtually impossible since it relies on human actors who cannot be placed in a lab setting without altering their would-be actions.

Do you disagree with this description?

The Four Deuces (talk) 18:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Pete Seeger was accused of being a communist at a time when all communists were widely regarded as agents of the Soviet Union (which belief was a large part of why there were attempts to identify communists); and indeed the term “stooge” is pejorative, but it means subordinate or puppet. I didn't group my opponents with communists; I grouped them with people who don't like reading people such as Seeger being treated as communist stooges. It seems apparent that you're amongst such people, so look at what is wrong in principle with statements of the second form (“One criticism was that Pete Seeger was a communist agent.”) when the underlying purported fact is not verifiable. And then recognize that we don't want to use that form in other cases unless the purported underlying fact is verifiable.

The statement in the lede is over-broad. But, even if it weren't, the fact remains that even the v. Mises branch within the Austrian School regards its methods as scientific; and, if you'll attend to, say, Beyond Positivism: Economic Methodology in the Twentieth Century (a book on scientific method in economics by Bruce Caldwell), you'll find that the Austrian School cannot properly be summarily dismissed as unscientific or as lacking scientific rigor. —SlamDiego_←T 18:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could point out where the book says Austrian economists consider their methods scientific. The scientific method goes from hypothesis to experiment to theory, while Austrians argue from first principles. This puts their theories outside science as it is normally understood. That does not mean their theories should be dismissed. Their response would be that the scientific method is not applicable to economics, which is a rational (excuse the pun) position. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Read, for example, Chapter 7, on the controversy between Machlup and Hutchinson, though I was actually citing that book in support of the claim that “the Austrian School cannot properly be summarily dismissed as unscientific or as lacking scientific rigor”. For the claim that even the v. Mises branch of the Austrian School regards its method as scientific, I would first have cited v. Mises's The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science (underscore mine), and then perhaps turned to the opening sentence of Human Action, “Economics is the youngest of all sciences.” (underscore again mine), his explicit reference to “the scientific methods of praxeology and economics” in Chapter IX $2, and so forth. I would again direct you to Caldwell with respect to your claim about the nature of the scientific method; amongst philosophers of science there seems an unending controversy about the fundamental nature of the scientific method, and Caldwell provides a summary that is especially useful as it is produced with economic ever in mind.

The point is not to assert that the Austrian School is scientifically rigorous; it is that Wikipedia neutrality precludes endorsement or insinuation of a claim that it is not. —SlamDiego_←T 19:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

On the talk page I see two related phenomena obstructing consensual editing. One is that everyone is continually yielding to the temptation to discuss the theories themselves rather than how they should be presented in the article. The other is that editors are getting too close to original research and relying on sources that might be considered primary. I think you need to find two or three popular university economics textbooks and ensure that the article is broadly in line with what they say. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Popular economics textbooks tend not to have more than short infoboxes on the Austrian School, in part reflecting a lack of familiarity (which also leads to these not being the most “reliable” sources). Caldwell's book, which I've been citing above, is a relatively popular work on method, often used in the classroom. —SlamDiego_←T 19:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

At this point BigK HeX has taken to editing the article to baldly insist that the Austrian School simply does not rely upon empirical underpinnings. and to remove material with citation of a reliable source that contradicts this assertion. —SlamDiego_←T 23:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

And now Lawrence Khoo has removed the reference to contradictory assertions. Unlike BigK HeX, Khoo has not presented the assertion as bald fact, which is an improvement. But he has removed, rather than relocated, reference to conflicting views, on the excuse of flow. —SlamDiego_←T 04:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The term "science" can be used in different ways, but the critics of Austrian economics are obviously referring to the scientific method which Austrian economics specifically rejects: "This essay proposes to stress the fact that there is in the universe something for the description and analysis of which the natural sciences cannot contribute anything." "Individualism as a principle of the philosophical, praxeological, and historical analysis of human action means the establishment of the facts that all actions can be traced back to individuals and that no scientific method can succeed in determining how definite external events, liable to a description by the methods of the natural sciences, produce within the human mind definite ideas, value judgments, and volitions." (The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science: An Essay on Method, pp. v, 82) The Four Deuces (talk) 06:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

As I said, the nature of the scientific method is hardly settled amongst philosophers of science (including scientists who philosophize). The interpretations of scientific method given by Paul A. Samuelson, Milton Friedman, and so forth have been markedly different one from another. It would be perfectly fair to note that Milton Friedman's interpretation has been claimed to be unscientific, especially if the counter-interpretation of the accuser is provided; but a violation of WP:NPoV to simply assert that any of these lacks scientific rigor. Including the Austrian School.

At this stage, Lawrence Khoo and BigK HeX are more baldly claiming that the Austrian School rejects empirical underpinnings (a more radical claim than that its methods lack scientific rigor). I noted that the cited passage in Caldwell says

Murray Rothbard comes closest to being a true Misesian, though he differs in his interpretation of the logical status of the categories of human action: for him they are broadly empirical.

and on the talk page quoted Menger (founder of the school) as asserting

For along with the historical, surely very valuable empirical basis for theoretical research, the experience of everyday life is indispensable. Or, what is the same thing, the observation of the singular phenomena of human economy, indeed, as must be added here, the most comprehensive possible orientation of that economy, is indispensable. It is so indispensable that we cannot imagine a highly developed theory of economic phenomena without the study of the history of economy

but Khoo responds that “It is irrelevant what was said or done in the past.” unless, apparently, it was said and done by Mises (d 1973) or by Rothbard (d 1995), and BigK HeX asserts that I'm engaged in original synthesis. It evidently doesn't matter that reliable sources plainly contradict their favored claims. —SlamDiego_←T 07:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Waterboarding

Regarding the first sentence of the article: It says "Waterboarding is a method of torture..." There has been much debate as to whether or not this is neutral. The current sentence is sourced by a "political dictionary" that was found from a google books search for "waterboarding torture and death" (it can still be seen in the link for the reference). I propose to change this to the Merriam-Webster's dictionary definition, in the interest of neutrality, but this is seeing resistance on the talk page for god knows what reason. The Merriam-Webster definition says that it is an "Interrogation technique" instead of "method of torture". The first sentence essentially defines the word in a way that has proved to be very controversial (as can be seen on the talk page), without even using a neutral dictionary definition. Is it in the best interest of neutrality to define waterboarding as "torture", or is it better to define it as an "interrogation technique", as is in the dictionary, and discuss the different viewpoints of whether or not it is torture in the rest of the article? Swarm^Talk 04:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

This has been raise previously in this noticeboard here and here. Most editors were of the opinion then that the lead as it stand now is in keeping with the NPOV policy. There is no controversy among the reliable sources. The majority view among RS is that waterboarding is a form of torture and the minority/fringe view is that it is not. Notwithstanding the proportionality clause of the NPOV, the minority view is discussed in over 2/3 of the article. Sadly the Merriam-Webster's dictionary definition is incomplete by omitting the term torture. The other 188 RS explicitly define it as torture. So to summarise as I last counted 188 RS state categorically that it is torture. 6 RS that is is not and the Merriam-Webster's dictionary definition is neutral but omits the term torture. Given this facts I still believe that the lead as "Waterboarding is a form/method of torture" is in keeping with the NPOV policy.--LexCorp (talk) 04:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, but:

1. I'm not disputing the fact that waterboarding is widely considered torture, nor am I disputing the reliability of any of the sources
2. Neither of the previous discussions are helpful in this manner
3. You can't dispute a dictionary definition
4. You are heavily involved in this debate and have a clear opinion. That is unhelpful to the purpose of this noticeboard. If you want to debate this, please keep it on the talk page of the article. I'm looking for outside advice from uninvolved users. Swarm^Talk 05:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I contributed to this noticeboard long before involving myself with the waterboarding article. In fact I came to known of the waterboarding issue because a previous post here on this board. I hold no involvement in the waterboarding article other that on NPOV matters. So in that sense I am an outside advice from this very noticeboard no less. Anyway lets see what other editors have to say on the matter.--LexCorp (talk) 06:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe the phrasing is neutral: it's taking a side on a hotly contested issue. NPR and the US government are not "fringe" sources. While I view waterboarding as torture, that I view it as such does not make my point of view neutral. Go with the dictionary, state that it's widely viewed to be torture, and note the controversy over that classification. THF (talk) 06:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments and questions:

• WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPoV aren't about making minority positions incorrect ex definitione. The fact that only a small minority dispute something isn't sufficient basis to define it as fact (though matters for which there is sufficient basis may be disputed by minorities).
• Much of the debate over whether waterboarding is “torture” is one where the legal definition of “torture” is in dispute.
• The relevant lay definition is “the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure”. Do “reliable” sources report that the sensation of drowning includes intense pain? Does any “reliable” source dispute this?

—SlamDiego_←T 20:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

IRCT Senior Medical Consultant and former member of the UN Committee Against Torture is one of the most relevant RS at [8] stating:

“It’s a clear-cut case: Waterboarding can without any reservation be labelled as torture”, says Prof. Sørensen. “It fulfils all of the four central criteria that according to the United Nations Convention against Torture (UNCAT) defines an act of torture.” He explains:

“First, when water is forced into your lungs in this fashion, in addition to the pain you are likely to experience an immediate and extreme fear of death. You may even suffer a heart attack from the stress or damage to the lungs and brain from inhalation of water and oxygen deprivation. In other words there is no doubt that waterboarding causes severe physical and/or mental suffering – one central element in the UNCAT’s definition of torture”.

There are a few more RS that state that the method causes pain. Also totally unrelated you can read many accounts online of near-drowning experiences where the common factor is intense chest pain. Many people state this to be the worst pain they had felt in their lives.--LexCorp (talk) 21:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

One comment here, namely that dictionaries aren't in my opinion WP:RS. WP:RS are preferably secondary sources, whereas dictionaries are, at best, tertiary ones. If there are almost 200 WP:RS (I haven't checked them) saying it's torture and only a handful saying it's not, then the case appears to me very clead indeed: as far as Wikipedia is concerned, it's torture. Wording in the body of the article saying it is torture, but this is disputed by some would be OK. The "not torture" view should not be given much space in the article based on that breakdown of sources. --Dailycare (talk) 21:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

This page maintains (no sure how uptodate it is) a list of RS with comments by editors as to their merits. If you go to the Waterboarding article you will find that about 2/3 is dedicated to the controversy.--LexCorp (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The UN source here is a good one. But please keep in mind that we're not arguing the Truth of waterboarding being torture, so your reference to “Many people” gets us a bit off track.

Now, do we have any “reliable” sources that dispute the claim that waterboarding causes intense pain? —SlamDiego_←T 23:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Mu. You're asking the wrong question and attempting original research and synthesis. "Torture" is a term of legal art whose parameters are the subject of controversy, and it's inappropriate to try to gerrymander the lay version of the term to provide a definitive encyclopedic answer to the controversy of whether waterboarding fits within that term. Wikipedia is supposed to report, rather than decide. If your reliably-sourced arguments are as strong as you believe, and the other side's arguments are as weak as you believe, then no harm will be done to any intelligent reader who reads an article on the subject that complies with NPOV and fairly represents the controversy. Again, the USA government and NPR are not "fringe" sources, so there is a real debate here. THF (talk) 02:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The US government has a huge conflict of interest in denying that it's torture. Its reliability is suspect in this case. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I dispute that the US government has a conflict of interest (the actual waterboarding took place after the internal determination that it was not torture, and stopped when that internal determination changed), but even if it did, you prove my point. There is a dispute, and the neutral point of view acknowledges all of the major positions without taking sides. THF (talk) 08:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

THF, The issue of the legal definition is here entirely a red herring. The word “torture” lives mostly outside of legal discourse. (And the present status of the article “Torture” is most unfortunate.) The article on waterboarding should discuss the legal status, and can address the issue of whether it meets the legal definition, but the article is not principally on matters of law, and the relevant definition is not draw from law books. —SlamDiego_←T 04:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not a red herring in the slightest. It's the entire crux of the controversy. THF (talk) 08:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It's the entire crux of the legal controversy. But most people are more immediately concerned over whether waterboarding is torture than whether the law would use the word “torture” to describe it. If waterboarding causes intense pain, but the language of the law would not identify with the word “torture”, this would mean that it were legally permitted torture. (One of the consequences of confusing matters of law described in the language of law with matters of fact described with ordinary English is that lawyers who answered questions of law are condemned as if they'd said something very different from what they had.) —SlamDiego_←T 08:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The claim that the dictionary is not a reliable source is absolutely absurd. When defining a word, the definition should not be inferred based on the number of sources that support the statement, but actually taken from a dictionary. The dictionary, of course, shouldn't be used to cite entire sections, but it is absolutely valid when simply defining a term in a single purpose sentence. Not using the dictionary definition, instead favoring a definition based only on the sources for the body of the article is nothing short of synthesis. Swarm^(Talk) 02:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Swarm, as I read your remarks, you are trying for nothing more than wording that doesn't guide the reader towards a value judgment; and I for one appreciate the predisposition that would drive your effort. But consider the article “Torture” itself. How could we equivalently neutralize it? I think that the difficulty in answering that question may speak to an underlying problem with the sort of neutralization that you're seeking here. I quite agree that dictionaries are “reliable” sources for aspects of this article. I think that, if we look at the definition of “torture”, then what remains is simply whether there is sufficient, unchallenged support in “reliable” sources for the notion that waterboarding causes extreme pain, that it may be treated as something like a plain fact that waterboarding is torture. I believe that, if you wish to argue against declaring waterboarding to be torture in the lede (or elsewhere), then you should present reliable sources that argue that it is not intensely painful. —SlamDiego_←T 04:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

How could we equivalently neutralize torture? You start with the dictionary definition, and then you have sections going through various legal definitions: how it's defined by the Geneva Conventions (discussing disputes over the scope of the definition there), how it's defined by US law (discussing changes in US law over time), other major sources of law, etc. The torture article shouldn't imply there's a single agreed-upon definition, and if it does, it violates WP:NPOV. THF (talk) 08:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you propose to remove the word “torture” from the article “Torture”? The article on waterboarding can explain legal language, but its meta-language is English, and in English “torture” includes the infliction of intense pain to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure. Regardless of what the language of the law may say, if the “reliable” sources somehow all agree that waterboarding causes intense pain, then en.wikipedia.org can baldly call it “torture” except when discussing legalese. —SlamDiego_←T 08:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't propose to remove the word “torture” from the article “Torture”, and no reasonable reading of my comment could suggest that I did. It's been explained to you multiple times why your proposed approach violates WP:SYN and WP:NPOV, but you seem not to want to address those arguments and instead just repeat the argument you've already made that's been refuted. That's not fruitful discussion. You can have the WP:LASTWORD since it seems to mean so much to you. THF (talk) 09:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Your comment implied that you proposed to remove the word “torture” from the article “Torture”, or that you'd missed the fact that repulsive things cannot be clearly described and discussed without causing repulsion, or that you were entangled in a confusion of legal language with the language of en.wikipedia.org. What I propose doesn't involve violating any part of WP:OR. What I propose is that legal language not be confused with the language in which Wikipedia itself is written, and that “reliable” sources be consulted as to whether waterboarding causes intense pain. If they are in remarkable agreement that it does, then those who would use the word “torture” are on solid ground; if they are not in agreement, then Swarm or some other editor should cite the dissenting “reliable” sources, and then the article should not declare it to be torture. Evidently, you believe that those who are not simply for your position are simply against it, as you've not discerned that I haven't said that the word “torture” should be used (nor that it should not be used). —SlamDiego_←T 09:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

SlamDiego, you've made your point. Please stop repeating it, and let others contribute. THF (talk) 08:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that there's a class of editors who are to comment once, and then depart, which includes me, and then another class who are more free to continue, which includes you. —SlamDiego_←T 08:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

You have me completely wrong, by the way. I’m not proposing we remove the word “torture” from the article. I’m not proposing that based on the dictionary definition, it shouldn’t ever be called torture. I’m not proposing to use the dictionary definition to dispute the many reliable sources that call it torture. The only thing I suggested was that in one sentence, the sentence that defines the word, we should use the dictionary definition. The lead goes into great detail that it is widely considered torture. The body of the article goes into even more detail. I don’t have a personal belief that it isn’t torture. I don’t want to promote the opinion that it is not torture. Using the dictionary definition of the word is not going to mislead anyone. The dictionary does not take the viewpoint that it is not torture. It’s completely neutral. It is widely considered to be torture by many sources, but this is also disputed by a large number of people. You can't define a word based on legal opinions from reliable sources. You can't come to the conclusion that the opinion of many reliable sources is neutral to define it as such in an encyclopedia. It's clear to me -- the most neutral way to define a word is to use the freaking dictionary! Swarm^(Talk) 17:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that you would have us remove the word “torture” altogether from either article, and I certainly wasn't taking you as seeking to deny that it were torture; I was taking you to want it removed from the opening sentence of “Waterboarding”, and to want references to it couched always as opinion, regardless of what your opinion might be. (Again, I simply read you as “trying for nothing more than wording that doesn't guide the reader towards a value judgment”.) And my points are: (1) that the desire to avoid repulsive description can be taken too far; (2) if you want the matter presented as opinion, then you need to present alternate opinion; (3) that legal definitions are not principally relevant; and (4) that, given the relevant meaning of “torture”, if no “reliable” source denies that waterboarding causes intense pain, then the lede can fairly refer to it as torture. I am not suggesting that you want or must prove that it does not cause intense pain; I am suggesting that you either identify “reliable” sources which claim that it does not, or accept the wording of prior local consensus. —SlamDiego_←T 23:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:You_are_probably_not_a_lexicologist_or_a_lexicographer expressly recommends against using Websters in this case:Dictionaries are extremely conservative in what they recognize, and are descriptive of an existing definition, not creators of it. More immediate sources, like books, academic writings, or others are often more direct and accurate, especially when they are responsible for the definition in the first place. Stephen Colbert is a much better source for a definition of truthiness than Webster's. That pretty plainly says not to use Websters in cases where better sources for the definition are readily available, such as from the UNCAT or the like. RTRimmel (talk) 18:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I can imagine few things more ill-advised than letting states or super-states entities such as the UN determine our use of terms drawn from natural language. —SlamDiego_←T 23:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Above is an example of a constructive edit, the scarcasm is designed to improve the overall tone of the debate. More seriously, per lexicologist, are any of the 188 sources better than the dictionary? If so Swarm may have a case, but I doubt it, further the Webster's definition was missing more than a bit of critical information concerning waterboarding last time I checked. If we use a definition from a dictionary, could we at least use one that actually describes waterboarding as it is commonly performed? 74.219.88.102 (talk) 00:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I was not engaged in any sarcasm whatsoever; I am perfectly sincere. Most of us are aware of the pitfalls of allowing the government of any given nation to redefine a word such as “torture”, and the UN is entirely the creature of such entities. Before you again infer sarcasm, please assume good faith unless there is no other explanation. —SlamDiego_←T 04:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd argue that having a common treaty that clearly spells out a very broad definition of torture that was well supported by a majority of world governments would be a good object to reference against, but YMMV. What would you prefer in this instance? The side debating that its not torture or an interrogation technique are arguing using 'natural language' so given the ability to interpret that definition for your own ends, broadly accepted international definitions should be satisfactory. RTRimmel (talk) 12:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I've repeatedly cited what I think is the appropriate definition: “the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure”. It is from an authoritative attempt to define words in the language in which this encyclopedia is purportedly written. And the question of whether waterboarding is torture turns entirely around whether it causes intense pain (as there is no reasonable doubt that it is used to punish, to coerce, or to afford sadistic pleasure), which is a medical question. While there may be some people using natural language to argue that it is not torture, what I have seen is only argument by reference to legal definition. The UN is not a gathering of Wise Men; it is a congress of states; and its definitions are to settle questions of international law, which is not the proper primary concern of the article or of discussion of torture more generally. —SlamDiego_←T 19:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, as a newcomer coming into this debate, it looks like everyone is trying to solve the issue here, rather than determine how the issue should be explained in the article. Let me attempt to save everyone a lot of time with the following conclusion (admittedly, it is an opinion, so feel free to accuse me of original research if you want...): We will not answer the question as to whether or not waterboarding is torture on Wikipedia, nor should we attempt to do so. The Wikipedia project is designed to catalogue and preserve knowledge and make it accessable to all. We are not here to solve the problems of the world. Simply state that there is a heated debate as to whether or not waterboarding is considered torture, cite the opposing sources, and leave it at that. My 2 1/2 cents... Rapier1 (talk) 03:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

That strategy is prone to a number of pitfalls. For example, outside the scientific community Evolution is a hotly debated topic, inside of the scientific community there is no serious debate at all. Do we reflect that in the lead? 9/11 has a significant number of theories involving governmental plots and the like, do we lead off with that, do we remove it based on not solving the debate here? There are, unfortunately, many cases where despite all expert sources saying one thing, we have another group saying another and therefor we must follow policy to figure out what to do. In such cases, WP:NPOV states pretty clearly to go what the, in this case, overwhelming majority of WP:RS state. That is unfortunately the kicker, something like 3% of the waterboarding sources debated if its always torture and the rest all say it always is. Given WP:Undue it makes little sense to bow to the 3%, especially when those 3% are locked into a specific subset of one specific nationality and the 97% reflects a broad world wide consensus. The problem ultimately is that there really isn't much of a debate about water boarding status, so inflating that status of it to some sort of heated debate is against wikipedia's mission statement. RTRimmel (talk) 12:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not my intention to debate numbers with you. Simply allow me to state that if the numbers were as conclusive as you believe there would be no debate on the issue, so you may want to dig a little deeper. Again, you are attempting to solve the issue of defining waterboarding as torture one way or the other. I repeat: That is not our purpose here. Yes, Wikipedia does not put forth fringe arguments, but in cases where there is massive and heated debate such as; abortion being murder, man-made climate change, evolution v. creationism, and defining waterboarding as torture (along with many others) it is not the purpose of the Project to put forth one opinion or the other. Define the debate, and leave it for the reader to draw their own conclusion. Rapier1 (talk) 16:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem with debating the numbers is that there are hundreds of sources in the article and they say at a ratio of 188 to 6 that waterboarding is torture. Perhaps you'd like to provide some new sources to bolster the concept that there is a debate. Wikipedia policy is pretty clear here, we have WP:GEVAL and WP:Weight. Neither support 'defining the debate' when it is this lopsided. RTRimmel (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you're not familiar with the debate, but this isn't what this thread is about. There are many notable people with the opinion that waterboarding is not torture. WP:WEIGHT and WP:GEVAL are not "broken" by using the dictionary definition. We also have WP:NPOV, by the way, and I'm pretty sure it says something about being neutral. Defining a word just because it's a majority view is absolutely not neutral. You define a word based on what it is called in the dictionary. Someone above completely missed the point of the essay, but Wikipedia:You are probably not a lexicologist or a lexicographer puts it nicely: "The dictionary is a better source than you are." Swarm^(Talk) 01:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Strange, I'm sorry that you are trying to place WP:Undue on the limited number of sources available on the Waterboarding article to support your viewpoint when they rank at 3% of available sources. Are we to understand that your argument is that since 3% of sources and websters say otherwise, we are to ignore the 97% of sources that say that waterboarding is torture? The Webster's definition is, unfortunatly, not as accurate as many of the definitions of waterboarding on the page and as such, its use is certainly a WP:GEVAL violation. It doesn't even match up with the description of the act very well. If you want to use a definition, you may want to find one that accuratly repersents what the process is. Waterboarding is an interrogation technique in which water is forced into a detainee's mouth and nose so as to induce the sensation of drowning does not mention the requirement that the head be inclined or that the person needs to be restrained, nor that its a form of torture. Given, that Wikipedia:You are probably not a lexicologist or a lexicographer states not to use a dictionary definition in this case, I don't see your argument here. WP:GEVAL and WP:Weight are both part of WP:NPOV policy. You may want to read the entire thing rather than summing it down to 'its all about neutrality', much like summing your argument about the lexicon essay down to 'use the dictionary definition,' which is an essay and not policy anyway.

RTRimmel (talk) 13:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, are you trying to say waterboarding isn't an interrogation method? Are you trying to say the dictionary definition is incorrect because it doesn't use the word "torture"?

Taking the word "torture" out of one sentence, to match the actual definition is certainly not undue weight. Writing multiple paragraphs about the flat earth theory in the earth article is undue weight. Using a dictionary definition is not overly-emphasizing one side of a viewpoint, nor is it asserting the claim that "waterboarding is not torture". It doesn't say it is, it doesn't say it isn't. It's a neutral definition.

You seem not to understand why it's defined as torture in this article in the first place. It's doesn't say "Waterboarding is a method of torture" because the majority of the reliable sources say it is. It's defined that way because someone did a google search for "waterboarding torture and death", and came up with a political dictionary that matched the search. Is that your idea of neutrality? Wikipedia isn't here to say "waterboarding is torture", just like it's not here to say "waterboarding is not torture". Put it this way: Earth does not begin with "Earth (or the Earth) is a round planet" just because the majority of reliable sources (of course) accept the fact that the earth is round. It just says Earth (or the Earth) is the third planet from the Sun. The sentence in question is only there to DEFINE the word. What don't you get? Swarm^(Talk) 20:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I now fear that an attempt will be made to change “Earth” to begin “Earth is a non-flat planet…”. —SlamDiego_←T 21:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

However, I would point-out to Swarm that if a planet were found between Sol and that which we now call “Mercury”, we wouldn't start calling Venus “the Earth”. We really define Earth in terms of what we inhabit. The reason that it is appropriate for the lede to claim “Earth is the third planet from the Sun” is because the propositions that it is third planet is sufficiently well sourced (though I don't know that sources are cited in the article for that point). The question for waterboarding is whether it is sufficiently well sourced that it causes intense pain. Again, if you wish to establish reasonable doubt that waterboarding is torture, then present some “reliable” sources that argue that it does not cause intense pain. —SlamDiego_←T 23:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

SlamDiego, I don't know how many times you're going to make me say it. I don't wish to establish "doubt" that waterboarding is torture. I don't wish to give the impression that it isn't torture in the article. You act as if I'm proposing the word "torture" not be used in the article. As if I'm trying to remove all the reliable sources that claim it is torture. I'm simply proposing we use the dictionary definition (damn, did you really skip over this part the 10 times I said it already?) in the sentence that defines the word. Swarm^(Talk) 03:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how many times that you are going to say it either, but the only reason that you are saying it is because you aren't attending to what I am actually saying. I am not suggesting that you want to endorse or defend or even in the least way mitigate waterboarding. But if there is no doubt that waterboarding is torture, then calling it torture in the opening sentence is no different from calling the Earth the third planet from Sol. You literally need to deal with that, one way or another. Stop telling me that you don't have the motive that I've never thought or said you to have. Attend to the logic. If you can produce the relevant “reliable” source, then I'm all for you here. Otherwise, your clearly well-intentioned efforts are mistaken. —SlamDiego_←T 04:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the definition that is currently used on the page was chosen because it matched 97% of the reliable sources on the page and was deemed an acceptable definition. You see, different dictionaries define different words differently, especially controvertial ones. Websters, as seen in the archive, was debated and ultimatly shot down under the same criteria by a concensus of editors. Its unfortunate that you disagree with the critically aclaimed dictionary that was chosen, but as you've freqently mentioned Wikipedia:You are probably not a lexicologist or a lexicographer and the respected author of that book, William Safire, actually is. And Safire's Political Dictionary from the Oxford press had waterboarding in it for longer than Webster's recent addition of the word. So your argument has changed from use the definition to use the definition that you like? I prefer look to the definitions and take the one that most closly resembles the majority of reliable sources, especially when 97% of them support the definition. RTRimmel (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Question: What are we debating here? Seriously. Waterboarding is an interrogation technique that causes the sensation of drowning in people. Can that be defined as torture? Of course it can! However, is waterboarding defined under US Law as torture according to USC Section 2340A? There has not been a legal decision made on this point. Are we debating that because waterboarding makes you feel like you are going to drown it's torture, or are we trying to assert that anybody who does it is violating the law? This is a very important point, and is one of the reasons I suggest simply defining the debate. If Wikipedia is to assert that waterboarding is in violation of USC Section 2340A, then we are accusing people of a crime in a public forum. That is NOT cool people. You have the right to speak your opinion, but if a group tries to claim that because several third-party sources that are protected by the First Amendment have printed similar opinions, they can use those printed opinions to accuse others of violating the law in a public forum (when there is in fact no LEGAL evidence of this), then it is entirely possible that the source could be held liable for that. Define the debate, don't get involved in the legalities! Rapier1 (talk) 00:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I reïterate that whether it is torture under law is not the proper principal issue. The language of law defines things differently. Identifying something as torture in the lede is not the same thing as saying that waterboarding meets any legal test. —SlamDiego_←T 00:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Actually, we are following the 97% of the sources that indicate that Waterboarding is torture. As one of torture's primary uses is interrogation, waterboardings use as an interrogation technique is obvious. Its use for coersion, blackmail, punishment etc are also common uses of torture. The debate is over waterboarding's classification as a form of torture in the United States of America only and from a certain political group only. And in every recorded case of waterboarding brought to the US legal system, Waterboarding has always been declared torture. The last case resolved in Texas quite plainly called it torture and Governer of Texas elected not to pardon those torturers. RTRimmel (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
      • By your previous account, it was 97% of the sources cited in the article. Unfortunately, with a hot-button issue, this is especially unlikely to be 97% of a representative sample of the literature. I suggest that the “97%” figure not be invoked. —SlamDiego_←T 22:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Whether or not waterboarding is torture is not the question. Please stay on topic. If you've gotten off track, the question is whether it's in the best interest of neutrality to use the dictionary wording in the sentence that defines waterboarding (nothing more). The current sentence was inserted awhile back after someone searched waterboarding torture and death on google books and came up with a political dictionary that matched the source. I hold that it would be more neutral to use the Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition. Swarm^(Talk) 05:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPoV certainly doesn't require or advocate daintiness, evasion, or euphemism, amd Wikipedia seeks to be an encyclopædia rather than a dictionary. If there is no doubt amongst “reliable” sources that waterboarding is torture (as defined for natural language) then, given the fact that most concern is focussed on it as an alleged form of torture in recent use, the article may as well tell the reader right off that waterboarding is torture. Absenting some editor citing a “reliable” source that asserts that waterboarding does not cause extreme pain, it is time to close this discussion. —SlamDiego_←T 06:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, you've answered the question. Since reliable sources express doubt, then there is a controversy, and the lead should identify the controversy rather than take sides in it. Your insistence that Wikipedia side with your point of view on the matter violates WP:NPOV. THF (talk) 01:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Even if the sentence told the reader that waterboarding does not cause extreme pain, that would be as bad as saying it is torture. This type of thing can be addressed outside of the sentence in question. Swarm^(Talk) 05:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, the debate, such that it is, is framed in such a manner as "Waterboarding is a form of torture" or "Waterboarding is a form of interrogation" so calling it interrogation is siding with one of the two viewpoints, just the one with far fewer WP:RS to back it up. Googling 'defintion of waterboarding' has every definition of waterboarding over the webster's declaring it torture and afterwards if they actully define the term at all so 'waterboarding torture and death' seems to be an exageration at best. Of the 6 or 7 definitions I've seen, all are more reliable than websters in terms of matching the sources on the page so at minimum websters should specifically be avoided due to obvious inaccuracies when there are more accurate definitions readily available. The main problem is everything else in the sentence, Websters waterboarding ("an interrogation technique in which water is forced into a detainee's mouth and nose so as to induce the sensation of drowning") that would replace the current wikipedia lead of ("is a method of torture that consists of immobilizing the victim on his or her back with the head inclined downwards, and then pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages, causing the captive to believe he or she is dying.") is at best a very poor replacement that a quick glance at the lede, let alone the whole article, contradicts or shows an obvious lack of understanding of waterboarding. (waterboarding is used for punishment, coersion, blackmail, and interrogation, IE all the usual applications of torture, the victem must be restrained, the head must be inclined, etc) Its the equivilent of defining a hammer as "a blunt object that hits stuff". It omits so much information as to be useless. RTRimmel (talk) 05:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. Whether or not waterboarding is torture is disputed. Whether or not waterboarding is an interrogation method is not at all. "Waterboarding is an interrogation method" is simply fact. Swarm^(Talk) 06:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, Waterboarding is used just as commonly for coercion, blackmail or simple punishment. So are you saying that none of the other common uses are as important as interrogation? "Waterboarding is a coercion technique" is just as accurate as saying its an interrogation method, or "waterboarding is a method of punishing prisioners who refuse to cooperate" as some of the secret legal memos from the Bush administration suggest? Both of those are 'facts' as well, so which one do we use, all are just as well supported as the interrogation claim and all fall under common uses of torture so your simple argument that a source that says its torture support that waterboarding is interrogation, also supports it being any of the other common uses of torture. If we bother with "Wateboarding is a technique used for interrogation, coercion, blackmail and punishment of prisioners involving..." why not just call it torture and be done with it? 151.213.210.214 (talk) 12:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

No reason not to include that in the article. However, again, this is the sentence that defines waterboarding. That's why we're talking about dictionary definitions. Swarm^(Talk) 19:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Ya, but if were going to define waterboarding, why not try to be accurate and use an accurate definition as opposed to the Webster's definition? RTRimmel (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The Webster definition is perfectly accurate. A proper definition, as such, carries no inessential detail. Waterboarding would not cease to be be waterboarding were it proved not to cause intense pain, hence torture is not intrinsic to its true definition. However, Wikipedia is an encyclopædia, rather than a dictionary, and it needn't begin with a proper definition; rather, it may begin by presenting a encapsulation which goes beyond definition and into wider fact. —SlamDiego_←T 21:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)\

However, given the WP:RS in the article, it is missing essential detail, and therefor is a poor definition. IE if you performed waterboarding per webster's definition... it would not be waterboarding. Waterboarding, when correctly performed, holds the victem in a state similar to drowning causing an immenent fear of death which is a form of torture. It would be akin to describing Striking without including that physical contact is required. Waterboarding requires a sensation of drowning to work. RTRimmel (talk) 00:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Do not confuse that which is essential to a concept with that which is essential to whatever rôle the concept may play in a larger structure. It may be that the issue of waterboarding causing intense pain is essential to the article; it is not essential to the definition of “waterboarding”. It is not a tautology to claim that waterboarding causes intense pain, whereas it is a tautology that striking entails physical contact. Your analogy is thus utterly wrong-headed. —SlamDiego_←T 01:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I suppose you can misuse logic just like the rest of us. The definition of striking is a seperate concept from the word striking, saying striking requires physical contact is obviously a tautological device as striking means to make physical contact with an object, however the definition of to strike is a seperate concept that must include that the object struck must be a person or thing, go check out websters they have a very good definition of to strike. Likewise, waterboarding is a torture technique and that it causes intense pain is a requirement for it as otherwise waterboarding is little more than placing someone on a slanted surface and pouring water on them. Breathing requires the inhallation of air, should you attempt to breath in a vacum you cannot. You cannot waterboard without the sensation of drowing. Thus the infliction of pain is critical to the definition. RTRimmel (talk) 05:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not abusing logic, and you're confusing words with concepts as well as essentials with facts. And you are leaping from “the sensation of drowning” to infliction of intense pain. Indeed I could not breathe in vacuum, but we are discussing the sensation of drowning, which has at some times and places been believed to be a humane way of killing people. Experience or expert testimony might perhaps establish that it is instead a ghastly way of killing people; definition does not. —SlamDiego_←T 05:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

break no. 2

Swarm— It is only merely “as bad”, rather than worse, to claim in the lede (or anywhere else) that waterboarding does not cause extreme pain if there is a “reliable” source that says that it does not. So far, all of the convtroverting sources presented have concerned legality rather than medicine. Again, absenting a controverting “reliable” source on the claim that it causes extreme pain, it is perfectly fine to encapsulate the assertion that it is torture in the opening sentence. —SlamDiego_←T 22:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but it does not change the fact that it would be more neutral to use a neutral dictionary definition that doesn't take sides one way or another. I don't know why you think we need a reliable source that states that it isn't legally torture. Swarm^(Talk) 00:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I go back to your own example of “Earth”. That article declares at its outset that the Earth is the third planet from the sun, not-withstanding that it was once seriously hypothesized that there was a planet within the orbit of Mercury. So long as “reliable” sources entertained that hypothesis, it would violate WP:NPoV to declared the Earth to be the third planet; but, absenting such sources, it doesn't violate WP:NPoV to declare that the Earth is the third planet. If it were truly somehow a violation of WP:NPoV to declare waterboarding to be torture in the lede, then it would be a violation to do so anywhere in the article; likewise, if it is not a violation to do it elsewhere, then it is not a violation to do so in the lede. “The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article.” If the article can and does declared that waterboarding cuases intense pain, then not only is the article not more neutral for moving that from the lede; it runs against one of the guidelines. —SlamDiego_←T 01:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

If Wikipedia were being written at a time when Vulcan was not a fringe theory, then, yes, it would be a problem to call Earth the third planet unambiguously. Similarly, the NPOV of the phlogiston article looked a lot different back in the 1700s version of Wikipedia. I fail to see why you're wasting space on this--especially since the debate over whether waterboarding is torture is not a scientific question. THF (talk) 02:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Wrong; the debate over whether it is torture is a scientific one. The debate over whether it meets the legal definition of “torture” is a distinct issue. Confusing the two in spite of the distinction repeatedly being explained is not helpful. —SlamDiego_←T 03:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

THF— I've not told you my view of whether waterboarding is torture. Stop the “Those who are not for me are against me!” rubbish. After I noted that the real issue was not a matter of law nor of the legal definition of “torture”, but over whether waterboaridng was the infliction of intense pain to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure, I expected that someone would produce some “reliable” source that denied that waterboarding caused intense pain. But, so far, no editor has, and the assumption of good faith is beginning to bear ugly stretch marks.

The “reliable” sources of dispute that have been presented have been over whether waterboarding fits the legal definition of “torture”, but the legal definition of “torture” is like the legal definition of “insanity”. —SlamDiego_←T 21:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Please stop playing Argument Clinic and please stop misrepresenting my position, which you have yet to address, though you've made this section entirely unreadable by repeating yourself over and over and over and over without once addressing the crux of the issue. I don't personally dispute that waterboarding is torture. But my personal opinion doesn't resolve the issue of NPOV. The issue is whether there exist reliable sources that reasonably disagree with me, and there do, so Wikipedia can't take a position agreeing with me. This is rising to WP:TEDIOUS because you refuse to address this fact. (Also, you're being disingenuous when you claim you haven't stated your view: you're stating that it's indisputable that waterboarding is torture--how are we not to infer what your personal opinion is from that false premise? And if you're not stating that, why are you insisting on a violation of NPOV?) THF (talk) 02:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

THF— I've not misrepresented your position, and I have got right to the heart of the issue as you've tried to distract the reader with legal controversy. Cite any “reliable” source that denies that waterboarding causes intense pain, regardless of whether anyone here agrees with it, and you've established that the lede should not call wateboarding “torture”. Fail to such a source, and it's plain that your argument holds no water.

Show me anywhere I've said that it is indisputable that waterboarding is torture, and I'll apologize and withdraw from debate. When I entered this discussion, I asked for a “reliable” source that disputed the point. Subsequently, as no editor has cited one, I've noted that no editor has cited one. I've also noted relevant policy and guidelines. Show me anywhere I've said that it is indisputable that waterboarding is torture, and I'm gone; fail to do so, and you ought to be the one apologizing and withdrawing. —SlamDiego_←T 03:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Webster's definition of torture is not the only one. The United Nations Convention Against Torture is far more authoritative in this regard and it defines torture as "Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person..." Since waterboarding is primarily a US issue at this time, U.S. criminal law on the matter, 18 U.S.C. § 2340, can also be relied on: "'torture' means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;" Mental suffering is further defined under the statute to include "the threat of imminent death." Finally note that the official position of the U.S. Department of justice is that waterboarding is torture under US law. This has all been discussed at length on the article talk page and a consensus there supports the current lede.--agr (talk) 05:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, every one of these references are concerned with points of law. There is controversy about whether waterboarding is meets the legal definition, even if one can cite multiple legal sources that say that it does. (The lawyers who pored-over the law and said that it did not were neither incompetent nor generally wicked; they were providing honest, expert opinions on the what the law said, regardless of what they might have felt that it ought to have said.) But Wikipedia should never use the peculiar language of the law except where it makes it plain ab initio that it is doing so, and readers will typically want to know whether it is established that waterboarding is torture before they concern themselves over legalities. The law has on multiple occasions claimed that madmen were “sane”; the language of the law is different. —SlamDiego_←T 05:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not established, so it doesn't belong in the lede. This isn't hard. WP:LEAD addresses this question: there is a controversy, so you don't take sides on the controversy, just describe it. THF (talk) 05:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Again: The legal controversy is virtually independent of the question of whether waterboarding is torture. Given that some “reliable” sources claim that waterboarding causes extreme pain, you need to cite a countervailing “reliable” source if you would argue that it is not established. Only “reliable” sources count for Wikipedia to see controversy. —SlamDiego_←T 05:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

One can find a similar definition in non-legal sources, e.g. Britannica online: "the infliction of severe physical or mental pain or suffering for a purpose, such as extracting information, coercing a confession, or inflicting punishment. It is normally committed by a public official or other person exercising comparable power and authority." But I reject the notion that the UNCAT definition is irrelevant here. Torture is one of the few internationally recognized crimes. The entire controversy over waterboarding in the U.S. revolves around its legal status. If anything, the ordinary meaning of the word torture is much broader. Definition 1 in the Mirriam-Webster online edition reads:"a: anguish of body or mind b : something that causes agony or pain". I've seen reading Wikipedia talk pages referred to as torture. --agr (talk) 15:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

We're discussing a neutral definition of waterboarding. Please focus on that so we don't get too off topic. If there is any controversy, be it legal, political, moral or all of the above, that sentence shouldn't take sides. And there is no requirement anywhere that says something needs to be debunked by a reliable source before its neutrality can be disputed. The article shouldn't tell them that waterboarding is torture at all. It should convey what reliable sources say, regardless of what "the reader wants". Don't be ridiculous, since when would we take the viewpoint, "don't concern yourself with the legalities of this extremely controversial issue, just accept this highly controversial statement as fact."? Swarm^(Talk) 20:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Swarm— The opening sentence can be an encapsulation, rather than strictly a definition. Hence, if you would over-turn prior local consensus, you must show that more than that the opening sentence is not definitional. And, it is equivocation for either side in this argument to act as if it is-or-is-not controversial whether waterboarding is torture by referring to a legal definition of “torture”. One controversy is not the other, and the lede should not reject or embrace the word “torture” based upon the writhings of lawyers. —SlamDiego_←T 20:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

ArnoldReinhold— So far, no one has proposed that the article not have discussion of the legalities. But the article is “Waterboarding”, not “Legal status of waterboarding”. And the real-world controversy is not confined to the legal applicability of the word “torture”. People seriously argue over whether waterboarding is torture. However, for that controversy to be recognized by Wikipedia, it must be recognized by “reliable” sources. (After all, I've heard people seriously arguing over the sex of worker bees.) —SlamDiego_←T 20:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the place to agree is that without reliable sources there is nothing to discuss. If new sources are found they should be brought to the article talk page, not here. This discussion should be ended.--agr (talk) 00:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. —SlamDiego_←T 01:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

break no. 3

The United States government and NPR are both reliable sources. There is therefore a legitimate controversy that isn't just FRINGE. I've added a NPOV tag to the article because of the dispute; I do not believe the current LEAD complies with NPOV. Given that even the article acknowledges there is a notable controversy, there is no reason for Wikipedia to "resolve" the controversy in the first sentence of the article. THF (talk) 00:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, the legal controversy is distinct from what is relevant to a claim about whether waterboarding is torture. The article should make it plain that there is a legal controversy, but the infliction of intense pain to coerce is torture. Show controverting “reliable” sources to the claim that waterboarding causes intense pain, and you're done. Fail to show them, and you're equivocating. —SlamDiego_←T 02:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

One controversy is not the other, and the lede should not reject or embrace the word “torture” based upon the writhings of lawyers.
You act as if there's a minor legal debate going on, while waterboarding is otherwise universally accepted as torture. Nearly a third of respondents in this poll don't think waterboarding is torture. Former Attorney General John Ashcroft told a House committee that waterboarding does not constitute torture. [9]. Marc Thiessen publicly stated that he doesn't think waterboarding is torture.[10] Scott Brown has publicly stated that he doesn't believe waterboarding is torture.[11] The White House formerly held the official position that waterboarding is not torture.[12] You may not agree with it, but don't try to act like the controversy is limited to the "writhings of lawyers". It's a contentious political issue. Swarm^(Talk) 01:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

No. I said nothing about the magnitude of the legal controversy, and I act as if someone needs to cite a “reliable” sources that waterboarding does not cause intense pain. Citing “reliable” sources that demonstrate that non-“reliable” sources controvert the idea that waterboarding is torture isn't sufficient. Ashcroft is a “reliable” source with respect to matters of law, but not with respect to the experience of drowning. Thiessen is not a reliable source for law or medicine (and his argument that it is not torture because Hitchens submitted to it is absurd). A polling of non-“reliable” sources, no matter how large the sample size, doesn't add weight to either side. In the context of some “reliable” sources asserting that waterboarding cuases intense pain, to overturn the prior local consensus, you need a “reliable” source to itself controvert the assertion. It's no skin off my nose if you find lots of them, but over the course of this discussion I've stopped expecting anyone to cite one. —SlamDiego_←T 02:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

While you repeat this argument for the twentieth time, you still haven't addressed the fact that it is premised on inappropriate synethesis. THF (talk) 02:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This is getting a bit circular and as always discussion is being fragmented between here and the Waterboarding Talk Page. The function of this noticeboard is exhausted in this case IMHO. Please continue the discussion on the Waterboarding Talk Page. To any editor that wants to help please do so in the Waterboarding Talk Page.--LexCorp (talk) 02:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's more a cul-de-sac than a circle. ;-) —SlamDiego_←T 03:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

No, THF. First, synonymy is not synthesis. Second, it isn't even original synonymy, as some “reliable” sources assert directly that waterboarding is torture because it causes intense pain. —SlamDiego_←T 03:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You've stated many times that the legal issue is a separate issue. So I present several examples from reliable sources covering the non-legal aspects of the debate, and you tell me they're not reliable sources? What the hell do you want? Swarm^(Talk)

As I explained: “Citing “reliable” sources that demonstrate that non-“reliable” sources controvert the idea that waterboarding is torture isn't sufficient. […], you need a “reliable” source to itself controvert the assertion.”

One could find many non-“reliable” sources that claim that whales are fish, and “reliable” sources that report the existence of these non-reliable sources. That doesn't mean that “Whale” should be rewritten to begin “Whale is the common name for marine mammals creatures of the order Cetacea.” —SlamDiego_←T 05:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You continue to insist that a fuzzy question of legal definition where reasonable minds can disagree about the scope of the definition can be equated to a binary question of scientific definition. This false premise is leading you to incorrect analysis that is not helpful to the discussion. Since this has been pointed out to you repeatedly, I fail to understand a good-faith reason that you keep raising the strawman. THF (talk) 06:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

No, you continue to attempt to substitute controversy over whether waterboarding meets the legal definition of “torture” for consideration of the definition principally relevant to this encyclopædia. It isn't my good faith that should be questioned here. —SlamDiego_←T 06:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The Merriam-Webster dictionary definition does not define waterboarding as torture at all. Swarm^(Talk) 21:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Horus and Jesus comparisons

There is an ongoing content dispute at the article of the Egyptian God Horus, which dates back to 2005 [13]. It involves comparisons to the Egyptian god Horus, and Jesus. This comparison has been around since the late 19th century, and was most recently made in the 2008 Bill Maher documentary Religulous. Several attempts have been made to include this comparison in the Horus article, but the sources have been questioned as "unreliable," and reverted. Unfortunately, there are no reliable responses to this comparison, either from Egyptologists, or Theologists. I recently attempted to address the issue with this edit [14], which was reverted by User:Farsight001 [15]. I agree that the basis for this comparison is profoundly flawed, but at the same time, I also believe that it needs to be addressed and debunked in the Horus article, because Wikipedia is exactly the place where individuals will go to confirm or reject the logic behind the argument. I need advice on how to strike the balance between giving a significant minority view undue weight, while maintaining a neutral point of view on a topic that's been largely ignored by the scholastic community without synthesizing rebuttal data from verified, reliable sources. Any suggestions? ColorOfSuffering (talk) 20:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

This article [[16]] makes it clear that twenty leading Egyptologists — in Canada, USA, UK, Australia, Germany, and Austria were asked about Mr Harpurs book. The responding scholars were unanimous in dismissing the suggested etymologies for Jesus and Christ. The Bill Maher Comedy/documentary is not a serious piece of reseach, nor was it carried out be someone with expertise in the field. Indead (and to take up one theme in the above post), no reliable Egyptologists has backed up this claim. Unlike the Osiris claim which was (and maybe still is) supported by a number of reputable scholers.Slatersteven (talk) 21:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Aesthetic Realism

Aesthetic Realism is a philosophy advocated by a very small group in New York City. It is barely notable, and there are few independent sources about it. The only editors interested in it, besides myself, seem to be either current members, or former, disaffected members. They and others call the group a cult while current members say it's a just a philosophical association. The topic is highly polarized by folks using it as a battleground. After a lot of editing years ago the article had been quiet, but it's gotten active again. During the first round of the recent fighting I threatened to stub the article, which is surprisingly long considering how few sources there are. A current member, and long-time editors here, has just re-written the intro in a highly POV fashion,[17] which makes me inclined to carry out the promised stubbing. Any other thoughts or suggestions?   Will Beback  talk  21:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Just that the article is indeed too long and I endorse your stubbing of the lede. There are some sources though. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I tried to work on that page impartially a long time ago; as I recall it was an ungodly headache. maybe I should check in again. but yeah; that lead is awful. chop away. --Ludwigs2 20:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Medco Health Solutions

I stumbled on the article about Medco Health Solutions [18] while researching about lobbying. Apart from the section I added it reads like ad and i suspect it was written by an employee of said company. Could someone please have a look at it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.0.83.119 (talk) 20:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The article was radically changed on 7th Jan , removing all referenced info which incidentally included details about a lawsuit. The two IP's167.211.190.11 & 167.211.190.10 responsible for these edits are registered to Medco itself. Rather than stay with this version created by company PR flacks, I'm going to rv back to before their edits.I do think the info you found about lobbying expenses very interesting [19] ( jeez, nearly 1 billion USD for 3 months lobbying expenses?!?) and would like to incorporate into the article, but I'm not sure if this counts as a primary source? Perhaps someone else can weigh in on this matter. thanks --Rootless Juice (talk) 01:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

CEPR

Recently added to Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) was this, of which the key sources (10 and 11 respectively) are National Review [20] and a primary source (letter to an organisation in response to a report).[21]

According to a 2004 National Review article, the Venezuela Information Office (VIO)—a lobbying agency whose goal is to improve the perception of Venezuela in the US[9]—"coordinates a media response team" that includes "representatives from the Center for Economic Policy and Research".[10] CEPR representatives signed a letter to the editor of the Center for Public Integrity, saying that their statements about the VIO were "highly misleading"[11]

Is the sourcing OK? Is it due weight? I'm a bit on the fence (leaning to OK), but I'd like someone not involved with the topic to say so. Rd232 ^talk 11:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Coming from an editor who believes venezuelanalysis is perfectly reliable and ok, but National Review is undue. Sigh. NR is a highly influential, highly significant, notable and mainstream magazine and is a reliable source. --Defender of torch (talk) 14:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

National Review is mainstream and reliable... Huh. And the debate about VA being reliable or not is ongoing at WP:RSN#Venezuelanalysis. Rd232 ^talk 16:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It is because National Review is a notable and really significant magazine. Although it is a partisan source, expressing conservative viewpoint (being a fan of Nina Hartley, I find their view on cultural issues like LGBT rights or pornography extremely irritating). But hey, on economic issue we can certainly use this homophobic and pornophobic magazine as a reliable source because it is not promoting any fringe economic theory as VA does. Center for Economic and Policy Research is to economics what Discovery Institute is to science, IMHO. Tell me why NA is unreliable on economic issue? --Defender of torch (talk) 17:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

National Review is very notable, but due to it's "US-establishment" perspective it may not be 100% objective when dealing with topics such as Venezuela's current government. I don't quite follow the quote however, does the letter refer to statements in the NR article? --Dailycare (talk) 20:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't - it's a response to this report. Rd232 ^talk 16:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

More eyes on this situation are most welcome. Editors looking in to this issue may want to be aware of the full picture:

1. Manuel Rosales
2. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#BLP violation
3. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Venezuelanalysis
4. Mark Weisbrot
5. Thor Halvorssen
6. Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Mark Weisbrot

and a resolved AN/I report where Rd232 harassed me with threats of libel, for which he apologized.

Also, noting here for the record, since the egregious BLP vio at Rosales was uncovered, admin Rd232 has semi-retired and is now editiing under an alternate account, Disembrangler (talk · contribs). It will take some to check all the BLPs the two accounts have edited, and I can't get to it all myself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, Sandy. Keep up this smear campaign and I might just get angry enough to do something about it. "Harassed with threats of libel" indeed! And what, in fact, does any of the above comment have to do with the subject of this thread, and the purpose of this board? Nothing. It is another part of your relentless and extraordinarily repetitious campaign of misrepresentation and deceit. Rd232 ^talk 11:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

PS It might dissuade you somewhat from continuing your campaign to know that I'm keeping track of it: User:Rd232/notes. (No doubt no-one else cares, but if they do, the truth is there.) Rd232 ^talk 11:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Scientific opinion on climate change

Following on from the discussion about the article Scientific opinion on climate change and it being a possible content fork, I am seeking some input from other editors about the unsourced content in the hatnote and lead of the article that define this topic. The current version of the hatnote and lead read as follows:

This page is about scientific opinion on climate change. For recent climate change generally, see Global warming. For debate on scientific consensus, see Climate change consensus. For opinions of dissenting individual climate scientists, see List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming.

Scientific opinion on climate change is given by synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. This does not include the views of individual scientists, individual universities, or laboratories, nor self-selected lists of individuals such as petitions. National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming.

The problem I have with this lead are as follows:

1. Original research has been employed to provide a defintion for what is the "Scientific opinion on climate change", rather than reliable sources that are directly related to the title of this article, and that directly support the information presented in the article itself. There have been many alterations to the hatnote and the lead, but the issue that the starting point is original research, no matter how many times it has been altered to "make the lead fit the article", has not been resolved by citing sources to support it.
2. None of the sources cited in the article define what is ""Scientific opinion on climate change", nor do any of them use or address the title of this article directly or in detail.
3. The effect of the lead is artifically segregate Scientific opinion from other sources of opinion.

My view is that no matter how innocuous the lead is, it is wholly unsatisfactory to segerage one source of opinion by creating a seperate article whose subject matter is defined by analytic or evaluative claims that that are based on original research. In short, this is a type of intellectual apartheid. My conclusions are that:

1. The lack of a recognised definition, one that is defined in terms of reliable source which would provide context to the reader, is absent. As it stands, this article can only be understood within the context of the over arching article topics (e.g. Climate Change, Global Warming etc.), and cannot be read as a seperate topic on its own. Its content, while in the most part, is referenced and ordered, address topics which are dealt with in other articles, and has expanded with no logical rationale other than to fit all of the content that has been added to it.
2. To establish the notability of this topic, and to refute the criticism that this article is a content fork, requires significant coverage from reliable secondary sources that address the article title directly and in detail, which are absent from the lead or the body of this article. For instance, the articles Climate Change, Global Warming and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are addressed directly and in detail, usually by sources which are expressing some form of opinion, whether it is scientific, economic, political or otherwise.
3. If this article topic can only be defined in terms of original research, then what purpose does it serve? One answer might be that it is simply an unintentional content fork, whose subject matter(s) are dealt with directly and in detail elsewhere by articles topics that are recognised by the world at large. Another is that this article, is in effect, a POV fork, designed to segrate scientific opinion from other forms of opinion that provide commentary, criticism or analysis about Climate Change, Global Warming etc., perhaps to avoid criticism or commentary that are the hallmarks of balanced coverage.

In short, the basis for inclusion of this topic as a standalone article is based on original research. Clearly there are several editors that disagree with the assertion that this article is a content fork (fair enough), but if the main issue is disputed, then at least consider the symptoms that are the badge of a content fork. The hatnote and lead to this article are original research, and do not define the article's subject matter in any meaningful way. Has any editor a view on this matter? Am I mistaken? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

This was originally posted at WP:OR/N. I replied there. Pcap ping 15:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

If people here disagree with you would you stop pursuing this dispute even if you are not convinced? Dmcq (talk) 16:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

In short, this is a type of intellectual apartheid

Gah. What a horrid metaphor. Trying to relate this to the apartheid is like Godwinning the discussion. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen the rules for Godwin's law, but assuming it is the misère version of Mornington Crescent as described in NF Stovold’s Mornington Crescent: Rules and Origins' he hasn't actually lost with that. Dmcq (talk) 20:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Tangent - Godwin's Law doesn't state that the person who mentions Nazis first loses; but that once Nazis are invoked, it's likely to inflame the situation and distract from the real issue. Essentially, it's a quick way to derail the thread of conversation. End Tangent — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wey Valley School

Resolved

I've reviewed the evidence and restored their contributions to the article. Swarm^(Talk) 04:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I am Deputy Head at The Wey Valley School and have a "Conflict of interest" in the article. There has been some ping pong editing with an editor who is posting inaccurate and misleading information with the intent of impacting on the school's reputation. We believe it to be an ex-member of staff. I have acknowledged that I am not neutral but would like the accuracy and POV issues addressed. Following administrator advice I have started to post evidence led points with citations, on the talk page. Please would neutral editors help return this page to a fair balance and encyclopedic content.

Paulsnorman (talk) 18:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Loonymonkey

User:Loonymonkey is, against consensus, systematically removing categories and adjectives identifying organizations as liberal or progressive after having failed multiple times to delete the category. It would be one thing if he did this for organizations of all political stripes, because then it would be a good-faith application of a personal rule against consensus, but as he is only doing it for left-wing organizations, it is a severe NPOV violation in addition to the general disruptiveness of it. (For example, in ProgressNow, he deleted the adjectives for left-wing organizations, but kept the adjective "conservative" in the article's discussion of the Independence Institute.) I've tried to reason with him on his talk page, but he refuses to defend himself. Need a third opinion (or more) on his editing, since he's simply edit-warring when I try to correct the problem. THF (talk) 04:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

First of all, you're on the wrong noticeboard for this. Second of all, longstanding consensus and practice has been to only include organizations which self-identify in these categories, otherwise the category is subject and fails WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. As for "reasoning" with me, I'm not sure that many editors would agree, considering that this is how you opened the discussion. --Loonymonkey (talk) 04:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I've dealt with LoonyMonkey in the past and I've found that he is extremely uncooperative and appears to only be here to push an agenda. I sympathize with THF. Perhaps you should take this concern to WP:ANI. --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh great, sniping personal attacks from another less-than-neutral editor. You guys do know this entirely the wrong forum for such things, right? --Loonymonkey (talk) 05:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

For those wondering what the issue is (or whether this is just an attack thread against me personally) THF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) has been adding the category American Liberal Organizations to a variety of articles incorrectly. Longstanding consensus and practice has been that organizations must self-identify to be included in this category, otherwise the entire category fails WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. In fact a number of similar categories (such as Liberal Websites and American Liberal Politicians) were deleted because there weren't enough self-identifying examples to justify a category which is otherwise completely subjective and arbitrary. I've explained this to THF but they continue to add this category based solely on their own POV rather than any objective criteria. Any attempt to correct this is reverted, usually with a personal attack in the edit summary. Further, attempts at discussion have met with extremely nasty comments, immediate assumptions of bad faith and numerous other personal attacks. For example this is how a discussion was started on my talk page. I encourage anyone interested to read through this discussion and make their own judgements. --Loonymonkey (talk) 05:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

For the record I haven't "added" the category anywhere. I've reverted incorrect deletions made by Loonymonkey. THF (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay,more specifically, another editor added it a couple days ago, I reverted that and you've since re-added it. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Depopulating categories is not a valid means of handling "category for disvussion" discussions. The categories are descriptive and not pejorative in any place I know of, and mass detagging does not help your case when you ask that the categories be deleted, Really. Collect (talk) 11:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't depopulating the category. All of these inapplicable articles were tendentiously added to it two days ago and I reverted that. THF has repeatedly re-added it without any evidence of applicability. And are you really claiming that the label "liberal" is never used pejoratively in American politics? --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with William S. Saturn's comment above, and in my opinion THF's statements are steadfastly civil (contrary to Loonymonkey's accusations). In contrast, "the vast majority" of Loonymonkey's 'contribution' to WP is deletions, reversions,[22] and unjustified attacks claiming violations of inapplicable policies.[23] The purportedly 'liberal' POV being pushed actually runs contrary to many liberal sources[24], and is most like that of the three monkeys who see/hear/say nothing; left unchecked, Looneymonkey's deletions can end in whole articles being deleted.[25] On the other hand, engaging takes a lot of time and research (unlike Looneymonkey's deleting!) and can be counterproductive.TVC 15 (talk) 22:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I see four different editors who take issue with your editing tactics, Loonymonkey, and none who support you. It's too much to ask you to self-revert, but will you at least stop? Add tags if you feel there is a problem, rather than engage in wholesale deletions; if no one addresses the {{fact}} tag in ninety days, then you have a basis to delete. Again, please stop your current tactics, or we'll need to ask for community intervention. THF (talk) 22:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Ameriprise Financial article

Fair Disclosure: I am an Ameriprise advisor, and have been since last April. Before that I worked for a company called John Hancock. Since I have an obvious WP:COI issue editing this article, I'd like some other input. There is a single individual that seems to have an issue with the company, and his only edits are on this article. There is an article tag citing neutrality issues, and I would like others to look at the article and see if it is warranted, and if it is, please correct the issues. Again, I'd be happy to do this myself, but there have already been accusations of the company editing its own article, I don't want to compound the issues. Thanks Rapier1 (talk) 18:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I actually worked on that article before. I'll have a look. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Ugh. That was one which needed help but I wasn't familiar with the field/jargon. The laundry list of fines etc is totally haphazard, and too detailed. I'll do what I can. Kudos for being upfront about your affiliation, and soliciting outside input. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Eldridge Cleaver

Hi all. There is somewhat of a dispute at Eldridge Cleaver, involving NPOV issues among other things. The article doesn't appear to have many editors keeping an eye on it, so any and all input there would be welcomed. Life is pulling me away from Wiki at the moment, so I'm hoping some other editors can take a look at this. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 20:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Can the US government position on legal-political issues ever be WP:FRINGE?

Discussion currently taking place at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#United_States_government_redux. THF (talk) 05:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of American foreign policy is huge (200kb) POV/Original research essay

The article Criticism of American foreign policy is full of highly POV, uncited statements like But many of the good things and positive influences it has had have a tendency to be overlooked, as the news media has a tendency to accentuate negative results particularly when they're more attention-getting and tends to focus on critics, while overlooking subtler, slower, and more benign but positive aspects of foreign policy which are less likely to sell newspapers., and U.S. taxpayers are seen as subsidizing the defense of allied peoples who fail to carry their fair share of defense spending., and In the history of the world, the U.S. has an enviable record of accommodating peoples from around the world , and so on ... The author (the entire page was almost created by a single author) has mixed these statements in with several claims that he has cited, in order to make it look as if the article is well-sourced, and not OR. But both the numerous uncited OR statements such as the above, the choice of wording, the structure of the page (such as the categories that the author stated that most arguments fell into, without citing a reliable source that says that these categories are appropriate), and the choice/selection of topics covered are unacceptably biased and unsourced. I just noticed this article, and am about to have to step away from the Internet for a few days, but wanted to notify other people so they can start working on this as well. I'll get to it when I return. Thanks -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

POV in the ranking of box office records across decades without addressing inflation

I am referring specifically to Avatar (2009 film) to this discussion but this also applies to other articles that reference box office records in terms of "highest gross ever". The heart of the issue is that not clarifying whether a box office "record" is or is not adjusted for inflation is violating NPOV, as it implies Wikipedia has chosen one record as more valid than the other. Pertinent to the topic is Real_versus_nominal_value.

By way of example, Movie A from 1940 has hypothetically earned $200 million in dollars unadjusted for inflation (1940 dollars) & $1.5 billion in adjusted dollars (2010 dollars) whereas Movie B has earned $600 million in 2010. In real dollars (adjusting for inflation) the record holder is Movie A $1.5 billion to $600 million. In nominal dollars (not adjusting for inflation) the record holder is Movie B $600 million to $200 million. Given this, when one refers to the record of "highest grossing film ever made" you could mean either Movie A or Movie B. When dealing with differing dollar values across differing time periods for the purposes of "records," inflation becomes incredibly pertinent. Especially if it creates TWO different records. In my opinion, and the reason for creating this notice: Wikipedia should not and can not arbitrate the issue and decide which film is the true record holder. Both films hold different records, and this should be clarified where necessary.

Backing that up, the closest thing to an "authority" on box office records is Box Office Mojo (BOM), which prominently provides a domestic chart as well as a domestic chart adjusted for inflation. Also, take for instance this news article from Variety which states that Avatar will overtake Titanic for the record "highest grossing domestic movie," but also clarifies in the last paragraph of the article that the real dollar record will still be held by Gone with the Wind. BOM & Variety are not taking a stance on the record, so why should a Wikipedia article? The content in the lead for the Avatar article unequivocally states that Avatar holds the record. The issue is clarified in a section below, which is great, but the lead should be able to stand on its own per Wikipedia:Lead_section.

The recommended change is to clarify that Avatar is the "highest grossing film ever made" in "nominal US dollars." Proposed text (v2...v1 had "constant dollars" & was agreed by both parties as poor terminology) in the discussion link from above contains what I think is a good solution to ensure NPOV. Arkane2 (talk) 06:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is a paper that address the issue of ranking movie grosses across decades without addressing inflation. The movie industry does this for marketing reasons, but here at Wikipedia we have alternative sources aside from film industry PR so we should mention that inflation is not taken into account in the movie industry rankings: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/3582132/How-the-motion-picture-industry-miscalculates-box-office-receipts Cshay (talk) 16:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The actual discussion can be found here. DrNegative (talk) 16:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Additional discussion an be found in the same talk page, here (please read all of it):

Talk:Avatar_(2009_film)#.22Highest_Grossing_Film_of_all_time.22_in_Intro_Needs_to_be_Qualified_by_Mentioning_Inflation Cshay (talk) 16:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I wrote this last night and haven't read the subsequent links, but I fully support the "nominal" or "adjusted" qualifiers in the lead. However, I would point out several problems with these comparisons. For one thing, surely Gone with the Wind holds the record largely due to re-releases, no? Because if not, if Gone with the Wind holds the record based on initial run in theaters, why does it not also hold a weekly or monthly gross record, or a "most weeks in the top 5" or whatever? Is it because Box Office Mojo does not offer adjusted dollar figures for any record but total gross?

The other problem I see with it is that we are comparing vastly different audience pools. U.S. population in 1939 was 132,164,569. U.S. population in 2010 is estimated at 315,534,716. It seems to me that the most honest attempt at determining relative gross of a film would be the revenue per capita in the window of time of its initial box office release. Anything less is inherently misleading and intrinsically meaningless. Nobody would accept a direct comparison between the gross of a film in the U.S. in 2010 with another country with a 2010 population of only 132,164,569, and nobody should compare domestic gross from different eras either, even adjusted for inflation, unless they correct for population size. So your hypothetical $200 million in 1940 dollars—prior to adjustment to 2010 dollars—would actually be more like $550 million adjusted for 2010 population size. Then when you adjust it for 2010 dollars, it goes to the neighborhood of $4.25 billion.

But that's assuming the $200 million Movie A from 1940 has earned was all from a 1940 release. It may have seen re-releases in 1965, 1988 and 2005, and is figuring all that into the box office figure, not to mention that it may have been available on VHS since 1983 and on DVD for a decade. And so conversely, if you're comparing that sort of film with one that is still in theaters, the latter is clearly at a disadvantage.

One could argue, well, it's really not about such a complex popularity saturation matrix, it's about the bottom line of how much money the film makes. So are we including merchandising during initial box office run, or VHS/Pay-per-view/DVD/On-Demand/Digital download and TV broadcast rights income?

It seems to me that the best gauge for us to use — and this is a metric that it seems to me would work not just within any era but across eras as well — would be to find out the movie's cost as well as the movie's gross, and add both figures plus a third figure that determines the percentage/multiple gained. So that if a 1940 film made $200 million, but cost $3 million to make and $80,000 to market, then it made a hell of a lot more than a 2005 film that made $600 million but cost $100 million to make and $45 million to market. I'm stronger on the logic here than I am on the math, forgive me, but if I say I made $20,000 in the stock market last year, that's amazing if I invested $1,000, good if I invested $20,000, below average if I invested $200,000, and ridiculous if I invested $2 million. I look forward to hear if any of this is a new idea in the discussion and what editors think. Abrazame (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This is an argument that has been going on ever since "ET" beat out "Star Wars". The Motion Picture industry and the American Film Institute do not use adjusted numbers (which as a Financial Advisor I cannot comprehend), so officially Avatar is the highest grossing movie of all time. It would be interesting to put together a list of highest grossing movies based on inflation adjusted (and price of ticket) numbers. Another suggestion would be to list them according to number of tickets sold. Not sure where that information could be obtained, just throwing it out there. Rapier1 (talk) 21:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Be careful, all, of not engaging in original research. The problems with measuring the commercial success of movies is well-documented and can be referenced, but solutions to those problems must be agreed upon by reliable sources since Wikipedia is inherently a non-innovative reference work. Report the most common metrics, make caveat emptor references where appropriate with links to relevant articles on the problem and leave it at that. Do not try to right great wrongs. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

See the paper I referenced above to understand what the issue is - no original research there. We are trying to get a qualifier added to the statement that is claiming a #1 gross receipts ranking over 100 years. The qualifier is that the ranking is done with inflation unadjusted dollar amounts. This is a essentially meaningless rank since inflation is not accounted for. The reason for the confusion is that the movie industry floods the press with press releases based on inflation unadjusted rankings. They do this for marketing reasons, which is understandable, if not mathematically accurate. Cshay (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand the issue fully. The qualifier that it is done without taking into account inflation is fine since you have reliable sources which discuss it. The idea that this makes the rank "essentially meaningless" is arguable and not cause that Wikipedia is equipped to take up. We can only rely on what the best sources do. Deprecate sources, fine. Judiciously choose ones that are not flawed. But please do not create novel treatments. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. FYI - calling the ranking "meaningless" is not original research! The paper I referenced says so on the first page, second column, towards the top. http://www.docstoc.com/docs/3582132/How-the-motion-picture-industry-miscalculates-box-office-receipts Cshay (talk) 22:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Did any of the links mention Avatar regarding this issue? If not, it is a violation of WP:NOR. From the lead of WP:NOR

"Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked. To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented."

And from the section WP:SYNTH of WP:NOR.

"Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:ASF is vital with regards to whether the metric is "meaningless". Whether a metric is "meaningless" or not is an opinion, not a fact. Whether a metric uses inflation-adjusted numbers or not is a fact, not an opinion. See the difference? ScienceApologist (talk) 22:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me or not. I have a source that says using inflation unadjusted numbers "have little meaning" in the context of ranking movies. In any case, this seems to be a side argument, and we seem to be in agreement that the rankings should be qualified as "inflation unadjusted". I would go farther and desire that a inflation adjusted ranking from a soure such as box office mojo be used in parallel to the unadjusted one, but this seems to be unpopular as some editors do not trust the Box Office Mojo source. 75.101.11.171 (talk) 23:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)