Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about adherence to the neutral point of view in context!

Before posting here, consult the neutral point of view policy page and the FAQ explainer. Also, make sure to discuss the disagreement at the article's talk page. Fringe theories often involve questions about neutral point of view. These should be discussed at the dedicated noticeboard. You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:NPOVN-notice}} to do so. Additional notes: Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments, not on vote count or sheer size of argument. Consensus in previous discussions does not make policy, but you can generally rely on it. The list of articles where users flagged a point-of-view concern is here. This page is not a forum for discussions unrelated to the neutral point of view. We have a separate noticeboard for concerns about original research (material made up by a Wikipedia editor), and another dedicated noticeboard for questions about contextual reliability of a source. Start a new discussion

East Africa

There is currently a disagreement on neutrality that is hindering improvement to the East Africa page. It centres around whether or not to mention an unrecognised state within the outline of this geographic region's composition.

The bulleted part (see top) of this outline is based on the United Nations geoscheme for Africa, which is a geographical grouping of countries for statistical purposes. Because the UN does not recognise the existence of Somaliland as a separate state of its own, its name will not be mentioned in this source. No editor is proposing tampering with this definition, which is strictly a reflection of the source. The second part of the outline (see directly underneath) defines the region in a purely geographic sense, and uses multiple sources. Inclusion of the red text is disputed on the grounds that it doesn't belong on a list of countries:

East Africa is often used to specifically refer to the area now comprising the countries of Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda, and (in a wider sense) also Rwanda, Burundi, Somalia (including the breakaway republic of Somaliland), Djibouti, Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Sudan. [citations omitted]

Inclusion was proposed initially because neutral policy would normally dictate that all sides to a dispute be represented. Sovereignty over Somaliland is a prominent dispute in current affairs. It is listed in the List of states with limited recognition and List of sovereign states.

Sources used will also need to be checked for neutrality.

No discussion has taken place on the talk page because an identical (and rather lengthy) argument surrounding the inclusion of the same name on a template took place here and concluded here, and involved the same editors. Night w (talk) 05:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The point of the sentence is to let readers know the area that is commonly defined as East Africa. It does its job whether Somaliland is mentioned or not. NPOV is met with the disputed clause either in or out. It isn't worth warring about. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Would you say the same for any of the other names in the list? How is NPOV met if one state is exluded? Somaliland is quite obviously part of East Africa, many don't consider it to be part of Somalia–which is the de facto situation regardless of opinion–, and many others do... So what would be the best way to present both of those views? Analogous situations would be the article on the Caucasus: Abkhazia, South Ossetia and the NKR are listed in parentheses; and the Balkans: Kosovo is listed separately with a qualifying attachment on its international status. Night w (talk) 13:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, when referring to actual countries (as is done in the East Africa article), the term East Africa is rarely if ever understood to include the Somaliland region of Somalia since Somaliland is, of course, not recognized by anyone as a country of its own. It is internationally recognized as a part of Somalia (albeit, one that's trying to secede). This includes the United Nations, whose geoscheme serves as the basis for this and all of the other Wikipedia geographical articles on the various regions in Africa (North Africa, West Africa, Central Africa, Southern Africa, East Africa), as indicated in the article's introduction. Contrary to what has been indicated above, there is also no dispute whatsoever about Somaliland's status as a part of Somalia -- the international community as a whole (every country & international organization, including the UN, the African Union, the European Union, and the Arab League) recognizes it and has only ever recognized it as a part of Somalia. As Tony Blair himself explains it:

"The Government does not recognize Somaliland as an independent state, neither does the rest of the international community. The UK has signed up to a common EU position and to many UN Security Council Presidential Statements, which refer to the territorial integrity and unity of Somalia."

The reason why Somaliland is even featured on those Wikipedia articles linked to above is because it was specifically added to them by Wikipedia users, including some involved this very edit conflict on the East Africa article -- not because Somaliland enjoys any recognition at all as a country of its own. The fact remains that the real dispute is over whether Somaliland ought to be recognized as a country of its own, not over whether it already is a country of its own. Regarding the latter, there is, again, no dispute to speak of; regarding the former, Wikipedia is no place for exploring such decidedly POV political questions (that is, not without breaching WP:NOTADVOCATE). Middayexpress (talk) 21:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The above by Midday clears up any confusion as to what the definition of East Africa is in mainstream literature, several wikipedia lists or templates where the inclusion of Somaliland is systematically pushed from a biased perspective through sheer weight of numbers(which is wrongfully portrayed as being 'concensus') does not equal 'a new mainstream definition' that is used by 'neutral sources' --Scoobycentric (talk) 14:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Outback the koala

I agree with everything stated above by Night w regarding the circumstances in this case. I would direct commenting editors to the List of states with limited recognition page for some background in this area of International Politics and very strongly encourage a reading of the prev. discussion here and here as noted above also. The treatment of disputes from an objective perceptive is key for any encyclopedia. I strongly believe we should not take sides in international disputes. Treating states with limited recognition as equal to one another is therefore very important. Those who take sides in these conflicts should really try to check their POV at the door when they come to improve the project; in this case, that has not happened. Wikipedians are people, and people can be very nationalistic sometimes leading them to become very combative in their editing. Taking sides in international disputes on wikipedia is rarely productive.

In regards to pages that have to do with this state I have had been told/called so many things and quoted so many WP policies guidelines (though often incorrectly). Some times I am spreading propaganda, sometimes I am the 'separatists' themselves, sometimes I am soap-boxing, sometimes when I use sources provided by others arguing - those sources are no longer valid, sometimes I am an advocate, and on and on. I really want this issue settled, because there are many pages across the project that need to be rendered neutral. Hopefully in this discussion, excessively long repetitive comments will not rule the day. I do not want to find consensus on a subject, only to move on to another page and have the same edits challenged by the same few editors.

Be wary, this discussion is NOT about Somaliland's international status. No one disputes the fact that no state recognizes it currently. No one disputes the fact that no international organization recognizes it currently. Somaliland exists as a de facto state only, and is defined as such by outside observers. The best article on the subject that I have found is here: http://yalejournal.org/article/de-facto-statehood-strange-case-somaliland[1]

As far as edits of mine above are concerned as quoted by Midday; the first is me adding a redirect on the list of sovereign states page. I do not understand how that is relevant. The second confirms only that I am involved with this dispute. I did not add Somaliland to Wikipedia, it was on those lists long before I came along. Please do not break up my comment. To all editors here, feel free to talk to me on my talk page. Thanks. Outback the koala (talk) 02:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Other comments

To Middayexpress:

• As was stated in my nomination above, the UN geoscheme serves as the basis for the political definition in the introduction, which is not being disputed here. The geoscheme does not dictate the remainder of the article (rightly so, as it is not a neutral source), nor does it serve as the basis for the geographic definition, which also includes Sudan and Egypt (as are listed). Please familiarise yourself with the article.
• There quite obviously is a dispute about Somaliland's status (attempting to ignore it solves nothing), and you've just provided two references verifying the prominence of the dispute in international politics and media. Diplomatic recognition isn't being disputed here; the political opinions of governments and organisations—which don't have an impact on the reality of the situation—are represented by the name being displayed in parentheses, with the qualifying word "including". Please familiarise yourself with WP:ASSERT.
• Somaliland was added, along with other unrecognised states, to the List of sovereign states in this revision from 2004, not by Outback.

I sympathise with Outback's frustration over this. I always try to assume good faith when disagreeing with editors, but on rare occasions you come across certain users who will persist again and again, no matter how many instances occur in which they're forced to concede to policy and consensus. In this case, there are editors involved who are incredibly knowledgable on the subject, and have the potential to make great improvements to the site, but their ability to make unbiased, encyclopædic edits is thwarted by a conflict of interest with their subject. Night w (talk) 06:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

To Outbackkoala

• There is not a single neutral source that you can find that includes Somaliland as a seperate distinct country part of East Africa, the only sources you have provided are heavily biased articles supporting/promoting Somaliland's bid for recognition. This in itself does not constitute evidence that Somaliland is included under the geographic term; East Africa or that we at wikipedia have to change the mainstream definition for a fringe one. On the other hand there is not a single pro-Somali government source or Unionist literature being used in the article to highlight the fact that 'Somalia is one of the countries falling under the geographic term East Africa', no the article was build on mainstream neutral sources, hence why from a encylopediac persepective neither me or Middayexpress are taking a side in any dispute, because we are simply upholding wikipedia's rules of accuracy.

To Nightw

• I think it's prudent that i highlight to the board your disingenuous behaviour on the East Africa article when you added multiple times inaccurate sources that under no circumstance can interpreted as supporting an inclusion of Somaliland under the geographic term; East Africa. Instead you have used these non-applicable sources as a casus belli to revert me. The most prominent ones being ofcourse the 19th century sources by Richard Francis Burton and E. Arnold, which are actually - if you have read the literature - referring to what is currently known as Greater Somalia = Somaliland, as that is what the country of the Somali people was known as in the 19th century. I fail to see how using these two particular sources lends weight to your argument that the self-declared entity and international recognised region of Somalia known as Somaliland is included under the geographic term East Africa? While you rightfully say that it's good practice to show good faith to another wikipedian, the next examples of sources you added rendered any such good faith towards you on my part moot, and your credibility questioned. You used two articles entitled 14 Italians move on British Somaliland and WWII 50 years on, neither of which referred to the current unrecognised entity but were discussing abolished historic states, therefore you were blatantly synthesizing a new definition of East Africa with sources that are neither discussing nor supporting your POV. --Scoobycentric (talk) 14:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• Regarding Outback's (the other editor involved in this dispute) rather absurd assertion above that he is somehow "neutral" in this affair, I think it is important for readers to realize that he openly admits on his own user page on a template he himself added that "this user recognizes the independence of Somaliland". That's hardly "neutral". This political position also puts him directly at odds with the Somali government, the UN, the African Union, the Arab League, the European Union, and every single country in the world i.e. the entire international community. Although he perhaps may not have added Somaliland to that particular article above -- which, by the way, doesn't negate the fact that the only reason why Somaliland is even featured on those Wikipedia articles listed above is because it was specifically added to them by Wikipedia users, not because the region enjoys any recognition at all as a country of its own -- Outback does, in fact, regularly add Somaliland to all sorts of pages listing actual countries (e.g. 1). The East Africa page is just the latest in a larger pattern.
• Regarding Night's equally preposterous contention that the U.N. geoscheme is somehow "not neutral", please contrast that with Scoobycentric's comments above on just what exactly is the former's idea of "proper" sourcing. Also note that, contrary to what has been noted above, the U.N. geoscheme does indeed serve as the basis for every single geographical Wikipedia article on the various regions in Africa; this includes the East Africa article in question (see the intros to the North Africa, West Africa, Central Africa, Southern Africa and East Africa pages). The U.N. geoscheme is not merely there to serve as the basis for the "political" definition of East Africa; as clearly indicated on the geoscheme's own page, it identifies the "Geographical region and composition of each region". This is why Egypt & Sudan are even included in the East Africa article in the first place i.e. because, while they are indeed usually classified as a part of North Africa, there are certain mainstream geographical definitions of the East Africa region which include them. That and the fact that Egypt and Sudan are still cited by the U.N. geoscheme as actual countries in Africa, unlike the Somaliland region of Somalia. Lastly, there is no dispute at all that Somaliland is a part of Somalia -- the international community as a whole only recognizes it as such (see my quote & links above). The only people that don't with any kind of political clout are the secessionists themselves, and that a "dispute" does not make (nor, incidentally, does linking to random editable Wikipedia articles). Middayexpress (talk) 22:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I know you all are busy arguing points irrelevant to this notice board, but would someone care to explain how the sentence, "East Africa is often used to specifically refer to the area now comprising the countries of Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda, and (in a wider sense) also Rwanda, Burundi, Somalia (including the breakaway republic of Somaliland), Djibouti, Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Sudan" violates WP:NPOV. I don't see where that is a declaration of diplomatic recognition, which is what you seem to be arguing here. I'm probably wrong, but I thought the question concerned the boundaries of a geographic area. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure. That statement violates WP:NPOV because, as Scoobycentric has pointed out, 1) The Somaliland region is not recognized as a "republic" or "country" of its own by the international community; it is only recognized as a part of Somalia (see my quote & links above); 2) the countries that constitute the East Africa region are based on the official definition of the region supplied by the U.N. geoscheme, which likewise does not recognize any entity called Somaliland -- it only acknowledges Somalia; and 3) the "sources" presented to support the position in that statement above do not at all indicate that the term East Africa is often used to refer to a whole slew of countries including Somaliland. The latter is, of course, original research, and is therefore by definition not NPOV but quite clearly POV. Middayexpress (talk) 22:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

1) The part of the article the sentence occupies is not the UN list, but the secondary definition: "East Africa is often used to specifically refer to the area now comprising the countries of . . ."

2) The second ref given states "Somaliland located in the north part of Somalia in East Africa is a small country . . ."

3) I am constantly amazed at Wikipedeans failure to find and use up-to-date sources. A simple search on Amazon and using the "Search inside this book" feature turned up Understanding Somalia and Somaliland: Culture, History and Society (2008), which refers to Somaliland as a republic while discussing its lack of diplomatic recognition, and even uses the term "breakaway republic" on p. 121.

3) This article concerns a geographical designation, not a political demarcation. In geography, the term "country" is used to designate a geographical region. The geographical region in question is generally designated by the name "Somaliland," whether it is or isn't an independent nation.

4) The sentence doesn't say Somaliland is a sovereign nation, so any objections based on that reason do not apply. In fact, it states that Somaliland is part of Somolia with the status of a "breakaway republic", which appears to be a correct description. Somaliland appears to engage in informal diplomatic activities; it has been autonomous since 1991 with no effort on the part of Somalia to force it back into the state of Somalia that I have been able to discover; it has its own army; and the people don't pay taxes to Somalia. But it's not recognised by other countries, so its status is a kind of twilight zone of sovereignty. It's not a matter of urgency to other countries because it is small and poor.

5) The purpose of Wikipedia is to convey information to as many people as possible. Some of those people, obviously, consider Somaliland to be an independent, sovereign nation. Others don't, so it is a matter of dispute. Most people don't care and haven't thought about it. The purpose of the sentence is to convey what geographical regions are included in the term "East Africa." Those who consider Somaliland an independent nation would wonder why it wasn't on the list if it were left off; those who don't consider it an independent nation would note that it is designated as part of Somalia.

The sentence as quoted would satisfy everyone except those who are active partisans on either side. Wikipedia is not written to settle scores, succor either side in a dispute, or declare which side is correct; Wikipedia is written to convey correct information to the largest number of people. By doing so in no way does it portray a slanted point of view by using the language in the sentence, in my opinion.

To recap, the sentence does not state Somaliland is an independent nation; Somaliland is the term used to describe the geographical area in question as evidenced by the ref in 2) above, and the article is about the definition of a geographical area. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

That pretty much sums up the situation. Everything has been said, and I'm not getting into yet another repetitive argument over this same subject. Just to make sure this is clear: the second definition in the article (i.e. that which is different to the U.N. definition, and also includes Egypt and Sudan) is what is being discussed here. Once again, nobody is arguing about the lack of political recognition; it does not make a difference when looking at the situation from a purely objective perspective (one of the cornerstones of (neutral editing). Night w (talk) 05:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The part of the article the sentence occupies is not the UN list, but the secondary definition: "East Africa is often used to specifically refer to the area now comprising the countries of . . ."

The entire article is based on the U.N. geoscheme, not just the intro. This is why every single Wikipedia geographical page on every single region in Africa (that is, North Africa, Southern Africa, West Africa and East Africa) lists only countries that are actually recognized as such by the UN. The latter of course doesn't include any entity called "Somaliland" -- the only territory on any of those geographical articles that isn't recognized as a nation of its own. Middayexpress (talk) 05:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Fine. In that case, to be consistent, why not delete this sentence: "East Africa is often used to specifically refer to the area now comprising the countries of Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda, and (in a wider sense) also Rwanda, Burundi, Somalia, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Sudan." Tom Reedy (talk) 08:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Because, as explained several times before, all of those are alternate groupings of countries that comprise East Africa based on mainstream definitions. The one constant & common factor is that these countries and every other country listed in every single Wikipedia geographical page on all regions in Africa are all recognized as such by the U.N. geoscheme on which all of those articles are primarily based (btw, what's with the bold text?). Middayexpress (talk) 04:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The United Nations is a political forum of governments. It is not an impartial organisation absent of any agenda. If it were the case that the African region articles are exclusively based around the UN definitions, that would be a major cause for concern for neutrality.

1. We never restrict a subject that is so open to interpretation to a single source.
2. The UN, as an inherently opinionated source, will not be regarded as a reliable source for plain geographical information. This is not an article on the UN subregion (which, might I add, is a grouping of states for statistical purposes). This is an article on (quote) "the easterly region of the African continent, variably defined by geography or geopolitics".

Do not persist in insisting that the entire article is restricted to one definition, as that clearly is not the case. Night w (talk) 15:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Like it or not, every single Wikipedia geographical page on every single region in Africa is indeed based on the U.N. geoscheme. They state as much in their intros; even the maps on the articles are based on the U.N. subregions. You argue that "we never restrict a subject that is so open to interpretation to a single source". The problem with this is that the articles are not exclusively based on the U.N. geoscheme and never have been. They are primarily based on the U.N. geoscheme since the latter is a reliable source that outlines all of the continent's regions and their constituent nations. This is why other mainstream, non-fringe definitions of just what countries typically constitute the East Africa region are indeed also included. You now argue (but have not proven) that the U.N. is an "inherently opinionated source" and that its geoscheme is used "for statistical purposes", thus making it unreliable "for plain geographical information". First of all, WP:RS does not insist that all sources be completely devoid of opinions. This, of course, is unrealistic since everyone has an opinion ("we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves"). All WP:RS insists is that "articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" -- no mention of geographical data that may or may not be destined for statistical use not being allowed. Unless you are now arguing that the U.N. does not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, you have no cause for complaint here either. Middayexpress (talk) 04:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, primarily based?? Then why do you keep bringing that into this debate; as we've been stating, that definition is not being discussed here. This is about (repeating) "the second definition in the article". Is that clear to you now? Can we cease talking about the United Nations? Night w (talk) 05:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Simmer down; no need to have an aneurysm. Yes, the East Africa article is primarily based on the U.N. geoscheme. This should have been obvious from the article's introduction and the other mainstream definitions and the map that are already in place there. I keep bringing it up simply to highlight the fact that the Somaliland region of Somalia is not included on any mainstream definitions of just what countries constitute East Africa -- it isn't even recognized as a country to begin with. Middayexpress (talk) 06:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The second ref given states "Somaliland located in the north part of Somalia in East Africa is a small country . . ."

Exactly. That source states that Somalia is in East Africa and that Somaliland is located in the northern part of it. Nowhere does it state that "East Africa is often used to specifically refer to the area now comprising the countries of..." including Somaliland. That, again, is original research. Middayexpress (talk) 05:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The sense is better expressed with commas or parentheses: "Somaliland (located in the north part of Somalia in East Africa) is a small country . . ." Tom Reedy (talk) 08:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Parentheses maintain that Somaliland is included in the definition via Somalia, and the source provided could not be more reflective of that. Night w (talk) 15:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The source doesn't use parentheses for that passage, nor would there presence have changed the fact that it clearly indicates that Somaliland is located in northern Somalia, and that it is Somalia that is, in turn, situated in East Africa. It is original research to then conclude that "Somaliland is included in the definition via Somalia". Middayexpress (talk) 04:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Not when we're leaving it open to opinion. I wasn't referring to the source when I talked about parentheses, I was talking about the inclusion of Somaliland within parentheses in this article: Somalia (including the breakaway republic of Somaliland). Night w (talk) 05:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

That makes no difference since that passage still refers to Somaliland as being located in northern Somalia, and Somalia in turn as being located in East Africa. Middayexpress (talk) 06:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I am constantly amazed at Wikipedeans failure to find and use up-to-date sources. A simple search on Amazon and using the "Search inside this book" feature turned up Understanding Somalia and Somaliland: Culture, History and Society (2008), which refers to Somaliland as a republic while discussing its lack of diplomatic recognition, and even uses the term "breakaway republic" on p. 121.

Yes, there are indeed some "sources" that refer to Somaliland as a "breakaway republic". However, these are all invariably from people with no political authority to speak of. In many cases, though not always, these authors are also closely affiliated with the secessionist movement itself (such as Matt Bryden, Iqbal Jhazbhay, etc.). The latter unfortunately includes the author of that book you quote from above, the otherwise venerable I.M. Lewis. Its assertions are, therefore, hardly neutral. The fact remains that whether or not a territory actually constitutes a country of its own is not determined by individual authors, but by actual law. If it were, every random mention on every random article of the term "country" or "nation" or some variation thereof in reference to any micronation or secessionist region would be enough to automatically qualify said micronation or secessionist region then and there as a "country" or "nation" of its own. This is, of course, preposterous. Furthermore, for Somaliland to constitute a country of its own, it first needs to break free of the ties that legally bind it to the rest of Somalia in the first place. I am of course referring to the Act of Union which united the former colonial territories of Italian Somaliland and British Somaliland in the 1960's to form the Somali Republic. The secessionists argue that there were, in fact, two Acts of Union and that the government of the former Trust Territory in southern Somalia signed neither, thus rendering the Union null and void. The problem with this argument is that just a few short years after Somalia gained its independence and the former colonial territories unified, an Italian legal expert by the name of Paulo Contini (who served as United Nation’s legal adviser to Somalia at the time) wrote an entire book painstakingly documenting the process. And Contini makes it clear therein that both of these early Acts of Union were repealed shortly afterwards, and a new Act of Union applicable to the whole of the Somali territory was drawn up & applied retroactively:

"Thus when the union was formed, its precise legal effects had not been laid down in any instrument having binding force in both parts of the State. As explained below, the matter was clarified seven months later by the adoption of a new Act of Union with retroactive effect from July 1, 1960 for the whole territory of the Republic ...To dispel any uncertainties, it was thought desirable, as a first step, to enact a law applicable to the whole territory of the Republic, defining the legal effects of the union with as much precision as possible. This was done on January 31, 1961, six months after unification, when the National Assembly adopted by acclamation a new Act of Union, which repealed the Union of Somaliland and Somalia Law, and which was made retroactive as from July 1, 1960."

This final Act of Union was never repealed and, in fact, cannot be without the approval of a four-fifths majority of all Somali voters, something which the separatists obviously have not obtained or even sought to obtain ([2]):

"One component of the structural defects of this vigorous campaign for "Somaliland" administration within the geographical confines of Hargeisa and its vicinities is the infringement of the Act of Union, a fundamental error emanating from an arbitrary means of dissolving the union of Somalia."

Middayexpress (talk) 05:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Didn't read much of that. It's just more irrelevant jibberish. It doesn't make a difference whether the secession was legal or not— nobody here is arguing that. All that matters is that it has seceded—legally or no. And since some consider it a separate state, and Wikipedia policy is to write from an objective perspective, it must be included in the list for reasons that have already been mentioned. The legal perspective is represented by its being displayed on a level that is unequal to the remainder: Burundi, Somalia (including the breakaway republic of Somaliland), Djibouti... Night w (talk) 15:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

That's ok since that comment wasn't addressed to you to begin with. Unfortunately, it is also impossible to dismiss the Act of Union which unites the former colonial territories of Italian Somaliland and British Somaliland as mere "irrelevant jibberish" since secession itself is "the act of withdrawing from an organization, union, or especially a political entity." One can't very well withdraw from a union one is legally bound to. Also, to state that some consider Somaliland a separate state is a gross understatement since the world at large does not recognize Somaliland's independence. The view that Somaliland is a country of its own is thus one held by a tiny minority. And per WP:UNDUE (a sub-policy of WP:NPOV), tiny minority views need not be included at all ("Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute"). WP:ASSERT is also a sub-policy of WP:NPOV, and it likewise only applies to mainstream views and views held by significant minorities, not to tiny-minority views. Further, WP:ASSERT is clear that one must quantify the extent of support for an existing view; it is not enough to just claim a significant minority believe it:

"It is not sufficient to discuss an opinion as fact merely by stating "some people believe...", a practice referred to as "mass attribution". A reliable source supporting a statement that a group holds an opinion must accurately describe how large this group is."

Middayexpress (talk) 04:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

An objective observation is not an "opinion". Quoting from the same piece:

An observation (objective) expresses a fact. An interpretation (subjective) expresses an opinion. A fact can be asserted without simon-says inline-text phrasing. An opinion must be attributed to so-and-so said.

Because this fact may be disputed in legal contexts, it is being displayed in a way that equally represents both sides of the dispute. Regardless of the legality or opinions of outsiders, it remains a fact that Somaliland constitutes an separate political entity. A simple analogy: If a man steals a car, regardless of the opinion that he mightn't legally possess this car, it doesn't change the fact that he now possesses a car. Another: if a military junta takes over a state via a coup, regardless of the opinion that they don't legally run the country, it doesn't change the fact that they now run the country. Night w (talk) 05:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

No, the fact that Somaliland's self-declared independence (as opposed to autonomy) is completely unrecognized the world over is not at all disputed (1): "...if an extradition treaty exists with Ethiopia, which like the rest of the world does not recognize Somaliland's independence and therefore cannot enter into any treaty with it." The onus is now on you to prove via actual quotes from reliable sources (not idle talk) that the above is not, in fact, the case, and that the view that Somaliland actually represents a country of its own is not one held by a tiny minority (i.e. the secessionists themselves, their associates & a few sympathizers). Middayexpress (talk) 06:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

This article concerns a geographical designation, not a political demarcation. In geography, the term "country" is used to designate a geographical region. The geographical region in question is generally designated by the name "Somaliland," whether it is or isn't an independent nation.

Yes, the article concerns geography. This is why it and every other Wikipedia geographical article on the various regions in Africa is based on the U.N. geoscheme, which, per the latter's own words, identifies the "Geographical region and composition of each region". The part of the article where Somaliland was inserted pertains to actual countries in Africa (it goes "East Africa is often used to specifically refer to the area now comprising the countries of..."), which Somaliland, as a part of the already extant country of Somalia, doesn't fit into either. Middayexpress (talk) 05:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

If that is so, then it becomes even more mysterious why this sentence is included: "East Africa is often used to specifically refer to the area now comprising the countries of Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda, and (in a wider sense) also Rwanda, Burundi, Somalia, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Sudan." My subjective impression is that you move the goalposts at your convenience. When it is inconvenient to talk about sovereignty, switch the topic to geography; when it is inconvenient to talk about geography, switch the topic to sovereignty.Tom Reedy (talk) 08:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The article as a whole has always been about the geographical region of East Africa. It's when the unrecognized entity in northern Somalia called "Somaliland" was introduced into the article that things got complicated since every actual country that was already listed on the page is already recognized as such. The world does not recognize Somaliland's indepedence (re-read my quote below from yesterday for an explicit statement of this), nevermind its place amongst the territories commonly defined as East Africa. This is when the sovereignty issue first necessarily reared its head. Middayexpress (talk) 04:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The sentence doesn't say Somaliland is a sovereign nation, so any objections based on that reason do not apply. In fact, it states that Somaliland is part of Somolia with the status of a "breakaway republic", which appears to be a correct description. Somaliland appears to engage in informal diplomatic activities; it has been autonomous since 1991 with no effort on the part of Somalia to force it back into the state of Somalia that I have been able to discover; it has its own army; and the people don't pay taxes to Somalia. But it's not recognised by other countries, so its status is a kind of twilight zone of sovereignty. It's not a matter of urgency to other countries because it is small and poor.

The sentence may not state that Somaliland is a sovereign nation, but it certainly does imply that it is. This is because it states that Somaliland is a "breakaway republic" (republics are most often sovereign countries), and lists the region right alongside Somalia to boot. Also, do not confuse autonomy with statehood. Merely behaving like a state or state-like alone is not enough to make a territory an actual country. The autonomous Puntland region of Somalia likewise has its own Ministry of Planning and International Relations, as well as its own Ministry of Health, Education, etc.. It also has its own army and flag, no different than the Somaliland region. Like Somaliland, its residents don't pay taxes to the federal government of Somalia, but to the Puntland administration.

The sentence specifically states that Somaliland is included with Somalia (". . . Somalia (including the breakaway republic of Somaliland). . . ). It is passing strange how it can imply sovereignty as it is written. Tom Reedy (talk) 08:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Not quite since the passage still clearly describes Somaliland as a "breakaway republic". What exactly did this alleged "republic" "break away" from if not the country of Somalia? Middayexpress (talk) 04:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Puntland has not seceded from Somalia, and its leaders have made repeated statements formalising that fact. There is no dispute to the contrary; therefore, the view does not need to be represented. As for your statement on taxes: not that it's relevant, but I'd really like to see a document stating the last time a resident of Hargeisa payed taxes to the government of Somalia. Ha! Are you kidding me? Night w (talk) 15:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

You are correct in noting that Puntland's leaders have repeatedly asserted that they would never attempt secession from Somalia (nor have I suggested anything to the contrary, actually). Puntland was brought up because Tom was under the impression that because Somaliland maintains some informal diplomatic activities, has its own army, and its residents don't pay taxes to the federal government, that it automatically qualifies as a country of its own -- things which the autonomous Puntland region also has. What you are incorrect on, however, is the notion that Somaliland has already seceded from Somalia. It hasn't. It only declared independence (unlike Puntland) -- a declaration which still remains unrecognized the world over -- and operates autonomously (like Puntland). To secede, Somaliland first needs to invalidate the Act of Union that legally binds it to the rest of Somalia, something which has yet to happen. Middayexpress (talk) 04:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

So no reference for that tax collection? Night w (talk) 05:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

It was already provided yesterday. The "State" referred to on Puntland's Ministry of Finance webpage is the Puntland State of Somalia (the region's official name): "To give you a more clear Picture, as to the role of the Ministry it is worth mentioning that 85% of the State Revenue is gotten from this Ministry through the customs and Inland Taxations." Middayexpress (talk) 06:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Similarly, Somaliland's "relations" with foreign governments are no different to those of Puntland. Somaliland government officials are regarded and dealt with as regional representatives by actual federal governments such as the U.S. government:

"While the United States does not recognize Somaliland as an independent state, we continue regularly to engage with Somaliland as a regional administration and to support programs that encourage democratization and economic development in the Somaliland region. We have consistently voted for United Nations Security Council resolutions reaffirming respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity, political independence, and unity of Somalia.

This applies to the Somaliland region's president as well:

"The Somaliland president, Dahir Rayale Kahin, is regarded more as a governor by other nations, even though he considers himself to be as much a president as, say, Thabo Mbeki of South Africa, Mwai Kibaki of Kenya or Olusegun Obasanjo of Nigeria, three prominent presidents on this continent."

The passports the Somaliland government prints are likewise unrecognized:

"The Somaliland passport — which bears the region's logo and looks as official as any other nation's — is not recognized by any country in the world, although the neighboring countries of Ethiopia and Djibouti do allow people to travel with it while still not officially recognizing Somaliland as a country."

The fact is, the Somaliland region has no diplomatic recognition at all. Actually, Somaliland doesn't even have any de facto recognition as a country of its own:

"Independence does not rely solely on whether it is deserved, but on the existing realpolitik. Sadly for Somaliland, they fall between the cracks in international law and cannot win the argument for de jure recognition while Somalia remains without a viable government, so they must instead push for de facto recognition – which no one is willing to offer."

There has been no effort on the part of the Somali government to force Somaliland back into Somalia because it never had to: the international community as a whole (every single country & international organization) recognizes and has only ever recognized it as a part of Somalia. The international community also does not refuse to recognize Somaliland merely because the region is, as you say, "small and poor", but out of respect for the territorial integrity of Somalia (c.f. 1). The Somali constitution likewise recognizes Djibouti as bordering Somalia to the northwest, not Somaliland. Middayexpress (talk) 05:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

You are correct in all that you say about the lack of sovereignty of Somaliland (except for your last reason about "respect for the territorial integrity of Somalia"; Robert W. Maggi, the U.S. Department of State’s coordinator for counterpiracy, said Somalia has no government, "It is an ungoverned space."), and all this would be great if sovereignty were the subject here, but my main point is that the sovereignty or lack of it is not the question in the informal secondary definition of East Africa that makes it clear the country is part of Somalia. (And even Lloyd Pierson of the U.S./African Development Foundation calls it a country.) Tom Reedy (talk) 08:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I am correct in everything I've said, including my assertion that the international community as a whole refuses to recognize Somaliland out of respect for the territorial integrity of Somalia. This includes the United States (yes, Lloyd Pierson's offhand remark does not represent the official U.S. position on the Somaliland issue; he also, incidentally, refers to Puntland as a country); kindly refer again to that quote above from Ambassador John Yates, the Secretary of State's special envoy for Somalia for the lowdown. Robert W. Maggi also does not state that Somalia has no government. In fact, he mentions its federal government (the Transitional Federal Government (TFG)) by name in that same paragraph you partly quote from above. Its the lack of governmental involvement in fighting piracy & the TFG's general ineptitude that he expresses frustration over (the TFG itself is, by the way, backed by the U.S.). The sovereignty point is addressed in my lastest comment above. Middayexpress (talk) 04:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of Wikipedia is to convey information to as many people as possible. Some of those people, obviously, consider Somaliland to be an independent, sovereign nation. Others don't, so it is a matter of dispute. Most people don't care and haven't thought about it. The purpose of the sentence is to convey what geographical regions are included in the term "East Africa." Those who consider Somaliland an independent nation would wonder why it wasn't on the list if it were left off; those who don't consider it an independent nation would note that it is designated as part of Somalia.

The sentence as quoted would satisfy everyone except those who are active partisans on either side. Wikipedia is not written to settle scores, succor either side in a dispute, or declare which side is correct; Wikipedia is written to convey correct information to the largest number of people. By doing so in no way does it portray a slanted point of view by using the language in the sentence, in my opinion.

It makes no difference what those who consider Somaliland an independent nation want. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to cater to special interests, but to reflect reality using reliable sources. And reality is that Somaliland is and has always only been recognized as a part of Somalia by the world at large -- there is no dispute at all on this (see the New York Times article titled The Signs Say Somaliland, but the World Says Somalia):

"...if an extradition treaty exists with Ethiopia, which like the rest of the world does not recognize Somaliland's independence and therefore cannot enter into any treaty with it." -- Human Rights Watch, July 2009

The alternative view that Somaliland is actually a country of its own is a tiny-minority view held by the secessionists themselves, their associates, and a few sympathizers here and there. And per WP:VER, tiny-minority views need not be included. Middayexpress (talk) 05:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

If you believe that including the parenthetical information to a secondary geographical definition is "catering to special interests" or an expression of "a tiny-minority view held by secessionists themselves," then fine, keep edit-warring. I merely offered my opinion and my reasons for it. But my opinion is that a person who continually uses such language as "there is no dispute at all on this" and "this is, of course, preposterous," while disparaging every source that doesn't agree with his definition as "hardly neutral" while engaging in a protracted edit war, had better hunker down for a long, contentious battle about what is essentially an extremely minor point that doesn't contradict anything you've said. Lots of luck with that. Tom Reedy (talk) 08:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I did not state that "including the parenthetical information to a secondary geographical definition is "catering to special interests" or an expression of "a tiny-minority view held by secessionists themselves"". That, with all due respect, is a strawman. I stated that the view that "Somaliland is actually a country of its own is a tiny-minority view held by the secessionists themselves, their associates, and a few sympathizers here and there". And I proved it too by producing a quote indicating that the world at large does not recognize Somaliland's independence. Ergo, indentifying Somaliland as anything other than a part of Somalia is catering to that tiny minority. The onus is therefore on the other users to prove that the view that Somaliland is already a country of its own is not a tiny minority view i.e. that a significant part of the world does, in fact, recognize Somaliland's independence. This is, of course, easier said than done. Middayexpress (talk) 04:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh no, please don't leave! I've already been through this multiple times; after a while he just repeats himself over and over and then quotes the New York Times article. It lasts for pages and pages, I don't have the energy to continue by myself. Is there any way to invite a greater number of outside editors to casually review what's been said here, and offer an opinion? Thankyou for lending your time in any case. Night w (talk) 15:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

If you find me repeating myself, that could be because I am answering your own oft-repeated claims. Middayexpress (talk) 04:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

If this is important to you, I suggest you diligently follow the procedure for dispute resolution and don't skip any steps. Document the diffs and attempts at resolving the dispute and take it to WP:RFC/USER, if need be. Above all, don't expect instant resolution. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm still with it also, so do not fret Night w.! Sorry I've been busy with work and my few edits have been maintenance. I would like to echo Night w. and applaud him at the same time, that this argument only goes in circles and it really needs to stop. I would prefer that we avoid any type of topic ban, which might result from an RfC user, as Midday's non-politically based contributions are incredibly helpful to the project. From the above discussion I can see most of Midday arguments have been refuted, yet he continues. A topic ban may have to be an option. We must move ahead to the next stage in dispute resolution, either way. Outback the koala (talk) 21:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Refuted? You sure about that? lol Middayexpress (talk) 04:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I seriously doubt a topic ban proposal would be called for in such a trivial case, nor would I think it would be successful. All the energy that has gone into this could have been used to build another pyramid. Such is Wikipedia. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

You may find it trivial because we may have cited only this specific page, however there have been many other pages that are effected. Perhaps this was not made clear. It has been a long running battle to have this state included on even some very obscure pages. Any mention of Somaliland brings Midday in to paste his long walls of text. Or even edits summaries that simply dispute Somaliland's status. It may seem small to you, but to me and others it impedes our ability to improve the encyclopedia (that template talk is a prime example). Outback the koala (talk) 22:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Keep personally attacking me, Outback, as you have done in the past. You only do yourself a disservice and again prove that you are completely unable to support your position without resorting to petty ad hominem & distortions. Doing so also won't in the least bit get me to stop objecting to and exposing POV whenever and wherever I see it, including your own. Middayexpress (talk) 04:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The agruments you make are all refuted above. Outback the koala (talk) 19:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Only in your wildest dreams, pal. And certainly not by you. ;-) Middayexpress (talk) 21:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

How about we stopped focusing on Middayexpress as a person and started processing the information he has posted here, instead of trying to bully him into pariah status? It's laughable that we have individuals attacking Middayexpress for being elaborate and posting verifiable information, when they themselves were the ones who were blatantly using wrong sources on the East Africa article in question to support their edits, even in this very discussion a very lengthy case for Somaliland was made through multiple points and sources proven to be directly/in-directly connected to the seccessionist cause, and used to nicely synthesize a sentence that is never proclaimed in the original sources, when these points were addressed and refuted through the use of sources not connected to the Somali government, suddenly nobody wants to continue the discussion? Interesting. --Scoobycentric (talk) 00:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Why not post it at WP:NOR/N, then, if that is the root of the complaint? My opinion is restricted to whether it violated WP:NPOV, and it really puzzled me why anybody would think it did, because a reader would have had to think through several steps to arrive at that opinion, and any one of which could have gone the opposite direction just as logically and plausibly. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Everything that needs to has been said, Scooby. I'll not venture into another mindnumbing cycle of repetition like before. I'd prefer just to get a large number of outside users involved to go over the information (and the source used if you wish), and post their opinion. Perhaps just a general RfC will assist. Tom, am I able to invite RfC users to post their comments in this thread, or do we need to start a separate one? Night w (talk) 04:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I logged an RfC here. Scooby, if you still feel that there is a discrepancy between the statement and the source, I suggest you log a request for a review on WP:NOR/N. Thankyou. Night w (talk) 05:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Avoiding WP:RFC/USER, I've instead opened an informal mediation case, the thread of which is located here. It will most likely take a while for an administrator to accept. Night w (talk) 13:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Revisited after a break

I have seen no action on this important topic in awhile, it had even been archieved. Where do we go from here? Outback the koala (talk) 19:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I am finding this issue to be inaccessible because of too much information. Excuse me if this has already been proposed, but would it be possible to put information about the controversy into a separate article, then on the main East Africa page immediately after the list of countries have some kind of link to the controversy page? Wikipedia, I think, is not the place to actually resolve this issue in any way other than to avoid the issue by documenting what reliable sources on both sides say and giving links to both sides within the article. That should solve the NPOV problem. Is there also a WP:RS problem? If not, then what is the problem at this point?

I would like to frame this problem with a plan to collect reliable sources, agree on what they say, then to fix the NPOV issue by going to the East Africa page and posting links to articles supporting all sides. Is there any other way? If so, what are the other options? Blue Rasberry 17:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, if we include "Somaliland," wouldn't that mean mentioning all the areas with secessionist tendencies? Somaliland isn't the only one. We would end up with "Sudan (including the transitional Darfur and autonomous Southern Sudan regions), Ethiopia (including the Ogaden) (etc., etc.)" We could end up with an interminable description. I am not sure this helps or not, it's hard to tell given the length of the argument/discussion. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

True, Gyrofrog. I was looking to the List of states with limited recognition for countries to include and also the List of sovereign states. As far as a separate page could go for this, the issue is not page specific and spans a large number of article and this desparately needs qualifing. Outback the koala (talk) 03:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you give me an opinion, Outback? I am seeing two issues here. One is that it is not obvious what single dividing line to use to separate states which ought to be named in various lists of countries throughout Wikipedia from those states which ought not to be included; the other issue, which is relatively minor and prosaic, is that assuming some states without full international recognition should pass the dividing line by meeting inclusion criteria, how should the lists be demarcated to indicate a difference between controversial and non-controversial entries. To what extent do you feel that the problem is a lack of defined inclusion criteria, and would be solvable with this kind of definition? Is there another big point in this issue which needs to be addressed? Blue Rasberry 17:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe you have certainly summarized the core issue here which, for reiteration, is how to properly incorporate these partially recognized states into the various pages of the project. A proper definition of inclusion in this area would greatly improve the situation of list and geographic location pages for starters. My argument is one of neutrality; That wikipedia cannot decide what states are legitimate or not, and so we must take an objective point of view which is free from the arguments of those whom have stake in the conflicts that accompany these states. Indeed, the biggest push back that this issue always sees is from those editors who have already taken sides in the issue and seek to show that the state in question is not legitimate regardless of where that state is recognized by others states as being legitimate. This thereby impedes discussion on the issue altogether. While Palestine and Taiwan attract some of the worst of these POV-pushers, all pages related to these states additionally attract these individuals, including the one mentioned above. Solvable with a definition, or better yet a policy, would be the ability to show these editors the project's objective stance by pointing to this definition. Those of us involved in this long-running issue have seen far too many edit summaries of 'not a country' with that state's removal(head to the List of Sovereign States for examples). While on some pages consensus has formed around this issue, that consensus does not apply to other pages, and there is a need to re-seek consensus and go through the motions on every individual page effected, replaying the same arguments, often with the same editors who are more than happy to slow down the process, attempting to bring discussion to a standstill, thereby keeping the status quo on the page. I am glad action could be taken on this issue. Outback the koala (talk) 14:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

A straightforward guiding principle will be to mention Somaliland and other disputed areas when they are relevant. And not when they are not. The original question related to the definition of East Africa. East Africa is a top-level article that will be accessed by many general readers with little knowledge of the area. The definition of the area in the lead paragraph needs to fulfil its purpose, which is to let people know what is and what isn't usually included in the area. You don't even have to do that by a list of all the countries, you can do it by only mentioning the ones in the north, south and west that are on the boundaries. Which is why my original answer was: you could go either way, mention Somaliland or leave it out, it doesn't matter very much. I don't think it would be right to have a general rule. Somaliland is a notable topic that must be included somewhere in the encyclopedia, but it doesn't have to be mentioned at every point. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I would ask Itsmejudith if inclusion in lists of countries is relevant; I am not seeing a stand on that in the above statement.

Thanks for providing context and scope to the issue, Outback. With what precedent are you familiar? You mentioned Palestine and Taiwan. Palestine seems to have some inclusion on Middle East and Taiwan in East Asia, which I would take to be analogous to the East Africa article, which is the focus of the specific case of this problem. You said the arguments were the same; how sure are you of this?

I think my plan for resolution of this would be to summarize what has been said in the East Africa discussion and other analogous discussions into a set of options, determine how much work each option would take to implement and maintain, then discuss the options.

Could you list the options already proposed for resolving the East Africa list? Full inclusion as a country and complete exclusion are two options; what others have been proposed? Blue Rasberry 16:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

@Itsmejudith - To follow your logic; I think that Kenya is 'a notable topic that must be included somewhere in the encyclopedia, but it doesn't have to be mentioned at every point.' Therefore 'it doesn't matter very much'.

@Rasberry - I feel now you have missed the point of the issue being brought to the NPOV board for help. The specific page has become the focus again instead of the overall problem; we are getting 'tunnel-vision' on the East Africa list, but forgetting there are at least 150 pages that are effected by this(and then include lists by country i.e. GDP, pop, religions...). To answer your question usually three resolutions are proposed; full inclusion; no inclusion (both taken by hardliners) or lastly, a 'separate but equal approach', which is usually adopted, like in the case of Template:Africa topic, where you have a 'states' section and a separate 'States with limited recognition' section. Check that template's talk page archive for the long consensus discussion to achieve just that format(which was adopted by the other major contentent templates like Template:Europe topic and Template:Asia topic. Outback the koala (talk) 23:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Scope of this and solution proposals

I have been looking into this problem for a while, and it is my opinion that this is something that could be sorted fairly easily if the arguments were organized. User:Outback the koala above has just suggested that I review some talk pages to get some information which I requested. While I am glad this issue came to the NPOV discussion board, it is going to be hard to find a fair number of good reviewers until someone better organizes the arguments.

I just put the talks from the Africa topic template Archive, the current Africa topic template talk, and this NPOVN board posting in my word processing program. Single spaced and 12 point font, these 56,000 words made 83 pages for me. Outback, am I correct that this is what you are asking me to review? There is one medcab case here and another one here; they are very similar and do not currently reference each other, and I think there is also an RfC somewhere, and all that is in addition to the 56k words. It is my opinion that regardless of mediation case or discussion board, the route to resolution will involve condensing all of this into specific points.

I hope you find whatever kind of help you are looking for, but if I may make a suggestion, then please allow me. I think things would go a lot more smoothly and much more quickly if you listed the possible solutions, summarized the problems with each, and then presented that instead of long discussions. At the very least, describe your own solution and we can talk only about that. As a disinterested third party it would be wrong for me to sort out all this content and make your presentation for you, and considering the amount of content, this needs to be sorted and represented in some form that suggests a solution. At this time are you able to propose any solutions, or would you rather get input from editors other than me first? Blue Rasberry 20:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

It's alot and you shouldn't have to read it - especially because its been re-hashed out above on the page(indeed, some comments appear to have been copy-and-pasted to here from there). I don't think this is going anywhere and I am losing interest in seeing the process through. I have a genuine interest in the subject and my contributions are heavily focused on this area because in rl it is my academic field of study. Truly this is a myriad of issues that overlap, but yet have deep consequences especially in the long run as well as the number of articles effected.

To lay out the extent of the partially/un recognised states issue, take these effected articles into account; All country list articles(exception to a select few); For the 10 states the are related, all of their subpages(i.e. economy of __, politics of __....); all geographic locations(towns, villages, mountains...)within these entities, do we indicate the de facto state or the claimant state not in control of the territory, regardless of what is being used now, the vast majority see long term anon edits related to this(I know Taiwan place names were hit hard by a sockpuppeteer changing everything to 'Chinese Taipei'), and other Conflict and war relates pages since most of the entities came into existence through armed conflict or are currently involved in one now. Even if I excluded geographic locations, I would still estimate page number to be in excess of 1000 - with geo locations more like 4-5 thousand(remember these are 10 fair sized countries we are talking about and every place in them, so my estimate is on the conservative side.)

It is rare to find a third party who trys to tackle this issue, so no, don't read through it all. I can for sure summarize for you. Shall I do so here, or on this new page thats discussed below? Outback the koala (talk) 07:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Unless there is a reason to do otherwise, let's take this to the medcab board.

I do not doubt the scope of this particular issue and I agree with your estimates on the number of pages potentially affected.

Do not get discouraged just yet. Mediation can cut out a lot of the irrelevant side information about this issue and help everyone define and focus on the problem. I do not feel that this problem will be intractable, so unless you are sure you want to drop out now, at least put something on the table to encourage other people to finish the talk in case you decide to drop out later. One system you could use would be the following:

1. State a solution
2. List benefits of the solution
3. List drawbacks of the solution
4. repeat to propose 2-3 solutions, including the default of doing nothing

I am sure the issue is more complicated than to be solved by doing just that, but even if you leave I would like to see this through a little further if someone can propose some ends to this. In all the writing which has already been done, the lack of summary has been a huge barrier to outside input, so if you create it now it may open doors for solution and help to exclude all discussion not related to solutions.

Thoughts? Blue Rasberry 21:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Mediation

I noticed that there is a standing request for informal mediation for this page, is this still desired/needed? If so, I would be willing to help out. Ronk01 (talk) 12:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I have opened the mediation casepage, and ask that all involved parties make a statement under the "discussion" header on the casepage so I can get an idea of the views people have here. Thank you. Ronk01 (talk) 15:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Would it be best to move this discussion over there? Create a new one? What now? Outback the koala (talk) 06:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

If there has to be more discussion, it would probably be best to do it here or on another talk board. If enough has been said, then it probably is time to try summarizing things for mediation so that people who have not followed the discussion can see the issues in a controlled forum. Blue Rasberry 21:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Mugshot

Resolved

I have started a discussion at the non-free content review page regarding the possible deletion of an image. The reasoning for its removal is for both potential violation of WP:NFCC and neutrality so I thought I would throw a link to the conversation here. Wikipedia:Non-free content review#File:Mehserle-mugshot.jpg--Cptnono (talk) 04:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Original poster got a response with legitimate concerns and never responded to those. The issue is archived here. I am marking this as resolved. Blue Rasberry 14:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

RealClearPolitics

This article has been the subject of what I believe is a NPOV violation within the lede. A few editors are attempting to insert the following sentence into the lede.

The site's founders are self-described conservatives who are frustrated with what they perceive as anti-conservative, anti-christian media bias

Which is derived from the following quotes from this source.

McIntyre described the philosophy behind the website as based on "freedom" and "common-sense values." Said Bevan, "We think debate on the issues is a very important thing. We post a variety of opinions." "We have a frustration that all conservatives have," said McIntyre, "which is the bias in the media against conservatives, religious conservatives, Christian conservatives."

I believe this has several issues.

1. WP:LEAD - If the lead is to be a summary of the most important aspect of the article this would be undue weight for the lead. That particular sentence is repeated almost verbatim within the philosophy section of the article along with the other stated reasons for the site. It is undue weight to focus on just this one aspect in order to promote the belief that the site is conservative (NPOV violation and Undue Weight).
2. WP:MOSBEGIN - The primary aspects of the lead are summary in nature, this particular sentence is overly specific.
3. WP:UNDUE - That sentence, by itself, does not fully explain the reason why the founders started the site, however it would most likely be overly weighty to include basically the entire Philosphy of the founders within the lead as needless repetition. At the same time the actual origin is summarized within the lead without any overly specific statements or quotes.
4. WP:SYNTH - The sentence makes a declarative statement that the founders are "self-described" conservatives, however the source does not make that same statement. While they could be conservative, they could also be expressing empathy with conservatives.
5. One of the arguments for this sentence in the lead has been comparison with the lead for FiveThirtyEight.com, however a quick review of that lead does not go into overly specific details about Nate Silver and his philosphy or political leanings.

Thoughts? Arzel (talk) 00:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Posted on the talk page that I have brought this up here. Arzel (talk) 01:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The original debate was between the following two versions of the sentence:

While some have suggested the column selection is conservative-leaning, the site does include columns and commentary from both sides of the spectrum.

The site's founders are self-described conservatives who are frustrated with what they perceive as anti-conservative, anti-christian media bias and while some have suggested the column selection is conservative-leaning, the site does include columns and commentary from both sides of the spectrum.

The former was seen as dismissive of the conservatism claim, and therefore a violation of NPOV. The latter was an attempt to introduce balance. My own preference is that we remove the line entirely and instead change the first line to "RealClearPolitics is a conservative-leaning news aggregator and blog," thus mirroring the FiveThirtyEight.com article. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 14:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The 538 article does not claim 538 to be a liberal-leaning news aggregator and blog. They are both listed as non-partisan. I am not sure where the meme that RCP is a conservative-leaning news aggregator comes from. They equally have views from the left and the right included as article selections (Huffpo, Krugman, Dione, ect..) Arzel (talk) 17:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Um...it comes from the fact that the founders say as much in the article below, and that other observers, such as Nate Silver and D'Agostino in said article, have pointed out the same. The 538 article says it's a polling aggregator with a liberal-leaning blog. Simple, accurate, and to the point--I applaud the author of that intro (that was you, I believe)--and we should try to emulate it in the RCP article. At any rate, we've both said our piece, so let's call a truce until we get some other opinions. Copacetic? Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 14:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and yes I agree that it should be listed as non-partisan. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 14:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

For context, the full quote from the article is as follows:

RealClearPolitics offers its own commentary as well. On March 24, it offered this 
assessment of the mainstream media's coverage of the tiny number of American casualties 
thus far in the Iraq war: "Did the media really expect no U.S. soldiers would die? That 
no one would be taken prisoner? That there wouldn't be any civilian casualties? That is 
exactly what you'd believe if you read the headlines today: 'U.S. Forces Take Heavy 
Casualties'-Susan Glasser, Washington Post, 'Doubts Raised on Strategy'-Thomas Ricks, 
Washington Post. . . .

"Even worse, on the index pages of the three largest online newspapers in the country 
there is no mention of the 100-acre chemical plant discovered by U.S. troops yesterday. 
To most people this would seem like a pretty significant development-after all, isn't 
discovering WMD facilities one of the main objectives of the invasion?"

McIntyre described the philosophy behind the website as based on "freedom" and 
"common-sense values." Said Bevan, "We think debate on the issues is a very important 
thing. We post a variety of opinions."

"We have a frustration that all conservatives have," said McIntyre, "which is the bias 
in the media against conservatives, religious conservatives, Christian conservatives."

RealClearPolitics also dissected the media's disingenuous coverage of Asan Akbar's 
attack on fellow members of the 101st Airborne. "When the story initially broke on 
Saturday night it was widely reported that the suspect was a 'Muslim-American' soldier," 
it said March 24. "By Sunday morning that descriptor had been scrubbed from virtually every 
report. This morning, only the LA Times gives the story any play on its main page. . . . 
The New York Times, by contrast, puts the story on its 'National' page and does the most 
blatant PC whitewash imaginable. . . . The Times serves up this quote from Akbar's stepfather: 
'I remember last Christmas he was complaining about the double standards in the military,' 
Mr. Bilal said. 'Hasan told me it was difficult for a black man to get rank in the military, 
and he was having a hard time.' Only the New York Times could take the fact that a Muslim 
soldier in the U.S. Army attacked his own comrades in an unprecedented way and turn it into 
an indictment of the Army itself for being racist."

Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 14:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Note that this is from 2003, shortly after the start of RCP. Arzel (talk) 17:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Note that the subject of this discussion is the founding philosophy -- how appropriate. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Blaxthos, it appears your only intent here is to cause disruption. You already accused one user involved in this discussion of being a sock (resolved in their favor) and also quickly tried to get them blocked. Now you insert this snarky comment. Do you have comments on my issues from above or are you simply trying to poison the well? Arzel (talk) 04:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It appears to me that the second version of the text ("The site's founders are ...") follows the presented source nicely and presents the background in a way that helps readers understand the topic. I also think that Nathan's suggestion (timestamp 14:19) would work. There are many ways to skin a cat, and as long as the point gets through the exact wording is of less importance. --Dailycare (talk) 19:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Is anyone going to discuss any of the issues I brought forward? I will take silence as concensus without further discussion. Arzel (talk) 04:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

1. WP:LEAD - The lead is a summary of the most important aspects of the article. RCP's status as a conservative-leaning aggregator and blog is summarized quite clearly and accurately as it is written, although I've offered several alternatives.

2. WP:MOSBEGIN - I've offered a less specific summarization in the form of "RCP is a nonpartisan, conservative-leaning news aggregator and blog," mirroring our articles on other sites (specifically, 538).

3. WP:UNDUE - A summary of RCP founders' philosophy is not undue weight. It is something that should be mentioned in the lede and explored in more detail in the body.

4. WP:SYNTH - Synth is using multiple sources to derive a meaning not intended by any of the sources. This dispute has been about using a single source to present the meaning as it is intended by that source.

5. Once more, I've offered an alternate opening line that more directly mirrors the 538 article and does not suffer from perceived "over-detailedness".

Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 15:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

1. - Lead - That sentece is not a summary of their philosphy, it is a selected quote and does not comply with lead. Read lead again.
2. - MOS - Again, a misunderstanding of MOS.
3. - Undue - You focus on one sentence that present your point of view and in promanence that is undue weight with respect the way the business is being run and the reliable sources that talk about RCP.
4. - Synth - You have a fundamental misunderstanding of synthesis of material. Synthesis of material does not require multiple sources. From WP:SYNTH (Emphasis mine) "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach OR imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by ANY of the sources."
5. - Again your solution is not a mirror of the 538 article.

Thank you though for finally beginning to address my concerns. Arzel (talk) 15:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

We've gone over these points before. Now can we please hold off on commenting until some uninvolved editors have had a chance to reply? Let's let others decide who's misreading and/or cherry-picking policy here. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 15:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I've read over all these arguments and will give my (hopefully) final thoughts. I made an argument on the RCP discussion page that I believe we are making it a stretch to say the quote is part of their founding philosophy. Please, please, please...look at it! It's a standalone quote in its own paragraph. I cannot stress this point enough. The arguments against thing being undue weight all revolve around this being their founding philosophy, but I don't see that we can establish that as fact from what we have in the source article. The founding philosophy was based around "freedom" and "common-sense values", according to the founder. The quote about their frustration against anti-conservative media bias comes in a paragraph following this one, but we should not extrapolate from the article that this quote has necessarily to do with their founding. Either way, the undue weight should be obvious here. We are taking a quote found berried within a lone paragraph in an isolated article written 7 years ago and using it as the basis to introduce the reader to RCP. I hope you guys are giving due thought to how this reads. The gist I get from the first paragraph is that RCP was born out of frustration against anti-christian, anti-conservative media bias. In my view, it is in very poor taste to be treating the article like this.

I think as one editor put it, accuracy should be the concern here. Sometimes it is safer to write what little we do know than to write something we can't verify. This is my proposal for the lead:

"RealClearPolitics is an American non-partisan, political news and polling data aggregator based in Chicago, Illinois. The site compiles averages of major political polls on various elections throughout the United States to give a national view of the race. Though the column selection has been described as conservative-leaning, the site includes columns and commentary from both sides of the spectrum."

Not much of a change but I re-ordered the sentences and changed some wording to give a more informative flow to the beginning. I'd rather us lay on the reader exactly what the site does before getting into discussion about possible political leanings. I do not like using liberal/conservative descriptors so that's the only reason I'm not in favor of Nathan McKnight's abridged version (i.e., I believe it's simply more accurate to write how they are perceived instead of dishing out an arbitrary label like conservative-leaning). I hope that anyone who still wants to include this in the lead realizes that this quote is covered accurately, and in full context, in the Philosophy section. In conclusion and dead horse battery, covering it in the introduction gives too much weight to this one quote over other relevant information in the article, and thus the UNDUE weight gripes from some editors. Ubiq (talk) 19:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The quote describes the site founders' philosophy in their own words in the context of a discussion of the site's philosophy. I think that makes it relevant enough to be summarized in the lede and expadned upon in the body. As such, I think the (locked) version as it currently stands is the most accurate and descriptive. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 20:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

This will be twice now that my argument has been ignored. I'm confused as to how you can conclusively say that this quote, which describes the founders' sentiments towards media bias, actually describes the site's philosophy. I understand that the source article discussed the site's philosophy, but I'm utterly perplexed as to how you think including just this one isolated quote is accurately describing/summarizing the site's philosophy in the lede. Ubiq (talk) 21:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to including other quotes about the founders' philosophy--as a matter of fact, I did just that by including a summary of the founders' desire to present a diversity of opinions--but what baffles me is the idea that the site founders' own confirmed philosophy is not important enough to mention in the lede. I understand that there is a difference between a site and its founders, but the source article practically extolls RCP as an active counter to perceived liberal bias, and after all, it's the source article (i.e. the reliable source) that we should be trying to accurately represent. What aspect of your argument do you feel has been ignored? Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 21:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

"A summary of RCP founders' philosophy is not undue weight." -this quote from above is what I take issue with, and it's about as deep as your argument has gone on the undue weight issue. What I've been trying to say is that this quote is not a summary of RCP founding philosophy. It's just a quote, with little elaboration to go with it, and including it in the lead is undue weight. Trying to pass it off as a good summary statement for their founding philosophy is disingenuous at best. Please provide a better argument than: it's a summary of their philosophy, therefore it's not undue weight. Excuse my directness, no hostility intended, I just dread going in circles. Ubiq (talk) 00:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's a fair description of our disagreement. I think that when a central figure at a media outlet describes their philosophy vis a vie the subject of that media outlet, we should include it in that article's lede--as we do in Fivethirtyeight.com--because it is of central importance to the operations of that media outlet. To me, that's not undue weight. You apparently diagree. To avoid going in circles, somebody will have to change their mind...or just wait until others chime in and form a consensus. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 13:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I really only disagree that the quote in contention on the RCP lead is a summary of their founding philosophy. I like the 538 lead except for the "liberal-leaning blog" mention, but only for my personal distaste on that sort of labeling. I don't think there is a comparable part of the 538 article that rivals the politically heavy tone of the quote in the RCP lead. I just wish people would realize you can't extrapolate off of a standalone quote like that to call it more than what you know it is. In this case we have editors asserting it's their founding philosophy. To me, it's pretty easy to think of a scenario where the site's founders might have actually developed their frustration with anti-conservative media bias after creating the site.

I do realize that some editors might have decent reasoning in wanting this quote in the lead, and I don't think it's going to spoil the article if we end up leaving it it, but it feels like we're pushing it by throwing such a questionable (and I really only call it questionable because it can be interpreted in like 5 different ways) quote into the article twice. Anyway, I digress. We'll have to agree to disagree and hopefully get some other editors in here. In the meantime, I need to make up my mind on whether to use lede or lead from now on. Ubiq (talk) 10:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you think it's important enough for the lede? I mean, people come to Wikipedia--or any encyclopedia--for unbiassed, uncensored information. If a website's owners/founders/staff are up front about acknowledging their biasses, as any honest person should be, then that seems to me like something a reader would want to know. It helps a person be informed about where their information is coming from. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 16:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

There are actually many reasons I don't think it's important enough for the lede. For one this information is covered elsewhere in the article. Your argument there seems to suggest informing the reader about it is important. If they read the article, they will be informed about it in the second section of the article, which is hardly a scroll away from the top. To me, if a politically heavy quote like this is to be included in the lede, it has to be particularly defining of them, which should be reflected by something that is backed up by at least more than 2-3 sources that share similar descriptions or sentiments towards the subject. I just don't see this quote being something so significant as to merit inclusion in the lede, when in the source article it is in its own paragraph, and thus, highly interpretable. I'd rather such qualities of content stay out of the lede. So to sum it up:

politically heavy quote from founder describing own frustration with anti-conservative media bias that is already covered elsewhere in the article + poorly elaborated upon in source article (thus highly interpretable) + poorly backed up by secondary sources = exclusion from the lead.

This should remain true for all media articles on the encyclopedia in my view. Comparing 538 is good here, and I'm glad you guys brought this up. If we were truly to make the 538 article comparable, we'd go into the source article of the part in lede that outright defines (questionably) their blog as "liberal-leaning" and pick out the part where he goes into Nate's discussion of how he sees the world through a liberal lens. I believe sticking a quote like that would hurt the quality of that article too, because in my view, that would match almost identically the qualities I believe meet criteria for exclusion as in the quote from the RCP article. His site is similar in regards to lacking descriptions from secondary sources concerning his described liberalism, it's highly interpretable as well (are we necessarily to conclude that because he describes himself in a liberal light that such views would show through his blog. So let's ask secondary sources about his liberalism: like RCP, nate's site is poorly lacking in coverage from other sources concerning his political views and/or those of his site.

By contrast, the Fox News article has opposite qualities. In the lede, it correctly/accurately describes how many view them as exhibiting a conservative bias. That description has multiple sources backing it up, and it is not highly interpretable. Fox News has had a hard time shaking the label of conservative, which is reflected by the sources in its article. In that sense, it's much more defining of them. I believe both the 538 article and the RCP article are different in this regard, as they are entirely different beasts, not being particularly known for their politicizing of things. Their articles' leads should reflect this fact in some form. At most, let's mention the fact that both have been described by "some" as conservative/liberal. No more discussion concerning political leanings/views is necessary, otherwise we are giving undue weight to such matters. Sorry for the length, had to hammer it all out to make everything as clear as possible. Ubiq (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

If we have direct quotes from the founders of an organization about the founding/philosophy of the site, and we're fortunate enough to have those quotes given in that context and published in a reliable source, we would be foolish to not include it in the introduction (which should serve as a standalone summary of the important points about the subject). This is not something synthesized or observed by Wikipedia editors, nor is it some obscure quote being given undue weight; this is a quote offered freely by the founders and published by reliable sources. Obviously the founders themselves thought it was important enough to talk about during an interview intended to give readers information about RCP; given such I don't see how on can credibly argue that there is a problem with weight. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I would follow you but the only part in the lead from that article is not necessarily about founding philosophy. As stated about 10 times now, it is rather just a standalone quote in a paragraph that follows a paragraph about their founding philosophy. It is some obscure quote being given undue weight. Let's face it, you can't call the quote in the lead their founding philosophy when it clearly quotes a founder in the source article saying the site's philosophy is based on freedom and common sense values. According to your argument, you'd put that in the lead before the quote that's in there now. Ubiq (talk) 01:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, should you consult the record, you'd realize we actually advocated to include both as a compromise! Both are equally important to the site's philosophy, and I don't see how anyone can argue that the philosophy is not an integral part of an encyclopedic treatment of the subject (which necessarily must be included in the lead section). //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware of the history of the article, thanks. The rest of your argument rests on assumptions I disagree with: "both are equally important to the site's philosophy", "[philosophy must] necessarily be in the lead section"

Personally, I'd prefer neither of these bits to be in the lead. One is a poorly covered, self-described (also self-serving) philosophy of their site, and the other is a poorly covered quote from a founder about their frustration with bias in the media. Don't get me wrong, I believe they belong in the article, but they are not important/relevant enough for the lead. Ubiq (talk) 19:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The one line sentence near the top of this discussion seems fine to me, unless it is contradicted somewhere. The purpose of a site if given would seem natural to include in the lede. Mission, vision, and values statements frequently start off company annual reports for example and define what an organization is about. Isn't that what an encyclopedia article is supposed to do too? Lambanog (talk) 04:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Revision of a 1000 years of English history in Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

Update as of July 8

The parties to the dispute are aiming to simplify the presentation of the dispute to make it easier for reviewer(s) to come to a decision. Until that process is complete this call for assistance should be passed over. When this situation changes, a notification will apear here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hauskalainen (talk • contribs) 19:47, July 8, 2010

I presume also this delays need for medcab at this time. I am still interested but in the material which exists now I am having problems finding the main question to be answered and connecting some points their sourcing. Before a NPOV decision can be made, please have proposed statements clearly written and sourced. Such information is a prerequisite for making decisions about what is NPOV. Thanks, Blue Rasberry 18:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I am a main party to the dispute and have rejected mediation by a "mediation cabal". The idea of the delay is to simplify the materil that needs to be read by reviewers, including sources.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hauskalainen (talk • contribs) 18:45, July 13, 2010

The mediation is a discussion about content you contributed to Wikipedia. If you are going to simplify and organize what you have already said, then I think everyone ought to wait before giving more opinions either on this board or in the mediation. It is up to the person requesting mediation to decide when to close the mediation. If you do not want to participate in mediation then no one will judge you and that has no bearing on the merit of the content you wrote. Whether you participate or not, mediation is about content validity and not about what you say on this board, the article talk space, or on the cabal page. However, if you do create a simple, organized, and sourced explanation somewhere, discussions about your work are more likely to be in favor of your work. Please take the time you need with no pressure. Blue Rasberry 19:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Background

I am calling for someone with an interest in English history to review the onging dispute over numerous sections on the Talk page to this article regarding a serios NPOV issue. There are even some discussions in the last archive to the talk page of the article though the most important onces have been pulled back from archive today. From my point of view this is a NPOV issue though my editor friends there are doing their best to make out that it is one of OR or RS or whatever else they can think up.

A few months ago this section was written in a way that presented only one point of view regarding the development of English and American history. The one POV it presented was highly contentious and in my opinion breached the rules for WP:NPOV.

The issue is over a a very important dispute over a reinterpretation of a thousand years and more of English and American History and the two substantially different visions of history it creates. A flavour for the length to which editors have gone to dispute this can be seen by looking at the very many sections before the sections covering English history on that talk page.

The article is about to come out of an edit freeze and although I believe that as it stands now the article fairly represents two highly opposing views of history it does so without many reference because the article was frozen in the middle of my reconstruction work any my edit opponent has indicated an attempt to undo my good and honest work as soon as the protection is lifted.

We are really no nearer resolving this dispute. Will someone PLEASE help to look at the major issue I have raised and help us to resolve this one. Because I fear that this article has protectors in high places I would ask that this assistance comes from someone who has NOT previously involved him or herself in the resolution of disputes over gun or armament related or U.S. Constitutional topics and who ideally has been editing for more than 2 years. --Hauskalainen (talk) 02:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

A word of warning! You will find that the editors that I do battle with argue about anything and everything EXCEPT the validity of the traditional view of English history. This can give the impression that they are seriously engaging with me using Wikipedia principles but really this is (IMHO) only WP:Game. The sheer volume of their issues is enough to make any editor or reviewer walk away in fear. They should not not. The WOOD here is far more important than the TREES. These editors endlessly argue about the TREES in the hope that we will forget about the WOOD (which is that the previous editors to this argue have structured it to tell the revisionist version of history given by Professor Malcolm in her book. The radical nature of the Malcolm Thesis has not received much attention though. Kopel here refers to it quite clearly though in his review of Malcolm's work.

As the Firesign Theater comedy troupe once put it, "Everything you know is wrong."[23] To Keep and Bear Arms sweeps away over two centuries of American--and British--misunderstanding of the British right to arms, providing the first clear picture of what the right to arms meant to the British of 1689, as well as what it meant to the Americans of 1791 who drafted the Bill of Rights with the British experience very much in mind.

Malcolm states her radical thesis in the first paragraph of the Preface (p. ix). She argues that before 1689, no right to bear arms existed at all. When the 1689 Convention Parliament decided to guarantee a right to arms, the Convention chose, for political-tactical benefit, to pretend that it was reaffirming an "ancient" right to arms (pp. ix-x). In fact, argues Malcolm, the Convention created (p.1337)the right then and there, for reasons growing directly out of the political conflict of the previous century (pp. ix-xi).

and here

Although they should not, some may consider Malcolm's final chapter, detailing the evolution of the 1689 British right to arms (p.1352)into the 1791 Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the most controversial part of her book. The main body of the book ought to be the portion that attracts controversy: In it Malcolm argues that the 1689 Convention tricked the next three centuries of Britons and Americans with its claim that the British right to arms was "ancient, true, and indubitable," rather than fabricated on the spot as a result of recent experience with oppressive monarchs and their standing armies. Because Malcolm's thesis contradicts the viewpoint of almost every scholar--pro-gun or anti-gun--who has written anything on the British right to arms, one might expect controversy. So far, however, no scholar has challenged Malcolm's conclusion in print.

Malcolm's argument is, on the one hand, irrefutable, because there is no known British legal document prior to 1689 that refers to a right to arms; all the official documents call bearing arms a duty rather than a right (p. 9). But, it is not impossible for a duty and a right to coexist. Jury service was certainly a duty, but many Britons also viewed it as "an ancient, true, and indubitable right."[68] It is possible that deeper inquiry into medieval social history materials might show a similar understanding of a duty-right to arms. While the 1689 Convention may have fabricated a right in a strict legal sense, some kind of rights consciousness regarding arms must have existed beforehand, or else the Convention's assertion of an "ancient, true, and indubitable right" would have been so self-evidently absurd as not to be worth asserting.

By analogy, the provision in the Declaration of Rights against standing armies in times of peace was also novel, rather than "ancient," in that no statute had ever previously affirmed it nor had any part of the common law in any known judicial opinion or legal guidebook. Nevertheless, the declaration against standing armies obviously reflected a long-standing, widely held view about how Britain should organize its society--a viewpoint every monarch had respected until the seventeenth century. Much the same might be said about the right to arms: rights consciousness and statutory affirmation of rights need not go hand in hand, particularly in light of the English theory that the government does not "grant" rights, but rather they arise by long-standing tradition from the ancient past.

Kopel overall seems to agree with the revisionist view but this alone does not mean that it is accepted universally. I am not aware of any English history scholars who have reviewed this work because frankly I guess the right to arms does not excite people in England as much as it does people in America.--Hauskalainen (talk) 03:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I provided a source (Cramer, Clayton E. For the Defense of Themselves and the State: The Original Intent and Judicial Interpretation of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Westport, CT.: Praeger Publisher, 1994) that claims the right to bear arms derives from common law and another editor has provided a source (J. Malcolm, To Keep and Bear Arms (1994) that claims the right originated with the Bill of Rights 1689. It is acceptable to me to have both views presented. However in presenting the first view we are limited to what is in the book and if we want to provide more detail supporting that view then we need additional sources. But we should not decide which is the correct view. TFD (talk) 09:58, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we can take TFD's "helpfulness" with a good pinch of saltt! This editor has been complicit in blocking attempts to get this section written more fairly. Here for example you dismiss any notion that Blackstone, a leading lawyer of his time can interpret the law further back than the Bill of Rights and thus dismissing a source which confirmed that the Bill of Rights was affirming an existing right....

WP articles must be based on reliable sources and so far only SaltyBoatr has provided any. Whether or not Malcolm's views are the final word, only reliable sources may be used to present alternative views. Some writers have claimed that the right to bear arms was an issue in Bacon's rebellion in Virginia, which was before the Bill of Rights 1689. However, I cannot find any scholarly sources to support this view. Blackstone's work cannot be considered a reliable source for law before the Bill of Rights, but that should not present a problem because we can use modern commentaries on his writing as sources. Also whether or not the right existed at common law, it was an auxiliary not unalienable right. There was no question that the Imperial Parliament had the power to limit or abolish this right. TFD (talk) 23:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC) taken from Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

The important thing is that we should avoid writing the article in a way that begins the history of the right to bear arms with the duty to bear arms. This simplistic look at the written laws and telling it chronological way, has was done (here for example) is supportive of one POV only. There may have been no rights written down in statute before that time, but this certainly does not mean that it did not exist. The evidence in archaeological findings shows that the English generally have long held weapons and it is fanciful to suppose that they did this illegally. In fact the King in the Middle Ages (and presumably in the Dark Ages too) wanted his people to have arms. The purpose of the laws passed in the eleventh century was to make sure that they did - not to give them a grant to have arms. There is nothing in those statutes to indicate that it was a grant of right. Malcolm's revisionist position is new and not supported by any English history scholars in England as far as I can see. Yes, there are some in America who rather wish to lean to the fanciful idea that the Second Amendment was some "peak" in the development of the rights to arms in America and they are no doubt overjoyed that a sympathetic academic has written this fairly tale for them. But it is a fairy tale because no serious English historian has accepted her thesis. The right to arms goes back into the midsts of time and it is only as our modern societies have formed that we have decided collectively to moderate that right in respect of certain lethal weapons. Yes, Malcolm and co would regard this as a POV but it is the long standing POV and still the major POV. There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE that mainstream historians have accepted the Malcolm revisionist view. It definitely should NOT be given equal status with the view that has withstood the test of a thousand years of scrutiny. --Hauskalainen (talk) 12:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Nature of this problem

You appear not to understand the principles required to write articles:

• they must be based on reliable sources
• they must present all notable views fairly
• they cannot contain original research and synthesis

It would be wrong to present either Malcolm's view or your view and there are two things you can do that will help the process:

• find a reliable source that argues that the right to bear arms existed in common law before 1689
• find sources that show what the current mainstream view of the history is

TFD (talk) 18:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I read the discussion in the article and am aware of the medcab case about this.

To USER:Hauskalainen and the anonymous IPs: I am not seeing claims based on reliable sources. I am seeing the use of some WP:PRIMARY sources like court records - which should not be considered - and talk on the discussion boards which violates WP:TALK because you are raising discussion about the article's subject. See also this tag on the talkpage for the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The article's subject should not be discussed on the talkpage for that article! Please state whether you agree or disagree with my saying that, because I think this is the nature of this problem. Blue Rasberry 15:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

reply to Bluerasberry: In cases about the law there is extensive use of primary sources in Wikipedia, and sometimes it is unavoidable and often it is prefereable. For instance the quotations in the article from the wording of the Second Amendment and the wording from the English Bill of Rights fall into the first category. . One of the reasons why primary sources are often not acceptable because one cannot ascertain their authenticity. That simplicity is not the case with the law and in fact the law is entirely based on primary sources such as the wording of legislation and the interpretations of judges and it is why in matters of law it is perfectly acceptable to use primary sources because their authenticity is not in doubt. If you have looked just at the text we have in the article and say that they are not reference that may be true. But that was because the article got locked down at the request of User:SaltyBoatr before they could be added. If you follow the arguments in depth that followed the lock down you will see that numerous references were provided that are quite valid in my opinion and subject to unjustifiable accusations that the sources were not reliable or were primary. I refer for example to the claim /that I think was made by TFD, the Blackstone's commentaries were a primary source. This source is secondary, but even if it was a primary source it would not necessarily be invalid for the reasons already stated. As I have said, the real scandal in the article as it had been was that it gave no recognition to the standard view that the right to arms is an ancient one and predates both the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment. At the Talk page to the article (some of which have now been archived) both TFD and especially User:SaltyBoatr, and also some other editors have played a perfect game of obscufation and WP:Game to divert attention away from this real scandal and to make it seem that the problems are with everything other than this . citing WP:PRIMARY WP:NOR, WP:RS and branching the argument away from the core problem and towards other issues. They do this because they know that reviewers will tend to look mainly at the flow of arguments and what each side says, and in part do a weigh up as to the balance of arguments on both sides. Because of the cabal at work on this article I am bound to lose out in this. This is why I am asking for a review of THE MAIN ISSUE which is about the NOR in the structure of the article as it was before I started editing it (which implied that the right to arms develoed slowly culminating in the 17th and 18th century instead of being an age old basic right which has been slowly legislated over to add civic controls. As the article stands now IT DOES NOT HAVE WP:NOR in respect of this complaint. The edit war that arose because I have been trying to protect the article from presenting a one-side view of this. Yes, tempers have flared and I may have vented opinion. For that I apologize. But on the whole my edits at TALK have been aimed at protecting the article from abusive editors seeking to deny the validity of the other POV which needs to be in the article. --Hauskalainen (talk) 22:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Hauskalainen. I will look a little more into this in the next few days, but until then, here is how you win at medcab.

1. Get a single 1-2 sentence statement based on a single source. If possible, take 1-2 sentences verbatim from a reliable source (this is plagiarism and forbidden from the article mainspace) and and put them in a non-public area like a sandbox.
2. Consider finding another source which says the same thing as the source in 1, then taking the equivalent statement in that source and also putting that in your sandbox.
3. Repeat 2 until you have a reason why you do not get more sources. One source may be enough for non-controversial statements.
4. Rewrite the statement or statements you have collected in your own words. Put this under the verbatim statements.
5. Show medcab or other people on a talkpage this work you have done.
6. Ask medcab whether you can insert the statement you wrote in 4. Medcab will love you because you have reduced their workload to a WP:RS check and a check of English-language rewording.

I will be looking for this in the archives of the talk. The medcab person will be looking for this in mediation. Notice that this process does not involve any discussion about the article's subject.

I want to help you be heard, but there is a lot of text here and I need time. Let me know if you have any comments in the meantime. Blue Rasberry 23:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Update as of July 24th

On July 8th Hauskalainen asked for time to prepare his case. Quite a bit of time has elapsed, with no word. As recent as yesterday[3], Hauskalainen is active defending his original research passage in the article through edit war and without any use or mention of secondary sourcing. Considering that the Mediation Cabal[4] is put on hold waiting for Hauskalainen to respond with his thoughts here, this has the appearance of a delay tactic. This may not be, but the appearances are that with the present stasis of the article being the version of original research favored by Hauskalainen, that delay may serve his purposes of protecting his original research. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 15:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Happy Valley, Shenzhen

This article reads like a promotional pamphlet for the place. Phrases such as "provides children with a house of dreams", "the breathtaking experience", "excellent performances in different styles" and last but by no means least "large quantities of breathtaking and exciting amusements to satisfy anyone's desire for modern entertainments" are must definitely NPOV. --Panzer71 (talk) 16:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

What a great promo! Fortunately it was also a copyvio of the "reference" used in the article. I have rewritten it and will watch it. Johnuniq (talk) 04:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Good rewrite, so I removed most of the cleanup tags except for the general need to improve referencing. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Jesus

In my opinion, the bolded text should be deleted from the lead:

Judaism rejects assertions that Jesus was the awaited Messiah, arguing that he did not fulfill the Messianic prophecies in the Tanakh.

It is the only place in the lead section where an argument which supports a particular belief is presented. Such text does not appear anywhere else in the lead section, and was only added recently by a currently banned sockpuppet. Flash 22:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Application of Wikipedia policy necessitates removal of these things, so in the future be bold in fixing these things instead of just considering them matters of opinion.

The statement you violates WP:NPOV for what it is and WP:STYLE for the bolding; it is written to incite emotion and is WP:VANDALISM and not a WP:GOODFAITH edit. It is already removed, but feel free to change these things yourself in the future. Blue Rasberry 15:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The sentence is fine. It doesn't violate NPOV to give a reason that something is believed. I have more concerns with the POV in this statement: "Most contemporary scholars of the historical Jesus consider him to have been an independent, charismatic founder of a Jewish restoration movement, anticipating an imminent apocalypse." Noloop (talk) 15:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the "Resolved" template, as I see no evidence that this is resolved.

I did have concearns not about the sentacne, but the fact it was bold.Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

It would help if User:Bluerasberry and User:Slatersteven at least glanced at the actual article. The text is not bold. Flash bolded it here to indicate which part she/he wanted to delete. Noloop (talk) 22:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I am totally in the wrong. Thanks, Noloop. I revise my position to ignorance of what the problem is. The bolded text above seems to be the orthodox explanation of the non-bolded text before it. It is sourced to an unsourced section of another Wikipedia article, but this may not be contentious. I do not see how the bolded portion could be more of a problem than the non-bolded portion as it seems they go together. What is the problem? Blue Rasberry 22:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't see an NPOV issue here (unless the claim is that a minority or non-mainstream Jewish view is presented, in which case please elaborate). The footnoting of the claim is dodgy though - WP is not a valid cite for claims made elsewhere on WP. In any event, the article cited does not appear to give support for the claim in the Jesus article. So someone should sort that out. --FormerIP (talk) 23:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding, my post was a bit confusing.

The reason why I consider the text to violate NPOV is that arguments or reasons behind a particular belief is not found elsewhere in the lead section. For example, Judaism reject Jesus as the Messiah because they argue he didn't fulfill the Messianic prophecies. Conversely, Christianity believes Jesus to be the Messiah because they argue he did fulfill those prophecies or that he will fulfill the rest at the second coming, but those arguments are not included. I believe the lead would be more readable if it didn't included arguments or reasons behind religious beliefs, and just simply state the beliefs themselves. Flash 23:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how that's a POV violation (no opinion on whether the sourcing is good). After all, it has to be done once before it can be done twice. Also, it seems to me this is partly just semantics. The first sentence essentially gives a reason for a belief: "Jesus of Nazareth also known as Jesus Christ or simply Jesus, is the central figure of Christianity, which views him as the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament." The reason he is central is because he is viewed as the Messiah.... It's a nuanced differenced in wording, but not significant in meaning or POV, in my not-so-humble opinion. Noloop (talk) 01:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

There's a difference between going into detail of a particular belief and actually defending it. That Christianity views him as the Messiah is describing what Christianity believes, not defending it. The phrase I wanted to delete crosses the line between stating what a religion believes and stating the arguments which defend that belief. I would rather delete such apologetics altogether rather than add other arguments to an already lead section. Flash 03:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

A clause is not "going into detail." I see little significance in the distinction between defending and describing a belief, at least in this context: the sentence on Jews is describing what they believe. However, given your concern, a compromise might be: "Judaism does not believe Jesus fulfill the Messianic prophecies in the Tanakh, and doesn't accept him as a Messiah..Noloop (talk) 14:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the sentence "did not fulfill Messianic prophecies" is, whether he fulfilled Messianic prophecies or not is more of a scholarly debate rather than a religious belief. I know even some Christian scholars believe that Jesus did not fulfill the Messianic prophecies, and that he will fulfill them at the second coming. I have never seen it as a description of what Judaism believes, only as an argument which supports the Judaism belief.

The source used for the clause in question, is a Jewish apologetics book which only mentions it as one of many arguments, instead of what Judaism believes in general. Flash 03:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, whether he fulfilled Messianic prophecies or not is irrelevant to this article, or this statement. The fact is, Jewish belief is that he does not fulfill the prophecies. Period. It is a religious statement, as the truth of the matter ... well, doesn't matter. They don't believe he was the Messiah; a major reason is the belief that he does not fulfill the prophecies. Whether that's correct or not doesn't matter, it's part of their faith. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite

Yes, whether he fulfilled Messianic prophecies or not is irrelevant to this article. However, "he did not fulfill Messianic prophecies" is not a religious belief; the sources all refer to it as an argument for the belief that Jesus is not the Messiah, rather than a stand alone belief. For example, [5] Flash 00:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

One thing Flash is neglecting to mention is that the article provides the reasons Christians believe Jesus was the messiah. Apparently, when Christians do it, it is okay but when Jews do it, it is wrong. That is not my take on NPOV. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Kosovo template

{{Kosovo-note}} seems a bit dubious to me, or at least the placing of it on certain articles, say for example Morinë (which isn't even in Kosovo!) or Jarinje, where the template text is roughly as long as the article text which already deals with the sovereignty dispute. The template talk page might have been a better place to raise this, but I fear that the number of people with that watchlisted won't be that high and it might be a better idea for some fresh eyes on this. I'll drop a note there with a link to this discussion though. Thanks. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

An anonymous IP user (contribs) recently added the "template" to a huge number of pages, wherein most of which the note is quite irrelevant. Saying s/he went a little overboard would be an enormous understatement. Night w (talk) 14:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

That's de-facto banned editor Redking7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which is how I became aware of it in the first place. If it shouldn't be on articles like that do you just want to clean up the mess he's created, as his IP range should be blocked again shortly anyway. My time is somewhat limited, otherwise I'd do it myself.... 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'll do as much as I can find. Is it possible for you to alert the admins that he's editing again? He's also caused quite a bit of disturbance on other pages I'm involved with. Night w (talk) 14:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Template was introduced here (Talk:Šar_Mountains#Footnote_workshop) by admin User:Ev, as necessary in order to stop vandal edits, and problematic edit warring (Serbia, Kosovo / disputed province of Kosovo / Republic of Kosovo / Kosovo, Serbia ...)

Note should be added instead all of those, as Kosovo is de facto very disputed province, so it was voted as best possible solution. I do not agree that placing those is irrelevant. That note was main factor for peace on Kosovo related articles. For more, talk to User:Ev, or me, or User:Nikola Smolenski. --Tadija^speaks 15:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, nobody is arguing the value of the template; rather its relevance on certain pages to which it was recently added by an sp user. Night w (talk) 15:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, it was just very badly added. I re-added it on Jarinje, so you can see how it should look like... :) --Tadija^speaks 15:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me I am the IP editor in discussion - I am not a sock for any one. I do not want an account. Please respect that. This is unfair to try to make out that I am some sock for a banned editor. I did add the Kosovo template to a number of articles - I think nearly all of which were in the category...what on earth is wrong with that? As Tadija says, the note should be listed on those articles. 84.203.69.86 (talk) 21:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I have a right not to create an account here....This is most unfair. I am not a sock and what on earth have I done wrong...I have promoted worthwhile discussion. I even helped get a conensus on the Talk: Kosovo-note template (the use of which they are listing as a reason for banning me!). Please help! What edits have I done wrong...now you are trying to say I am a sock - On what basis? Why do you say that? YOu have no right to just sling allegations around. I have a right to be an IP editor....every one in the world can see my IP address....I am not an "anon sock". You should prove it if you are trying to just drum up noise to get me banned! I never attack any editor personally and look at me now, you and a few others on that page appear intent on getting me banned. 84.203.69.86 (talk) 21:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I am conscious that I am likely to be censored soon...Please set out the reason, the evidence (if you like) - before you go off trying to ban me for being some sock? Do I get a hearing? 84.203.69.86 (talk) 21:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

deleting some of the Ten Commandments

The Ten Commandments article has been stable for a year and a half with the text of its three Biblical versions sitting side by side for comparison, but with the divergent version otherwise split off as a sub-article, Ritual Decalogue. Now several editors are edit warring to have that version deleted from the main article, without presenting any evidence in argument apart from their own opinions. AFAIK, per WP:BRD, the old stable form of the article should at least remain in place unless and until we can work out a new consensus. I agree that, as the 3rd version is not the TC's of popular conception, a sub-article is warranted, with the main article concentrating on the other two versions; however, in a table purporting to compare the versions of the TC's, all three should be included. Otherwise IMO the article is only about some of the TC's, and so shouldn't be called "Ten Commandments". Any opinions here?

A typical argument for deletion is that, although there are three Decalogues, there are only two sets of Ten Commandments, because "Decalogue" and "Ten Commandments" are not synonyms except in academic writing, despite the fact that the article itself treats the terms as synonyms, and every dictionary I've consulted treats them as synonyms. (Webster's Collegiate, which would presumably cover common rather than just academic usage, simply defines "Decalogue" as "TEN COMMANDMENTS" and pays it no more attention than that.)

There are numerous RS's which refer to the three versions of the TC's/Decalogue. For example, in The Hebrew Bible: A Brief Socio-Literary Introduction (Norman Gottwald, 2008), in the lede of the section called "Terse Lists of Prohibitions: The Ten Commandments" (p. 118), it says,

"There are two lists of pithy prohibitions in Exod. 20:1-17 (paralleled in Deut. 5:6-21) and in Exod. 34:11-26 that occupy pivotal points in the theophany and covenant texts. The lists of Exodus 34 and Deuteronomy 5 are called "ten commandments" in the biblical text (cf. Exod 34:27 and Deut. 4:13; 10:4), and that title, or the equivalent Latin term Decalogue, has traditionally been applied to the list of Exodus 20/Deuteronomy 5. Biblical scholars often distinguish the Exodus 20/Deuteronomy 5 list from the Exodus 34 list on the basis of content by referring to the former as the Ethical Decalogue and the latter as the Ritual Decalogue."

[Exod. 34, which I bolded, is what the editors want to deleted from the TC's article.]

That is, both terms are commonly applied to the two versions the article concentrates on (the 'Ethical Decalogue'), but the third version is also called the "ten commandments" in the Bible itself. Also,

"The Ten Commandments occur in three versions. Two are almost identical with each other [...], but the third, which apparently replaced the tablets that were broken, is quite different" (Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch. T. Desmond Alexander, David Weston Baker, 2003:501)

This "Ritual Decalogue", as it's called to disambiguate, has also been called the "ritual Ten Commandments" as far back as a century ago:

"The Pentateuch also states that Moses committed to writing certain laws and records : 'all the words of J",' Ex 24³ (E)—what these 'words' were is not stated ; the ritual Ten Commandments, Ex 34²⁸ (J) ; the register of the Stations in the Wilderness, ..." (A Dictionary of the Bible: Kir-Pleiades. Hastings, Selbie, Davidson, Driver, & Swete, eds., 1900:446)

Again, I can see removing discussion of the third version to a subarticle, but I can't see deleting it from a table that purports to compare the versions of the TC's. WP:BRD should IMO be respected during the discussion phase ('there is no R after the D'). — kwami (talk) 06:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The idea that "the third version is also called the 'ten commandments' in the Bible itself" is a part of the divergent theory itself. None of the Biblical religions agree with this interpretation.

It's not like the concept is being taken out of the article. It's simply being moved so as to avoid giving it undue weight.

Nor, I think, can the time that the problematic version has remained "stable" be considered an argument in its defense. Wikipedia is like that. There are many articles, and there are only so many hours in a day. From time to time things are overlooked, and when attention is focused on them, appropriate changes are made. I wasn't aware of this problem until someone else drew my attention to it, but had I been aware of it a year and a half ago, I certainly would not have acquiesced to the placement of the so-called "Ritual Decalogue" being placed on equal footing with the actual Ten Commandments. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 11:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Tourism in Israel

On Tourism in Israel users have been removing any mention of the fact that East Jerusalem is considered occupied Palestinian territory and repeatedly implying that EJ is in Israel. This is a view not accepted by any state except for Israel and the super-majority of sources are clear on the point that EJ is not in Israel. This edit shows the issue here with users insisting that EJ be included without any mention of the overwhelming view that it is occupied territory. Is it acceptable under WP:NPOV to imply that EJ is in Israel when the overwhelming majority of quality sources clearly state that it is not? nableezy - 02:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

If the subject of the article is "Tourism in Israel", then per WP:NOR and WP:SYN any source used to advance a position must be in relation to the article subject, i.e. Tourism in Israel. Crum375 (talk) 03:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

There are a number of such sources that specifically discuss the Israeli occupation of EJ and the rest of the WB and the Golan in the context of tourism and I have just added them to the article. But either way, an article is implying a fringe view as fact. Is that acceptable? nableezy - 03:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

If there are sources which discuss the political status of various tourist attractions in the context of tourism, they may be included, in my view, so long as they don't overwhelm the article, per WP:UNDUE. As far as "fringe view", the views of any sovereign country are not fringe, by definition. On Wikipedia "fringe" means a group which is so tiny as to be ignored, and a country can never be considered that, since it typically includes millions of people, including academics, politicians, authors, etc. On the other hand, balancing views from outside the country may be used, if they relate to the article subject, as I noted above. Crum375 (talk) 04:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Forgive my use of "fringe", replace that with "extreme minority position". When compared to a near unanimity among other states and sources it is an extreme minority position. nableezy - 04:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Please make a mention on the talk page of the article so all parties involved don;t feel like there is a surprise.

This issue is all based on editors seeing "Tourism in Israel" and arguing that certain areas are not in Israel. That is debated. Intl community says no but in reality, Israel treats it as so and handles administration. Tourism wise, Israel has national parks in these areas. People stay in Israel proper and rent cars to go to these places. Books discussing tourism lump the together. Here are some examples from when certain cites were removed:

• Banias[6][7][8]
• Qumran[9][10][11][12]
• Mount Hermon[13][14][15][16]
• Katzrin[17][18][19][20][21][22]
• Gamla[23][24][25]
• Nimrod Fortress[26][27]
• Bethlehem[28][29][30][31]

I do believe the title needs to be changed to Israel and the Palestinian territories since many sources treat it like that. I also believe it should be mentioned that there is a dispute. I do not believe disclaimers are needed above multiple paragraphs from sources that barely discuss tourism with passe=ages not related to tourism.Cptnono (talk) 04:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I did make a mention on the talk page. Pay closer attention next time. And the inclusion of these areas is not the issue, sources do discuss them while discussing Israeli tourism, so I do not know what it is you are arguing here. nableezy - 04:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I missed it. Unfortunately this is an issue of more than just EJ and all of them need to be figured out to make it work. Only attempting to fix one aspect of it won't work and could even make it worse.Cptnono (talk) 04:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

This source discusses how Israel has been marketing East Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan Heights as Israeli tourist destinations and that the practice has been banned in the UK. The article also, BTW, brusquely claims that Jerusalem is both in Israel and it's capital city, which again needs correction. This point can be introduced into the article to the sections affected, IMO. --Dailycare (talk) 16:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• Agree with Crum's well-articulated comments above.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

National Development Front

I ran across National Development Front as part of the July copyediting drive by the Guild of Copyeditors. The article describes the group in ways that may not be adequately or accurately sourced or couched (such as describing the group as "extremist," which is almost always a loaded term, and "hard-line"). I declined a major copyedit because of the potential for POV problems and placed an expert and POV check tag on the article as needing to be resolved before I could do any major copyediting on it. I am not familiar enough with this subject to really tackle a significant content dispute if someone wants to edit war over it, but I am concerned about the article's tone, so I thought bringing it here might get a few more eyes on it. And, of course, it may ultimately be fine, but I'd rather someone a little more knowledgeable take a look. Thanks. — e. ripley\^talk 12:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

"Extremist" is more or less what reliable sources term the organization. That being said, I think the article is quite sensationalist in a few places and am definitely willing to work with other users in improving the encyclopedicity of the article.Pectore^talk 20:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I would really appreciate that. I have the article watchlisted and will help also as I can, for what it's worth. Thank you. — e. ripley\^talk 01:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Circumcision

Disclaimer: I am uncircumcised / non-circumcised.

Now that I've got your attention (and apologies for the way too much information...), could I draw your attention to a dispute at Talk:Circumcision#The problem with language deemed offensive such as "Uncircumcised", and in particular efforts to resolve it at Talk:Circumcision#Feedback request on consensus for 'uncircumcised'. This is a dispute about the neutrality of the word "uncircumcised". It's been going on for a while, and has previously spilled over into ANI (which is how I encountered it) but has continued since then, without any sign of being resolved amicably.

I've asked the editors there to summarise their positions for and against "uncircumcised", which they have done at:

• Talk:Circumcision#NPOVN: brief summary describing why some editors feel "uncircumcised" is non-neutral; and
• Talk:Circumcision#NPOVN: brief summary describing why some editors feel "uncircumcised" is neutral.

Many thanks. TFOWR 11:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Not enough voices yet to say that "uncircumcised" is problematic. One person at a conference and an organisation avoiding it in a report doesn't indicate that the English language has changed. It might do in future though. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

:: Correction: Two national medical associations avoiding it in recent policy statements, and two examples of advocacy groups explaining why it is problematic. - MishMich - Talk - 12:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a distortion. The two medical groups MishMich mentions are actually single documents issued by the groups on circumcision in general, and neither of them uses "noncircumcised" or "uncircumcised". Neither document is evidence of conscious avoidance by the groups as a whole. MishMich has taken to deleting my comments from the Talk page in question, allegedly because they are in the wrong place (which may or may not be true, but would be a reason to move someone's comments, not outright delete them). Based on behavior, I don't believe MishMich is bringing much fairness or open-mindedness to the topic. Noloop (talk) 16:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

:::: It is not a distortion. These are the official policy statements of the two national medical professional associations of two European countries, one in the UK - the BMA - the other the Netherlands. I removed your comment, as it as in the section for support that the term is not neutral - and it did not fit under that section; and I notified you of that so you could move it to a more appropriate section. You replaced it in that section - so I moved it to the section for support that it is neutral. I have not attacked you, I fail to see why you bring bad-faith accusations against me, especially as you have had no previous interaction. Stick to the issue under discussion - do not attack editors you do not agree with here, please. - MishMich - Talk - 22:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

As with TFOWR, I ran across this issue in ANI due to the fact there was an edit war going on in the article. Most Americans in my age bracket, Jew and Gentile alike, were circumcised routinely, for hygienic reasons, and while I'm glad they did, I have no particular interest in the issue one way or another. I do understand that certain political groups do. What I don't like in wikipedia is when single-purpose accounts or narrowly-focused accounts try to impose a fringe or one-sided view into an article in an effort to try to give that view false notability, which is an approach that we more experienced editors have seen time after time, and when we try to excise it, we are predictably accused of being part of a conspiracy against their cause. "Uncircumcised" is one word whose meaning is both non-judgmentally descriptive, and unambiguous in its definition. Its alleged "pejorative" nature is the invention of political correctness, citing obsolete usages of the term. Its primary definition simply describes the condition of not having been circumcised. There is no notable neutrality issue with that term. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

::: Fortunately that is not the case here, as mine is not an SPA '(insert - and I have not engaged in an edit war on this matter)', and my only involvement in the article is from the point I was first alerted to the neutrality issues inherent in the article. I live in the UK, which is closer to the rest of European and other English speaking countries outside the USA, where circumcision is not routine, is not the norm, and is not widely accepted amongst the public or medical associations. If this article is to be neutral, it has to go further in representing a global view. The USA is in a minority in the west when it comes to routine circumcision. - MishMich - Talk - 13:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Nowhere in the definition of either "circumcised" or "uncircumcised" is either one declared to be the "norm". Consider the words "ambiguous" and "unambiguous". Neither is the "norm". They are merely opposite conditions. If there were a single word for "uncircumcised", it could be different. You're arguing that "intact" and "normal" are single word substitutions. They are not, because they are vague and ambiguous. "Circumcised" and "uncircumcised" are precise, just like their colloquial equivalents "cut" and "uncut". Let's suppose that "hatted" or "collared" were common synonyms for uncircumcised. Then "unhatted" and "uncollared" would equate to circumcised, and it could work, although I don't think "hatted" or "uncollared" are common usage; in fact I might have just made them up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

::::: You persist in putting words into my mouth. I have not said that 'intact penis' should be substituted for 'uncircumcised penis'. I have said that I am sensitive to the problem that people have with the word 'intact'; rather, I have said, very clearly, several times (without any objection given as to why it would be problematic) that 'penis with foreskin' would be good alternative that people COULD use (not MUST). I have never insisted that only one term can be used to describe a penis that has not been circumcised, I have offered an alternative. This has been ignored. I have also clearly stated I have no personal problem with 'uncircumcised', but am sensitive to the fact that some people have issues with it (just like with 'intact'); however, I do not see it as neutral. I have also made it clear that only see it as derogatory when applied to a person, not a thing - as in the way it has been used by some religious groups to refer to 'gentiles', 'infidels', or 'heathens'; this is a different situation. So, all I am suggesting is that 'uncircumcised penis' does not need to be rigidly enforced as the only way of referring to a penis with a foreskin, but 'penis with foreskin' would be just as appropriate - and both accurate and neutral. Instead, I get bombarded with all sorts of irrelevant comments that do not address my point. The BMA and others avoid it, some advocacy groups object to it, so clearly not everybody likes it - so why insist that we only use that term? The neutral approach would be to find a term that is not problematic - to 'either side' - and use that. I can think of no better way of describing a penis with a foreskin by calling it what it is, rather than what it is not. - MishMich - Talk - 16:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

How is 'penis with foreskin' the opposite of 'circumcised penis'? that sounds like weasle words to me.Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I did a quick scan and it looks that at least the BBC and NYT use "uncircumcised" quite a lot (of males and females), so I don't think there is a strong WP:NPOV case against using the term. Of course other terms can also be used. Now that I do think of it, "uncircumcised" does have a slight connotation that the person would have been circumcised and the procedure would somehow have been reversed, but as WP:RS use the term we should too. If there is a controversy around the term, it can be mentioned as a specific point. --Dailycare (talk) 16:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

:::::::: Please explain how describing a penis with a foreskin as a "penis with foreskin" is weasel words. The unmodified penis has a foreskin, the modfied penis doesn't because it has been circumcised - so is referred to as a 'circumcised penis'. - MishMich - Talk - 18:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I have struck out my comments, as I have been informed that the person who placed this request for comment asked that discussion take place on the article talk page (I misread that, and took him to mean 'here' as here, not there). Please make further comments there, not here - I will establish a section for that discussion. - MishMich - Talk - 22:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs is right on. While uncircumcised could suggest a default behavior, it is used by almost everyone and certainly by the vast majority of reliable sources. If the term is a reflection of current social practice which are biased towards circumcision, you'll have to change them first, or at least change the way people talk about them, before bringing it here. Wikipedia is does not reflect the cutting edge (there, I did it), and is not the place to advance a new approach to language, even if you're right about your underlying belief. Ocaasi (talk) 17:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Neutral Volunteer to read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Begoun (please)

Hi,

I recently created an account to update the Living Persons Bio for Paula Begoun. I work for her, and didn't realize that this was a conflict (I thought if we provided citations, etc,) and thus the page received the "Bias Message." I understood, and revised further to remove any possible suspect details, and gave even further credible citations. I spoke with a person in my "Talk" and they suggested I attach a note here for a neutral editor to voluteer to give us a green light or advise of any further edits. I thought that by divulging my connection to Paula Begoun that would be transparency, but I understand the process. Any volunteers would be great: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Begoun Paula's Choice (talk) 23:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC) Nathan

Here is the "Talk" log:

Thank you, I appreciate the help! I am not sure if this question is your department, but the page in question http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Begoun received a flag for bias warning. I have revised and removed any language that may have warrented this, along with providing additional credible citations. Again, I am not sure if this is your department, but would this qualify to have the warning removed? Paula's Choice (talk) 23:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC) Nathan

I get the impression that you're directly connected with Paula Begoun; it would be good if you get a totally neutral person to review it first. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard is most often used for problems with people trying to advertise, but I think that if you left a note there asking for some neutral editor/s to give it read, you'd probably find a volunteer or two. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paula's Choice (talk • contribs)

It has some citations but it still reads far more like a resume or press release than like an encyclopedia entry. I will make a few tweaks but you can too. Look at some featured articles on living people and see how they are written. Everything that is vague and unverifiable has to go. The resulting article might be shorter and more terse. You did the right thing coming here. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Referring to religious beliefs as "superstitious"

Could some other editors come to Talk:List of teetotalers#Religious section edits and help decide whether this edit is or is not in keeping with WP:NPOV? Thanks. +Angr 08:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I replied on the talk page by requesting a source for the statement. The WP:V issue should be resolved before it is treated as a NPOV issue. Blue Rasberry 20:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Genesis creation narrative

Recently Genesis creation myth was renamed to Genesis creation narrative after a long discussion. I feel that this is a clear violation of WP:NPOV, since we have numerous other creation myth and creation mythology pages that was not renamed, giving this myth special status among them. The definitions of narrative and myth are quite different. I started a discussion on this point here, and would like to bring it up here as well. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 23:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be right on the face of it. Does one need to read the whole long discussion to offer an informed opinion on this matter? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 23:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Well there is a huge long discussion about what to rename it too, then a more concise discussion below about renaming it specifically to "narrative." But really I think the whole thing should be null-and-void since it wasn't talking about renaming all creation myth pages but only one specific religion's creation myth, which throws it clearly out of line with WP:NPOV. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 23:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, eitehr rename all creation pages or do not rename this one.Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It was brought up at the Fringe Theories page as well: [32] My main take on the whole issue, from that page: "Myth" connotes something obsolete; that's why people object to describing their own beliefs as myths. We don't need to debate this: we have the fact of the theists' objections. "Narrative" carries a much-reduced connotation of falsehood. The development of modern physics can be a narrative. That's why it is cultural bias to call traditional Hindu beliefs a mythology, while calling analogous Christian beliefs a narrative.Noloop (talk) 14:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

This discussion should have been linked to at the article talk page for broader input and transparency. Please do not start BLP, NPOV, or RS discussions at noticeboards without notifying the involved parties. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 15:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I also highly suggest that people actually do read through the discussions. There are only 4-5 entries related to specific creation myths that have the term in the titles. The norm is not to have "creation myth" in the title. Specifically, to Noloop's example, Hindu creation myths are not in an entry titled "Hindu creation myths" but are covered in Hindu cosmology. I have no idea what you are talking about. There is, in the modern "false" sense of the term, a serious myth of inequity being spread around here.Griswaldo (talk) 15:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're saying. There is an article Hindu mythology, which is what I wikilinked to. I am pleasantly surprised to discover there are also articles on Christian mythology, Jewish mythology, and Islamic mythology which ameliorates my concerns somewhat. Still, I wonder if there is an NPOV problem in having articles on the same topics, some written from a secular persepctive and some from theist's perspective. Maybe that's a "POV fork" (I've never been completely clear about that term). Noloop (talk) 16:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The discussion was about creation myths specifically. As you can see there are articles covering the mythologies of the Judeo-Christian religions. Drop down to creation myths specifically and once again there is no disparity between Hinduism and these religions because the Hindu creation myths are not in an entry with a title that contains "creation myth" either. What articles are written from a "theists" perspective? I don't follow.Griswaldo (talk) 16:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The topic is about the avoidance of the term "myth" in Christian topics generally, and to a much greater degree than is found in our coverage of non-Western religions. For example, there is an article on Jesus and separate article on Jesus Christ as myth, as if Jesus weren't primarily about a myth. I see no such separation for other legendary figures who probably have some historic basis, such as Odysseus or Vyasa. Systematic replacement of "creation myth" with "creation narrative" in article text as well as naming is the same type of systemic bias. Noloop (talk) 19:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no "systematic replacement of 'creation myth' with 'creation narrative' in article text." There was a discussion and decision made about the article title only. There has been, and I've been happily contributing to this, a systematic policing of article text to make sure that "creation myth" is not replaced where it is used appropriately in the text. It's better to argue against things that are actually happening than against phantom problems. In regard to Christ myth theory, you are aware that in all scholarship, secular scholarship as well as any other, this is a fringe theory? Scholars except the historicity of Jesus much more so than for Odysseus. You are also aware that Odysseus is being described as a legendary figure in the entry and not a mythic one. There is a big difference, even though the scholarly definition of myth makes no judgement on the historicity of the events in the first place. Legends, however, are usually based in history to some extent or another rather explicitly. It's good not to conflate popular usage of either "legend" or "myth" here. I fail to so any arguments here that are based in the facts surrounding any of these entries or the scholarship supporting them.Griswaldo (talk) 19:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The issue isn't limited to the naming of an article. This is an instance of a problem that is discussed on the Fringe noticeboard (as I mentioned above), in edit commentaries, and on article Talk pages. It is an instance of a general problem of "myth" being applied more readily to non-Western religions than Western ones. Regarding Odysseus and Jesus, you missed the point. It doesn't matter whose historicity was greater; Odysseus was one example, of many possible. The substance of an article on Jesus is mythical: a narrative about miracles, resurrection, god(s), etc., and his place in the religious belief system. Jesus and the myth of Jesus should be the same article. Noloop (talk) 21:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

We have three pages on creation. this one Creation myth, then we have a whole seperate one on creationsism (justifiable) Creationism, then we have a apge that just discuses the Judeo-Christian creation myth Genesis creation narrative. then we have another page on Book of Genesis. Yet no other religions creation myth has even one page dedicated to that subject. Rather they tend to be lumped into pages called say Hopi mythology.Slatersteven (talk) 13:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Creation myth is a page of all creation myths, not one religion, Creationism makes up part of a large grouping of articles (Category:Creationism) that mostly deal with it's views vs. evolution. Genesis creation narrative deals with the creation myth in the book of Genesis, which is really only the first chapter or two, and then Book of Genesis deals with the book as a whole. You make it seem as if they're all dealing with the same subject. Also just because we have The Bible and some other religions doesn't have as many followers, doesn't have a large collected body of ancient writings to draw upon, does that mean we treat biblical myths with anymore truth then another religions myths? Thats the issue here, is, to be neutral we have to treat them all the same not word ones article to sound more true then others. Changing the name to "narrative" sounds more like it could be true then "myth." — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 13:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The point I was trying to make (badly) is that to claim that its not POV to call the biblical creation myth a narrative because there are no other page about other religions creation myth is itself an example of the systematic bias that favours western subjects over non-western subjects. There are more then three pages that discuses the Judeo-Christian creation story, many other religions have only one page discussing their whole religious beliefs (some not even that it would seem). And as far as I can tell none have discussion of both their primary book (the bible) the individual section (Genesis) and specific subject (creation) (and of course I have left out other pages on related subjects). The best you will get is a page about a given religions equivalent of the Book of Genesis.Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Israeli settler violence

Israeli settler violence is having some reverts based on how to describe Yesh Din.

• Wikipedia: "...an Israeli human rights group providing legal assistance to citizens of the Palestinian territories."
• "About us": "...is comprised of volunteers who have organized to oppose the continuing violation of Palestinian human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory."

This started because an editor added "pro-Palestinian" (inclusion I disagree with although personally it makes some sense) to a line that called the group "the Israeli human rights group". It is obvious that it is a human rights group. However, it is just as important that their focus is in the Palestinian territories. They have a dog in the fight and it impacts their assessment of the subject. Not making any mention of this could be misleading to the reader since the group is not (and not expected to) neutral. There are a handful of solutions which border from easy to absurd:

• Simply use the wikilink and not any description
• Modify it to "a group that focuses on human rights issues of the Palestinians"
• Add "...with a focus on the Palestinian territories"
• Modify it to "a human rights group focusing on violations of Palestinian rights in the occupied Palestinian territories"
• Attribute the "occupied" bit "...what the group calls the Occupied Palestinian Territory"
• Quote it (would look like scare quotes to me though) A group that opposes "the continuing violation of Palestinian human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory"

Seems like a trivial issue that some simple wording could have fixed but I don't trust anyone over there (including myself) to be looking at this with clearly neutral eyes and there have already been too many reverts and bickering (again some only in the edit summaries and others on the talk page) to be productive. Any suggestions on if the wording can be altered to address the concerns?Cptnono (talk) 06:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't like the "what the group calls the Occupied Palestinian Territories" one. OPT is a standard term e.g. it is called such in advice by the British Foreign Office.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

They actually call it the Occupied Palestinian Territory. And the point of the quote was also to clarify the human rights bit. Might be pulling teeth but it is different. Also, enough people do not call it occupied that it is contentious. Since there is not a standard to say "occupied" before every use of "Palestinian territory" it might just be easier to avoid the issue. "a group focusing on the human rights of Palestinians" would be something that I doubt anyone would object to unless they are just trying to make a point. Cptnono (talk) 18:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Their focus is not on human rights of Palestinians, they focus on violations committed by Israeli forces and by Israeli settlers in the occupied territories. I dont believe they have said anything about the human rights of Palestinian refugees outside of the occupied territories or any Palestinians in Israel. They also do not focus on violations of Palestinian human rights committed by Palestinians. The easiest things would be to just say human rights organization and let people click the link if they want more information. nableezy - 19:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's the right place for the explanation what Yesh Din is, and any such explanation will reduce readability and by that miss the target of creating great encyclopedic article. A brief description like "human rights organization", combined with wikilink is perfectly enough. --Super.zhid (talk) 20:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Their focus is Palestinians. It isn't about the multiple other problems throughout the world. When an organization has such a particular focus that they are critical of one of the subjects in the dispute it should be laid out clearly. Just a wikilink would be fine with me instead but just saying they are a humans rights group is misleading since they have voiced a contentious opinion on a contentious issue. I still don't think "pro Palestinian" is appropriate but only saying human rights misleads the reader. If Nableezy's point is that they are often critical of Israel then that would also be a substitute that would let the reader know that the group being mentioned is not neutral in the dispute. Cptnono (talk) 09:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It is absolutely not "misleading" to call them a human rights organization. They are, whatever else you think of them, a human right organization. And you misread my point. Since it was relatively easy to understand I dont feel the need to explain it any further. nableezy - 13:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I see what you mean. However, some qualifier is needed to provide the reader with the most basic idea what Yesh Din is. The fact that every NGO neutrality is sometimes disputed, doesn't mean that we have to add "who's neutrality is questioned by some" to every reference of, for example, HRW. --Super.zhid (talk) 11:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I was the one to add 'pro-Palestinian' in this edit in a copyedit. Technically, Yesh Din is an 'Israeli human rights org.' but in fact, as confirmed above, it is limited to the rights of Palestinians with regard to Israelis, not about self-Palestinian human rights violations. I agree eith cptnono. If we cannot qualify what kind of human rights group it is, then it should be left on its own. --Shuki (talk) 21:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Editors adding scare quotes around a term that they allege cited sources are incorrect to use

Should an editor be allowed to add scare quotes around a term because they allege that the cited sources are incorrect to use that term?

An example of this is when a creationist adds scare quotes around the "theory" of evolution, or when a climate-change skeptic adds scare quotes around climate "science" or around "scientific consensus". In this case, monarchists are trying to add scare quotes around "British monarchy" because they allege that the cited sources are wrong to use the term.

The Wikipedia article on scare quotes states: "Style guides generally recommend the avoidance of scare quotes in impartial works, such as in encyclopedia articles or academic discussion." Wikipedia:Manual of Style specifically discourages the use of scare quotes.

The article where this dispute is taking place is Debate on the monarchy in Canada, and on its talk page there has been an initial discussion and an ongoing Request for Comment discussion, both of which I started.

The specific article text at the center of the dispute are the following sentences that appear under the section "Polls":[33]

An Angus Reid Strategies poll conducted in September 2007 reported that the majority 53% of Canadians do not want the country to retain formal ties to the British monarchy, while 35% did, and 12% were unsure.

A poll conducted by Angus Reid in March 2008 also reported that the majority of Canadians believe it is time to end the country's official relationship with the British monarchy.

A group of three or four editors are trying to add scare quotes around the words "British monarchy" in those sentences because they contend that the cited polls were wrong to use the term and they wish the article presentation to somehow contest the cited term.

I have tried to point out that the core, non-negotiable Wikipedia content policies are clear about not doing that. Wikipedia:Verifiability states as its first line: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Wikipedia:No original research states: "Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intent of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources."

Because the Request for Comment discussion that I opened is going in circles with the same few editors ignoring these policies, I would greatly appreciate your NPOV noticeboard input there. In particular I am hoping that an administrator might come make this case in defense of Wikipedia's core principles, but I definitely welcome any and all support or constructive input. 65.92.212.239 (talk) 05:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

To follow up, an administrator from this board kindly reviewed the issue and discussion, and stated: "If the original text does not include the quotation marks, the article should not include the quotation marks. An RfC cannot overturn basic Wikipedia policy." I am marking my request here as resolved. Thank you very much for your assistance. 65.92.212.100 (talk) 07:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately it seems that I was too early to mark my request for help as resolved. Despite User:Dougweller's helpful input, the same editors are still looking for ways to contest cited sources. Your help or input is again sought. 65.92.158.106 (talk) 04:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Tali-Ihantala controversy

Hi

One user User:Tbma have such a strong feelings that this battle is a Hoax and never took place. He has nothing to support this claim, no scholars, no historians more than his own home made thoughts. Despite this he continue to put a NPOV and a Disputed tag on this article. He don't approve any sources Finnish, Russian, Swedish or Anglo-American.

I want the board to prove:

-A: Is this battle a hoax? (I ask despite the fact that my own grandfather fought in it)

-B: Are there anything to be criticise in the sources?

Posse72 (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't say tha batle is not a hoax, I was not there. But tehr are plenty of RS that say it happend. I would also say that some (I have looked at enough to convinice myself the battle is supported by RS) of the sources are RS.Slatersteven (talk) 20:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

If you put the phrase "Battle of Tali-Ihantala" into Google and search for "Books", a whole lot of books come up that would count as reliable sources. eg 500 Days: The War in Eastern Europe, 1944-1945 - Page 184. If it is a hoax, a lot of respectable historians must have been taken in, but, regardless, our test is verifiability, not truth, and so I would say we should treat the battle as it is treated in the verifiable sources (ie not a hoax). Bluewave (talk) 18:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

User Posse72 is putting words in my mouth. I was saying that there are a lot of other contradicting sources, that are portraying different picture of the event than it is said in the article. Since he and other anonymous users (maybe sock-puppets) are removing any references that say otherwise (and he is actually falsifying the numbers from the references) - I propose to put "Disputed" and "POV" tags on the article, as it was before. --Tbma (talk) 21:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Mary Ann Block -- uncited POV lines

Mary Ann Block: Badly written with multiple uncited POV lines suggesting she A) Knows what she's doing, or B) Doesn't. 66.75.27.117 (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I see this is now marked for deletion, which would presumably solve the problem! I looked for Block's books on Amazon and could only find one, and that was a mere 63 pages long and the publisher was "Block Books". I would doubt the notability of the author. (But, this could be sour grapes on my part, as I've written 3 books and they were published by proper publishing houses and I haven't got, nor would expect, an article about me!) Bluewave (talk) 09:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses - Doctrinal Criticisms section

The section in the main article Jehovah's Witnesses under Doctrinal Criticisms, violates, I feel Wikipedia's NPOV policy for several reasons and isn't accurately placed. 1. Accusing JW of being a false prophet isn't really a doctrinal criticism. If someone critices JW position on the Trinity or hellfire, that would be a doctrinal criticism.

2. These sources 296-299, are used to claim that JW claim to be a prophet. This sets the basis for the argument that Wikipedia develops, not other sources. These sources are taken out of context from Jehovah's Witness' publications and do not support the claim made bgy Wikipedia editors. The two sources which refer to JW as a "prophet" are antiquated, 1959, and 1972, and refer to them as such only in the context of preaching the good news, not in the sense that Wikipedia currently claims, of making advanced predictions. [296] [297]. The other two references from JW literature do not say anything about JW being a "prophet". [298] [299]

3. There is synthesis between the thoughts expressed in this sentence from JW literature, that the Wikpedia editor puts together, rather than any referenced source.

Jehovah's Witnesses (and previously, the International Bible Students) as a "prophet" to declare God's will[296][297][298][299] and has equipped them with advanced knowledge about future world events.[300]

These two thoughts, [296] [297] [298] [299] and that of [300], express a synthesis of two ideas in JW literature, that the Wikipedia editor makes, and that JW literature, nor outside sources, make.

The one outside reference in this section that is up to Wikipedia standards, from Robert Compton, does the book not refer to JW anywhere in his book as a "false prophet," but does refer to Bible passages with the word "false prophet" in it, but not using the words "false prophet" with reference to JW.[301]

The following paragraph, then should be removed, it is, in my opinion, original research, a synthesis of ideas from JW literature, from a Wikipedia editor rather than reliable outside sources, to lead one to the conclusion that the Wikipedia editor is trying to make, rather than that of going to referenced third party neutral sources. Sources on the Internet that refer to JW as a "false prophet" are generally from antagonist clergymen or JW apostates, rather than from any reputable source.

This paragraph, then, should be removed -

Watch Tower Society publications have claimed that God has used Jehovah's Witnesses (and previously, the International Bible Students) as a "prophet" to declare God's will[296][297][298][299] and has equipped them with advanced knowledge about future world events.[300] Jehovah's Witnesses' publications have made many predictions about world events they believe were prophesied in the Bible.[297][301] Failure of such predictions has led to the alteration or abandonment of some doctrines.[302]

If this paragraph is removed and the sentences following are given some attention, then a neutral point of view can be maintained.

There are other areas in the article where I feel that the editors of Wikipedia, one of whom openly states in his page that he has a animosity to JW, being a former JW himself. This is the main protaganist of this doctrine on the Wikipedia page, along with another editor who seems also to have a bias against JW, although willing to yield and present both viewpoints on certain points.Natural (talk) 02:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)Natural

Do all the denominations have doctrinal criticism sections, or are just certain ones being singled out? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Several points to make here:

1. The section is part of a summary of a spinout article, Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses. It is fair, factual, written in an editorially neutral tone, based on reliable sources and contains a rebuttal from the Watch Tower Society.

2. The opening statement that the Watch Tower Society claims God uses the JWs as his prophet and has "equipped them with advance knowledge of future world events" is based on articles in Watch Tower publications. One of the cited articles, "They Shall Know That a Prophet Was Among Them", (The Watchtower, April 1, 1972) contains a discussion about the role of Old Testament prophets and asks the question, "Does Jehovah have a prophet to ... warn them of dangers and to declare things to come? ... These questions can be answered in the affirmative. Who is this prophet? ... Today they are known as Jehovah’s Christian witnesses." A 1959 Watchtower article cited notes the role of JWs as God's "prophet to the nations", the "modern Jeremiah" and the apparent success of a prophecy that the League of Nations would fall apart. The article also notes the JW prediction that the United Nations is "also doomed to join the League of Nations". User:Naturalpsychology arbitrarily dismisses those sources as "antiquated", but both articles are among a library of Watch Tower publications dating back to 1950 contained on a CDRom that all Witnesses are encouraged to own and use for research. He also makes the false claim that that articles do not use the word "prophet" in the context of making future predictions. In fact the 1972 one refers to JWs as a "modern day Ezekiel", a group that gives warning of what they believe God will do in the future. Other WT articles cited in the article include a 1997 magazine in which JWs again are compared with Old Testament prophets to whom God "revealed" warnings "of what was to come" and described as "God's messenger".

3. Two books are cited, by Crompton and Beverley, that contain the explicit claim that JWs are a false prophet because of specific predictions made in the past about events that did not take place. Crompton writes of the JWs' "failed predictions"; Beverley spends several pages detailing false predictions. Watch Tower Society publications themselves have dealt with accusations of being a false prophet, thus acknowleding the claim exists.

4. It is certainly a doctrinal issue that a religious organisation describes itself as a "prophet", directly and specifically chosen by God as his sole representative on earth to give warning of a future calamity, and that the religion has an intricate chronological system in which it calculates when various parts of God's destruction will take place. The issue is therefore appropriately located in the article.

5. Naturalpsychology refers to me in his final, slighting reference to a former JW with an animosity to the religion. He fails to note that he is a current member of the religion. Any intrinsic "bias" he implies on my part will be mirrored by his own. Neither is terribly important. What matters is that the material presented in the article is fair, balanced and editorially neutral. It is.

6. The spinout Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses article is one of a number of articles dealing with criticism of religions. Others include Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of Judaism, Criticism of Mormonism and Scientology controversy. BlackCab (talk) 06:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there a Criticism of Roman Catholicism or Criticism of Presbyterianism, for example? Apparently not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually there is a Criticism of the Catholic Church article. But I don't know what relevance you are placing on that comment. The complaint lodged here is not with the Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses article, but a sentence of the Jehovah's Witnesses article. It has been made by a Jehovah's Witness who has embarked on a one-man campaign to remove all criticism of his religion from the article, probably so it ends up as a promotional vehicle. His complaint here is on the grounds of bias, or a lack of neutrality. I have detailed reasons above why his grounds for complaint are baseless. BlackCab (talk) 07:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists are the only two religions which have a criticisms section on their main page. If there is a criticisms page for other religion it is always on a seperate page. I had put forth that thought, but User BlackCab who is a former JW and openly against JW, would not permit the criticisms section to be removed from the front page, it was only edited down slightly. There is a large Criticisms of Jehovah's Witnesses page, which BlackCab has worked on, which is larger than the main Jehovah's Witness page itself. Much of the Criticisms section in the main Jehovah's Witness page was carbon copied from the Criticisms of Jehovah's Witness page. I personally feel that Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists are singled out for criticism on Wikipedia. While the Catholic Church has had as much criticism, as any religion and the Latter Day Saints also, there is no Criticism section on their main pages. 69.115.172.182 (talk) 10:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)Natural

Also, my goal has not been to remove all criticism, but the Wikipedia article was extremely biased against Jehovah's Witnesses, it was essentially an apostate article that still has ideas biased against Jehovah's Witnesses, which do not give both sides of the issue. My goal was, that if the Wikipedia editors chose to use the Wikipedia article as a basis to present criticisms against Jehovah's Witnesses, that both sides of each issue be presented, so that a NPOV could be maintained. The goal of BlackCab has always been to suppress anything positive about JW and to present apostate views, from former JW, and from any negative statement that is made about JW. To keep off of the Wikipedia main page, any counterpoints to the criticisms that he has personally interjected into the article. This has been going on for a year. The article now is a little more balanced than it was six months ago, but it still has an anti-Jehovah's Witness bias. Natural (talk) 10:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)Natural

I felt that if there was to be a Criticisms subheading against Jehovah's Witnesses, that it should be one paragraph, with a link to the Criticisms page, which is larger than the Jehovah's Witness page itself, where more details could be elaborated on. I still feel that for Wikipedia, that that is a more balanced approach, especially in view of the type of detailed and controversial subjects that editors are bringing up on the main page. Natural (talk) 10:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)Natural

That is a blatant lie. I have written and rewritten articles connected with the Witnesses that have included much positive and neutral information. This discussion is outside the scope of this noticeboard, but it indicates the mindset of Naturalpsychology in repeatedly labeling those who have left the religion, including authors of academic studies on it, with the pejorative term "apostate". His complaint is clearly less about bias than his discomfort with seeing criticism of his religion on Wikipedia, and his wheedling complaints about the length of the criticisms article (also outside the scope of this complaint) are proof of that. BlackCab (talk) 10:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

BlackCab formerly LTSally, edits with a strong bias. These are his motives, clearly stated in his page on Wikipedia. How can someone who openly states his bias edit without a bias. Almost all of his edits are strongly biased, and because he knows the Wikipedia system better than others of us, he uses that to bully his ideas onto the Wikipedia page, in my opinion. How someone with such a strong bias can be an editor on a Wikipedia encyclopedia subject, which he openly states he has an "anger" towards, Wikipedia stating that it's pages must be of Neutral Point of View, this is beyond me.

These are BlackCab's statements concerning Jehovah's Witnesses -

·	Over the years I became increasingly disenchanted with the regimentation of Witnesses and the imposition of rules, the denial of personal choice in many areas, the senseless parroting of stock phrases and ideas and the smugness of Witnesses about their own religion and their arrogant, derisive dismissal of the lifestyles and life choices of non-Witnesses.

· I was told it was the truth. I was told it was from God himself. So much of it I now realise was arrant nonsense. · And so, after enduring much unhappiness, frustration and silent anger as a Jehovah’s Witness — for one cannot voice these criticisms, even to one’s closest friends, for fear they will report you to elders as an apostate and a murmurer — I chose to cease associating with the Witnesses. · Even though I no longer think of myself as a Witness, I have no intention of resigning, or formally disassociating myself from the organization, because I know that this will automatically result in an announcement at my local congregation, with the result that all those Witnesses who know me will be required to shun me. Any who disobey this injunction are liable to be disfellowshipped themselves. · But such is the power of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. · I love to read and I love to accumulate information and share it, particularly information to which the Watch Tower Society would prefer Witnesses not be exposed.

If that is his point of view that is fine, but Wikipedia isn't a blog, it's not a place to vent one's own opinions or frustrations with one's religion. If BlackCab wants to blog, he can do that on his own blog page, rather than a Wikipedia page.

His comments on Jehovah's Witnesses and false prophet are his own research, or research he has obtained from other sources, but the source he quotes Crompton, I checked the book, does not in any place refer to Jehovah's Witnesses as a false prophet. It does discuss failed predictions, but "false prophet" is a term that is interjected through synthesis by BlackCab.

If the Crompton source is wrong, remove it. However, the cited JW literature does indeed refer to their organization as a "prophet" that has had "advance knowledge", and the article provides specific references to those sources before indicating that critics have had issues with it; and the sentence about JW references to being a 'prophet' do not claim that they receive direct revelations from god. The article also cites JW literature (Reasoning from the Scriptures, page 137) which explicitly indicates that the JW organization is aware of the criticism that it is a 'false prophet'. The article does not say that the criticism is true or false, or indeed even—quite rightly—whether there is any such thing as (true) 'prophecy'. There is no 'synthesis' involved.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• The term is not used in any Jehovah's Witnesses sources tha the quotes from in this section. And the term prophet, is clearly explained in the 1972 and 1959 articles as being in reference to the "preaching" of "the good news of God's kingdom" and not in making predictions. BlackCab creates a synthesis which brings the term "prophet" to the next level, to use the Wikipedia page to create his own private argument, which he may have obtained from various sources.

• If there is to be a criticism section on the main page of Jehovah's Witnesses, it is not the place to voice private critisms, but to explain who, why and what reliable sources are criticizing JW for in a Neutral manner, giving both sides of the issue.

Who are criticizing Jehovah's Witnesses? 1. Religious oppossers 2. Ray Franz, disfellowshipped former member of the Governing Body of JW, who continues to write books against JW. 3. Penton, a former JW in Canada, now a retired professor. 4. Some other former JW who have written books against JW

These are the main critics against JW.

Doctrinal Criticisms has nothing to do with the accusation Wikipedia makes against JW of being a "false prophet". Doctrinal Criticisms has to do with subjects such as The Trinity, Hellfire, the Immortal Soul. Calling JW a "false prophet" is a propaganda tool known as "name calling". It serves to damage the reputation of JW, and to raise doubts in the mind of the reader.

Natural (talk) 14:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)Natural

In what manner are criticisms about JW eschatological prophecies/predictions not doctrinal??--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

There are no "private criticisms" voiced on the article, and BlackCab is one of several editors who has previously removed other criticism that was not properly sourced. As Naturalpsychology specifically notes above, the criticism comes from specific published sources that are cited in the article. I do not always agree with BlackCab's approach, however the charges made by Naturalpsychology about neutrality are unfounded.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

An user keeps misinterpreting a source to support their POV

First of all , are i correct here?

Please see Operation Charnwood's talkpage; that is what Blablaaa is hinting at. I would also suggest glancing the MILHIST talkpage where some of these concerns have already been looked at, in quite some depth.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

no of these concerns was raised on milhist. the historian said a operaiton was a partial sucess and the troops ultimately failed. the user made "tactical victory" out of this. This are all needed facts. What did the historian say and what does the editor make out of this Blablaaa (talk) 21:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

it must be noted that a "tactical" victory is a special condition which must be cited directly. Even if historian says victory nobody can claim he said tactical victory. But in this case the historian not even said victory he also said the troops ultimately failed... Blablaaa (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

i must update my post, another editor already raised concerns with this "It must be said that Beevor doesn’t use the term tactical on p. 273, and yet the same reference is used in the infobox to support tactical victory as is used in analysis to describe partial success." . but this sentence was ignored by user enigma Blablaaa (talk) 21:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• This is a fine place to bring this up, but you need to provide a little more context before we can help you (perhaps a link to a diff or permalink to the appropriate section). Clearly if a source says a battle was a "partial success" that should not be cited as a "tactical success"; sources should be closely adhered to. The talkpage has a discussion which seems to suggest that User:Blablaaa is correct and EnigmaMcmxc seems reluctant to clarify the source, which is not right. If you don't have access to the source and he does, it may be prudent to remove the source pending clarification. II | (t - c) 21:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

"The talkpage has a discussion which seems to suggest that User:Blablaa is correct and EnigmaMcmxc seems reluctant to clarify the source, which is not right." Indeed you got this correct. It must be noted here that Enigma is known to do this and I can't see how he will ever stop considering he's gotten away with his disruptive behavior before and has been basically supported for it by admin Nick-D. Caden ^cool 22:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

II, what information do you require; i will gladly assist. The only reason i am "reluctant", per my comments on said talkpage, is the fact the OP has repeatly threatend to seek all sorts of actions agaisnt me. I will not be blackmailed into assissting someone nor will i bow under threats.

Caden, here is not the place for your cheap shots ala your comments on the MILHIST discussion.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Stating the truth about you is not a cheap shot. It's time for your misleading edits and bad behavior to be looked at. Nick can't save you forever. Sorry. Caden ^cool 22:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Am not intrested in a slanging match, am interested in sorting this matter out with an univolved third party; that excludes you as you are clearly biased and only drop in to throw cheap shots around.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Can i ask again for the quote of beevor which supports "tactical allied victory". The tactical victory is a very specific outcome so it should be said directly or something which is equivalent to this. So please can you provide this quote to us? Blablaaa (talk) 22:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Eh, it's a bit disruptive to launch into attacks, Caden, without some sort of diff - if Enigma has a history of this, document them and then bring up a RfC/User (for a similar example, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85). Looking at this closer I found the relevant diff, and the operation is still called a "tactical success" in the lead despite Enigma's statement on the talk page section linked above that "In regards to the Tactical Victory conditions you have laid down, i would also pull me on the use of "Tactical Victory" in the Operation Goodwood article; its not specifically mentioned in any of the sources consulted" (permalink). Is it a huge deal to say that partial success is basically tactical victory? I don't think so - these appear to be close-to synonymous - but if there's disagreement, we should err on the side of being completely correct. So I think the best resolution here is to replace "tactical success" with "partial success" pending sources that say otherwise - and GBooks and GScholar show no results for tactical victory. Could we do that Enigma? II | (t - c) 22:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The diff which you mentioned had nothing to do with this.

a partial sucess is nowhere near a tactical victory. Same like an apple is no orange. Also i dont talk about the lead i talk about the infobox which says allied tactical victory. A partial sucees means they achieved one objectiv this has nothing to do with the overall outcome. You should also read the other statement of this source it says "the British and Canadians ultimately failed to secure enough ground to expand the Allied build-up"Blablaaa (talk) 22:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

its so frustrating to repeat myself so often. But thats not your fault so nevermind. Look Battle of Prokhorovka you can call this a partial sucsess of red army. They achieved some of their objectives. Nevertheless it was a tactical desaster. Partial sucess is nowhere near tactical victory. Victory and tactical are two complete different things. Tactical is the scale. Even if a historian clearly says it was a victory you can not simply say he says a "tactical victory". The historian not even claims this was a victory but the infobox claims even tactical victory. Thats why we need always a cite for phyrificc or strategic or operaitonal or whatever. Good example to show that there is no correlation is that both belligerent can have partial sucess in the same battle at the same time. Nothing to do with tactical victoryBlablaaa (talk) 22:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that you maybe are not fimiliar with tactical and so on but enigma clearly is and if he is sourcing "tactical victory" with this then this is simple misinterpretation of a source to push POV. sorry but thats itBlablaaa (talk) 22:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I know it is confusing with the lead. But this is not the issue. All regarding this issue is present at talk page charnwood bottom section. So please only consider this facts. But i admit its very confusing ^^Blablaaa (talk) 23:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Semi involved editor comments: To properly understand this whole debate, I'm afraid it will probably be necessary to read Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history: General Question, which currently fills up about 4/5 of a fairly long and active talk page. Another flowering thread can be found at Operation Goodwood tactical outcome, and there are several creepers at the Charnwood talk page, and both Enigma and Blaabla's talk pages. I'm putting this here because I believe that this subject has already been discussed Ad nauseam, and is still ongoing. As a result of these discussions (and buried deep within them), one editor is now tightening up the various victory definitions and there has been some loose agreement about what can be described as a tactical victory. Ranger Steve (talk) 23:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi II, thanks for taking the time to look into the matter further. I would disagree with changing the entire outcome of the article to “partial success”. The objective of the operation was to capture the northern section of the city, which Beevor confirms: “Operation Charnwood had been a very partial success, taking just the northern part of Caen.” However confirmed from other sources within the article itself, this was precisely the goal of the operation. The rest of the paragraph, partially quoted by Balblaaa above, is contradicted by other sources and has nothing to do with the objective of the operation. One should note that most sources just talk about the high losses both sides suffered with very few talking of the tactical situation, most discuss the strategic situation (which didnt change for either side as discussed within the article) and one notes the political improvement with the French – all covered in the article and do not seem that relevent to the infobox.

The other source cited is D’Este, who does not call the operation a partial success; he states that “Montgomery unquestionably improved his position by Charnwood” (i.e. the tactical situation, as he notes the lack of any improvement in the strategic situation) while at the same time talking about the high losses the attack inflicted upon the defenders.

Other sources that support the operation was a success/victory, not used in the article, include: Lloyd Clark “Operation Charnwood succeeded...”; John Buckley “...Operation Charnwood forced a [German] withdrawal from Caen.”; the latter dances around without stating the precise phrase. Per the MILHIST talk page Chaosdruid provided the following quote sourced from Hubert Meyer: “However, there was no doubt that these positions could not have been held any longer, because of the completely open right flank and also because of the heavy German losses."; again dancing around without stating the precise word.

In addition Parsecboy provided the following link on the talkpage, most sources agree that the operation was a success; two notable alternatives is one that calls it a hollow victory and another that calls it an operational victory.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I totally disagree with ranger. An historian says "it was a partical sucess... but they ultimatly failed" and a editor uses this statement to cite a tactical victory. Why the hack do you think other discussion are relevant for this. please tell PLEASE. is this statement equivalent to tactical victory? no its not!!!!! its absolutly irrelevant if we discussed 1000 hours about something. One historian made a statement and a user misinterpreted this. And now you, who said already that he dont likes me, came here and throw information in which are totally irrlevant in the hope to distract and confuse uninvolded editors.Blablaaa (talk) 23:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Lol sorry enigma but i proofed that you misinterpreted a source and now you come and bring other vague sources which support the claims . YOU deliberatly misused a source and now you dodge this with bringing other sources. Take position to your violation of wiki rules !!Blablaaa (talk) 23:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

(numerous e/c) Blablaaa Beevor states nothing of the sort that the operation "ultimatly failed"; he states the attempt to secure more ground to carry on the build up failed - a point contradicted by Hubert Meyer iirc and you accuse me of misinterpreting sources!

At any rate i will rather await further comments from II or other NPOV than you tell me the outcome of your accusations.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

i also want to highlight that quoting a historian who said " charnwood suceeded..." is also nowhere a quote for tactical victory. The soviets also suceeded in stoping german movements at prokorrohkva but is was not tactical victory. OMG you were caught and instead admiting it you bring more and more vague things to distract from the point. always same method.... Blablaaa (talk) 23:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I am sure you are able to read and comprehend the various points by II; he stated per the Beevor source should we replace the outcome with "partial success". Hence the "more vague things"; two points were addressed in my post, all of which was a reply to II and the points he raised.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

He stated nothing he thought we talk about the lead. Stop lieying please.Blablaaa (talk) 00:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Hilarious how much OR you do. When somebody says the situation improved you claim he says tactical victory. Sorry but if people can do such amount of OR the scientific standart of wiki get destroyed. Enigma i ask you one masterquestion but you will dodge it. Yoo did the edits so i ask you directly. When a historians says a operation was a partial sucess but ultimately failed, is this the same like "tactical victory" ? Yes or no ? You will dodge question but this is the only importan question here. You made the edits but you do not say they are correct. MAsterpiece of distraction...Blablaaa (talk) 00:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Since we yet again desended into the circula discussion that has lasted almost a full month now i shall await the response from II or other NPOV editors in regards to II points and my reply. Furthermore i suggest you re-read Beevor's comments because at no point does he state the operation ultimately failed, like you keep asserting.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

(several e/c's) As anyone who would care to follow the links will see, this issue has been discussed at length in the last month. The discussions are all relevant because they are all to do with the result of the Charnwood article, as is this discussion. Here you seem to be tackling exactly the same issue from a slightly different perspective, but by your own admission this perspective has been brought up at Milhist before - you even quote me in your 3rd post here. And you don't think its relevant? If you don't think that the long winded chats we've already had (and tried to broker some sort of compromise out of) somehow don't count in this thread, then I'm afraid you are very much mistaken. I must admit, I'm getting very bored of being neutral right now, especially after reading your last sentence about "not liking me". Not sure where I said that to be honest. Ranger Steve (talk) 00:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

You did the same, You were caugh by your bias editing style. And if i try to search objectiv thrid opinion, you immedialty distract you dont talk about the problem. You spam useless information. You make mess out of such simple question : if historians said something or not. This is not more than your standart tactic. You did nothing to explain your edit. You were accused of misinterpreting of a source but you did not talk about this source one single time. You spam other sources. Even if you bring 1000000 sources your misuse of one sources is still there but you take no position you spam people with such amount of information that they totally lose the point. And thats your aim you know what you did. if you are not "guilty" you what talk about accusation rather than something totally different. I think your tacica will work again, the discussion is dead i guess. Its horrible. But ok for me. keep misinterpreting sources like you will until every of your british articles says "british" victory. When a historian says "partial sucess but failed ultimatly" then make "tactical victory" out of it. i can live with it i will collect all of this and present it them with multiple examples. Blablaaa (talk) 00:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

ranger is lieing or not able to understand the point. Nowhere we discussed in length the outcome of this article, we discussed the phrasing of a statement. Please show me some edit were i talked about this sources and that they dont say tactical victory and then show me where other users said that partial victory is same like tactical victory. Go ranger search for the edits and present them here. Until now you posts were a waste of KB so please proof your claims and bring "diffs"Blablaaa (talk) 00:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

ranger please give diffs where the outcome was discussed by me. If you have none then please admit that you totally failed to understand the point and then leave please. Thank you.Blablaaa (talk) 00:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Enigma please stop it with the wiki games. Yes, we all know you play the game well but the gig is up man. Stop distracting others from the truth here. You continue misinterpreting sources. You continue to mislead the readers. That's unacceptable. Your British POV is so biased that you can't continue doing what you do. It's wrong. You need to cut it out. Enough is enough. Caden ^cool 00:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

enigma said this above : I would disagree with changing the entire outcome of the article to “partial success”. The objective of the operation was to capture the northern section of the city, which Beevor confirms: “Operation Charnwood had been a very partial success, taking just the northern part of Caen.” However confirmed from other sources within the article itself, this was precisely the goal of the operation. first of all this is the definition of OR but here look what the same editor edit into the article: the objective was .... and establish bridgeheads into southern Caen and here the outcome also written by enigma ...southern sectors remained in German hands and no bridgeheads established... all the edits were done by the same guy saying this was precisely the goal of the operation . what a blatant lie. Enigmas post are full of lies i could pick all day long his words and show how he contradicts himself. Not only he does simple bias OR he lies when he explains is OR. Sorry its horrible to deal with thisBlablaaa (talk) 00:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

You two guys are hilarious and the posts on your talk page Caden about how i have a little conspiracy going on against you two, the articles, and in effect the German people is brilliant; evidence that you have too much time on your hands i think. As for the accusation of presenting a British POV within articles i would suggest going and looking at the sources in use, their relaiabilty and the fact they are a mixture of American, British, Canadian, French, and German in addition to the fact i have presented as much information from the German POV as possible.

As for the fact I forgot about the goal of seizing bridgeheads; the major goal of the operation was securing northern Caen and Beevor confirms they did so. The fact that a half bombed out city, destroyed bridges and German resistance halted any further advances is clearly why Beevor states “partial”. More importantly Beevor does not state anywhere that the operation failed. Hopefully your little conspiracy theory can be put on hold until II or another NPOV editor can read through II points, my reply and for further background information the Charnwood, MILHIST, yours, cadens and my talkpages.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

you forget about? sorry dont believe you ... Like always i proof something and then you dodge or claim "you forgot" , its always the same. And again you try to OR and explain us what beevor means. When beevor doesnt say something you create something and then explain us why beevor maybe meant this... . In fact you lied about the objectives, your only attempted to explain your misuse of beevor was to explain that allied achieved all objectives ( which is OR anyways ) but now i showed that u lied about the objectives. So what does remain of your only attempted to explain your misuse? Nothing remains, you misused a source. And maybe its time to say sorry and showing that you will not do it again... Blablaaa (talk) 01:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Another proof of your bad intention is that you still claim II support you while we both know that he presented an edit which deals with the phrasing issue ^^ You know this but you try to imply he already supported you. Thats also a very bad and unfair tactic. Please enimga feel free and start discuss the real point. Can beevor be used for citing a tactical victory? Please say something to the real issue.Blablaaa (talk) 01:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

To be honest i dont give two hoots if you believe me or not; the fact is i forgot to mention the bridges in my summary and that is the only thing you have been able to seize on (other than attempting to claim i was bringing in additional material that was not needed, when it was in response to the comments by II). The main goal of the operation was to take the northern end of the city and Beevor supports that this happened. As for my misuse of Beevor, that is somewhat laughable considering you keep claiming he calls the operation a failure when he does not.

I have not claimed II has supported me i have stated that i am awaiting his or another NPOV editor's reply, in response to my reply to his questions and points.

How about you heed Caden's advice and take a break and await NPOV editors to reply rather than helping to crowd this talkpage up with irrelevent information and bickering?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

EnigmaMcmxc, I'm afraid I'm leaning against you from what I understand of the issue. You summarise: The objective of the operation was to capture the northern section of the city, which Beevor confirms: “Operation Charnwood had been a very partial success, taking just the northern part of Caen.” However confirmed from other sources within the article itself, this was precisely the goal of the operation. That appears to me to be the very definition of WP:SYN. If a source describes OC as an unqualified success, then use that source. But making a judgement about the matter based on what you think would count as success is out of bounds. Even though the logic of what you are saying seems straight-forward, policy is that it is for the pages of your own private diary. --FormerIP (talk) 01:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

1. the fact is i forgot to mention the bridges in my summary yes you "forgot". But unfortunatly this point which was "forgotten" by u rendered your whole point useless.
2. The main goal of the operation was to take the northern end of the city and Beevor supports that this happened so you decide he means tactical victory lol ? Tactical victory is not only achieve 1 objectiv. Lol what you do is the definition of OR. you claim what beevor means...
3. and await NPOV editors to reply the problem is that you dont want editors to judge neutral thats why you pump useless informations. THe question is so simple did beevor said it was a tactical victory? No he didnt. But you dont want the people answer neutral thats why you butt in and spam. I ask you again Enigma , does beevor say it was a tactical victory? or does he say something which is undisputable equivalent to this? Why do you dodge this question? its the only important question.. Blablaaa (talk) 01:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

@ formerip. This is not only OR the objective was not only to capture northern cean it was also to secure bridgeheads, but enigma forgot this detailBlablaaa (talk) 01:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

FormerIP, thank you for your input on the matter; would your recommendation on the source already in use, and those also mentioned, be to switch over to just a basic victory/success?

What are your thoughts on the information presented by D’Este, since he is also used to support the current outcome.

RegardsEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Based on the sources in use, I would say "partial success" is appropriate. This is how Beevor describes it, and the D'Este quote (I don't have access to the complete text) appears to give a similarly mixed position. This isn't really about making a fine judgement and recommendation. In this case, I think it is about slavishly and boringly following the sources. If these sources are not giving the best representation of what happened, then find other sources that do. --FormerIP (talk) 01:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your neutral input FormerIP, very appreciate this Blablaaa (talk) 02:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• Agree with FormerIP. Further I think Beevor's "partial success" seems about right and seems like the best term to use in the infobox. You can reflect the other sources; Ford & Lyles say hollow victory, which I think clearly has different connotations than tactical success/victory. Copp's view could be reflected too and is more in-line with a tactical victory perspective but based on other sources seems to have a bit of a minority viewpoint. In the future a couple recommendations: Enigma, "slavishly" follow the sources without making a fuss unless you can find consensus (taken literally) to diverge - diverging from cited sources as the current articles does (permalink, citations 5 and 6) or repeatedly inserting uncited material is a big deal and a major offense, and Blablaa, if you're going to make a bunch of posts right after each other just update your earlier post. Numerous comments bloat the page and we need to allow the uninvolved comments space to breath. II | (t - c) 03:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The Allied Supreme Commander said that the battle at Caen was a tactical success and a strategic one. The point here is not the wording of the success but the terminology. Blaaa is applying a "Table top gaming battle" outcome where a tactical defeat is measured as the higher number of losses; and outcomes of the operations and the involvment in the strategy of the campaign does not exist as the battle is taken as a standalone battle with no after effect taken into account. THis table top battle element tends to come from Naval engagements of the old school where only roughly equal forces would attack each other and an outcome totalling losses of 2 battleships v 1 battleship would upset the balance enough for one side to retreat

In reality the situation is much different: a tactical or strategic victory, or even a pyrrhic victory, depend on how the results of operation are measured against its objectives and how those outcomes affect the campaign as a whole. If an operation loses twice as many men but wins the war then it was indeed a strategic victory. If the operation is to keep somebody pinned down while others assault from the rear and the operation goes as planned then the operation was a tactical success - even if you loose ten times more men. (see Tactical victory)

Blaaa cannot accept that evidence which contradicts his belief should be accepted. On two occasions I have provided quotes which supported evidence and he rejected them out of hand. I also asked that the section he is disputing be tweaked and was infact supporting him - his behaviour there was most uncivil and I have tried once more to help show him why the facts support what the article, as it stands now, is saying.

I appreciate that uninvolved editors are trying to help sort this out. However I really do believe that Blaaa will not be happy until we have reduced the article to "it was a draw".

SO far we have changed it seven or eight times to try and accomodate his opinions yet he has not once tried to understand the points raised to him, nor accept that now it has been changed he may infact be wrong as reducing it anymore will be making it innaccurate. THe latest thing is that he claims that the divisions should not be called divisions simply because there were not enough men in them - obviously if you are the only 100 men left in a regiment it is still a regiment. Beevor is not the only source, there are several others, and concentrating on one to prove a point is equally SYN by POV.

Caden - you are not helping when you turn this into a nationality issue. Blaaa is obviously upset and perceives that because there is a "tactical success" label we are denegrating the Germans and saying that they were useless - that is certainly not the case - however saying "your British POV" is a bit ridiculous and inflammatory as the operation was conducted by Canadians and British troops in conjunction with an American assault on the western flank. Blaaa - Attacking RangerSteve and saying "ranger is lieing" is both ridiculous and incorrect. Once again you have attacked the people who were trying to help you and once you realise they do not agree with you you attack.

I am neutral, as always, and neither support Enigma nor Blaaa. Both have given it as good as they got it and could be said to have lost control, however Blaaaa has lost it many more times and attacks people who are neutral and trying to help him, such as RangerSteve and myself. Lets hope he can resist this time.

Chaosdruid (talk) 05:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

i only read the first two sentences of your post and stoped then. Enigma used a historian to cite something which was not said by this historians. Totally irrelevant what sources could be find afterwards. The problem is wrong "interepretation" of sources. If you find more sources which claim allied victory then cite them and everything is fine. Blablaaa (talk) 06:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

" Enigma, "slavishly" follow the sources without making a fuss unless you can find consensus (taken literally) to diverge - diverging from cited sources as the current articles does (permalink, citations 5 and 6) or repeatedly inserting uncited material is a big deal and a major offense"

Excuse me, but where have in any way diverged from what D'Este has stated in that diff; i rechecked the source and claified what he stated.

I can agree we/i have pushed it slightly with the Beevor source, however D'este stresses how ground captured by this attack improved the local position and how it inflicted heavy losses on the German forces: D'ESte does not state anywhere it was a partial victory, if we are to "slavisly" follow the sources like has been suggested we therefore putting words in D'Este's mouth to suggest anything else than a several page long conclusion that covers all bases from the political down to the tactical.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 06:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

now i read the rest of your post. If you consider yourself as neutral or not, doesnt madder for me, what i see that you come here and throw useless information in this thread because you are not able or willing to understand that enigma handled a source incorrect. You butt in an claim this disscussion evolved because i am upset because german lost tactical ? what? This is nothing else than the saying "blabla created problems because he is biased", but if you look the other commentaries you maybe ( if you really try hard ) find that other editors also think this statements dont justify "tactical victory" , so my points were valid. I searched for third neutral opinions and was back upped. So everything is fine. Enigma now will change the outcome or change for other sources. Maybe chaosdruid you should considere your intentions. Everything i can see points to the fact that you try to insult me and prolong a discussion which is already other. Blablaaa (talk) 06:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

If the operation is to keep somebody pinned down while others assault from the rear and the operation goes as planned then the operation was a tactical success - even if you loose ten times more men and this sir, is bollocks. Maybe the plan of the other party was inflicting 10 times higher casualties ??? thousands of example which contradict this statement. omg ....Blablaaa (talk) 06:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

when enigma says D'est says the allied inflicted "heavy" losses on the german then this means actually the allied sustained far higher losses. Blablaaa (talk) 06:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

enigma when a historian says the situation was improved then this sounds far more like "strategical scale" . Nevertheless mayb you drop the stick ? Blablaaa (talk) 06:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

(Totally baffled) Are you actually serious Blablaa? Do you really believe that there is nothing in that discussion that is relevant here? A month long discussion about tactical results and infoboxes? FormerIP and II (and any other neutral / observing parties), probably the most specific part elated to your concerns above is this convenient break in the lengthy milhist discussion where I directly ask if it is acceptable to infer the result of a battle from facts about its scope and how sources describe it, with specific reference to Charnwood. This thought is then discussed by several other editors (yep, including Blablaa). I do see exactly what both FormerIP and II mean, but I'd suggest that there is a bit more to it than that. Blablaa, suggesting that I am lying or spamming this thread is exactly why I gave in trying to help you in the first place. I'm becoming more inclined now to suggest that you drop the stick and take a break from editing for a while. I'll also add that (in light of the simple fact we're discussing the same thing again and again on different pages), that this is starting to look like forum shopping... Once again, I can only hope that something beneficial comes out of it. Ranger Steve (talk) 06:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

ranger can you explain me why they have to read the discussion there to judge if beevors statement means Tactical victory . can you explain this please instead of dodging? I also await the diff of me where i talked about the sources and the outcome. Please give them or was it wrong what u claimed? please give diffs ....Blablaaa (talk) 06:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

but its cool to see how i searched for neutral people and more and more milhist people are joining to affect the other editors. The issue regarding beevor is so easy. It can be judged without any further informations. Did beevor say this? yes or no? Blablaaa (talk) 06:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Blablaa, suggesting that I am lying or spamming this thread is exactly why I gave in trying to help you in the first place you actually lied. and then i asked you for diffs to proof what you said, but you failed to provide some. And iam not sure if in english its sounds so insulting when i say somebody lies. But in germany if somebody lies we say "hey look he lied". This is not insulting or anything else. you send something wrong to distract and affect neutral editors, i said you lie and that you should please bring proofs. And you did not.... Blablaaa (talk) 06:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

If lying sounds to uncivil for somebody, then please substitude lying with "not saying the truth"Blablaaa (talk) 06:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

suggestion to all involved editors ( excluding the both neutral ones ) can we maybe stop making this a battleground here? I guess the issue is clear and already solved. Chaosdruid claimed he has many sources which justify tactical victory so he will add them to the box and everything is fine. If not, enigma will add partial victory ( or whatever is somewhere said by an historian ) to the box. I guess we finished here, i wish you a nice day and happy editing Blablaaa (talk) 06:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

(4x EC)

Do not treat me like a noob Blaaa - This page is for neutral comments and for neutral opinions.

I understand about OR and SYN.

1. If my tactic to capture your army is to hold the front and my strategy is to pincer you and go round the back and I succeed in those aims then my tactics worked as well as my strategy. It does not matter how many men I lost. Strategy is the overall plan and tactics is how you achieve them. In a game of chess my strategy is to force a stalemate and my tactic could be any of these three: 1. to eliminate all our pieces, 2. to corner myself, 3. to force you into a "three moves the same" position.
2. You say "If you consider yourself as neutral or not, doesnt madder for me" - well it should as this is the neutral point of view board. Neutrality is not the same as facts, POV is when opinions on those facts or "facts" from different opinions (POVs) cannot be resolved.
3. "throw useless information in this thread" is a bit silly isn't it ? The point to this is that the article needs to be correctly sourced and statements made in the article have to be backed up by statements from reliable sources. If you had taken the reliable sources I gave you three weeks ago we would not be here as the sources would have been changed to show that the victory existed. Those sources still exist, as do the ones I have put on the CHarnwood talk page earlier today - a total of 6 so far.
4. "not able or willing to understand that enigma handled a source incorrect" I fully understood what you were saying in the first place, that is why I went to the trouble to give you another 4 sources whcih you responded to with those uncivil comments.
5. "You butt in an claim this disscussion evolved because i am upset because german lost tactical ?" I certainly did not "butt in" nor did I say that you were upset because Germans lost tactical anything. I said you are upset because you see it as "we" are claiming a tactical victory against the germans when they were (as you said) "not at full strength". It is that the "sources" are claiming this. Not the one enigma has used but the ones which I have given you also claimed this including the German one : "The enemy (Allied forces) had reached the majority of his attack objectives on the wings"..."In the central sector...abandoned by German decision"...However, there was no doubt that these positions could not have been held any longer, because of the completely open right flank and also because of the heavy German losses" which totally upheld the claim made in the statement which you originally contested. ("Capturing the Northern half of Caen together with the heavy german losses meant it was a tactical victory")
6. "Maybe chaosdruid you should considere your intentions" - No. My intentions are to factually and neutrally show the facts in every article I edit and read.
7. "Everything i can see points to the fact that you try to insult me..." nope - I have not insulted you but calling my comments bollocks is insulting my comments
8. "prolong a discussion which is already other over" No - I do not make 17,000 words of comments on one subject unecessarily nor do I forum shop.
9. "thousands of example which contradict this statement. omg" I think that may be a bit of an exaggeration, but I am open to suggestion. My facts on tactical, operational and strategic come from the US Department of Defence dictionary of terms. I think you have to agree that is a reliable source ?
10. "D'est says the allied inflicted "heavy" losses on the german then this means actually the allied sustained far higher losses" so what are you saying ? that just because they lost more men means that the Germans won ? I tried to show you with those quotes which after you did not understand them I summarised here [34]
11. "Totally irrelevant what sources could be find afterwards" That sort of sums up your attitude through the whole of this. Even though other sources were found you chose to ignore thme and concentrate on that one statement and your intent to show it is OR - even if other sources are found which back up the original statement.

As you seem to think I am not neutral it would be IMPOSSIBLE to think that you are so I advise you to try and find that neutral ground from deep within yourself. Chaosdruid (talk) 07:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

enigma misused a source and you responded with telling this people that i was insulting in other discussion also you downplay the misuse of source with claiming there are other sources which support these claims. Eventually you are not able to give me a quote for this after i asked two times. To be honest i see absolutly not what your point is. I came here to discuss the misuse of beevor and d'est. Two neutral editors stated that they think the usage of beevor was at least not good. you did nothing to provide facts against this.... This discussion is already over. And i must admit its the first time that i dont want to debunk all points given by an editor because i cant see any value. Even thoug iam able... Blablaaa (talk) 07:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

maybe the most valuable want i can do regarding your posts is showing you how neutral you are:

1. Blaaa is applying a "Table top gaming battle" outcome you come here and immediatly claim i dont understand what i talk about. Well, the opposite is prooven.
2. Blaaa cannot accept that evidence which contradicts his belief should be accepted you neither understood what my point is nor did you provide any source which really contradicts me. You are simple claiming iam stubborn.
3. is behaviour there was most uncivil you tell people which want to judge a case that iam uncivil go look ad hominem
4. However I really do believe that Blaaa will not be happy until we have reduced the article to "it was a draw". you claim something i never said and try to imply iam a wehrmacht fan who wants to bias articles
5. THe latest thing is that he claims that the divisions should not be called divisions simply because there were not enough men in them simple lie, never claimed this . i claim understrength divisions should not be used for comparison purpose
6. Blaaa is obviously upset and perceives that because there is a "tactical success" label we are denegrating the Germans and saying that they were useless = "blabla is a german fanboy "
7. Once again you have attacked the people who were trying to help you and once you realise they do not agree with you you attack. .....
8. however Blaaaa has lost it many more times and attacks people who are neutral and trying to help him again...

so maybe now chaosdruid you start consider your intentions again. I want to highlight that no word of you talked about enigma who misused a source. You call yoursefl neutral? ^^ iam done with you... Sorry you only try to insult me. You follow me and if somebody has a similar opinion like mine u immediatly but in and start a rant against. Thats not helpful at all Blablaaa (talk) 07:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Blaa - one minute you say "I can't see any value" then you do it anyway, can we try and stick to just improving the article as we are currently discussing on Talk:Operation Charnwood - Unfortunately I posted the numbered list after 4 edit conflicts and kept adding to it while I waited to save it and the two previous posts did not show up when I refreshed prior to saving - If they had I probably would not have posted it. Chaosdruid (talk) 08:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment perhaps now would be a good time for those who have already commented and responded extensively in this section to keep their thoughts to themselves for a while so that others can consider and offer an opinion. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Just want to jump in here and point out that, as a user without enough time to constantly chase up administrator action and/or more active users to help me edit a page, I've almost given up on the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Prokhorovka because of Blablaa's edits. The problem there is that he is constantly citing a questionable source as the most reliable and furthermore, manipulating the data from that source. Each time I've edited this to represent the majority opinion on the talk page he has aggressively edited back and claimed he has the books, while ignoring the fact that the original mentions of the source he claims to represent all cite different figures. In the end, it seems to follow the same pattern for his edits across wikipedia and it my opinion that a user like this should be banned outright, because I am not the only one who has given up editing WW2 articles because of him. When I have more time I'll be chasing this up through the proper channels, but I thought I'd point this out here since this is about BlaBlaa being involved in another NPOV issue regarding a forum shopped and mis-quoted source.--Senor Freebie (talk) 00:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

all numbers are correct, everything is fine. multiple source are supporting each other. Proof your accusations. Blablaaa (talk) 11:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

From the talk page of the article you're controlling with aggressive edits; "Dr. Karl-Heinz Frieser . An historian who works together with the german military history ministeri. i can send u the articel if u can read german or u buy the book "Das deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg" Paart 1-10 . so i will change the casualtie figures now. 17 tanks write off for II ss tank army and estimated 239 for 18th and 29th tanks corp at 12nd july !" This is the first person to introduce the source. Here is a summary of your edits for those unfamiliar; "3 tanks destroyed", citing Friesner and a study that cites Friesner.

Furthermore, when introduced by the user he stated, "is in my opinion one of the most reliable source available today." So in other words, a source is introduced on the strength of a single users opinion, you manipulate the figures AND forum shop to push your POV, while ignoring the reality that history is very clear on this point; The SS group involved in this battle suffered enough casualties in their tank spear head to cease the offensive. On that point, all historians agree, on casualties ONLY Friesner is claiming sub 60 tanks lost for the SS and YOU are changing his 17 to 3 and aggressively editing the page any time other editors try to correct your manipulation. Neutral POV would be citing someone like Glantz who sits roughly in the middle of available figures, between Friesner, who very strangely believes Nazi figures and the Soviet sources who have also been shown to manipulate reality. Its a simple solution, its NPOV and at no point did I even try to exclude Friesner from the info box, I simply switched him to "other sources" and presented the correct figure.--Senor Freebie (talk) 23:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Frieser says a maximum of 17 write offs could have occured after 11 july ( until end of zitadelle !!! ) for the entire SS tank corps. He goes on and explains that he considres this battle to have happend at 12 july at LAH position, and than he gives the casualties for the battle of prokhorovka. Then you also have a fine picture with "casualties of prokhorovka", where you also can see that he says 3 tank losses. Again, everything is fine....Blablaaa (talk) 23:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, you are ignoring my central points: A - you are claiming figures contrary to another editor and B - Frieser is the superior source only in a MINORITY of opinions. Glantz is clearly a safe middle ground and you continue to ignore him and unilaterally edit an article to quote what I can only assume is practically Nazi literature. Quoting official German sources for losses is as bad as quoting official Soviet sources for "kills" and thats about as effective as Friesner gets, and you have the audacity to lower even his figures. Either get neutral or refrain from editing articles you have an opinion on.--Senor Freebie (talk) 11:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

If a majority (or all) of the sources for factual claims about Jesus are Christian, is it proper to mention that?

These edits of mine were reverted: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesus&diff=next&oldid=374161404 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Historical_Jesus&action=historysubmit&diff=374138570&oldid=374136491 Noloop (talk) 00:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Since there is corroborating evidence for the existence of Jesus, it's certainly not "all". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Even if they don't consider Him to be the Christ, I don't know of anyone who seriously disputes the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.Mk5384 (talk) 00:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, there was the Christ myth theory, which, while considered generally discredited, was held by people like Bertrand Russell. That said, I understand perhaps the reasons to revert the first edit, but I don't understand why the second has been reverted -the editor just attributed more precisely to sources the affirmations. Also, it is also most probably true that most sources are Christian, and this indeed should be emphasized. --Cyclopia^talk 14:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

What is even meant by "Christian" here? The personal religious affiliation of a scholar has no inherent bearing on neutrality or bias in scholarship. If we're talking about theologians making polemical arguments that's another story altogether, but the two should not be confused. The fact is that a majority of scholarship in the humanities and the social sciences is probably produced by "Christians". Likewise most scholarship on the history of the United States is produced by Americans, should we qualify that too? The implication that this is useful information insinuates a certain bias in the commentator against people who identify with a certain community and their ability to remain neutral as scholars.Griswaldo (talk) 15:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The personal religious affiliation of a scholar has no inherent bearing on neutrality or bias in scholarship. - You can't be serious. --Cyclopia^talk 15:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The point of my edits isn't to take sides on an issue--I'm not suggesting there was no historic Jesus. It is just a sound principle that when most (or all) of the sources on a religious topic are religious, that's important for the reader to know. It does also pique my interest (suspicion?) a bit that articles frequently assert "all", "many" "most" scholars agree there was an historic Jesus, and the sources are almost always Christian. It's easy to find non-Celtic scholars who support that idea of a historic basis of the King Arthuer legend. If the existence of historic Jesus is so obvious, it should be easy to find secular, scientific approaches supporting it too. Why don't we cite any? Noloop (talk) 15:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

You are trying to be more clever than suggesting there was no historical Jesus. You are attempting to prejudice all the sources as Christians with a "conflict of interest" dogmatically asserting that Jesus existed. Furthermore, reliable sources can make consensus statements - if they are making a consensus statement about X or a particular group of scholars, we do not change "consensus" to "Christian X personally believes...". That said, above you are going into advocacy of a fringe theory. Non-Christian scholars state that there is overwhelming evidence for Jesus, such as Bart Ehrman, Maurice Casey, James Crossley, Michael Grant, etc. Wikipedia is not the place for you to advocate personal theories, especially ones that are so out of line with mainstream scholarly studies. --Ari (talk) 15:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Ari, please WP:AGF. I see no reason not to honestly believe what Noloop is saying (if there are reasons, please explain). If the majority of scholars on the subject are Christian, well, yes, we have to tell the reader that. Conversely, if "Non-Christian scholars state that there is overwhelming evidence for Jesus, such as Bart Ehrman, Maurice Casey, James Crossley, Michael Grant", then it should be added in the article too (if it isn't already there) and clarified, so that one is not tempted to think it is a Christianity-biased position. Either way, it helps understanding the topic. --Cyclopia^talk 15:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

If the majority of scholars on the subject are Christian, well, yes, we have to tell the reader that. Absolutely not. We rely on scholarly communities to sort out these issues for us. We rely on scholarly qualifications and known academic publishers to tell us who to trust for reliable scholarship. We do not decide, here on Wikipedia, that religious affiliation effects the reliability or neutrality of scholarship. And we absolutely do not cast aspersions on scholarship by adding weasely qualifications that suggest bias when we have absolutely no reason to believe there is any. I hope I'm not the only one who is getting tired of the tendentious onslaught of anti-religious POV pushing that has been scuttling around here as of late. The answer to all your questions are in basic Wikipedia policy. See WP:V, WP:NPOV, etc.Griswaldo (talk) 15:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The term "Christian scholars" implies that their belief system affected their conclusion that Jesus existed, despite the fact they do not argue Jesus' existence from theological principles. Also you would need a direct source that makes this observation, otherwise it is original research. The term "Christian scholars" might be acceptable for discussion about theology, e. g., "Most Christian scholars argue in favor of Christ's divinity". TFD (talk) 15:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

We do not decide, here on Wikipedia, that religious affiliation effects the reliability or neutrality of scholarship. : Absolutely. I do not think of adding anything of this kind. But to know that the majority of researchers of X have also a religious POV on X, is a relevant information nonetheless, even if it was only for statistical purposes.

And we absolutely do not cast aspersions on scholarship by adding weasely qualifications that suggest bias when we have absolutely no reason to believe there is any. - There is nothing "weasely" in clarifying relevant information about such scholars.

Absolutely not. : Either the religious affilation of such scholars is not biasing their work, in which case it can be just an interesting statistical information with no POV implied, or it does, in which case it is an useful background information. In either case, no reason to hide this from the reader.

I hope I'm not the only one who is getting tired of the tendentious onslaught of anti-religious POV pushing that has been scuttling around here as of late. - Conspiracy theories aside, it is not a matter of anti-religious POV. I'd be arguing the same about atheism, communism or whatever. If most scholars of atheism are atheist, we ought to inform the reader of that as well, for the very same reasons.

Also you would need a direct source : Of course, this is required. --Cyclopia^talk 16:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

[35] and [36] are books that debate the intertwining between the scholars' religious background and the corresponding research output. I think that this merits a mention in the article (and they invalidate Griswaldo claim that the religious background is not a relevant information). --Cyclopia^talk 16:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Cyclopedia, before pronouncing someone else's claim "invalid" it would be nice if you actually read the books you use to support your statement. Both deal with a book written by Albert Schweitzer in 1906 called Quest for the Historical Jesus, and as such they discuss Schweitzer's commentary on Jesus scholarship until that point -- that is until 1906, which is over 100 years ago. If you read on in the first source you provided you would have read the following.

• "We have seen that theology was central to the historical Jesus discussion. To some, the Quest seemed to free Jesus from the straitjacket of Christian dogma; to others, the enterprise was suspect for precisely that reason and should be abandoned ... Nowadays, however, despite the proliferation of Jesus studies, theological reflection on the matter is non-existent or perfunctory in tone."

Schweitzer was responding to theologically driven polemical arguments about Jesus, and not the dispassionate non-theological scholarship produced today by scholars of whatever personal religious affiliation. This kind of sloppy proclamation about others being wrong is simply obnoxious. Please do the necessary research before wasting more of everyone's time pushing what is clearly your own POV on this subject.Griswaldo (talk) 16:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Griswaldo, I have read these, and I've seen also the quote you provide (which doesn't say what you seem to imply, it simply says that there is no reflection by theologians on the subject, not that there is no relationship between religious background and scholarship). What I am saying is that to declare universally as irrelevant such backgrounds is not a realistic position. For example, in page 157 of [37] you find: "Any construal of reality will depend not simply on the object in itself but on the perspective and interpretative framework within which it is set. Christian faith and secularized historical research view the reality of Jesus very differently." (emphasis mine). And I am pushing no POV on the subject -I am personally pretty convinced that Jesus existed, if you want to know. Please stop being over-defensive and WP:AGF.--Cyclopia^talk 16:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. You completely misunderstand what "secularized historical research" is. It has naught to do with the religious affiliation of the researcher and everything to do with the manner in which the research is conducted, particularly in terms of its goals. These quotations actually fit perfectly well with each other because the very point is that scholarship on Jesus has secularized, which is why "[n]owadays ... theological reflection on the matter is non-existent or perfunctory in tone." Outside of theology scholarship on religion strives to be "secular", but once again that means the scholarship is secular and not that the scholar is. These works you are using also pinpoint Schweitzer's book as a turning point in the secularization process. If you want to argue against the use of theological sources or the correct identification of them I'm completely behind you, but if you want to insinuate, completely without backing as you continue to do, that the religion of the scholar is de facto significant then I will continue to point out the error in your ways.Griswaldo (talk) 18:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

ehm, my nick is Cyclopia, not Cyclopedia I know what it is intended by secularized historical research. Yet, if the secular method and the Christian faith "view the reality of Jesus very differently", it means that the background of the researcher is at least potentially relevant -no researcher exists as a split personality which completely abstracts himself from his subject. Heck, there is an entire book on the subject of the historical Jesus as seen by Christian vs Jewish scholars. It is a real issue. --Cyclopia^talk 18:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

A job of the editors is decide when there is a potential conflict of interest. Christian theologians are not likely to research the historicity of Jesus and conclude "Nope, he never existed." There is a conflict of interest. The principle is true beyond religion. Newt Gingrich has Ph.D. Nonetheless, if we make a factual claim about the validity of conservative economics and use Newt Gingrich as a source, we mention it. We do so even though he has a Ph.D. It is important for the reader to know that our source is someone predisposed toward one conclusion. The scholarship of the person is not the point; conflict of interest is the point. People with Ph.D's can have a conflict of interest just as much as anybody else. The constant use of Christian sources for factual claims about historic matters--without mentioning it to the reader--is a problem. Noloop (talk) 17:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Who is talking about Christian theologians? The sources Cyclopedia provided attest to the fact that theologians are no longer part of the discourse on the historical Jesus so your comment should be disregarded on its face. Please stop erecting straw men to argue against.Griswaldo (talk) 18:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It's the topic of this thread: "If a majority (or all) of the sources for factual claims about Jesus are Christian...." If you aren't talking about that, then please don't comment here. Also, please refrain from personal comments and assumptions of bad faith. Noloop (talk) 18:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

No there is a big difference between Christian theology and historical scholarship performed by scholars who are Christian. We are concerned here with methods and purposes of the scholarship and not the scholar. Please do us all a favor and educate yourself about the very basic differences between various scholars who deal with religion before tendentiously engaging these types of topics.Griswaldo (talk) 18:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Would you mind stop being so aggressive, Griswaldo? I may understand it can be frustrating, but your behaviour is going to border on incivility. Can't you pacifically argue? We're all trying to help and understand -maybe we are misguided, but we are in good faith. --Cyclopia^talk 18:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Every source has some bias, be it political, religious, or academic in nature... the question is whether we need to draw attention to that bias. This is covered under WP:UNDUE. In this case, we can expect that most sources that talk about Jesus will be written by Christians, because Christians are inherently more interested in the topic of Jesus than non-Christians are.... Just as gardeners will more interested in the topic of flowers than non-Gardeners. Christians writing about Jesus is something that is so common, and so unsurprising, that to draw attention to this fact in any specific case violates WP:UNDUE... it also misleads the reader into thinking that there is something strange or even "wrong" with the author being a Christian, when in fact there isn't. Blueboar (talk) 15:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Im have feLt that for some time any labaling of sources is not a good idea. A persons belifes may affect his judgement, but that is true if he is a chrisitan or an atheist. If we start to label sources to indicate possible bias then we need to do it with all sources (example if an artciel calls Arthur Spanmore a libertarian thinker then it must also point out that Emanual Klinge is a conservative thinker). Anything else smacks of POV pushing on the sly.Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There is nothing wrong or strange with the author being a Christian (or a Jew, or a Buddhist, or an atheist). But there is not only a matter of interest, but also one of belief in such case. Gardeners do not believe that roses are their Lord and Saviour; Christians do believe that of Jesus. Therefore there are cases in which emphasizing this potential bias is important. To enumerate all religious affiliations is not what I advocate, but if an academic writing on Jesus is a prominent atheist spokesman, or conversely a Christian cardinal, or a Jewish rabbi, it is an important contextual information to know that, because there is more at the stakes than mere "interest". Scholars do not live in a vacuum, and proper understanding of their work requires context. --Cyclopia^talk 15:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Lets raise the heat. Does this mean that on the holocaust denile articel we should state that critic A of the theroy is Jewish becasue there is more at the stakes than mere "interest"?Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. And we should also note the reverse, that is, that an overwhelming majority of non-Jewish academics dismiss holocaust denial as a fringe theory. It is an important context, in both ways. --Cyclopia^talk 17:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

But why is it relevant what someones POV may be. It does not invalidate their research. It seems to me that such albels serve exactly that. Its an uinuendo "See thats why HE bleives that!". Whenever I see such lablaling on Wiki thats exactly how its used "Libral commentor" "black conservative". Its too nudge nudge Wink Wink for my liking and I think it should not be allowed.Slatersteven (talk) 17:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

But why is it relevant what someones POV may be. : Because it is relevant context for the reader to understand the work of a scholar, or the meaning of a source.

It does not invalidate their research.: Of course, it doesn't.

Its an uinuendo "See thats why HE bleives that!". : No, it isn't an innuendo. It is simply to make it clear from where one comes from, and what is the weight of a source. If a vocally atheist scholar was to support the veridicity of the Holy Shroud, for example, it would have much more impact than the same support made by a devout Christian scholar, for example. And please, PLEASE check your spelling. My eyes hurt. Ouch. --Cyclopia^talk 18:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that if some one supported something that they might not be expected too then their unique perspective might be relevant (but it is not our job to make impacts but to report what RS have said). But if an Atheist was to say that the Turing shroud was fake why do we need to know he’s an atheist, we just need to know what the quality of his work is (which the reader can deduce from reading the source). Moreover is it in fact true that the majority of scholars in the file under discussion are Christian? Do we have any sources backing that up?Slatersteven (talk) 18:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

¶ As a non-Christian, I think the reverse is far more important and telling: that there are (I've read) at least four good, contemporary non-Christian sources attesting to Jesus' existence, including Tacitus and Josephus. Otherwise the reader might assume that all of the sources are Christian. So why not tackle the issue from the positive side? —— Shakescene (talk) 16:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

¶ My view on this, is that much of the controversy here is not about belief in Christ, but about belief in scientists. Griswaldo shows an almost naive belief in the neutrality of scientists, while Cyclopia and Noloop suggest scientist may not be completely neutral. As a scientist who has (co)authored about 20 peer reviewed papers, I would say that although scientist generally not falsify facts, they interpret their findings in the way supporting their world view. I do this, my colleagues do this. This is the core of the scientific discourse: Giving facts to support your world view trying to convince your peers. And if your facts win out, your colleagues accept this (or go out looking for counterfacts). This is what makes science work. True neutrality though is not truly part of it. In other words, my experience tell me that the view of Cyclopia and Noloop is close to the truth. Arnoutf (talk) 17:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. I am a scientist as well, probably that's why I am sensitive to the issue. --Cyclopia^talk 18:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

BTW, Cyclopia I find your above concern very hard to believe as a general principle. Would you suggest that an evolutionary biologist who is an atheist is biased in a way that makes it informative to qualify his/her work on evolutionary biology with the label "atheist" in the entry Human evolution? I don't, and I highly doubt that either you or Arnoutf do either. Should we identify the nationality of every historian because their national affiliations may influence their perspectives of history involving their own country, or lets say a historical rival? Once again I highly doubt that you two are about to crusade for that bit of enlightenment.Griswaldo (talk) 19:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Arnoutf and Cyclopia you speak of "neutrality" in a way that equates pure neutrality with "the truth" or some other abstracted notion. Every scholarly study is biased in some way because human beings have to interpret the findings and human beings are incapable of being truly "neutral" about anything. OK, but so what? Wikipedia is not interested in the truth. Our policies, like WP:V and WP:NPOV aim at keeping us inline with what is mainstream and uncontroversial within academic communities and not in what the truth would be if we were capable of not being biased. I do not have some naive view of the neutrality of scholars, and not all scholars are "scientists". On the other hand I know its not up to me to determine what biases any one scholar may have, or to insinuate them. It's up the scholarly communities themselves to do this. That said, Arnoutf, I highly doubt that every thing you believe in personally has a direct impact on your science. If you were so devout in practice you'd be fit for sainting. Personally I think the idea that everything we do is biased is an impractical notion that, after being stated and agreed upon as generally true, is almost completely useless unless it has some specificity to it. In fact it is more than useless if there is no specificity to it, since it can easily function to delegitimize something on its face just because like everything it was authored by someone with bias. Where's the meat to the actual claim of bias here? The specific issue at hand here is not some general notion of the impossibility of true neutrality because of human bias, it is about whether or not certain types of personal affiliation make certain types of scholars have a specific form of bias. You're both scientists, well then lets see the data and the analysis, because all I see are faint apparitions of a conclusion. For what it's worth I'm a social scientist.Griswaldo (talk) 19:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

So am I (a social scientist), and your above post shows my wording "naive" was unjustified as you clearly have thought about this (please accept my apologies). My point however was the opposite of being a saint, if I were a saint my personal view would not influence my science at all (well at least if I were a saint of science ;-), and as a social scientist I am in constant struggle to keep my personal views on how the world and people should act apart from my science. Therefore, I can easily imagine that scientists brought up and believing in Christ may have a problem with actively looking for the black swan of the potential nonexistence of Christ (to paraphrase Popper). As such I see some value in the concerns raised by Noloop. A scientist underwriting evolution does not necessarily need to be an atheist (e.g. pantheism works with evolution), although it would be painfull for many Christians. For a Christian to doubt the existence of Christ is likely to be much harder. But I do see your point, shades of gray... as usual. Arnoutf (talk) 19:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Well I do not disagree with your general sentiments but I'm a pragmatist and unless general sentiments can be operationlized in some way that may benefit us here on Wikipedia they remain sentiments only. What I see Noolop doing is not beneficial to us here on Wikipedia, because it does not add to our knowledge of Jesus (historical or not) but instead casts aspersions on the majority of scholars who work in that field. It so happens that a majority of non-religious scholars agree with the religious ones. Bringing in religious affiliation, when it is not significantly correlated with specific views about the historicity of Jesus within scholarly communities, can only work to obfuscate the matter because it suggests that religious affiliation is important enough to mention when it is not.Griswaldo (talk) 20:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

In this specific case I do agree. The discussion was taking a Black-White stance which was not helpful either and I think/hope our recent comments brought it back to the right level of nuance. As Cyclopia remarked earlier, the view of non-existance of Christ by atheist scholars has been generally rejected. So I agree not to complicate issues by adding unnecessary comments (I do however agree constant vigilance against a pro-religious is needed in such articles, but that is something else entirely). Arnoutf (talk) 20:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

That is indeed something else entirely and there is a flip side to that coin. Constant vigilance is needed to make sure both pro-religious and anti-religious POVs are kept in check and mainstream scholarship is relied upon to write this and related entries.Griswaldo (talk) 20:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course both sides need to be kept in check. My personal bias (as I said above, keeping personal biases in check is not always easy ;-) and on top of that some experience with evolution articles (where much to the chagrin of pro-religious people the atheist POV and the mainstream scholarship are relatively close). Arnoutf (talk) 20:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, which is why I chose that analogy in the other comment I left above :).Griswaldo (talk) 21:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Somaliland

Is it pushing a minority POV, in violation of WP:UNDUE, to list Somaliland among the countries where Yemeni Arabic is spoken, when the cited sources list only Somalia (as well as Yemen, of course), including the part of Somali known as "Somaliland"? See the comments here and please help contribute to the discussion at Talk:Yemeni Arabic#"Somaliland". +Angr 05:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

See the inclusion of Somaliland as an "Other State" at List of sovereign states. Somaliland is being treated at Yemeni Arabic in the same way that South Ossetia is being treated at Ossetic language, Abkhazia is treated at Abkhaz language, Northern Cyprus is treated at Turkish language, etc. At List of sovereign states, Wikipedia NPOV has been determined through consensus to be to recognize these "other states" as de facto sovereign states, but not de jure. We have, in practice, italicized these entities in other articles to represent their cloudy international status. But NPOV means that we recognize that something is there without putting an imprimatur on its legal status. Ignoring its practical, de facto existence is POV. --Taivo (talk) 07:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with this stance, not because I have a view about inclusion or non-inclusion of these states, but because I think there is a misapprehension about NPOV policy. We should resist the simplistic notion that including or excluding anything in Wikipedia is primarily motivated by fairness. Consistency is not a bad thing, but we also refer to WP:OTHERCRAP. We have to make all articles as informative as possible. The reader comes first, basically, not the feelings of people who have opinions about statehood/national identity. I would be fine about including Somaliland and fine about leaving it out, so long as the reader is informed accurately about where Yemeni Arabic is and isn't spoken. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with User:Taivo. In order to be NPOV we must mention both entities. We know Somaliland is a de facto state, and this must be represented in order for the encyclopedia to be objective. We have done this in the past, as stated above. Outback the koala (talk) 21:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources that discredit the claim of Somaliland being a de facto state, and instead refer to it as a pseudo-state. Wikipedia clearly states that we do not have to entertain the wishes of a minority group, and as Somalia is the only internationally recognised country, therefore Somaliland has no place on a language article where its status as an unrecognised region/de facto whatever, is irrelevant, not to mention none of the scholarly sources vis-a-vi the language in question being used justify this. --Scoobycentric (talk) 22:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Most scholarly works on Somaliland are very clear that it actually is more of a functioning state than Somalia is, which is a completely non-functioning state. That alone demonstrates that Somaliland is a de facto sovereign state. Indeed, Yemen has a number of student exchange programs in place with Somaliland that don't apply to Somalia as a whole. While formal, international recognition is lacking, Somaliland functions in all other ways as a separate and independent nation. How can one say that it is a de facto part of Somalia when "Somalia" does not exist in any practical sense? Just as South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and even Palestine in many cases are treated separately throughout Wikipedia in language lists, Somaliland should be treated the same since it fulfills all the conditions of independent existence short of international recognition. The international community hopes that one day Somalia will exist again, but until that time Somaliland is a more real state than Somalia is. Wikipedia is not the place to endorse one or another position espoused by international political organizations. Wikipedia describes things as they are. While the international pipe dream is that there is one unified Somalia, the facts are that Somalia no longer exists as a unified state in any sense of the word. Somaliland, however, does exist in a practical sense on the ground--with or without international recognition. (And while Yemen does not have formal relations with Somaliland, there are student exchange and business programs in place making it a functioning state in a practical sense.) --Taivo (talk) 23:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Somalia's current civil war status is irrelevant to this discussion and in no way does this situation mean any seccessionist entity that has risen or will rise automatically can be forced into every article where the status of the seccessionist entity is completely off-base, not to mention UNDUE. Your personal POV of what constitutes a real state and what doesn't is also a red herring. It's laughable that your justification for the inclusion of a seccessionist entity (Somaliland) to a language article is; because it has student exchange programs with a country(Yemen) that recognises that region as part of Somalia. --Scoobycentric (talk) 08:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You clearly don't understand my point. My point is that Wikipedia is not bound by international agreements or political recognition in determining whether a state does or does not fit the definition of de facto sovereign. Read List of sovereign states to understand Wikipedia's position on whether states are de facto sovereign or not. Somaliland fits the definition of a de facto sovereign state better than Somalia currently does. The point about Yemen is to demonstrate that a simplistic reliance on international recognition fails to take into account a wide variety of activities which sovereign states can undertake outside the limited field of "international recognition". Northern Cyprus, for example, is a member of a number of international organizations for sports despite the fact that only Turkey recognizes it as a de jure sovereign state. Sovereignty is not judged in Wikipedia's terms by a slavish reliance on international recognition. To rely solely on a political determination based on international recognition is POV. Sovereignty is judged in Wikipedia's view by a variety of tests. That makes Wikipedia's determination of sovereignty based on List of sovereign states to be NPOV. Wikipedia has a good history of being independent of international organizations and their inherent POV, such as WP:MOSMAC, where Wikipedia uses the neutral "Republic of Macedonia" rather than the "internationally official" "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", which is POV. Wikipedia's usage of "de facto sovereign" is not my personal POV, but is based on a consensus that was carefully built during the discussions at List of sovereign states. Citing WP:OTHERSTUFF as a justification for ignoring previous Wikipedia discussions and consensus is a cop out. WP:OTHERSTUFF is there to keep from citing articles where consensus has not been built, not to keep from using good examples based on discussion and consensus. --Taivo (talk) 09:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no real opinion on whether Somaliland should be listed as an Arabic-speaking country, but it clearly is a country, and we justifiably treat it as such in other articles. — kwami (talk) 11:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I would first like to invite all of those interested in joining the ongoing mediation of this topic to leave a message stating this on my talkpage. You will be sent instructions and the link to the mediation within 24 hours. Ronk01 talk, 14:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Good points Angr & Scoobycentric. None of the cited references that supposedly indicate that the Yemeni dialect of Arabic is spoken in the Somaliland region of Somalia even mention any 'Somaliland'; they only mention Somalia. For starters, the first source is a map of Omani Arab settlements in the larger region (as the map's legend indicates); it's not even a language map, much less one of the Yemeni Arab dialect. The second ref, for its part, only states that "in northern Somalia the Yemeni and Hadhramaut dialects of Arabic are used as second languages, especially by traders". That reference to Yemeni Arabic being spoken in 'northern Somalia' could just as easily be an allusion to the northeastern Puntland region as the northwestern Somaliland region or parts or all of both. The point is, no one really knows, and insisting that one does is likewise clearly original research. Middayexpress (talk) 20:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You don't understand the difference, Middayexpress, between "original research" and looking at a map clearly labelled "Yemeni Arabic" that includes, without ambiguity, the region of Somaliland. This whole issue is being discussed at the mediation and I suggest you take your POV to that place. Once it is mediated there, then changes, if appropriate, can be made. It is considered bad form to monkey with articles where you have a clear and well-documented POV on the matter while mediation is in progress. --Taivo (talk) 21:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but the map does not state "Yemeni Arabic" anywhere on it. In the legend, where it explains what the shaded colors on the map actually mean, it states "The Omani Arab" (not "Yemeni Arabic"), with the dark striped color representing the "scattered distribution in Somalia" of those Arabs and the light striped color signifying their "presence in neighbouring countries". It is a demographic map, not a linguistic one. I'm also unfortunately not going anywhere since this present dispute has its origins in an old dispute over a page called "Somali Arabic" that was re-directed to the Yemeni Arabic article, a re-direction that was decided in a discussion that I personally initiated (the present discussion was also linked to from the mediation case, FYI). Middayexpress (talk) 22:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Genital integrity

I noticed that Christopher Hitchens was categorized as belonging to Category:Genital integrity activists. Looking at the category, I noticed that genital integrity was a redirect to Circumcision controversies. I naively changed the redirect to point to Female_genital_cutting#Attempts_to_end_the_practice, which seemed to me to be a more likely target. Soon after, User:Jakew left a message on my talk page pointing out that the term was more commonly used by opponents of male circumcision, so I have undone my change.

I have no issue with the use of the term "genital integrity" -- awkward though it is -- to suggest opposition to genital mutilation, but I believe there is a problem when it is applied solely to male circumcision. It is clear from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genital Integrity and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intact Day that there is a history of POV-pushing with regard to male circumcision.

Adding to the problem, the members of Category:Genital integrity activists are a mixed bag of opponents to Female genital mutilation (Molly Melching), Circumcision (Tim Hammond (activist)), or both (Hitchens). Some of these can likely get deleted for lack of notability, and some can be removed since they hardly qualify as "activists" even if they are opposed to a practice, but there seems to be no one article which should serve as a redirect for Genital integrity. Perhaps the category is just badly misnamed?

As I am not terribly familiar with this particular issue, I may be misinterpreting things and would appreciate some other opinions on how to proceed. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

What appears to be wrong here is that the article "circumcision controversies" exclusively deals with controversies to do with male circumcision. In common, I've just noticed, with the article titled "circumcision". Have I accidentally logged into the 19th century edition of Wikipedia? --FormerIP (talk) 23:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe that the fundamental problem here is that we have one category for, in effect, people who have expressed two viewpoints: opposition to circumcision, and opposition to female genital cutting. While some individuals oppose both, that's far from universal, so the result is that viewpoints are misrepresented. As I've already said on Delicious Carbuncle's talk page, I believe that an obvious solution is to split the category into "anti-circumcision activists" and "anti-FGC activists" (perhaps "opponents" might be a better word) based upon views actually expressed by these individuals. That solution would avoid the term "genital integrity", and hence avoid any potential NPOV issues with that term. Jakew (talk) 20:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Syria

It is a sad sign that I have to waste my time, but here it goes. Syria is an overview article which covers the most basic facts about the country. There is one section on the Six-Day War. Several editors with long block histories and topic-bans in the Israel/Palestine area due to their partisan editing insist on having this section look like this:

"When Nasser closed the Gulf of Aqaba to Eilat-bound ships, the Baath government supported the Egyptian leader, amassed troops in the strategic Golan Heights to defend itself against Israeli shellings into Syria. According to the UN office in Jerusalem from 1955 until 1967 65 of the 69 border flare-ups between Syria and Israel were initiated by Israelis. The New York Times reported in 1997 that "Moshe Dayan, the celebrated commander who, a Defense Minister in 1967, gave the order to conquer the Golan…[said] many of the firefights with the Syrians were deliberately provoked by Israel, and the kibbutz residents who pressed the government to take the Golan Heights did so less for security than for their farmland."

The problem is that books about the history of Syria paint a different picture, definitely not the picture drawn here that Israel was the sole aggressor. The consensus of several books I consulted is the following: Syria and Israel exchanged fire over the Golan border, and there is no consensus which side started it. It usually followed an attack-retaliation pattern. There is also consensus that Syria directly supported military excursions by terrorist groups over the border. The quote by Moshe Dayan is in itself dubious. It is usually ignored in most history books, and the NYT article that was linked makes it clear that historians have doubts about the accuracy of Moshe Dayans quote. In particular they question they motives of Moshe Dayan in making this statement, and the clearly say that even if Moshe Dayans assessment is correct it is only a part and not the whole story. Books I checked: "Syria 1945-1986: politics and society" by Derek Hopwood and published by routledge and Syria: a country study (http://books.google.com/books?id=B9L9ZWtnYsgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=syria&hl=en&ei=EJ9GTJjBBJGUjAfN-Oj0Bg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAg#), "Syria and Israel: from war to peacemaking" by Moshe Maʻoz.

Two questions (and keep in mind that this is an overview article):

1. Should we make claims that are not supported by the majority of the literature, i.e. troops build-up to defend itself against Israeli shellings and virtually all border-flare ups initiated by Israel? 2. Should the Moshe Dayan quote be included, without a qualifier, given that most of the literature ignores the quote and given that historians doubt the accuracy?

Pantherskin (talk) 07:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

A somewhat similar problem arises at Golan Heights, where one paragraph is quoting Moshe Dayan, again no qualifiers are given and the reader never learns that historians are sceptical of the historical accuracy of the quote. Pantherskin (talk) 07:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

If you have sources that dispute what other reliable sources have said add them to the article. How can including what Moshe Dayan, at the time Israeli Defense Minister, said about an attack that he ordered and saying that this is what Mose Dayan said be a NPOV issue is not something I understand. We do not say that what Dayan said is true, we say that Dayan said that. This same quote is published in a number of sources, such as The Iron Wall by Avi Shlaim, How Israel was won and The dark side of Zionism by Bayliss Thomas, Israel's wars: a history since 1947 by Ahron Bregman, Arab-Jewish relations: from conflict to resolution? edited by Elie Podeh, Asher Kaufman, and Moshe Maʻoz, and in a large number of scholarly journal articles. nableezy - 07:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Syria is a very general overview article that should cover only the most basic and established facts. And what is established is that there were tit-for-tat clashes between Israel and Syria and that Syria supported border excursions by militants. Compare that to what the article, and we have an alternative history of Syria. That is the question, does this need to be replaced with what mainstream sources have to say? Regarding the quote, it does not matter where it has been published because no one is doubting that Moshe Dayan said that. But what historians doubt is that this quote by Moshe Dayan is an accurate description of history. And what historians have to say is in the end what Wikipedia should be concerned with, in particular in overview articles that cannot discuss at length the background of a quote. Pantherskin (talk) 08:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Pantherskins misrepresents the situation above with his: "Should we make claims that are not supported by the majority of the literature, i.e. troops build-up to defend itself against Israeli shellings and virtually all border-flare ups initiated by Israel?".. all the sources provided (and there are several: Robert G. Rabil (2003). Embattled neighbors: Syria, Israel, and Lebanon. Lynne Rienner Publishers. pp. 15-16, and is also mentioned by a former UN observer in the documentary "The Six-Day War Deceptions") at the Syria and Golan articles show that Israel provoked Syria in the DMZ, so what dayan talks about which is published in the New York Times "General's Words Shed a New Light on the Golan" is also mentioned by several different sources. Several editors have repeatedly asked Pantherskin to show us information disputing this, but he has not provided anything and keeps on edit warring to remove it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow, now you are misreprensenting. I can only ask uninvolved editors to check sources for themselves to see that the claims made in the paragraph are completely contrary to the consensus of historians. And I provided some sources above. Pantherskin (talk) 09:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh really? "Books I checked".. without saying anything of where in those hundreds of pages. What page? Give me the quote from the page. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

As I made it clear above uninvolved editors should check sources and come to their own conclusions. Again it is clear that That you are pretending not to know that border-flare ups were instigated by both Israel and Syria (most sources actually blaming Syria and not Israel), and that Syria sponsored cross-border excursions by militants is disappointing. So stop playing your games. To show how wrong your claims are one only needs to look at a sources biased AGAINST Israel. [[38]] Even Noam Chomsky has to concede that Syria shelled Israel, although he alleges that this was a reaction to Israeli provocations. More serious sources are for example "Syria and Israel: from war to peacemaking" published by Oxford University Press, see [39] and subsequent pages which go into the background. And so on. Pantherskin (talk) 10:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Additional note: Supreme Deliciousness had to acknowledge only after he was caught red-handed that he used a fake source to push his POV, see [40] and [41]. Pantherskin (talk) 20:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with the Dayan quote or the sources I talked about above about Israel provoking Syria. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Reply note: What does any of that have to do with the well sourced inclusion of the quote by Dayan? nableezy - 20:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I did not say it has something to do with Dayan. But evidently it has something to do with both of you wanting to include "According to the UN office in Jerusalem from 1955 until 1967 65 of the 69 border flare-ups between Syria and Israel were initiated by Israelis", by using a fake source. And apparently now Supreme Deliciousness wants to use youtube video as a source... [42]. Pantherskin (talk) 21:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I re added it because it looked well sourced and you did not say there was something wrong with that specific source, you said there was something wrong with the dayan quote - which there wasn't. When I looked at the source about the Jerusalem UN office I removed it myself. I don't use "Youtube as a source" I use a documentary where a former UN observer speaks about what he witnessed, and the documentary happens to be located at youtube. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I did not "want to include" this sentence, this is the second time you have repeated this falsehood. You removed this with a the Dayan quote without saying one word about this specific material. If you had I would have checked it myself and removed it. But you did not. You can try to play gotcha but it wont work. The reason I have reverted your edits is because you have consistently removed well-sourced relevant material. You opened this section about the Dayan quote, I suggest you keep your focus on that. nableezy - 21:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy, please learn to read. See just above, quote "1. Should we make claims that are not supported by the majority of the literature, i.e. troops build-up to defend itself against Israeli shellings and virtually all border-flare ups initiated by Israel?" - this is directly related to the fake source you used. Pantherskin (talk) 10:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better

This is an article about a book by academics for a wider audience. My concerns are that what is called "academic criticism" is sourced to blogs. The press reports seem to be well sourced and properly balanced, although I am not sure that WP should conclude that the book had a "mixed reception" when closer examination might show that it was on balance well received, and we don't need to make such a judgement anyway. My impression is also that academic criticism (in the correct sense of the term) is still coming through. I am going to make some changes and if necessary will post on RSN (not to forum-shop but just to get views on the blog sources). Some more eyes would be appreciated. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Peter Saunders work is published as a PDF on the policy exchange website. It is not peer reviewed but he shows the data points he is working with so his work is also open to be critiqued by others. So a somewhat more robust source than a typical blog--Strathdon (talk) 17:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I did also post on RSN specifically about the quality of the sources. I would say that Saunders counts as RS, and Wilkinson & Pickett responded to him. It's the actual blog posts that concern me. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

A major problem here is that the academics won't take the book seriously, as it's so fundamentally flawed. And since it's also aimed as a wider public it won't get threated as an academic discourse either. I can't find any reviews in academic sources, and I think these are the reasons. So economists will simply dismiss the book on their blogs, and that's it. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Eh? I found 10 reviews on ISI. I added material from the one in Nature but haven't had time to look at any of the others yet. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Good to hear. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Messianic Judaism

Messianic Jews believe that it is possible for someone to be both Jewish and Christian simultaneously. Most conventional Jews disagree. Sociologists and unbiased religious scholars tend to describe what each group believes, not what the scholars themselves believe to be true. Some users insist on putting into the lead of Messianic Judaism a statement that flat-out says that Messianic Judaism is a "Christian religious movement." See, e.g., this diff. It seems to me that this is a clear violation of WP:NPOV — the article should not be taking one or the other side in this controversy, especially not in the lead sentence. User:Bus stop has refused to provide any sources for his preferred version. *** Crotalus *** 16:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Jesus' disciples in the first century, if they existed, were both Jewish and Christian.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

However, early "Jewish Christianity" went into strong relative decline with respect to "Gentile Christianity" in the late 1st century A.D., and the Rabbis went on to doctrinally define Judaism in a more rigorous way than in earlier times (see Split of early Christianity and Judaism). So it's not too directly relevant... AnonMoos (talk) 12:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Historical Jesus

This Historical Jesus looks like a POV fork from Historicity of Jesus, which appears to be constructed in a way that ensures the exclusion of theological, philosphical positions that dispute the historical accuracy of received dogmatics about Jesus. Would appreciate independent scrutiny to see whether this page should be merged with the article on historicity and others which deal with issues incorporated in this topic in a balanced way. - MishMich - Talk - 12:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Not another thread asking for people to legitimize the Christ myth theory. Is this the fringe theory of the week or what? Is there a Christ Myth convention going on right now somewhere? This is getting out of hand. We do not give undue weight to fringe theories. Please familiarize yourself with WP:FRINGE.Griswaldo (talk) 13:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

This has been well discussed already.

• Historicity of Jesus deals with the theories of Jesus' existence
• Historical Jesus deals with the "scholarly reconstruction" of Jesus (i.e. the theory that he was a real historical figure)
• Christ myth theory deals with the theory that Jesus is an entirely frictional character.

There is no ambiguity there. The Historical Jesus article has a section pointing people at the opposing theory. All is right in the world. :) Can we keep this all on the alk page and AN/I thread (as long as that lasts) and the RFC (when that appears) rather than on another noticeboard? --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 13:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what all the fuss is about with these Jesus articles - there are real issues over at the Belgium article in light of facts like this. --Ari (talk) 13:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure how you can draw a parallel between a (spoof?/conspiracy?/nutjob?) site and the perspectives of leading clerical theologians like Robinson, Cupitt, Jenkins, Spong, none of whom dispute there was a historical Jesus, but that what we take as the historic account has more to do with church tradition than history. Or a philosopher like Russell. I see no controversy on the Belgium article about this site, which is obviously fatuous (having visited Belgium several times, it obviously exists - and it is recorded in history that many hundreds of thousands of people died there after the German invasion in 1914). - MishMich - Talk - 19:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Parallel discussion here: [[43]]

I'd actually support the inclusion of Well's comments/opinion if we can find the place - he highlights about the only relevant point (which is that there may be a disconnect between the historical and biblical figure). The rest are very much (at least from my recollection) well into the realm of the Christ Myth theory --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 19:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

These Anglican Bishops and Theologians, possibly apart from Cupitt, would not argue that Jesus was a myth nor that he did not exist, but would question the received historical 'facts' about him, which have more to do with an interpretation of his significance than his existence. - MishMich - Talk - 19:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm working off Noloop's proposed inclusions - all of them are clear myth theorists (well, to a point). Would you mind citing your suggested references more closely? I apologise if you already cited them somewhere and I missed it --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 19:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Things I have tried to include in the article, or discussed on the talk page. - MishMich - Talk - 23:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for neutral opinion regarding the outcome of Battle of Jutland

I think its a common point of view that this battle was a tactical victory. The english articles ( i think its the only wiki article doing this ) called it tactical inconclusive, without any citiations. I attempted to changes this but was reverted. To illustrate that its common view that this battle was tactical german victory i posted some books at the talk page. Other editors, which present their point of view, while they discuss why they consider this battle as inconclusive, failed to bring only one quote which supports "tactical inconclusive". For every neutral editor checking this bear in mind that tactical is a special condition of a victory which needs special citiations. There are multiple scales of warfare, they are losly connect. A tactical victory is something different then strategic victory. Thus we need exact claims for this. Please take a look here :[[44]], i list sources there. You also can take a look at any non english article about this battle, you could also do a quick google search with "tacitcal victory" and jutland. Thanks for your timeBlablaaa (talk) 21:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

in addition: facing the overwhelming amount of books which directly say " german tactical victory", i did no further reaserch regarding the credentials of the historians. So its high likly that some of the quoted books are not suitable for wikipedia. The section above my link is also worth a read. It should be noted that numerous people attepmted to change the outcome to german tactical victory, but all were reverted.Blablaaa (talk) 21:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Glancing through some more books i saw i could easly add 50 more which say exactly "tactical german victory" , i also could add 10+ in spanish or in itlian or what ever language you prefere. To behonest i guess there is a near infinte amount of books saying that...Blablaaa (talk) 22:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

One user now showed that there are also some ( far far less ) books saying tactical inconclusive. That there are some sources out which claims this is not disputed. All of this books are english. To reduce a possible bias factor i checked for german books which call it "taktisches unentschieden". No single book claimed this directly, only overall "unentschieden". So summarize it: there are dozen of english books/webpages/museumwebsite/historywebsites which call it german tactical victory. Some english books call it tactical inconclusive, i also found 2 which call it british tactical victory which is out of question, which is even agreed by jutland talk. My research shows that nearly every germna book calls it tactical german victory. So the only books which call it tactical inconclusive are english books ( one of them the biogrphy of the british admiral ). Overall i would guess +90% of the books which give a tactical outcome, say german tactical victory. Blablaaa (talk) 07:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

iam not sure where the correct place for this is, so i copied it to "fringe Theories" as well Blablaaa (talk) 21:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations‎

This article has a systematic bias that advocates the views of one party, Israel, to the near exclusion of the other listed parties - the United Nations and Palestine. That problem has been discussed here [45], here [46] and here [47]

Attempts to add historical material representing significant opposing viewpoints from reliable sources are routinely reverted, e.g. [48] and [49] Several editors have complained that this article violates WP:NPOV and WP:NOTADVOCATE. The POV and Globalize templates are being removed without discussing or correcting the problem. harlan (talk) 00:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

A minority opinion being presented as fact is a problem Harlan. There are hundreds, if not thousands of books on this topic and we must be careful in selecting narratives. Simply because you as an editor think the article is slanted in favor of Israel (a reflection of your own personal POV) does not mean we should attempt to balance it with bogus material. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikifan12345, I'm dying to hear you cite a source for the so-called majority legal opinion, because I don't think you are familiar with the subject. The diffs above show that the opinions in my edits are attributed to their sources directly in the text of the article itself, i.e. Profs. James Crawford, William Thomas Mallison, and Li-ann Thio. Those are secondary sources, but they are discussing the official policy statements of the League of Nations, the United Nations, and Palestine. The Wikipedia:ARBPIA general sanctions require that the published views of all the interested parties be fairly represented. Palestine and the United Nations are interested parties too.

• James Crawford served as Special Rapporteur to the UN International Law Commission and is Whewell Professor of International Law at the University of Cambridge and Chair of the Faculty of Law. He was formerly Director of the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law at Cambridge. He was a legal advocate for Palestine in the 2004 ICJ Wall case. His analysis of the UN partition plan and the establishment of the states of Israel and Palestine appears in both the Goodwin and Talmon volume, and his own volume on "The Creation of States in International Law", 2nd Edition. Crawford's book has been considered the classic international law textbook on the subject since it was first published in 1979. [50].
• Prof W.T. Mallison was director of the George Washington University International and Comparative Law program and the Stockton Chair of International Law at the US Naval War College. He performed an international law analysis of the major United Nations resolutions concerning the Palestine Question at the request of the UN Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People,[51] co-authored "The Palestine Problem in International Law and World Order" [52], and "Settlements and the Law, A Juridical Analysis of the Israeli Settlements in the Occupied Territories". The latter discusses his testimony [53] about the status of the territory before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee (e.g. see the text and footnotes 49, 70, & etc).[54]
• Prof. Li-ann Thio's "Managing Babel: The International Legal Protection of Minorities in the Twentieth Century" is an international law textbook from Martinus Nijhoff.

Mallison's and Thio's customary law claims that the grant of sovereignty over territory was conditioned on constitutional guarantees regarding minority rights is backed-up by the resolutions of the LoN Permanent Mandates Commission and the Council of the League of Nations on the general criteria for the termination of the LoN Mandate regimes (contained in the Official Journal of the League of Nations, November 1931, pages 2046-2059). Those resolutions are discussed in "The General Principles Governing the Termination of a Mandate, Luther Harris Evans, The American Journal of International Law, (American Society of International Law) Vol. 26, No. 4 (Oct., 1932), pp. 735-758, [55]. Other sources include the study concerning the post-war minority rights treaties performed by the Secretary-General, E/CN.4/367, 7 April 1950, CHAPTER III THE UNITED NATIONS CHARTER AND THE TREATIES CONCLUDED AFTER THE WAR, Resolution 181(II) of 29 November 1947, "The Future Government of Palestine", pages 22-23; "Self-determination and National Minorities", Thomas D. Musgrave, Oxford Monographs in International Law, Oxford University Press, 1997, ISBN 0198298986, Table of Treaties, UN GA Resolution 181(II), Page xxxviii; and Justifications of Minority Protection in International Law, Athanasia Spiliopoulou Akermark, pages 119-122. Sources on the origin of the practice are Defending the Rights of Others, Carole Fink, page 37; The Jews and Minority Rights, (1898-1919), OSCAR I. JANOWSKY, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS, 1933, page 342; Sovereignty, Stephen D. Krasner, Princeton University Press, 1999, ISBN 069100711X, page 92-93. harlan (talk) 03:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not disputing the quality of the sources but your inference that there is a pro-Israel spin in the article. Like I said, there are thousands of legal opinions and the article is already bloated enough. Your original edit presented in a non-neutral manner. And yes, it is a minority opinion. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

If the article is bloated you spin-off content, but you don't violate general sanctions and delete material about customary international law because you personally think it represents a minority opinion. The resolutions of the League of Nations were adopted on the basis of unanimity, so they represent the majority viewpoint.

The requirement that Israel constitutionally guarantee equal rights for minorities and protect their property rights was adopted by a two-thirds majority of the UN General Assembly. Those rights were placed under permanent UN guarantee. The United Nations also adopted resolution 194(III) which called on Israel to allow the three quarters of a million Palestinians that had been displaced to return to their homes. Israel declared a state of martial law which lasted for twenty years and adopted legislation which prevented internally displaced Arab citizens from returning to their homes. That is the source of the original and on-going dispute between the UN and Israel. So, it is very relevant that it be mentioned in the article. For information on the regime of martial law and legislation see Anis F. Kassim, C. Mansour (eds), "The Palestine Yearbook of International Law 2000-2001, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2002, ISBN: 9041118179, page 5, footnote 13 [56] and Quigley, John 2 Ind. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 221 (1991-1992) Apartheid Outside Africa: The Case of Israel [57] For information on Israel's failure to fulfill its initial legal obligation to enact fundamental laws and constitutional protections of equal rights for its religious and minority communities. See Yvonne Schmidt, "Foundations of Civil and Political Rights in Israel and the Occupied Territories", GRIN Verlag, 2008, ISBN: 3638944506, page 98 [58]. Those are not my personal opinions. harlan (talk) 04:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The resolution you cite is non-binding and has zero weight as far as international law is concerned. You entered the article with a complaint that it was obscenely pro-Israel, even placing a charged tag at the introduction. As I said before, there are thousands of books and authors on the Arab-Israel/Palestine/UN issue. We must be careful when entering minority opinions as fact. The books you cite such as "Apartheid Outside of Africa: The Case of Israel" borders on fringe. There are ways to balance an article for neutrality purposes, but pushing sensitive information in this way leads to nowhere. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

You still haven't cited any published sources to support your legal claims, or explained why the views of the UN and Palestine on this subject are being deleted from the article. The principles of customary international law don't become non-binding when they are mentioned in a UN GA resolution. You are obviously filibustering. I've posted here and at I/P Coll. [59]

P.S. "Apartheid Outside of Africa: The Case of Israel" discusses the well-documented imposition of martial law on Palestinian Israelis. It is a peer-reviewed university law journal article. Israeli Apartheid week is observed on mainstream campuses by groups that have been discussed in the mainstream media. [60] harlan (talk) 06:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

UNGA resolutions are non-binding, this is general knowledge. The views of "Palestine" and the UN are well documented in the article, you're trying to insert a fringe philosophy that more than likely belongs in Israel and the apartheid analogy. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Several of the sources above explain that UN GA 181(II) contained a minority rights treaty. It is generally known that conventions, declarations, and other legal instruments are routinely found in General Assembly Resolutions. Many of them, like the minority treaties, reflect binding customary international law. P.S. The sources I'm citing, which say that grants or cessions of territory are conditioned on minority rights guarantees, are either official sources on public international law or mainstream secondary sources - including University presses and international law textbooks. ARBCOM guidance is pretty clear that topics which have been discussed in the mainstream media by the mainstream are not WP:FRINGE harlan (talk) 07:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Simply because a philosophy is discussed does not mean it isn't a minority opinion or border on fringe. The book you cite is not comprehensive and is more political than anything else. The Israeli-apartheid movement belongs in the Israel apartheid analogy. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

---

It's rather audacious of User:Harlan wilkerson to have started this thread here, since Harlan_wilkerson's idiosyncratic and decidedly non-mainstream views of United Nations General Assembly resolution 181 of November 29, 1947 (the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine) have been the source of much of the tension on this article (and a number of other articles as well). It is solidly established and very well accepted by the mainstream consensus of reputable academic scholars that in their relevant public statements in 1947 and early 1948, the recognized Jewish leadership of the British Palestine mandate offered to accept the November 29, 1947 United Nations partition plan (UNGA 181), while in their relevant public statements in 1947 and early 1948, the recognized Arab leadership of the British Palestine mandate, supported by official public statements of the then-independent Arab states, refused to accept the November 29, 1947 United Nations partition plan -- yet Harlan_wilkerson is prepared to go through endless contorted twisting of purported "sources" and any amount of convoluted personal abstract metaphysical philosophizing in order to try to deny this very simple and basic fact of history. Of course, he then goes on to develop his own further personal idiosyncratic hypothetical speculative interpretations based on his historical denialism -- so that according to Harlan_wilkerson, even though the Arabs vehemently denounced UNGA resolution 181 with vituperative contumely during late 1947 and early 1948, and never followed through on any of the obligations which would have been binding on them under UNGA 181 (such as respect for Jewish holy sites and borders freely open to trade), nevertheless all of the provisions of UNGA 181 which would have benefited the Arabs (if, counterfactually, they had agreed to it) somehow supposedly now have full legal force.

Harlan_wilkerson is quite intelligent and very knowledgable in some areas, but I frankly doubt whether he will ever be able to do anything very positive to improve 20th-century middle-eastern history articles on Wikipedia until and unless he will finally fully and unequivocally admit and agree without reservation that In their relevant public statements in 1947 and early 1948, the recognized Jewish leadership of the British Palestine mandate offered to accept the November 29, 1947 United Nations partition plan (UNGA 181), while in their relevant public statements in 1947 and early 1948, the recognized Arab leadership of the British Palestine mandate, supported by official public statements of the then-independent Arab states, refused to accept the November 29, 1947 United Nations partition plan. If he continues to give his elaborate personal theories priority over the basic accepted facts of history, then I really think that it's time for him to withdraw from editing all 20th-century middle-eastern history articles on Wikipedia... AnonMoos (talk) 11:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I've been saying all along that Harlan's sources belong to the minority opinion category. He claims the article is excessively pro-Israel, but in reality the article reflects the mainstream and consensus among real experts in scholars. the israel apartheid movement is relatively recent phenomenon and barely registers outside of the fringe leftist organizations. the way Harlan osited non-mainstream sources to counter generally-accepted interpretations of UNGA 181 blatantly violated NPOV. We can't look at the article in terms of pro-israel anti-israel. This zero sum mentality is precisely why the conflict will never be resolved. Wikifan12345 (talk) 12:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Advice sought on possibly "puff" term

It's no big deal, but an expert opinion would be appreciated. In the article on the recently deposed Australian prime minister, Kevin Rudd, an editor is keen to retain the word "stratospheric" as well as "unprecedented" in this sentence:

"Rudd Labor enjoyed an unprecedented period of stratospheric popularity in the polls from opposition through until mid-2009,[10] ..." (Diff).

I have suggested that unlike "unprecedented", which is provable by statistics (and is true), "stratospheric" is a subjective term, without a clear boundary between what is stratospheric and what is not. It appears unnecessary to the sense of the wording, and I'm concerned that it risks accusations of puffery. Ref 10 is to an opinion piece by a journalist, who cites the opinion of a pollster:

"It's not a disaster for Labor, it's just that its support has fallen from the stratospheric to the realistic," remarks the Herald pollster, Nielsen's John Stirton.

I don't think this changes the matter. Tony (talk) 09:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Unless he was actually in the upper atmosphere, there's no reason for the metaphor.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)