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

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[1], 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[2] 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)

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: [3] 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":[4]

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)

After yeasterdays incident, I want the board to invastegate the sources for Tbma claim that there where only 60000 Soviet soldier in the battle.Posse72 (talk) 11:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Mary Ann Block -- uncited POV lines

Resolved

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)

Also, BlackCab has added personal research, making statements from Watchtower articles concerning "bloodguilt" that are not referenced in third party sources. This personal research. Natural (talk) 13:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)Natural

An absurd claim answered here. BlackCab (talk) 09:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

These two references do not state or imply that Jehovah's Witnesses are a "prophet". They can't be used in this spot to support BlackCab's personal viewpoint and that of some other religious opposers. The word prophet is not to be found in the Jehovah's Witnesses - Proaclaimers of God's Kingdom referenced here. ^ "Messengers of Godly Peace Pronounced Happy", The Watchtower, May 1, 1997, page 21 ^ Jehovah's Witnesses - Proclaimers of God's Kingdom, Watch Tower Society, 1993, page 708.

The only two references that are cited which have bearing are from 1972 and 1959. There are no one of the Governing Body of JEhovah's Witnesses alive today who were on the Governing Body in 1959, and possibly one out of the eight who was alive in 1972. Jehovah's Witnesses have not referred to themselves and do not refer to themselves as a "prophet". The Governing Body do not refer to themselves as a "prophet" and the term is not to be found in JW literature since 1972. If a historical criticisms section is created somewhere, this can be used. HOwever, it is not current, and if these two references are to be used, then the dates of the criticisms should be clearly noted in the argument. (That is of the 1972 and the 1959 references.

Additionally these two articles draw a comparison with Jehovah's Witnesses and Ezekiel as a prophet with regard to their preaching of the good news of the kingdom, and do not state that Jehovah's Witnesses are a "prophet" in the sense of making predictions.

Wikipedia synthesizes two ideas. 1. Jehovah's Witnesses stated (in 1959 and 1972) that they are a prophet. 2. That Jehovah's Witness literature in other places has said that God has given them advanced knowledge based on Bible prophecy (not based on their own private ideas, as do Latter Day Saints). Jehovah's Witnesses believe all prophecy ended since the Bible was written, and that they sometimes have discernment with regards to the fulfillment of prophecies already made in the Bible. Wikipedia is giving an entirely different viewpoint here, and attempts to clarify the position of Jehovah's Witnesses are swiftly removed from the current editor. Natural (talk) 13:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Natural

I do not object to removing those specific references, which only imply that god uses JWs as a 'prophet'. However, Natural claims above that "Jehovah's Witnesses have not referred to themselves and do not refer to themselves as a "prophet"", but then also acknowledges that "the term is not to be found in JW literature since 1972". The article in question states that "Watch Tower Society publications have claimed that God has used Jehovah's Witnesses (and previously, the International Bible Students) as a "prophet" to declare his will"—not that they still do so—and the references used (other than the two mentioned above, regarding which I do not object to the proposed removal) are consistent with that statement.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The sentences have been rewritten to more explicitly link statements and sources. The sentence that notes the JW claim to be God's modern day prophet is now more directly sourced with WTS statements saying exactly that. BlackCab (talk) 11:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Sythesis and Original Research Policy - It also refers to any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by the sources.

BlackCab uses Synthesis to advance his argument of JW being a false prophet. He quotes refers to a number of JW publications, which do not refer to JW as a false prophet, to make his own argument on the main Wikipedia page that JW are a false prophet. In other sentences he makes references which talk about failed predictions of JW but do not refer to JW as a "false prophet". They talk about failed predictions, but don't use the word "false prophet". The Reasoning on the Scriptures of JW does use the term with a defense, but that is not quoted here, and if it were quoted, it would need to be quoted in the context with which Reasoning on the Scriptures uses the term, and not in the way that an editor who is opposed to Jehovah's Witnesses wants to us it, in his own Synthesis of an argument, syntesized and created on the main Jehovah's Witnesses page, but not anywhere else. See: WP:No Original ResearchNatural (talk) 13:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Natural

It is not synthesis to cite JW publications that acknowledge (and rebut) claims that they are a false prophet (as found in the Reasoning book and in other JW literature) as evidence that it is a notable criticism.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:07, 28 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 [5]
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)

[6] and [7] 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 [8] 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)

When Hitchens speaks of being opposed to "genital mutilation," he is discussing males and females. A dispute arises because editors disagree on whether we can describe Hitchens' view at all, without decomposing it and separating his view (i.e., the opposition to genital mutilation of males and females) into two views, thus separating the concept as desired by those favouring the cutting of one gender's genitals but not the other. Another dispute surrounds whether we can do it using Hitchens' and others' own words ("genital mutilation") or must adopt terminology for the view preferred by those who oppose Hitchens' view. Information stating that Hitchens considers male circumcision to be genital mutilation seems glaringly lacking (I am surprised to find that his view on male and female circumcision is not mentioned at all in his biography, despite other seemingly more obscure views being discussed).

I agree with FormerIP that the term "circumcision" used across Wikipedia as synonymous with "male circumcision" is a source of confusion. I would go further and say that it's an NPOV issue -- however both views are long disputed with no apparent consensus arising, as evidenced by recent and older Requested Move discussions at circumcision.

I disagree with Delicious carbuncle that there is a problem applying the phrase "genital integrity" to males. That is how it is phrased in the sources, and it is a neutral phrase describing no more and no less than exactly what it says. Is it non-neutral to suggest that a circumcised male does not have every part of the penis he was born with? I believe so. It would be non-neutral for us to imply that genital integrity is desirable or preferable. We attempt to avoid such stances, stated or implied. It would be especially non-neutral for us to imply that genital integrity is a right of one gender but not the other. I believe that unfortunately many editors of the English Wikipedia take the latter view for granted, and make Wikipedia support that POV through its organization (article titles and categories), and edit accordingly, not realizing or agreeing that it's not WP:NPOV. Blackworm (talk) 05:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Genital Integrity (or Genital Autonomy) ought to be the name of the article that covers the opposition to the genital cutting of male, female and intersex children, as 'Circumcision controversies' clearly does not cover this adequately, and has an inherent POV in the title (that something is in some way 'controversial'). Autonomy is preferable, as integrity is not what is argued for, but autonomy - the right for people to not have their genitals cut without their consent. Nobody is saying adults be prevented from having their genitals cut in ways they want, only that children be left intact until they can make their own choices. However, this screwing persists throughout the (male) circumcision articles, with 'activists' being presented as being irrationally opposed to genital cutting without qualification, when what they not - they pursue a human rights campaign that seeks genital autonomy for minors of any sex (including children who are intersex). - MishMich - Talk - 08:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I think there would be NPOV issues associated with covering only opposition to something, Mish. For NPOV treatment we should cover all significant viewpoints, from opposition to promotion, as well as those in between. Jakew (talk) 09:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Blackworm, if I understand correctly you're arguing that Hitchens should not be presented as a member of the category "opponents of female genital cutting" (or similar name) because his opposition is indivisible. I think that's a rather extreme interpretation, but even if we accept it it isn't an unsolvable problem. The solution would be to present three categories: opponents of FGC, opponents of circumcision, and opponents of genital cutting. An alternative solution would be to delete the current category. Jakew (talk) 09:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with you Jakew. The article on Genital integrity/autonomy should present the arguments of those in favour of genital autonomy as well as those opposed to it - just as in the case of (male) circumcision, we present the arguments in favour of infant circumcision and those against it. - MishMich - Talk - 09:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

That's more or less what we have already: the article circumcision controversies is actually the result of a merge of articles on pro- and anti-circumcision (or "genital integrity" as the latter sometimes label themselves) viewpoints. Jakew (talk) 09:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Not really, what you have is an article about male circumcision controversies, called 'circumcision controversies'. Genital autonomy is about genital autonomy, not male circumcision, and male circumcision is only one issue that is addressed under genital autonomy. It may be the most trivial form of intervention (when compared to other types), but it tends to be the one that dominates articles that have circumcision in the title, and lending them a male bias. The title 'circumcision controversies' obviously would be useless as a title on genital autonomy, when that covers female and intersex genital cutting as well - and as you and others have so lucidly pointed out, articles about male circumcision do not have to be qualified by 'male' in the title, so that for this encyclopedia any reference to circumcision means 'male circumcision' unless qualified by the word 'female'. You cannot have it both ways, you cannot argue for a blanket use of circumcision to apply to consensual and non-consensual male interventions, and then suggest that an article on circumcision applies to all forms of non-consensual intervention, including those not normally considered as circumcision (hypospadias repair, vaginoplasty, labioplasty, phalloplasty, clitorodectomy, infibulation, orchidopexy, orchidectomy, hysterectomy, etc., etc.). - MishMich - Talk - 13:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand, Mish. I'm not suggesting that other issues should be incorporated into the circumcision controversies article. I absolutely agree that it would be inappropriate to discuss interventions other than circumcision in that article, and I see no reason why another article (or articles) could not be created to discuss other issues. However, I think that the existing issue covers circumcision adequately, and it would be inappropriate to duplicate that material. As a general rule I oppose structuring such articles in terms of "general autonomy", because to do so would be to frame the issue in terms of an argument made by those on one side of an issue; instead I prefer a more neutral "ethics of X" or "X controversies" framework, as this does not inherently favour one point of view. (Obviously the views of those arguing for "genital autonomy" could and should be documented within such a structure.) Jakew (talk) 14:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

My initial inclination was to redirect to Genital mutilation rather than circumcision controversies, but that is a redirect to Genital modification and mutilation which seems to be a hopelessly entwined grab bag of voluntary and involuntary modifications in both adult and child genitalia. I'm not sure that creating yet another article is the way to solve this problem. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Blackworm, see Christopher Hitchens's political views where Hitchen's view on this issue are incorporated into the section on abortion. Don't ask me why they are there or why a separate article is necessary at all. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Genital mutilation is non-neutral, and better to have an article about genitals that are not modified in childhood, and the ethics of keeping them that way, using terms that describe that. Obviously, Circumcision controversy is about circumcision, and genital modification (or mutilation) is not about genitals that have not been modified or mutilated, or even circumcised. So, I am unclear why an article about the lack of these things needs to be referred to by the things that do not apply. - MishMich - Talk - 14:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't make a lot of sense to have articles about events that don't occur, Mish. The absence of events tends to mean that they aren't very interesting, so few sources are available about non-events. Jakew (talk) 14:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed solution

Okay, here is my proposed solution:

Category	Links to	Purpose
Opponents of circumcision	Circumcision controversies#Medical advocacy and opposition	Persons with stated opposition to circumcision
Opponents of female genital cutting	Female genital cutting#Attempts to end the practice	Persons with stated opposition to FGC
Opponents of genital modification	Genital modification and mutilation or both of the above	(Optional) persons with stated opposition to any genital modification regardless of gender

I believe this addresses the most important problems. Namely:

• It avoids creating the impression that a person is opposed to something that they may not have stated opposition to, and
• It provides reasonable link targets for each category, without requiring the creation of new, possibly controversial articles

Comments? Jakew (talk) 14:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks very confusing - "Genital integrity" short circuits all this, and all these loaded titles could simply link to the one article, which covers all this. I don't agree that only the controversial is worth focusing on - we have lots of articles on locomotives, and most of them are extremely interesting (e.g., the original configuration of the Pacific Class 4-6-2 was developed for New Zealand...), it all depends on your POV. - MishMich - Talk - 23:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

No, "Genital integrity" would suffer from the first problem I outlined: many people have stated opposition to FGC, but are not necessarily opposed to circumcision, but if we classify them as a "genital integrity activist" we're essentially claiming that they're opposed to both. Jakew (talk) 08:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Agreed as best solution given existing situation. It may be confusing to readers whether people such as Hitchens are opposed to genital cutting or opposed genital piercing, but, hey, you get what you pay for, right? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Ignoring precision issues with "opposition to any genital modification" -- remember, we are talking about modifications to minors or children, and shouldn't exclude those who support an adult's right to modify their own genitals -- I think that's a reasonable categorization, with the ones in the third category also included in the other two, of course. Blackworm (talk) 09:12, 5 August 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. [[9]] 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 [10] 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 [11] and [12]. 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... [13]. 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)

---

If you're going to get into that level of detail in a general overview article (which seems dubious), why not mention that in May 1967 the Soviet Union deliberately and maliciously lied to the Arabs about supposed Israeli plans to "invade Syria"? AnonMoos (talk) 10:48, 26 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: [[14]]

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 :[[15]], 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 [16], here [17] and here [18]

Attempts to add historical material representing significant opposing viewpoints from reliable sources are routinely reverted, e.g. [19] and [20] 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. [21].
• 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,[22] co-authored "The Palestine Problem in International Law and World Order" [23], and "Settlements and the Law, A Juridical Analysis of the Israeli Settlements in the Occupied Territories". The latter discusses his testimony [24] about the status of the territory before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee (e.g. see the text and footnotes 49, 70, & etc).[25]
• 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, [26]. 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 [27] and Quigley, John 2 Ind. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 221 (1991-1992) Apartheid Outside Africa: The Case of Israel [28] 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 [29]. 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. [30]

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. [31] 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)

Wikifan12345, you can't even name a published source which discusses the documented customary law connection between minority rights guarantees and the conditions for terminating a League of Nations Mandate. I've listed about a dozen, including Cambridge University Press and Martinus Nijhoff textbooks; the ASIL Law Journal; the Official Journals of the League of Nations and the US Senate Judiciary Committee; and a published study on minority treaties conducted by the UN Secretariat. If you think they represent minority opinions, all you have to do is supply a published source which makes that claim. There is a mandatory mediation cabal case going on right now regarding the Israel apartheid analogy article. Wikipedia can have more than one article on the topic of Israel and apartheid. harlan (talk) 18:25, 25 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)

AnonMoos and Wikifan12345, my views can't be too far out of the mainstream. After all, I am included in the sidebar list of contributors to the Palestine article at Encyclopedia Brittanica [32]

Mainstream sources routinely discuss issues related to Israeli apartheid. For example, Ha'aretz raised the period of martial law in an article about apartheid, and said that Israel's military administration over its Arab citizens, which was lifted in 1966, is today considered a dark period in the country's history. [33] The Christain Science Monitor has carried articles about the Israeli Supreme Court opening an 'apartheid' road to Palestinians [34] [35] The Managing Editor of The Nation magazine has authored articles and a book on the subject "The New Intifada: Resisting Israel's Apartheid" [36] Those are all mainstream sources.

Maybe you two should stop commenting on other editors and cite some published sources which say that the views represented in the published sources I've supplied above are out of the mainstream. harlan (talk) 18:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Whateve; -- I cited Encyclopaedia Britannica long ago as one easily accessible source (among many) for the simple fact of history 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 of course you didn't accept what it said, and instead went on to parse its authorship etc. in abstract metaphysical speculative hypothetical philosophical minute scholastic detail, in order to try to make it mean something other than what it clearly and plainly stated (though your efforts were undermined by a certain confusion between Rashid Khalidi and Walid Khalidi). You're sometimes very quick to try to cite acronymic Wikipedia policies, but I'm afraid that your historical denialism is the very definition of WP:FRINGE. Frankly, unless and until you are finally ready to fully and unequivocally admit and agree without reservation to the basic historical fact 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, then it's really time for you to withdraw from editing all 20th-century middle-eastern history articles on Wikipedia, to save everybody a lot of pointless wasted effort all around... AnonMoos (talk) 21:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

AnonMoos, the only thing you ever cited was Britannica. Nobody writes articles on the basis of your ad hoc musings about mainstream history or international law. You've stalked me to several other talk page discussions and delivered that very same (WP:OR) canned speech about disrupting the UN Partition Plan article. Your thesis is contradicted by the official declarations supplied by the Government of Israel and the published analysis of a number of mainstream authors. I'll let the uninvolved administrators or ARBCOM decide when adding material to articles sourced from Oxford, Cambridge, Pearson/Longman and Macmillan/McGraw-Hill textbooks is "a pointless wasted effort all around".

• The text of the partition plan explained that minority rights were under United Nations guarantee. That aspect of the minority protection plan was based upon customary international law and the resolution of the Council of the LoN regarding the criteria that had to be fulfilled before a mandate could be terminated. [37] It wasn't a matter that was subject to debate. During the UN hearings on Israel's membership, Abba Eban acknowledged that the minority rights provisions regarding the constitutional protection of the Arab inhabitants and their property was an obligation that was capable of acceptance by Israel alone, and was not at all affected by the attempt of the Arab States to alter that resolution by force. See page 7 [38]

• That testimony and his declaration were analyzed in detail by Dr. Henry Cattan in "The Palestine Question", Croom Helm 1988/Saqi 2000; ISBN 0863569323, pages 86-87. Israel's failure to live up to that obligation has been analyzed by countless others, including Dr Mallison's analysis for the UN, Dr. O'Connell's analysis for Cambridge University's "The Law of State Succession", Dr Crawford's analysis for Oxford University's "The Creation of States in International Law", and Yvonne Schmidt's analysis for GRIN Verlag's "Foundations of Civil and Political Rights in Israel and the Occupied Territories". As a minimum the ARBPIA sanctions require that the views of all the interested parties (i.e. Israel, Palestine, and the UN) be included.

The vintage 2002 Britannica DVD that you cited is no longer being manufactured or offered for sale. I have always cited the current versions of the Britannica Palestine article which is readily available to the public. Those articles list Walid Ahmed Khalidi, Ian J. Bickerton, and Rashid Ismail Khalidi as the main contributors to the "Civil War in Palestine" subsection. e.g. [39] You are the only person who has ever been confused about that. Each of the three have written books and journal articles that contradict the elements of your unpublished thesis regarding "double-dipping", "international law", "Jewish acceptance", and "Palestinian rejection" of the partition plan. We've already been over that on the article talk page and at I/P Coll. I'm finished discussing it until you are ready to name your mainstream sources. harlan (talk) 09:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I really really do not care in the slightest degree one iota whether the 2002 Britannica DVD-ROM is in stock, out of stock, back-ordered, remaindered, or anything else in that vein, since -- as I have always said -- the EB was only one source of very many that could have been used, and that edition was merely one which happened to be immediately accessible to me. What I actually DO care about is that so far hundreds of thousands of bytes of mostly rather pointless discussions have been generated on the talk page and talk page archives of the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine article over your historical revisionism and personal innovative fringe theories. We don't need any more of your personal abstract hypothetical metaphysical legal-philosophical speculations or tortuous contortions of alleged "sources"[sic] -- we need you stop denying the basic accepted facts of history, because until and unless you 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, then it's extremely doubtful (to say the least) whether you will be able to contribute to editing Wikipedia articles on 20th-century middle-eastern history in any productive or constructive collaborative manner... AnonMoos (talk) 10:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

AnonMoos the final decision in Wikipedia:ARBPIA requires editors to utilize reliable sources for their contentious or disputed assertions. Even if the 2002 DVD was in stock it never contained any material that supported your WP:OR/WP:Synth diatribe. harlan (talk) 11:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Whatever, dude -- you should look up the Psychological "projection" article, because it sure is getting a little tiresome or tedious by now, you constantly accusing others of acronymic Wikipedia policy sins which you're flagrantly and blatantly guilty of yourself. The Britannica article section (authored by Ian J. Bickerton and Walid Ahmed Khalidi, NOT Rashid Khalidi, though you seem to be perpetually confused on this point) very clearly stated "All the Islamic Asian countries voted against partition... As in 1937, the Arabs fiercely opposed partition... Great Britain was unwilling to implement a policy that was not acceptable to both sides... on March 16 the UN Palestine Commission reported its inability, because of Arab resistance, to implement partition." etc., which sure does sound like support for the basic accepted consensus view of mainstream historical scholarship 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. I really don't know why you're fixating on it being the 2002 edition anyway, since it's not like there have been major new document discoveries found in Dead Sea caves during the last 8 years with respect to the events of 1947-1948. If the most recent Britannica edition is significantly different from what's quoted above, then the burden is really on you to bring the fact forward; otherwise, there's really absolutely nothing wrong with citing a 2002 Encyclopedia edition (editions a lot older than that are cited on many thousands of Wikipedia articles). 13:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Please do not waste your breath on single statements in that article while the sourcing of the article is APPALLING (I don't often shout). Either this article is rewritten entirely from appropriate secondary sources, i.e. academic books (with perhaps the occasional news report, UN policy document or other mainstream fact-checked source, per WP:PSTS) or someone will stub it right down. Blogs!!!! On a article about one of the most prominent international relations issues of our time. Shocking. Check the sources out on RSN, asking specific questions, as often as you need to. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Why can't the article rely more on reputable news reports than on academic papers and official UN documents? Wouldn't official UN documents tend to have their own bias? AnonMoos (talk) 10:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Because it's a history article. We use news reports for recent events which have not been written up by historians. I mention UN documents because 99% of the time we regard them as top-quality, unbiased, mainstream sources, representing the international consensus. In this particular article they are, arguably, primary. They probably need to be discussed one-by-one on the talk page and/or RSN. Even if primary, they are probably still worth referring to alongside the secondary sources on which the article as a whole must be based. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The pre-1975 stuff is fairly safely historical, but everything after the major turning point of UNGA Resolution 3379 of 1975 forms a fairly continuous narrative which shades by insensible gradations down to the present situation, so that I really don't see why we have to treat the last 35 years the same as we would Charlemagne's coronation ceremony. Furthermore, the United Nations might not be most reliable source concerning allegations of bias by the United Nations itself -- especially since the UN system has a way of finding people to write such reports who were apparently chosen almost solely in order to provoke and annoy the Israeli government and population (such as Cornelio Sommaruga and Richard A. Falk). AnonMoos (talk) 11:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course, the date after which history merges into current events, and the way in which to present objectively the UN position are reasonable subjects for debate. Please do not use this page for discussion of the substantive issues of the article. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You maintained that UN reports are 99% magnificently wonderful, and I gave specific reasons why a lot of people might not be of the opinion that UN reports are 99% magnificently wonderful. I don't even know whether Cornelio Sommaruga and Richard A. Falk are mentioned on the article -- my role with respect to the article has been mainly confined to providing support (on the article talk page and here) to those who are opposed to User:Harlan_wilkerson stinking up the article with his own particular unique brand of "innovative" theories... AnonMoos (talk) 12:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The minutes of the 1948 Zionist Executive/Peoples Council meetings were declassified fifteen years ago in 1995. They revealed that the Jewish leadership did not accept the proposed UN boundaries, the internationalization of Jerusalem, & etc. AnonMoos has been deleting analysis of those "revisionist" sources, despite the fact that, these days, they are included in the standard university textbooks on the Middle East. harlan (talk) 12:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

That's nice, but absolutely 100% irrelevant -- you're certainly always searching for material to slander and smear Ben Gurion etc., but nothing in your comment offers the slightest tiniest contradiction to the accepted historical fact of the consensus of mainstream historical scholarship 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. -- AnonMoos (talk) 13:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, here (s)he has accepted that pre-1975 events are to be sourced as history. I suggest you list on the talk page some sources you think deal with the period best. Start with those published by the top academic presses, as it should be easy to get consensus about them. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

AnonMoos won't let editors cite those college level textbooks on the Middle East, because they discuss the declassified 1947-49 documents from the US, UK, and Israeli State Archives that he doesn't want mentioned in Wikipedia articles. That problem has already been addressed at I/P Coll. It resulted in similar rants there, but no results (so far). I had already listed the academic sources on the article talk page and discussed them there with AnonMoos before bringing up the matter here. harlan (talk) 17:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm posting this on behalf on another editor. "This should be taken to the reliable sources noticeboard. The priority for the discussion there is the books: they should be judged on the quality of the publisher, the status of the author, and the reviews received. The date of publication may also be relevant if you are correct about analysis of documents declassified in the 1990s. Keep it simple at WP:RSN: just one source (or group of related sources), a link to the article, and ask for several views."

TFOWR 22:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, don't say I'm against sources when I'm in fact against your tortuous contorted manipulation of "sources" in the service of historical revisionism. As long as you continue to try to deny the simple fact, clearly accepted by the consensus of mainstream historical scholarship, 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, then your professed respect for "sources" will continue to ring rather hollow... AnonMoos (talk) 03:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Since my major rewrite of this article in Sept 2007, I have followed several disputes. The current storm whipped by Harlan is just another one. There is a very healthy discussion in the talk page of the article, edits have successfully been made to the text. I say we do not need this noticeboard. Emmanuelm (talk) 04:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

As noted above, I was contacted by email by an editor with an interest in this discussion. The editor felt strongly that there were issues with sourcing, and recommended raising this issue at WP:RSN. I took a quick look at the article's sources last night, and wasn't able to form an opinion either way, but it does seem to me to be good advice: if the "reliable sources" issue is resolved, it's likely that any "neutral POV" issue will also be resolved, or, at least, reduced. I'd suggest following the editor's advice in my post above, rather than continuing here. TFOWR 09:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

This article has three subjects: Israel, the United Nations, and Palestine. It has a State of Israel sidebar and is written from the POV that Palestine and the United Nations are treating the State of Israel unfairly. That has nothing to do with the RSN. There are no separate articles (i.e. spin-outs or content forks) that fairly represent the views of Palestine or the United Nations. Discussing compliance with NPOV policy on this noticeboard is completely appropriate. harlan (talk) 19:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

That's really a rather shallow and superficially mechanistic view of the subject, to assume that there are exactly and only three such "positions" relevant to the article. In any case, it can be proven objectively with statistics and valid numbers that several branches of the UN system have a disproportionate focus on Israel (whether such disproportionate focus is fair or unfair is of course a separate matter). AnonMoos (talk) 21:31, 2 August 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)

"Stratospheric" would at least need inline citation, and should only be included at all if editors can agree that the comment is either particularly notable or a good representation of the view of most sources. I think "unprecendented" should not be used because it is unclear. Does it mean unprecedented for Rudd? Unprecedented for a Labor politician? Unprecendented for an Australin Prime Minister? Unprecedented in Australian politics? Unprecedented in world politics? --FormerIP (talk) 11:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Amway, Amway Global

These articles have multiple issues. Neutral point view, COI, etc. I wonder how these type of scams can still exist in wikipedia, and survive from scrutiny. Perhaps, it is because nobody here in wikipedia has any idea about it. I recommend those who wish to preserve wikipedia's principles to view the website prepared by a former Amway IBO. None of the facts stated in this website are mentioned in these articles;

http://www.amquix.info/amway.html

78.185.248.54 (talk) 18:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not know where you are seeing problems. Please propose the changes you think would improve Amway and Amway Global. See WP:DIFF for instructions on one way to do this, or just talk it through. Be bold in describing how you think things should be and you will get feedback here. Blue Rasberry 13:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

When is it appropriate to use a {{USgovtPOV}} tag?

About a year or so ago I started to notice the {{USgovtPOV}} tag being applied to a lot of articles. I have questions about this tag.

I'd like to know why this tag was considered necessary.

I'd like to know when those who created this tag considered it appropriate.

Surely it is possible, in principle, to base wikipedia articles on US Government references, while complying with WP:NPOV? When a US Government source makes an assertion, doesn't compliance with [and specifying biased statements] merely require making clear the assertion is not a "fact", but is merely a position taken by a US government official?

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 23:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Not really sure this is the best venue to discuss that template. Personally, I'd say it should be MfD'ed, but it might be worth bringing up on th Village Pump. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

English Defence League

Hi! A couple of issues have arisen at this article, mostly around the WP:LEAD description of the English Defence League (EDL) as a "far right" organisation.

There's a minor and good natured dispute, possibly now resolved, over whether the term "political organisation" is appropriate.

More seriously, a new editor (who identifies as a member of the EDL) objects to the term "far right". This term is sourced, but careful examination of the sources, by uninvolved editors, certainly wouldn't go amiss. I think it's fair to say that regular editors at EDL are, by and large, not supporters of the EDL (and by that I mean: they tend to oppose the EDL). Input at Talk:English Defence League from non-involved editors would be very welcome: both to clarify whether the current lead is neutral, and to provide assistance to the new editor who - not unreasonably - isn't happy with advice given to them by regular editors who they perceive as partisan.

TFOWR 12:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

As an involved edd I would point out that the EDL deny that they are far right, but that Media and political commentators say they are. So the question is as much about can an organisation be called something that they deny they are or should we caveat the term to make it clear they dent what is in effect an un-proven accusation made largely (in fact exclusively) by people and groups who have expressed opposition to them.Slatersteven (talk) 12:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

And its being used in part as a proxy debate over a similar issue that comes up from time to time at British National Party --Snowded ^TALK 13:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It does create an interesting debate on when you can call something far-right, though. The Tea Party movement is admittedly much more retarded right-wing and racist than the EDL, but we don't have any description of them as far-right, even though the sources exist. And I question the neutrality of some of the sources; we wouldn't allow HuffPo or the Daily Kos as sources to describe the Tea Party as far-right, so I don't think we can use Searchlight either. Mainstream sources are okay, but you still have to be careful with publications such as the Grauniad and the Indy which are admittedly left-wing themselves (in the same way you'd need to be careful with the Heil or Sexpress with left-wing topics).

However, beyond this philosophical point: sources 60-64 appear, by and large, to be okay. The Times is a centre-right paper, Sky News is a centre-right news source, and I class local papers as centrist unless I can see evidence to the contrary. I would recommend, however, excising the Indy source, as it creates the problem of what I call "oversourcing a fact", may be biased against the EDL as a result of its left-wing beliefs, and doesn't add anything than what The Times or Sky adds. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The sources are unanimous on calling them "far right". The term has a clear meaning in the literature, unlike terms such as "center-right", and is described in such books as the Routledge companion to fascism and the far right.[40] TFD (talk) 22:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Stormfront denies that they are a racist organization, but they obviously are, and many reliable sources label them as such. I'd say a similar situation applies here: they may deny being right-wing, but opinion is against them. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Kenny G

As clearly evident from this, the article lacks an entire section. Repeatedly removed without sufficient support, this section should represent a fairly large view of Kenny's music, which is backed up by a vast share of reliable sources, including the infamous interview with Pat Metheny (who would "smash his new guitar over Kenny's head"). As indicated at the end of that discussion section, the article is clearly being patrolled by Kenny G fans; this is anything but neutral. I initially wanted to add that section, but after stumbling upon the discussion I realized it would drag me into a meaningless edit war. Any help will be greatly appreciated. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 00:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

If you can add the section with plenty WP:RS sourcing (and criticism of him is notable), I'd be happy to help make sure it is included in the article. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 01:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses page violates NPOV policy of Wikipedia - Requested for warning tag on top of page

The criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses page has a very strong anti-Jehovah's Witness bias at the present time. While a page on criticism of another's religion should carry both pro and con viewpoints, and outline the history and reasons for criticism, the current article, which was largely put together by an editor who is openly opposed to Jehovah's Witnesses, leaves one with a very negative viewpoint of Jehovah's Witnesses, rather than a NPOV, as required by Wikipedia. There are a number of specific points that have been posted on the Talk:Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses. Because there is something of an edit war on the main Jehovah's Witnesses page, and because one editor repeatedly deletes attempts to make reasonable revisions to clarify wording on that page, and it has been very time-consuming, I am requesting that a warning tag be placed on the top of the Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses page.

The article does more than reporting or informing the reader of the criticisms that have been made against Jehovah's Witnesses. The article itself is strongly biased in favor of criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses, even advancing it's own criticisms. The opening paragraph strongly presents criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses, with a short rebuttal that Jehovah's Witnesses deny these claims. This in itself is enough to open up a bias in the reader's mind. Included are accustations of mishandling sexual abuse cases, which took place close to 10 years ago. It creates a first impression of negativity to Jehovah's Witnesses, and largely cites the work of Ray Franz, who has his own page on Wikipedia, and other former Jehovah's Witnesses, who have been disfellowshipped, and afterwards wrote book against Jehovah's Witnesses.

It has been suggested that these books themselves, although published, are biased, and were written in attempts for self-justification. If one quotes largely from biased sources, and rejects attempts to present material which presents the opposite viewpoint, the result is a strongly biased article. This is the case, and the specific unanswered points are listed on the Talk:Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses page. Wikipedia editor BlackCab, who is the main developer of anti-Jehovah's Witness information on Wikipedia at the present time, edits only Jehovah's Witnesses pages.

I don't know the full Wikipedia procedure to request a tag on the page, so if someone can direct me if there is another method, it would be appreciated. Natural (talk) 14:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Natural

The article in question may benefit from an entirely impartial review by editors uninvolved with JWs or JW-related Wikipedia articles.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Natural, if you are going to claim at the Neutrality Noticeboard that BlackCab, an editor with whom you're involved in a dispute, is not neutral, you should also declare your own bias as a member of the religion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The article existed long before I began editing it. Like all Wikipedia articles, it is a work in progress and I agree it does lack rebuttals, if such can be made, on many points. Editors should, however, be prepared to contribute to the article and write those rebuttals, based on reliable published sources, where they are available, rather than simply yelling "Bias!" User:Naturalpsychology claims that I consistently revert his pro-Witness "reasonable revisions"; most are reverted because they are poorly written and based on his opinion and observations rather than reliable sources.

User:Naturalpsychology, for the record, recently labeled me a "traitor", "Judas" and "apostate" for having left his religion and adding to JW articles criticisms written by other authors.[41] Such comments indicate the level of antipathy he feels towards seeing any criticism of his religion on an encyclopedia. Bottom line: I agree the article can be improved. Let's work together towards doing so. BlackCab (talk) 22:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the claim of POV would be quite correct if this were the main Jehovah's Witnesses article, but Natural seems to be confused as to how we would present a criticism page. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 22:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Question re: Freemasonry articles when OR and NPOV seem to conflict

I've been giving an item some thought, and would like feedback from those a little more experienced and knowledgeable. On the Freemasonry articles in general, we refer to two main branches of Freemasonry: "regular" and "irregular". The regular one is those lodges that follow a belief in a Supreme Being (like the United Grand Lodge of England, and the irregular is those that don't (Grand Orient de France). Now, while those two bodies do not make the rules for regularity (it's up to each Grand Lodge as sovereign body in its own jurisdiction), they are the most often-cited examples of their type.

Now, the majority of Masonic research available in English comes from UGLE-branch Lodge members. Therefore, the terms are defined in relation to UGLE-branch lodges (and thus inherently POV). The UGLE-based branch is "Anglo-American" or "regular", and the GOdF branch is "Continental", "liberal", and probably a few others. In the rare instances where research or statements come from GOdF branch lodges, they tend to call themselves "adogmatic" and the UGLE ones "dogmatic". However, each branch is regular unto itself, and each branch is not confined to the geographic terms used (there are UGLE - and GOdF-type lodges all over the world). I would like to use "UGLE branch" and "GOdF branch" lodges as a term, but those neutral terms are not used in research papers (so it would be OR). However, I feel that their use encourage a conclusion from the reader (which violates NPOV).

So my question boils down to: what wins when policies conflict? OR or NPOV? MSJapan (talk) 19:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that "regular" and "irregular" are POV ("irregularity" in Masonry is sort of like "heresy" in religion... always applied externally. "My" denomination is never heretical... "your's" might be.) However, I disagree with using "UGLE branch" and "GOdF" branch... this terminology makes it look as if these two bodies are the leaders of a faction when they are not (they may be a good example of a Grand Lodge within each faction... but they do not lead the faction).

The sources indicate that "Mainstream" (for the faction that requires a belief in God) and "Continental" (for the faction that does not) are common terms for these factions. While "Mainstream" is somewhat POV, it is supported by shear numbers (this faction is significantly larger than the other) and by usage in sources. Blueboar (talk) 13:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Irving Moskowitz

This is a minor problem so far, but there is one anon who is pushing an unsourced POV. I am running out of reverts. What am I supposed to do with this? Mhym (talk) 19:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to watch it, for one. Don't revert again. I warned the user. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Request third party input on "Art Student Scam" article Split

Request third party input on the consensus to split Article about Spying Allegations into two articles

Editors both support and oppose an article split. The argument is that Allegations of Israelis posed as "art students" spying on the United States should have its own article and should not be filed under the title "Art Student Scam."

It is necessary that you thoroughly go through most or all of the sources as some of them directly contradict each other.

• http://dir.salon.com/news/feature/2002/05/07/students/index.html Salon... Provides the most in depth coverage (6 pgs.)
• http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2002/mar/06/internationaleducationnews.highereducation The Guardian
• http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_12_18/ai_84396672/ Insight
• http://web.archive.org/web/20020321021731/http://real-info.1accesshost.com/janes1.html Janes Intelligence
• http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/2002-03-20/fishwrapper.html Creative Loafing
• http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/spies-or-students-1.45243 Haaretz
• http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20020307&slug=notspies07 Washington Post
• http://www.forward.com/articles/5250/ This article refers to a different situation of Israelis spying on Canada in 2004 that was dismissed, but treats the 1999-2001 allegations of Israeli spying on the U.S. as inconclusive
• http://www.zeit.de/2002/41/Tuer_an_Tuer_mit_Mohammed_Atta -note: this article is in german, from die zeit, its easy to translate with google or yahoo
• 20 minute Four Part Fox News Special with Brit Hume and Carl Cameron about Allegations of Israel Spying on the United States

Link to the Wikipedia Article "Art Student Scam"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_student_scam

Link to Relevant Talk Page discussion on Split http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Art_student_scam#Split.3F

Thanks.

Preciseaccuracy (talk) 03:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The article hardly survived a deletion request. It was closed as "no consensus " "has been rewritten intensely during this AfD. There are no facts about anybody spying only allegations that are denied by officials. This article should not be split.--Broccoli (talk) 03:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Broccoli is not an objective third party user as he has already commented on the article.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 04:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Please thoroughly read through the sources as there is indeed an abundance of evidence supporting the allegations. Thanks.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 04:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:FORUMSHOP. It is also not appropriate to request a neutral perspective with a nonneuteral request.Cptnono (talk) 06:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Once again, I highly encourage the neutral reviewer to thoroughly read through all of the sources. That is the best way to gain an understanding of the issue.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 06:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Cptnono is also not an objective third party user as she has already commented on the article.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 07:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't claim to be. But you are not objective which is obvious with your posting here which is what I was pointing out. Also, I did supportpropose the split. Maybe you were too busy filibustering to realize it.Cptnono (talk) 07:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Well the fact that in the past you have edited the article should be brought up so that no one mistakes you as the neutral admin.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 07:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an admin. And I need to be not neuteral to agree with you? Weird.Cptnono (talk) 08:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

That article is a bunch of allegations mostly from sensation seeking salon magazine. It should have probably never been written at all. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a site for yesterday's unconfirmed gossips.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1, you're also ignoring The Guardian article "Israeli student 'spy ring' revealed." The Guardian has the second largest online readership of any English-language newspaper in the world.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 16:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The article is about allegations of spying that easily meet the notability qualifications.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 16:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Back at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israeli art student scam many solemn protestations were made that if the article wasn't deleted that it would be greatly cleaned up, but now it seems to be a conduit for the same old conspiracy-theory garbage... AnonMoos (talk) 05:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I requested a third party objective reviewer who will read through the sources. Not a user who is frequently involved in disputes related to Israel.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 05:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Anonmoos, you were also previously involved and voted on this article which disqualifies you as a third party user.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 05:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

However, I'm perfectly competent to point out that the aspirations expressed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israeli art student scam have not been lived up to... AnonMoos (talk) 15:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You have voted before, the line you drew makes could be misleading in that it might appear that you are a third party.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 18:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Dude, an AFD is not really a "vote" as such, and this discussion is not a direct continuation of the AFD -- and because I expressed an opinion five months ago, it doesn't mean that I can't point out that the things we were told five months ago about how the article would be improved have not fully occurred... AnonMoos (talk) 21:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I know an Afd is not a vote. This afd was treated like a vote as numerous users stopped by, left one or two sentence misinformed delete comments and moved on. Thus changing an article about Israeli spying allegations into an article about a local tourist trap in china.

This is the diff link before I began editing http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Art_student_scam&diff=370397930&oldid=370397250

The portion about spying allegations was pushed to the bottom of the page and the discussion of those allegations clearly didn't represent the way that the allegations were covered in the sources as a whole. All of the sources pointed toward the inconclusiveness of the allegations with the exception of the washington post. The Guardian article, written on the same day as the post article, didn't even express doubt that the allegations were true. Preciseaccuracy (talk) 21:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I got $5 on this not receiving any "independent" input based on the wording and length of the original request along with the continued pushing and pushing and pushing. Consider amending your tactics PA. Cptnono (talk) 21:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'm involved in editing too; this kind of thread never gets outside opinions! I am concerned by this persistence in attempting to label the articles that covered this alleged spying incident as "gossip" and "conspiracy-theory garbage". This is not a fair characterisation, and looks very like POV pushing. Stop using your own opinions of the sources. The spying incident is notable, and if it is decided that it does not fit with the rest of the material at Art student scam, then it must be spun out into its own article or to a substantial section in an article about Israeli spying in the US (an article that is currently missing from Wikipedia). Fences&Windows 22:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

  I could see more value in an article on the general topic of Israeli spying in the US tan in one picking on a subject where there is just speculation with different articles and sources coming to different points of view. My main fear about such an article is that it will be seen as picking out just one subject country. If this generates several good X spying in Y articles all the better. If it just generates the type of farce that went on with the "Allegations of Apartheid in X" business then that would be a problem.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Yes, that's right. If you do not know who to blame, then blame Israel, and get away with it,that very same Israel that one needs to use a magnifying glass to see her at the world map! preciseaccuracy, you are really making me sick by your never ending trying to smear Israel. --Mbz1 (talk) 17:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1, please save the phony drama. On Jimbo's talk page you have referred to this article as "getting dirtier and dirtier" whereas any reasonable person would view it as having greatly improved in its reflection of the sources. An article originally about spying allegations in the U.S. had been ridiculously twisted into focusing on a Chinese tourist trap. You repeatedly stated that the article was fine as it was.

You refer to the guardian as "gossip" in your recent minor edit on this page. You deride reliable sources as conspiracy theories. You ignore all reliable sources except for one. You have a history of teaming up with your friends to harrass other editors. In at least one case, involving this very same article, it appears to have happened to such an extent that an editor ended up leaving wikipedia. Your block log goes way off the page, and then some. Your sole purpose on this website seems to be baiting editors into becoming angry so that you and your friends can get them blocked. You live in a fantasy world where you believe Israel is perfect, it isn't and neither is any other country. Your constant labeling of the allegations as conspiracy theory and constant twisting of source content along with some of the other editors is nothing less than propaganda.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 10:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Unresolved

This posting could use review by persons who have not been previously involved. Blue Rasberry 23:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Arborsculpture has been given WP:UNDUE weight on Tree shaping

Tree shaping

To ensure there is no confusion I am Becky Northey co-founder of Pooktre with a potential COI (an artist in this field), I have already tried to address this issue by both asking Colonel Warden (an editor with different views to me about how alternative names should be used in articles.) User_talk:Colonel_Warden#Alternative_names to find a way to create a more balanced view and starting a discussion on the Talk:Tree_shaping#Undue_weight. I didn't edit the article itself as I knew it would be contested and didn't want an edit war.

The word Arborsculpture or variations thereof are being given WP:UNDUE weight in the article to the number of reliable and verifiable references. Arborsculpture also has the issue in that it is not a neutral wording as it was created by a still living person (Richard Reames/self outed user Slowart) and strongly associated with him still. Google Arborsculpture and it leads to Richard Reames or his books.

Tree shaping has more book references available about this art form than Arborsculpture does, yet this is not reflected in the article. There are other alternative names with references, that are not even in the article yet [42]. Not to mention various editors have an issue with the definition of arborsculpture link This undue weight occurred when some editors where trying to make a WP:Point during the survey about changing the title from Tree shaping to Arborsculpture. Article before the extra insertions of Arborsculpture. Please note how the word Arborsculpture has since been inserted though out the article. Article as last edit [43]

When it was pointed out with this list Looking at the evidence supplied for Arborsculpture that arborsculpture is not a neutral name. Martin replied with

Many references lead back to Richard Reames, that is just too bad, he happened to coin the term that most people use to describe this subject. Get over it.

Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC) Martin was one of the editors for changing the title to Arborsculpture. For Martin's full comment go to the above link.

I believe that the word Arborsculpture appears to frequently throughout the article based on the number of reliable verifiable references. I have been unable to get the editors who created the changes to justify the amount of times Arborsculpture has been included WP:UNSOURCED I've asked that it be proven that Richard Reames is an expert and received no evidence that he is, yet the bulk of the references for arborsculpture hinge on Richard Reames being an expert.

What I am asking for is outside editors to look at the article before the survey and the article as it is now. Here is where I have been giving my reasoning that arborsculpture has to much weight. Please give an opinion about the amount of weight that has been given to Arborsculpture on Tree shaping. Blackash have a chat 13:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I was one of several completely neutral uninvolved editors who came to the page as a result of an RfC. One of my first actions was to suggest that Blackash, who has a strong and obvious conflict of interest, and Richard Reames( editing as Slowart) who also has a conflict of interest should withdraw from the discussion and let the uninvolved editors decide what to do. Slowart agreed to do that but Blackash continued to push her own viewpoint. Several new editors agreed that she has a conflict of interest and should withdraw from the discusion.

What Blackash is doing here is to try to push her case to a new set of uninvolved editors in the hope of finding some who will support her opinion. Please look at the article and talk page history. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for an explanation of the issue, Martin. I would not call you neutral anymore because in some instances you have made shows of support in the article talkspace without contributing additional points or arguments.

I see hostility on this board against user:Blackash. There are good arguments in place by Blackash and others, and perhaps the counterarguments are good also, but they too frequently contain rude language. I posted something; it could use other uninvolved editors' viewpoints also. Blue Rasberry 15:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Martin you asked here for me not to comment and that lead to some editors doing a Requested move.
• The weight that Arborsculpture has received since this requested move, has not been discussed before. Claiming a COI is not the way wikipeidia handles content disputes. How to handle COI quote "Do not use conflict of interest as an excuse to gain the upper hand in a content dispute.") Blackash have a chat 15:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I have responded to Bluerasberry on the talk page in question about "being nice". On the topic of undue weight, I would like to point out several things. The first is that I don't care about "tree shaping/arborsculpture/pleaching/etc." I only ever based my opinions on WP policy. The term "Tree Shaping" commonly refers to something besides what this article is about. Here is something Martin wrote that unfortunately got buried in the course of all of the discussion going on:

I have explained individually to editors that 'tree shaping' is a common term for the standard arboricultural practice of pruning trees to maintain their natural shape. For those still in doubt have a look at these links, all found from a quick Google search of 'Tree shaping arborist'. Note the url of the first one one www.treeshapers.com[44][45][46][47] search on each page for 'shaping'. There are plenty more.

This is my only problem with the term. As AfD Hero stated when he made the original page move (with zero discussion and no consensus) he chose the name because some people had used it and it seemed neutral. That is fine, but it means something else. I don't really care if the page gets renamed to arborsculpture, I only support that because of this which specifically says: If it has never been stable, or unstable for a long time, and no consensus can be reached on what the title should be, default to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub.

As far as I can see this is a cut and dry case that WP has a perfect answer to, I don't do this craft, I don't know anyone who does, I have never read any of the books or other media on how to do it, I honestly do not care. I have just been pointing out WP policy.

As for How to handle COI, you are of course completely correct. I have avoided going that route as I was hoping all the editors who have a commercial interest in the name of this craft would recuse themselves from the conversation, most have. I do not like conflict and a particularly don't like conflict when it becomes personal, but I now see it may be time to start the process outlined on the CoI page. Colincbn (talk) 02:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I noticed this a few weeks ago and commented on the article talk page, but haven't given it attention since. For the record, I support Colincbn's statement above. I am not in any way connected with this field, but I have seen professionals carry out "tree shaping", and it was exactly what Colincbn stated above: tree pruning done by someone with a clue, in order that the tree will be more manageable in a suburban setting, while still looking attractive as a tree. It may be true that in some corner of the world, the dispute about the names "Arborsculpture" and "Tree shaping" is significant, but it is nonsense to bring that dispute to Wikipedia (is there a reliable source stating that the different names are disputed in the real world in a significant manner?). The Tree shaping article is actually about arborsculpture, and the fact that the article is still called "Tree shaping" is due to the confusion caused by COI editors. Johnuniq (talk) 03:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I concur with both Colincbn & Johnuniq, in particular regarding the fact that tree shaping means something else. Common English unambiguous usage policy dictates the title arborsculpture and the continued usage of the commonly accepted term for the specific craft detailed, as do the reliable sources that cover the topic, as does the policy on article titles, referenced by Colincbn above and in my comment on the talk page. Please carefully study the sourcing. Expunging the word violates all these policies, and defies good sense. I have also commented on the talk page for Tree shaping, below the odd admonition to be nice.

Blackash has not got a potential conflict of interest, but an actual, real-world conflict with one of the other involved editors (the coiner of the word that so offends; a professional rival to Blackash, a multiple-subject editor, who has rightly stood down from influencing the discussion of this article's content, per policy). Her conflict and antics have been fully disclosed and detailed in the article's talk page history, and far predate my editing of the article. The dynamics of her position and actions are complex, but transparent upon careful study, and I'll not act as if the evidence for that doesn't exist, nor as if the overbearing nature of her continued editing pressure is acceptable or preferred to diligently vetted citations from reliable sources. I've read the COI policy too, and it's clear, but hasn't struck Blackash yet as applicable to her actions here, multiple editors' gentle and not so gentle reminders notwithstanding. Sometimes, after many gentle and artful reminders, the only approach left is a very direct, even a blunt one. Sorry for that, but this is one of those cases. I'm not writing her book for her; I'm editing an encyclopedia. duff 05:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Gaza War

In the Gaza War article there had been text in the lead saying the conflict had been known as the "Gaza Massacre" in the Arab world pretty much since the beginning of the article sourced to a variety of sources. The three sources that had been in the article up until today are as follows, with quotes from the source:

• Suchet, Melanie (March 2010). "Face to Face". Psychoanalytic Dialogues. 20 (2). Routeldge: pp. 158-171, p. 167. {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help): Codenamed Operation Cast Lead, the invasion began on December 27, 2008, and ended on January 18, 2009. In the Arab world the Israeli-Gaza conflict is referred to as the Gaza Massacre.
• Cohen, Lauren. Achmat weighs in on Israeli 'war architect' Sunday Times. July 26, 2009.: Starting next weekend, he is scheduled to address Limmud - a charity organisation focused on Jewish culture and education - at conferences in Cape Town, Durban and Johannesburg about Israeli policies on Gaza and "Operation Cast Lead". Known in the Arab world as the Gaza Massacre, Operation Cast Lead left more than 1 000 Palestinians dead earlier this year.
• May, Jackie. Seeking the brutal truth Sunday Times. September 1, 2009: In December last year, Israel invaded Gaza in response to daily rocket attacks and with the aim of stopping arms smuggling into the area. More than a thousand Palestinians were killed while 13 Israelis died in what the Arab world has called "the Gaza massacre".

The text and the source on the Arab name for the event has now been completely excised from the article. My question for you all is should this alternative name be included in the article and should it be in the lead as a relevant foreign name? nableezy - 01:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

And a few months ago consensus started swinging towards removing it but this was disregarded by Nableezy. It has again continued to be against him but he refuses to budge. The issue is much more complex than he describes. It is clear from searching the web that Gaza Massacre is a title provided by many non RS (blogs and activist sites) but so far we only have one newspaper in South Africa saying it and one paper that may not be very neutral (hard to gauge from the abstract and the one line Nableezy has presented) in nature by someone who specializes in a completely unrelated field even if it is by an academic. Another thing that is clear is that "massacre" was used as a descriptive term. For most of the time it has been bolded in the leadwithout the current sources but others using it as a descriptive term. "Victory" was also a term Hamas used which is not the same thing as "massacre".

"Massacre" was not an official title or sole description from Hamas. Al Jazeera, the biggest source in the region, titled their special coverage "War on Gaza" and used the title most frequently (and is verified from a third party source). Searches of their site along with multiple other sites based in the region do not show "Massacre" being a predominant title or description. They should know more than one newspaper in South Africa. Maybe they have an axe to grind, maybe it was a circular reference, maybe they are not correct. I don't know but it is not a strong enough source. I've even tried emailing them t see if they would clarify their source! It is simply an extraordinary claim without extraordinary sources backing it up and even other sources contradicting it in some way. Even the Arabic Wikipedia had bickering over this which raises even more eyebrows. So there have been several solutions on how to handle this"

• Don't bold it as a title which therefore reduces its prominence and might increase the article's accuracy. Keep it in the lead but say "It was described as a massacre." Offered as a solution months ago but rejected by Nableezy.
• List every single other title used more often along with "massacre". We did something like this until today's reverting and I am fine with it although it is wordy. Not only Google news search hits (not at all acceptable as a source but we should be able to recognize at least some value there) show that other titles were used thousands of times more, but secondary coverage also supports the other titles. And the secondary coverage for those has not been disputed.
• Kill all the titles and handle this stuff in the body. Why label it when it is so contentious and so many conversations have had to go over the same ground on something that isn't nearly as important as the meat of what went on? Describe why it was a massacre with some good attributed quotes while other editors can describe the tactics behind the operation. This has gained some recent support. I am warming up to it.

There are options that would address the WEIGHT concerns but Nableezy has been pushing for only saying Israel's operational name and "massacre". I don't think anyone is saying it wasn't a conflict that impacted civilians or even that it wasn't massacre. The ratio of casualties between the belligerents and the destruction in Gaza were staggering. However, it is reasonable for us to not accept that it was the title used so other methods of including the information should be considered.Cptnono (talk) 02:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy has not been "pushing" for many of things that you attribute to him. Please focus on the content issue. nableezy - 03:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• The use of this terminology has been objected to since first introduced. That fact Nableezy and his buddies have been able to effectively edit war it into the article doesn't mean there was consensus to include it and pretending the fact it's been there for a while means there was such a consensus is dishonest.
• Al-Jazeera, a major news source in the Arab world does not use this term.
• Of the sources we have now, one is an op-ed piece by Jackie May and one seems to be a paper on psychology that mentions this name in passing (and probably found it on wikipedia).
• Policy wise, WP:LEAD is very specific in saying that alternative names require consensus to include and that it is not mandatory to include them. Nableezy insists this information belongs in the lead despite multiple editors offering multiple suggestions for other places these alternative names can go in the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Neither of the South Africa Times articles are "op-eds" and repeating that mantra does not magically make it true. nableezy - 14:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The Jackie May piece is written in the first person. That's usually a good clue it's an op-ed. She talks about "my concern", etc. Also, if you read up about the lady, you'll find out she's an editor, not a reporter. No magic is required to make it an opinion piece, but do feel free to continue pretending it isn't. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The Jackie May piece is based on an interview she conducted with Richard Goldstone. And there are two Sunday Times articles linked. nableezy - 15:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that information. I'm not sure where you're going with it though. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

"Policy wise, WP:LEAD is very specific in saying that alternative names require consensus to include and that it is not mandatory to include them. Nableezy insists this information belongs in the lead despite multiple editors offering multiple suggestions for other places these alternative names can go in the article." Enough said right there? If consensus is to remove all of the alternative names at the ongoing RfC then we have an easy (albeit not my originally preferred) solution. Time to move on to improving the body. "Massacre" was mentioned only once in the body until very recently.Cptnono (talk) 06:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Somalis in the United Kingdom

See also: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard § Somalis_in_the_United_Kingdom

Hi. Back in 2008, a British Conservative politician stated that her party planned to ban the use of khat in the UK, citing supposedly negative effects amongst the Somali community there, with whom its use is associated. Since the Conservatives are now in power, I thought this worthy of mention at Somalis in the United Kingdom. My addition was reverted on the grounds that the source was just the opinion of a politician. In light of this, I reintroduced the material but with much more context, including a study on the use of khat by Somalis in the UK and a newspaper article contesting some of the politician's claims, along with an article about Somalis campaigning for a khat ban. Again, this has been reverted. The reverting editor explains why here. They seem to be arguing that it is POV to include the politician's opinions, even though I have balanced them with those of other commentators. I don't see the problem provided that WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV is followed (which I think I have done). Regardless of whether the politician's views about the Somali community's khat use are based on solid evidence or not, it seems important to me to mention them given that they seem to be informing government policy on this issue. If a ban is introduced, it will presumably have a big impact on the Somali community in the UK. Third-party opinions would be welcome, though. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by one politician on this really are not notable enough for inclusion, especially as she is now just conservative chairman so has no role in community cohesion or introducing legislation relating to this sort of issue. If there is enough sources to suggest this use of "Khat" thing is a serious problem within this community then a paragraph seems justified but the opinions on one politician and one newspaper aint enough. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that relying on the views of one politician is not satisfactory. That's why my second attempt included a Home Office study, mention of Somalis campaigning for a ban on khan, and a newspaper article. Further sources are available, such as this and this. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

And here is an article in an academic journal on the matter. These sources could all be incorporated. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

And another. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I would say taht you could say that Baroness Warsi (for example) wants it banned, but I can find no statemtn that this ius offical Conservative party po0licy.Slatersteven (talk) 12:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The community relations section of their website states that a Conservative government would "Tackle unacceptable cultural practices by classifying Khat, closing Polygamy loopholes, tackling forced marriages, and ensuring religious courts act in accordance with the Arbitration Act". But this isn't only about their policies. What about the wider point on khat usage? Is it something that should be mentioned in the article? Cordless Larry (talk) 12:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that that is a good source, yes it should be mentioned. But choose wording carefully it would be fair to say that "the conservatives have expressed a desire to classify Khat". But not to say "the Conservative party have said tehy will outlaw Khat". Slatersteven (talk) 12:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure, particularly since nothing seems to have been said on this since the election. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

How about the following as a draft?

Concerns have been expressed about the use of khat by Somalis in the UK. Some claim that khat use has negative social and health impacts. However, the impact of khat use is the subject of significant debate. One academic has written that:

In the Somali community in the UK, few issues are as contentious as the status of khat. Many maintain that it lies at the root of the social and medical problems that trouble a signicant proportion of the community. To others it is an innocent stimulant and an important aspect of their culture.

One newspaper estimate from 2003 suggests that 90 per cent of Somali men in the UK chew khat. In 2005, the Home Office issued a report on research into khat use by Somalis in Birmingham, Bristol, London and Sheffield. The research found that 38 per cent of the sample group had used khat, with 58 per cent of men and 16 per cent of women reporting having used it. The figures for usage in the month preceeding the study were 34 per cent of the total sample, of 51 per cent of men and 14 per cent of women. Three quarters of participants who had used khat reported having suffered health effects, although these were mostly mild in nature. Some reported family tensions arising from their khat use. Only a small minority of the study participants' khat use was judged to be excessive. 49 per cent of those surveyed were in favour of banning khat, with 35 opposed, but the report suggested that this would not be effective. Some Somali community organisations have campaigned for khat to be banned. In 2009, the Home Office commissioned two new studies in the effects of khat use and in June 2010, a Home Office spokesperson stated: The Government is committed to addressing any form of substance misuse and will keep the issue of khat use under close scrutiny".

In 2008, Conservative politician Sayeeda Warsi suggested that use of khat by Somalis was partly responsible for their low employment rates and poor educational achievement, and stated that a future Conservative government would ban khat. The Conservative Party website states that a Conservative government would "Tackle unacceptable cultural practices by", amongst other measures, "classifying Khat". Brian Whitaker, a journalist for The Guardian specialising in the Middle East, criticised Warsi for making statements not supported by scientific research. Previously, in 2005, Labour MP Stephen Pound claimed that khat was responsible for relationship problems amongst Somalis. The authors of a book on khat write that: "Khat use has certainly become a factor in family relationships and in community identity, but to regard it as the 'corrosive, visious, and pernicious' driver of family breakdown in the Somali community, to quote MP Stephen Pound, is an absurd and potentially very damaging generalization". The argue that these generalisations have gained weight because they were supported by anti-khat campaigning by members of the Somali community.

I think that's balanced and reflects the debate about the impact of khat amongst the Somali community. If others are happy with it, I'll add it to the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Might be a touch Undue, could you tighten it up a bit?Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

You mean it's too long? The problem is that there are many different views on the issue so it's hard to summarise them briefly. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you gentleman for weighing in. There are a few key bits of information that have not yet been mentioned which I would like to share. For starters, this is not the first, but the second time that the user above is attempting to gain support for a variation of the material in question. He first tried obtaining it on the WP:BLP noticeboard, but ran into something of a wall there. So here he is again on yet another board; at some point, one has to start wondering if WP:FORUMSHOPPING hasn't yet come into play. The fact is, the user has been attempting to add some pretty contentious opinions from one politician ([48]) who claims that khat, a legal substance in the UK that is sold in cafes, restaurants, etc., is partly responsible for, among other things, what she claims is the very high unemployment rate in the community. However, her claims are not only not based on any actual study or scientific evidence (as other opinion pieces, ironically enough, have pointed out [49]), they are also factually inaccurate. She writes that the unemployment rate (not the employment rate) in the Somali community is quite high: "Unemployment rates among the Somali community are far above the national average. Academic achievement rates are far below the national average. And khat is in part responsible." However, this is not true, since most Somalis in the UK that are not employed are economically inactive, not unemployed. According to the Institute for Public Policy Research, the unemployment rate in the community is actually only 10%, nor is there any study that attributes this inactivity mainly to khat use. In fact, an actual study on khat use among Somalis in the UK ([50]) states that there is no link between unemployment in the Somali community and khat use. The paper also indicates that only 38% of the overall Somali sample "identified themselves as having ever chewed khat", that the most common health "symptoms that respondents associated with khat use were: sleeping difficulties; loss of appetite; and an urge to chew more khat", and concludes that "the overall picture was that most of the interviewees who were using khat were using it in a moderate way, in terms of amount used and the frequency and length of chewing sessions and that it was usually a social activity. However, there were a small number of people who said they were using khat every day or for very long periods and some felt that their use of khat was out of control. These groups of people may need some help and support in moderating their khat use." So basically, it's not just an opinion piece citing unsubstantiated, contentious claims about a living third party (which is against WP:QS); it is also factually inaccurate and has been explicitly identified as such too. Since khat use in the community in question is analogous to alcohol use in many other communities, the only thing that makes it even notable in the article is if it is in some way abused. However, as I've pointed out, the actual studies on its usage in the community do not support this at all. The user above now links to a site indicating that the Conservatives are considering banning the substance -- a site that doesn't even mention Somalis in the UK, let alone any so-called link between unemployment in that immigrant community and khat use -- as well as a closed-access paper (whose contents are unverifiable) on perceptions in the Somali community on khat. But none of these are any more reliable sources (or even relevant, in the former's case) than the politician's unsubstantiated opinions; perceptions do not a social issue make. In fact, this is what the study on khat use that I cited above indicates:

"The social problems which respondents most commonly attributed to khat use concerned discord or breakdown within marital or familial units.... However, a number of other factors may have also had an impact upon these social tensions, including: the experience of being a minority group within the UK; being isolated from an extended family network; differences in expectations about gender relations within western society; and the experience of socio-economic difficulties. It is not possible within this study to establish where causation lies between all these factors."

Many people (wives and mothers, especially) would also like to see alcohol banned and perceive it as being bad, but one doesn't see this being mentioned in any ethnic group articles. Double standards notwithstanding, this article is no exception. Middayexpress (talk) 04:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Middayexpress, I am not forum shopping. I raised the issue on the BLP noticeboard because you suggested it was a BLP issue on the article's talk page! People's responses there were that it wasn't since Somalis as a large group are not covered collectively by BLP. People rightly raised the issue of the selective use of sources, so I brought the issue here. I've also considerably developed the text that I intend to add since I raised the issue on the BLP noticeboard.

Again, Middayexpress, you seem to be suggesting that I am trying to use Warsi's comments as a statement of fact. I'm not. If you read my suggested text abaove, you'll see that I include criticisms that have been made of her, plus the study you mention. Please don't quote material back at my that I myself am suggesting we add, as if it were evidence against me.

I would really appreciate third-party comments on this because a one-to-one debate between myself and Middayexpress isn't going anywhere. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes Cordless, you were not guilty of forum shopping when you first posted to that other noticeboard (nor did anyone suggest you were). It is when you didn't get the response you were looking for there -- i.e. that is is ok to use the opinions of some random person presented as though they are facts to make contentious claims about entire ethnic groups -- and posted essentially the same rant here that that policy became relevant. You might "intend to add" the material, but you have never even come close to obtaining consensus for it, neither there nor here. And not once have you attempted to explain how citing such opinions is not in any way a violation of WP:QS for one. Good luck with that. Middayexpress (talk) 09:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I came here because it was clear it was a NPOV issue, not a BLP one. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, your comments about Somalis' unemployment rate being low are incorrect - please see this National Statistics source. But that's not the point since I'm including Warsi's views as her opinion, not a statement of fact. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid my comments indicating that the unemployment rate amongst Somalis being nowhere near what Warsi claims is correct (as this study shows). That study you link to above has also been quite thoroughly exposed by me on the article's talk page. Middayexpress (talk) 09:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The study that you "expose" is by the UK's national statistics authority, whereas the one you want to use to prove your point is by a think tank using a different definition of the unemployment rate. Again though, I'm not saying Warsi's right, I'm reporting her opinion. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The IPPR study (which most certainly does use the UK's national authority's statistics in its paper) does not include students -- people officially defined as economically inactive -- in its figures whereas the other study does, exactly as the quotes I have presented on the article's talk page (and can easily present here) show. On the relevant Table 1 & Table 2 of the ONS paper (which cite the employment and unemployment & inactivity rates, respectively), the captions both read that "Countries are ordered according to the 2008 working age household population as presented in Table 3." The paper also defines the working age household population as including (not excluding) students. And as the IPPR itself clearly indicates, including student data necessarily skews the results. The results are still skewed and only serve to artificially inflate the unemployment rate and deflate the economic inactivity rate. There's no getting around this basic fact. And or the millionth time, it also does not matter whether or not you agree with Warsi; what matters is that her opinions cannot be used to source contentious material on sourced parties:

"Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion. Questionable sources should be used only as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves; see below for the restrictions on using self-published sources in this way. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties."

I invite you to find a single policy that argues otherwise. Middayexpress (talk) 09:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

This is discussed here, where I make clear that you're wrong about students being counted as unemployed by the ONS. Let's not start a parallel discussion here. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Finally, note that WP:SOURCEACCESS makes clear that just because a source is not open-access, doesn't mean it can't be verified. I am happy to share the contents of the "closed-access paper" Middayexpress mentions with anyone who asks for them. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Closed-access sources by definition cannot be verified unless one has open access to them. So how's about Middayexpress for starters? Unless, of course, you have something to hide? Middayexpress (talk) 09:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying you would like access to it? Cordless Larry (talk) 09:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The thought has come to mind. Middayexpress (talk) 09:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll look into how I can give you access now and post a notice on your talk page when I'm done. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Middayexpress, what would you say if I suggested adding a section on khat use, without the Warsi comments, as a starting point? We can then continue to discuss her contribution to the debate with a view to including it (or not) at a later date, when consensus is reached either way. We could add the following, for instance:

Concerns have been expressed about the use of khat by Somalis in the UK. Some claim that khat use has negative social and health impacts. However, the impact of khat use is the subject of significant debate. One academic has written that:

In the Somali community in the UK, few issues are as contentious as the status of khat. Many maintain that it lies at the root of the social and medical problems that trouble a signicant proportion of the community. To others it is an innocent stimulant and an important aspect of their culture.

In 2005, the Home Office issued a report on research into khat use by Somalis in Birmingham, Bristol, London and Sheffield. The research found that 38 per cent of the sample group had used khat, with 58 per cent of men and 16 per cent of women reporting having used it. The figures for usage in the month preceeding the study were 34 per cent of the total sample, of 51 per cent of men and 14 per cent of women. Three quarters of participants who had used khat reported having suffered health effects, although these were mostly mild in nature. Some reported family tensions arising from their khat use. Only a small minority of the study participants' khat use was judged to be excessive. 49 per cent of those surveyed were in favour of banning khat, with 35 opposed, but the report suggested that this would not be effective. Some Somali community organisations have campaigned for khat to be banned. In 2009, the Home Office commissioned two new studies in the effects of khat use and in June 2010, a Home Office spokesperson stated: The Government is committed to addressing any form of substance misuse and will keep the issue of khat use under close scrutiny".

Cordless Larry (talk) 09:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

That suggestion looks reasonable, the two full paragraph example before was too much for this specific subject in the article but the one above being just 1 paragraph and the balanced quote from the academic/first sentence seems helpful. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

No, that most certainly won't do. As I've already indicated in my very first post here, quoting verbatim the actual conclusions of that same Home Office study from 2005 that you selectively cite portions from above, the paper makes it clear that khat abuse is not at all an issue in the Somali immigrant community in the UK. That last reference to two studies the Home Office later commissioned also in itself has nothing to do with Somalis. Per WP:VER, sources must directly support statements made, otherwise linking them to advance an argument is synthesis. Middayexpress (talk) 10:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

So the fact that an academic expert on khat states that "In the Somali community in the UK, few issues are as contentious as the status of khat" doesn't make it worthy of mention? The last sentence about the Home Office could be removed if you wished. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

That would seem best.Slatersteven (talk) 11:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I am an editor of the article. Middayexpress, you have been misrepresenting Cordless Larry's position, misunderstanding and misusing policy, and making baseless accusations. You claim repeatedly that Cordless Larry is using someone's (Warsi) opinion to cite contentious claims about khat use among Somalis (see corresponding BLP noticeboard, above messages, and the article's talkpage). This is not what he is doing and you are misrepresenting him by claiming so. His position is that Warsi made those statements. You claim he is in violation of WP:QS with regards to this and challenges him to prove why he is not, wishing him "Good luck with that". Well I will do just that. He is not in violation of QS because he is not using a statement/opinion by Warsi to support claims about khat use among Somalis; what he is actually doing is using this Guardian article to support his addition that Warsi made statements about khat use about Somalis ("Sayeeda Warsi suggested in 2008 that use of khat by Somalis" and same here), so adhering to WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, where he attributes a statement or opinion by a person to that person. You claim that the Warsi comments fall under BLP so could not be included; editors at the BLP noticeboard disagreed, as the comments were about a generic group and not specific individuals.

You claim he is WP:FORUMSHOPPING, that he tried to get consensus about khat use at the BLP board but failed, so is trying again here. Again you are misrepresenting him, as his aim at the BLP board was not to get consensus for the khat use material but to clarify whether the issue fell under the BLP policy. He did this in response to your claim that it did. At the BLP board, editors basically agreed with him, contrary to your assertion that he hit a "wall" there. He did note that they said that there may be better sources on the khat issue. So in response he added more information. You again disputed these additions, claiming that material relating to khat use are undue weight. Since he could get nowhere by arguing with you, he decided to raise the issue here, which is where we are at now. Far from Cordless Larry's post being a "rant", that label seems more appropriate for your extended opinions on how khat use isn't an issue. So, far from forum shopping, it seems that he has gone out of his way to address any issues you bring up.

You mention alcohol in ethnic group articles when this is largely irrelevant to this article. You say the closed-access sources are unverifiable, when WP:SOURCEACCESS says "The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources". You said to Cordless Larry ":I don't particularly care what your intentions were", a violation of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. You seem particularly keen to argue that khat use among Somalis is not an issue, when our job is not to decide this but to report what others say (as long as it complies with policies). In short, you have misrepresented the positions of others, misused policies, and made unfounded accusations, among other things.

Since the topic of khat use among Somalis has been documented in several reliable sources (academic, government, media), I generally agree with the proposals put forth by Cordless Larry. Christopher Connor (talk) 14:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for those comments. Note that I've been trying to give Middayexpress access to quotes from an article on his or her talk page. Not satisfied, they are now asking for screenshots of the whole article, which I believe would involve me breaching copyright. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The Courage to Heal

This article is biased and pushes the unsubstantiated point of view that the book promotes false memories. It is watched over by editors who revert all edits that go against this general thrust. No positive statement about the book is permitted to stand.

The article also fails to give an accurate idea of the book's contents. Someone reading the article is likely to take away the impression that the book is all about repressed memories and satanic ritual abuse, when in fact these issues constitute a small fraction of a very large book.

The article bears the scars of multiple edit wars and is, as a result, repetitive and badly written. It is a mess and cries out to be restarted from scratch, if not deleted altogether.

Here are some of the reverts made in defense of the bias:

[51] [52] [53] [54]

I have tried discussing this and got nowhere:

[55]

I'm afraid I haven't got the time/inclination to tussle with problem editors and go through the whole dispute mediation business, so I'm hoping someone else will be willing to take this on. Thanks.Feeline (talk) 16:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't have time to look into this fully, but in this edit that you made and was reverted, you seem to have added a quote from the book's own blurb, and mistaken it for a third-party review. I also don't see the problem with this revert, which you list above and which removed lots of unreferenced support for the book. Is the problem that statements supportive of the book have been added to the article without sources to back them up? Cordless Larry (talk) 16:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was getting frustrated at that point and perhaps a little sloppy in my struggle to find something that WLU would not revert. He reverted every edit I made, including when I corrected a reference to a nonexistent chapter in the 20th anniversary edition. Only after much discussion did he accept his error and put that reference back. He had a policy of, revert first, ask questions later. So it was rough. It was like a war zone.

But do you not see anything wrong with the page? When you read it, does it look neutral and fair to you? This is the point I am trying to make. The page doesn't even tell you anything about the book, really. There are a lot of facts about the book I could add, but why bother when everything will just get reverted?

Hey, maybe I am delusional and this is a completely fair and balanced, not to mention excellently written, article. If you find that to be the case, do tell me so and I'll move on.Feeline (talk) 14:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)