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

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 [1]. 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 [2]

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[3][4][5][6] 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.

As someone new to wiki, I am glad to see this on the noticeboard. I made three comments on the talk page and ended up being in a sockpuppet conflict.

There seems to be a group of editors that work like a tag team and attack editors who don't agree with them and have been successfully holding the page. Are these editors paid lobbists?

I came to wiki to seek knowledge about tree training as I have read Richard Reams books and have not had success with these projects.I have finally found what I've been looking for and it is in Blackash's sandbox. Good work - Blackash- Well done .

I believe that the article needs involved editors who are experts in the field and know what they are doing and have photos of their recent work to support the article. Drawings do not do this because drawings represent what people think trees will do or how they they would like trees to be shaped. The editors who state they are uninvolved need to learn about the subject so their edits are contain the right information, instead of creating misinformation for the encyclopeadia.

The article had great photos that I have mentioned on the discussion page but were removed and not posted back up. This inaction I feel is a put down to Blackash. Blackash has every right to use the talk page and Blackash has not edited for quite a while and has copped a far bit of colourful language.

Labelling the art form "arborsculpture " is similar to having your piece of artwork signed by another artist and it implies that all treetraining is done by the arborsculpture method which does'nt work as well as other methods, if at all(as there are no current photos of the arborsculpture.Sydney Bluegum (talk) 07:25, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello User:Sydney Bluegum. To repeat good advice "put the Sock-puppet investigation behind you. Try working on articles other than the one you have joined Wikipedia to "seek knowledge" about, at least until you have some experience. Please read WP:MEAT and note that if you have been solicited privatively to say anything here, it is unethical to continue. If your comments have come from your own motivation and thoughts then you are welcome to be here.

There are no paid lobbyist here. Being unsuccessful while using a book is irrelevant. Sometimes editors just agree with one another, there are some 41 editors watching the page, it is in good hands. Arborsculpture is the label that WP:IRS use to refer to the art. Your argument is with the reliable sources, not with the article.Slowart (talk) 16:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

After reading "How to grow a chair" I grew a tool handle in 2000. It was an axe. I harvested it in 2005. When I dried it the head was loose after a couple of chops the head fell off. Is bark soft? and Does drying wood shrink? Richard do your tool handles work? They are on the article as useful and given prominence.

I did not appreciate your advice. I have been following your advice from your books for several years now and havent had any success.I do not want to edit anywhere else as I am involved in "The Days of Our Arborsculpture" or is it "Tree Training.

Am I a meat puppet? I am sick of your accusations. The four seconds was clear to me Sydney Bluegum (talk) 14:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Sydney Bluegum yes wood shrinks, and both the bark and sap wood are soft. This would cause the results in problems you have reported. Blackash have a chat 13:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Revisiting the problem

Some facts that seem to keep being left out

• Tree shaping has been used as the name for this art form generically and descriptively before the title change at Tree shaping. At Duff request I found 9 books that used the term before the name change. (list here) and has continued to be used, references with quotes
• Arborsculpture appears in 5 books
  • 2 are self published by Richard Reames creator of the word. (user Slowart) and WP:SPS applies to these books.
  • 1 book titled Tricks with trees the authors talk about the name for the art form, quote "It hasn't got a name: Richard Reames calls it arborsculpture, which doesn't exactly fly out the mouth;"
  • 2 use the word generically but I also suggest Tree trunk topiary.
• Tree training has also been used in a generic sense references with quotes yet it is not even on the page as alternative name.
• Words are commonly used for more than one definition, which is why wikipedia has disambiguation pages.
• AfD hero tried to engage in open discussion about creating an disambiguation page here and here but the Pro arborsculpture title team where not open to discussion.
• I have repeatedly asked for evidence that Richard Reames is an expert and haven't received any.

Pro arborsculpture title team have changed this discussion yet again to be about the title, I'm specifically asking for opinions about the amount of weight given to the word the arborsculpture in the article considering:- 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 [7]. 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 [8]

I believe that the word Arborsculpture appears too 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 22:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I have already commented on this article. In the past I thought that the word "arborsculpture" is used too much. Proponents of the word seem to say that it is an equivalent term for "tree shaping" and other terms and yet seem to object when a less controversial term is used. In the "before" version you post above the word "arborsculpture" is used 8 times and in the "after" version it is used 15 times. Since the word "arborsculpture" is controversial, associated with the work of a particular Wikipedia editor currently working on the article, and has not been in common use before 1995; and since alternatives like "tree shaping" are supported by minimally reasonable arguments and, in my opinion, are more intuitively understandable as generic terms for a practice which has occurred throughout history in many different cultures, I would support changing most instances of the word "arborsculpture" to something else. Whatever the title of the article is would be the best choice for the large majority of the usage throughout the article. Blue Rasberry 00:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Richard Reams in not working on this article. He has voluntarily recused himself from editing the content. Although he does (rarely) post to talk pages and discussions like this one. Blackash, one of his competitors, does work on the article. Personally I feel she has done some excellent work and the article is much better off for it. I also happen to think she is biased about the name of the craft because it affects her commercial interests, and therefore she should leave the one particular point to other editors to work out. She has also brought up this article's name on other websites as "proof" that tree shaping is the "official" name because WP uses it. I feel that is a blatant misuse of WP to further her own monetary gain. (also tree shaping means something else) Colincbn (talk) 10:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

As of today, no one has edited the article since July 23, more than two weeks ago. The history shows that Richard Reams, user:slowart, edited the article between July 11 and 14 to include his own pictures, bearing his name, from his commercial work, with links to his homepage. User:blackash last edited the article on June 21 with a note to not change the WP:STATUSQUO and to take controversial changes to the talk page; I commend this kind of edit. Both editors have used the talk page since then, and I do not think anyone is objecting to that. Whenever there is a problem, it is proper for an editor to turn things over to uninvolved editors, such as blackash is doing by coming to this board.

You have made a serious accusation against user:Blackash and a strange defense for user:slowart considering his behavior and it is not obvious to me what you mean, when it looks to me like user:slowart is promoting his commercial interests and user:blackash is asking for discussion. What are you seeing that I am not seeing that allows you to say what you have said? Blue Rasberry 17:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually I donated and placed my own photos of Erlandson's work to this page because the other were really poor. I donated some photos of my work on request, did I do something bad ? Slowart (talk) 00:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

No, slowart, the actions you took which I described above were not bad and I apologize if I what I wrote made it seem that way. I think user:Colincbn is being naughty because - if I understand him correctly - he is saying that you quit editing the article (and it is quite okay for you to continue to edit the article) and that user:blackash continued to edit the article after you quit (which she did not, but it would have been okay if she had). There are many ways this issue could be discussed, but unless someone truly is engaged in "blatant misuse of WP" as Colincbn says, I would prefer to talk about article content and not anyone's character. You do link to your website in the file info for the edits you made, and that's terrific, and I wish more professionals like you would get involved in editing Wikipedia articles pertaining to their fields. The only problem - and this has nothing to do with you or your behavior - is that Colincbn has suggested that this discussion about the merits of using various terms within an article be converted to a discussion about how user blackash is interested in advertising some commercial interest while you have not done anything which can be construed as such. Please do not mind me; for now I just want to listen to Colincbn because I want to know how he came to think as he does. Blue Rasberry 03:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Why do you continue to personally attack me when all I have done is point out WP policy? I like Blackash, I have edited her sandbox to help make her edits more WP friendly. I also like Slowart. I think the craft is interesting and if I had the time and space I would love to give it a try. I think Blackash has contributed great work to the article and I am glad she is here to do it. I think the fact that she edits to try and remove the word arborsculpture and then, on outside webpages, points to the fact that the WP article does not use the word is an obvious misuse of WP. Why is that "naughty"? Is basing your decisions on policy rather than emotion bad??? If you think that is so by all means start a RfCU on me, I would love to see how that turns out. Colincbn (talk) 16:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way here is one example of what I am talking about:

Hi this is Becky form Pooktre. Arborsculpture relates to Richard Reames's method of shaping trees. At Wikipedia there was a consensus that a neutral name was needed for the artform, and Tree shaping was decided upon. Wikipedia Tree shaping You may be also interested in visiting this website tree shapers.net which shows photos from all the different tree shapers from around the world.

This came from the website here. There are more examples like this around the web, all you have to do is look for them. Colincbn (talk) 17:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is another from this website:

Hi this is Becky from Pooktre. In relpy to splatgirl about Formally, it's called "Arborsculpture" This is incorrect. Arborsculpture does not represent the art form as a whole. It relates to a tree shaping method of Richard Reames. At Wikipedia there was a consensus that a neutral name was needed for the artform, and Tree shaping was decided upon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_shaping Also the couple of books you mention on the subject of Arborsculpture are written by Richard Reames who created the word Arborsulpture. You may be also interested in visiting this website http://www.treeshapers.net which shows photos from all the different tree shapers from around the world.

Or how about this? How is this anything but a misuse of her position as a WP editor??? Colincbn (talk) 17:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

And one more just for good-measure. I could do this all day but it is late here (Japan) and I need to get to bed. Colincbn (talk) 18:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Blue Rasberry----- Richard Reams/Griseum/Slowart, Duff, Colincbn, Martin Hogbin and Quiddity. This group of editors fully support Arborsculpture and have their eyes closed to the fact that Arborsculpture leads to Richard Reams, the gate keeper. Just google it to seeSydney Bluegum (talk) 13:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not support the term "Arborsculpture". I support Wikipedia Policy. This Policy specifically says that the article name should have remained "the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub". It also states that before the title was changed the new title should have been advertised at Requested Moves, and consensus reached. This did not happen. That is all I care about. I do not, in anyway, have any interest in this craft whatsoever (although it does seem interesting). I only became involved in this debate after following a Request for Comment. I could see that WP has a very clearly defined policy where issues like this are concerned and have simply been pointing it out. As for my issues with Blackash, I feel that my statements above clearly show that she is using WP as a tool to further her off-wiki activities. And that is strictly forbidden. Just look here for more examples than you could possibly need to see my point. Colincbn (talk) 19:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Sydney Bluegum - Blackash is the only person who believes, or has ever claimed, that Griseum is the same editor as Slowart/Reames. There is no evidence to support this conclusion, just Blackash's "hunch". See User_talk:Deskana (archive) for the last thread discussing this. Please don't repeat such insinuations, that have no evidence/proof. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Umm Intresting Quiddity you really should have linked to the sockpuppet investigation which was closed on Ip data, not behavioral evidence, even though I stated that the evidence was behavioral and not IP. Blackash have a chat 13:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• I linked to "the last thread discussing this", wherein you linked to the SPI and also elaborated on your theory.
• Both Griseum and Slowart have edited more recently than the close of the SPI, so you should be able to establish fresh technical evidence.
• Or, you could point out the mistake that was made in the SPI that Special:Contributions/208.91.143.205 has never edited, and Special:Contributions/208.91.143.250 is what was meant. (The mistake is probably based on your initial mis-transcription of the number, as .205 instead of .250 ...) (Nobody appears to have mentioned or noticed that. Now do you see how easy it is to make mistakes with reading IP numbers?)
• Hence the explanation that Griseum saw the 208.xx.xx.xx and leapt to the conclusion that it was his 208.59.xx.xx IP you were confounding as "Reames", rather than the 208.91.xx.xx that really was Slowart/Reames.
• Or you could simply compare their editing/writing styles, and see how different they are... -- Quiddity (talk) 18:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Feeling lost

My behavior has been inappropriate and I have told Colincbn as much on my talk page. There must be a lot about this issue which I do not understand and I am feeling lost.

Here is part of what User:Colincbn said which stood out most to me above on this noticeboard.

(user:slowart) in not working on this article. He has voluntarily recused himself from editing the content. Although he does (rarely) post to talk pages and discussions like this one. Blackash, one of his competitors, does work on the article. ... She has also brought up this article's name on other websites as "proof"...

I immediately took that to mean that User:Colincbn was asserting that user:slowart had not recently been editing the Wikipedia article in question but user:blackash had. My above stated interpretation of the page history for that article supports the opposite conclusion, and I was further convinced because the former user also had done edits which provided external links to his commercial website. I said as much above.

Especially because User:Colincbn said "He has voluntarily recused himself from editing the content." and "Blackash ... does work on the article" I assumed that, despite Colincbn's assertion that Blackash was doing something on other websites, Colincbn was talking about those individuals making edits to the Wikipedia article. Colincbn, should I understand that this was not the conclusion which you wanted readers of your comment to have? If you were not referring to someone editing the Wikipedia article, then I misunderstood, and I am very sorry.

As to the links to user:blackash posting to other websites, I see nothing wrong with this and I am not sure why you think this is bad. Blackash's posting on the off-wiki message boards about arborsculpture meets WP:CANVASS because she is making an off-site RfC without pushing a particular view, without soliciting people likely to take her side, without soliciting people who are unlikely to be interested (she posted on relevant boards), and by getting a message to a group of people who might not otherwise know about Wikipedia (perhaps older gardeners who might not use Wikipedia much). Wikipedia needs more editors and I see what she did as great advertising to direct traffic to Wikipedia, and I see no way for this to lead to financial gain for anyone. What do you see in her postings that you find contrary to Wikipedia policy or behavior standards?

Besides this, the issue was that you said "(slowart is) not working on this article. Blackash ... does work on the article." The links you provided are from mid 2009, as are all the other postings I checked. The links you provided as proof of blackash advertising also have slowart posting in the same forums pushing a POV whereas blackash just made a RfC; see here for an example.

I would be willing to write more about this, but I will be gone for a while. Colincbn, I am having difficulty understanding you. When you say "(slowart is) not working on this article. Blackash ... does work on the article," are you referring to the Wikipedia article? If so, within what time period, and can you respond to my assertion that the article's history does not support your claim? Also, can you please explain how the off-site posting of user:blackash violates WP:CANVASSING or any other policy, but Richard/slowart's posting in the same places does not? I want to understand you. Blue Rasberry 17:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

My point is this: Both Blackash and Slowart have contributed good work to this article and I hope they both continue to do so. A quick scan of Blackash's contributions (I am talking about more than just the last few weeks) will show that she has put in a lot of work on improving the article, this is a good thing. But it will also show a lot of edits to the talk pages that are, in an abundance of cases, attempts to steer the naming of the article in a way that benefits her business. The links I provided above are not general discussions of which both she and Slowart were parties to. Every post by Blackash (Becky from Pooktre) is the first in the Arborsculpture/Tree Shaping issue on each page. This is because she has systematically searched for every use of the word Arborsculpture and attacked its usage. Slowart (Richard Reams) then posts after she does in many, but not all, those cases. Now just by itself this does not bother me in the slightest. This is an issue for the two of them and the community of practitioners of this craft to work out. It doesn't even bother me that she references Wikipedia. What does bother me is that she actively edits Wikipedia to remove the word arborsculpture while pointing it out as proof that tree shaping is the appropriate term. If she wants to reference WP that is fine, many people do. But she should not then edit to make what she said on other pages true. This is a clear conflict of interest. She should edit with the sole intent of improving Wikipedia she cannot do that if she is editing to prove a point on outside webpages.

Look at it this way:

Editor 1 believes A is false and B is true.

Editor 1 changes WP in good faith to say B is true.(this is perfectly OK)

Editor 1 then points out that WP says B is true as proof of B being true around the web.(Kind of bad)

Other editors think B may be false and A true, and try to find consensus about the issue.

Editor 1 disrupts that process and tries to remove all reference to A being true. (no good as this is not in the best interests of WP)

What she should do is allow other, non-involved editors to work out the naming of the article and the appropriate use of the term. I have been taking part in this discussion for a few months now and I can tell you that while both Blackash and Slowart have contributed in that time Blackash has made much more of an attempt to control the article's title. I see this "Undue weight" NPOV notice as simply a continuation of that and possibly an attempt to "game the system". But once again I still very much appreciate the good content Becky has added here and I see her presence as a benefit to the project. Slowart does not, or at least rarely, edits on the talk page to influence the article name or other contentious issues from what I can see. He may have in the past but he has said he will recuse himself from those discussions and from what I can see he has. This is an excerpt from a thread on the article's talk page where I confronted Slowart on the exact same issues I have with Blackash:

Let me just say, as someone who feels policy clearly states the article should have remained "Arborsculpture", I still agree with the closing of the move at that time as No consensus. That is very different from a consensus not to move. The fact seems clear that there are editors with vested interests involved in this debate and those editors will continue to disrupt the debate process until they voluntarily, or forcibly, refrain from involving themselves in this article. There was clearly no consensus either way during the move debate. However there was not only no consensus but no debate at all for the original move. Policy is clear, but that policy cannot be carried out in this atmosphere. Colincbn (talk) 05:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Your right Colincbn about consensus. As I'm one of the editors with a vested interest, I'm outa here, sorry. Please note this thread of the discussion I was trying to have with RegntsPark, was just moved over here, my apologizes. Slowart (talk) 14:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I had noticed that Blackash also seemed to backoff for a while. I took that as a great sign she was going to allow the WP process to progress without influencing it from a commercial standpoint. She then started this, in my opinion frivolous, NPOV notice. She should simply not edit about anything that could be seen to have an impact on her conflict with a business rival. She is using WP as a tool to promote the term "Tree Shaping" over "Arborsculpture", WP is not a tool for her to wield as a weapon against her competitors, Period. That being said it is not a tool for her competitors either and I have taken, and will continue to take, the same standpoint in relation to them, or anyone, who attempts to use it as such.

That was kind of long, but can you see where I am coming from? Colincbn (talk) 02:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Colincbn a couple of points of misunderstanding, I corrected these before but maybe you missed them.

• Title change from Arborsculpture to Tree shaping was my choice. (Not true)
  • When title was changed to Tree shaping it was done because a group of editors thought tree shaping was more neutral. [9]
  • In the following discussion after the title change some other options were thrown around. Then as now I don't care what the name of the art-form is as long as it doesn't lead to one person and doesn't have a method attached to it. [10]
• "attempts to steer the naming of the article in a way that benefits her business" (Search engines are very keen on key words, we mainly use tree shapers to describe what we do.)
  • Our business name is SharBrin Publishing Ptd Ltd.
  • Pooktre is the name of our art.
  • I use the wording of Tree shapers as a descriptive name because of reading Elfquest since I was 14(Redlance an elfquest elf is described as a tree shaper forums on official elfquest site), the wording is fanciful and people get it when you state you tree shaper.
  • We would continue to use mainly tree shapers as descriptive wording for the art-form on our site even if the article title changed to something like tree art.
  • If the article title was tree art I would still talk on the discussion pages asking that the title of the article be used instead of an alternative name that leads to one artist in the art-form.

Asking that a word be given the appropriate weight compared to its references is not unreasonable, or even pushing a POV. Blackash have a chat 11:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I am aware that you were not the one who originally changed the title. It was AfD Hero. However even in the discussion you linked above you can see that there was no consensus to move. Nor did he put up a "Requested Move" tag or anything else. My point has simply been that without following the proper procedure we cannot make sure that the article has an appropriate title. I also don't really care what it ends up as. I think that the original title should be retained, per policy, unless a consensus is reached to change it. I indicated in the RM to move it back to arborsculpture that I support the move for that sole reason. My issue with "Tree Shaping" is that it clearly means something else in the wider arborist world, as pointed out by Martin. If I was allowed to choose a name I might go with "Tree Training" but that would be original research at best and we can't do that here.

You indicated that you don't want the title to be a term that represents a different artist's work. I completely understand that. However that is also a clear conflict of interest in that you are editing based on the effect the article will have on how your work is perceived and not on what is best for WP. If other editors find that the term is commonly used to mean all forms of the craft, regardless of who first used it, they may well decide to use it as the name of the article. Considering that was the original name of the article it carries a lot of weight. They may decide on a new descriptive term or they may decide to keep it as it is now. The point is if, as you have said, the article's name effects your life outside WP then you yourself should not be a part of that decision making process.

I think once that process has a chance to complete a discussion of the way terms are used within the article can commence.

Otherwise I think you have really helped this article come along and I hope you continue to do so. Also, I freakin love Elfquest and Redlance was one of my favorite characters (The part were he goes into a coma after has to use his ability to... well you get the point). Cheers, Colincbn (talk) 16:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Colincbn as to the title,

• I don't think it was clear from your comments that I didn't change the title or even request that the title be changed.
• As to the "per policy" RegentsPark's summary addressed that point and others. Stating that it is not a strong argument as the page is now 4 times the size since the title change.
• Words do have more than one meaning and that why Wikipedia has disambiguation, but when AfD Hero was trying to discuss it he run into a brick wall.

• It is not "a term that represents a different artist's work" that is the problem. It is using a term that represents or leads to any one artist including ourselves, which is why we have stated that Pooktre could not be the title of the article. Just as Arborsculpture leads to one artist, Pooktre leads to us.
• The discussion about having or not having Arborsculpture as the title has been argued to the point of rhetoric over and over again as can be seen by the very discussion we are having now. There is no reason why the content of the article cannot be improved whatever the title may be. Asking a word to be given the appropriate weight throughout an article shouldn't be an issue that leads to obsessively discussing the title this is distracting technique, and not worthy of someone who really believes in Wikipedia policies. Blackash have a chat 12:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I will try to answer your points one by one:

• I don't think it was clear from your comments that I didn't change the title or even request that the title be changed.

I can see your point on this one. I was summarizing and simplifying, which is what lead to what can be seen as a false accusation. That was my mistake.

• As to the "per policy" RegentsPark's summary addressed that point and others. Stating that it is not a strong argument as the page is now 4 times the size since the title change.

This assumes that everyone who has added to the article since then has agreed with the title change. As you can see from the amount of content added by Duff and others not happy with the change this is not the case. So expansion since the change should not be used as evidence the change is accepted.

• It is not "a term that represents a different artist's work" that is the problem. It is using a term that represents or leads to any one artist including ourselves, which is why we have stated that Pooktre could not be the title of the article. Just as Arborsculpture leads to one artist, Pooktre leads to us.

I understand how and why you feel that arborsculpture leads to Reames. But Non-involved editors never got the chance to debate whether it actually does before the title change. If the word has been used by enough outside sources to refer to the art in a general sense then they might have decided otherwise. The fact that the article was created by someone other than Reames as arborsculpture gives that argument substance.

• The discussion about having or not having Arborsculpture as the title has been argued to the point of rhetoric over and over again as can be seen by the very discussion we are having now. There is no reason why the content of the article cannot be improved whatever the title may be. Asking a word to be given the appropriate weight throughout an article shouldn't be an issue that leads to obsessively discussing the title this is distracting technique, and not worthy of someone who really believes in Wikipedia policies.

There was never a discussion to move the page in the first place, and the discussion to move it back was closed as "No Consensus" this means we need to keep talking about it until we build consensus. I feel that you and Slowart should state your cases one time each and let the others decide what to do. There is no deadline, and there is no reason to drop an issue just because we do not yet see eye to eye on it.

That being said you are absolutely correct that a word, or anything for that matter, should be given appropriate weight throughout the article. But the fact that the word in question is not the current title is not proof that it is being given too much weight. Especially considering the way in which the title was changed.

Just to be absolutely clear, I do not "support" the word arborsculpture. I simply see a policy violation that should be remedied before an honest debate can begin. The fact that there has been so many hours of editing back and forth since the change happened, including reverts of title changes and page protection, leads me to believe that the original un-discussed title change should not have happened. And I feel WP policy supports that view. Colincbn (talk) 15:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I want to clarify a few things you may have missed in reply to your answers.

• During the year after the title change the article expanded to approximately twice its size, diff this by editors who didn't care about the title (except for Slowart/Reames who didn't edit much), so Regent's Park point is still valid.
• "created by someone other than Reames" you mean editor Ezekiello? Without saying who he is both Slowart and I know this edtior, in point of fact both Ezekiello and Slowart where visiting us and together they show how to edit wikipedia. I know for a fact that Ezekiello has partnered in projects with Slowart/Reames.
• I have never stated because Arborsculpture is not the title it is getting WP:UNDUE in the article. To quote myself from above "The word Arborsculpture or variations thereof are being given WP:UNDUE weight in the article to the number of reliable and verifiable references." It is not about the title, it is about the fact the word Arborsculpture has been deliberately given to much weight in the article to the references. Blackash have a chat 22:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Mary Kay Letourneau: Edits made arguing that some text is non-neutral.

There are what I view as two major edit disputes at Mary Kay Letourneau, and each seems predicated on varying interpretations of WP:NPOV policy. I hope I haven't presented these disputes non-neutrally. I invite others to add links to relevant edits where they feel necessary. Thank you for any assistance in resolving the disputes, and apologies in advance for the lengthy discussions. Blackworm (talk) 04:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Dispute 1:

(Discussion link.)

• edit by Blackworm replacing "lover" with "victim"
• edit by Jakew replacing "victim" with "boy."
• edit by Keithbob removing the term "victim" from a different part of the article.
• edit by Keithbob replacing two occurences of "boy" (including the one in the change referenced above) with "student." Text now reads, "student."

Discussion focuses on whether the terms "victim" and (in a related dispute) "boy" are non-neutral and should be replaced in the context of Blackworm's and Jakew's edits above. Blackworm (talk) 04:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Dispute 2:

(Discussion link.)

• edit Keithbob inserting the phrase "rape of a child in the second degree" into the article.
• edit by Keithbob adding the phrase "second degree child rape" (later removed as "repetitive" by Keithbob[11])
• edit by Keithbob changing "statutory rape" in the lead paragraph to "child rape" (June 15)
• edit by Jakew removing "statutory rapist" as "redundant" with the phrase "child rape" found later in the lead (August 3)
• edits by Blackworm moving the phrase "child rape" (August 3)
• edit by Jakew replacing "child rape" with "statutory rape" (August 4); reverted by Blackworm, then Jakew, then Blackworm, then Jakew.
• After lengthy discussion, edit by Blackworm replacing "statutory rape" with "statutory child rape" per the discussion. Reverted by Off2riorob. Text now reads "statutory rape."

Discussion focuses on whether the phrase "child rape," despite its use in the sources brought, is overly likely to inappropriately evoke emotions in the reader in this case. There is also some disagreement on whether the frequency of the phrase's use in reliable sources merits its inclusion. Blackworm (talk) 04:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to express a conclusion on #1 at the moment, but "victim" is clearly a POV term, whereas "student" is neutral. However, in the case of statutory rape, use of "student" might be whitewashing. I half-heartedly think that "victim" is too loaded, and that "student" is more effective because a reasonable reader should understand that a teacher should not exploit a student. Re #2: the current wording "statutory rape of her 12 year old student" is correct and NPOV, and I see no reason to change it to "statutory child rape of her 12 year old student". The word "child" has no value (it is redundant wrt "statutory rape" and particularly since the age is given) other than to ensure the reader does not miss the point. In both cases, use of reliable sources should resolve the issue, but I do not see a need to use stronger wording than what is currently in the article. Johnuniq (talk) 06:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you expressing a conclusion without reading the arguments presented in the discussion, including the sources? I clearly address your specific argument, with sources indicating the difference (i.e. the lack of redundance) between "child rape" and "statutory rape." Also, "child rape" is the standing consensus edit (note the dates of the edit replacing "statutory rape" with "child rape" in the lead, June 15, and the edit replacing it with "statutory rape", August 4). "Statutory rape" is the edit which I immediately reverted twice, and so it seems replacing "child rape" with "statutory rape" is the edit that must be justified here, not the reverse. You must assert and justify a need to use weaker, more imprecise terminology. I apologize if this is complicated or long, but I think it reasonable to expect a basic familiarity with this dispute before judgment is rendered upon it. Blackworm (talk) 06:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

If I have missed something pertinent to the NPOV policy please spell it out. I still think that whatever the precise wording of the law in the relevant jurisdiction, there is no reason to describe what is likely a welcomed act as "child rape" (although in case of doubt, I think that a 12 year old's possible "welcome" of sex with a teacher is totally irrelevant to the fact that a serious crime was perpetrated by the teacher). If "child rape" is the appropriate NPOV term here, what would we call a case involving the forced and unwelcome rape of an 8 year old? Johnuniq (talk) 07:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought I had spelled it out; in detail, above, and in detail in the discussion. The NPOV policy does not call for removal of "child rape" as argued by proponents of that edit; to claim so is misuse of the policy, and the result of dignifying that claim is non-neutral POV seeing its way into the article. You say it's clear a serious crime was perpetrated, but you assert that victim is "clearly a POV term?" It is used in sources, as shown in the discussion, in articles about other statutory rapists in Wikipedia, and no less than seven times in the statutory rape article itself! There is no dispute in that article over that. Why is there one here? To answer your question about a hypothetical 8 year old forcibly raped, we would say simply "rape," or "child molestation" or perhaps "child rape," (and not "child rape (statutory)" as I've suggested) or preferably cite the name of the offense the person was convicted under, which in Letourneau's state would have been "rape in the second degree"[12] and/or "child molestation in the first degree"[13] and/or "rape of a child in the first degree, a class A felony."[14] I don't simply rest on the actual documented name of the offense but on the sources that use that exact terminology, which seem to outnumber the sources using "statutory rape" (if crude Google searches are to be believed). I realize the following isn't a reliable source, but please read the lead paragraph of statutory rape to see why this might be the case; it says "The term statutory rape generally refers to sex between an adult and a sexually mature minor past the age of puberty. Sexual relations with a prepubescent child, generically called 'child molestation,' is typically treated as a more serious crime." Is a 12-year-old male past the age of puberty? I'm willing to call it a grey area and write "child rape (statutory)," but I'm unwilling to accept arguments invoking this child's "willingness" (to paraphrase) in defense of an edit (and then contradictorily asserting his willingness is irrelevant). You seem like you are engaging in precisely the non-neutral POV argument I am opposing -- the argument goes, "oh, he wasn't really a victim, no real bad crime was committed." That fringe POV merits no weight in this article, and you have no sources supporting your view that this "welcome act" in any way calls on us to weaken the actual language used in the conviction, and the actual language used in many and possibly most sources describing the conviction, when describing the conviction. Blackworm (talk) 07:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

While I still think it appropriate to use language that can distinguish between different extremes of rape, it may be best for me to simply deny that my words carry the meaning you suggest, and leave this discussion to allow room for others to join in. Johnuniq (talk) 09:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The term "Rape of the second degree" means nothing to a British read. Under English Law we only have one crime - rape. I suggest that the wording should reflect the language used in the jurisdiction concerned with a reference clarifying why that particular language was used. Martinvl (talk) 09:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

In the discussion at the talk page, I suggested that we might avoid such terminology altogether, and instead describe the events that led to her imprisonment: "Mary Kay Letourneau is an American former schoolteacher who was imprisoned for having sexual intercourse with her 12 year old student, Vili Fualaau." I still think this might be the best solution, as it steers a course around language that proves difficult to agree upon. Jakew (talk) 10:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

What crime did she commite?Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

See the precise wording. Blackworm (talk) 06:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Jakew, your suggestion does not steer a course around this dispute, it steers right through it; the arguments of your opponents has been that there is no reason for the weaker, more imprecise language you support. Now, you suggest even weaker, more imprecise language, and call it the "best solution?" I am completely dumbfounded. Blackworm (talk) 06:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that by definition of puberty, if the boy was able to father a child he was "past the age of puberty". As such, I think statutory rape is a more appropriate term as child rape. But Jakew's suggestion also is sensible. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

What dies the law say.Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Link. Blackworm (talk) 06:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Well then its rape, its what she was charged with and prosecuteed for.Slatersteven (talk) 12:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Stephan Schulz, the boy did not father a child at the time of the first intercourse (the time referenced by the conviction, presumably) -- he was 12 at first intercourse, 13 when he impregnated her. (See article for sources.) If you are still not convinced it is unlikely he was "past the age of puberty," please read the sourced statements in puberty that say "Girls usually complete puberty by ages 15-17, while boys usually complete puberty by ages 16-18." Blackworm (talk) 06:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Update: User:Jakew is again editwarring this change,[15] days after having stopped discussing the matter in Talk, presenting no new arguments, and in fact after having indicated qualified agreement with a proposed solution. Should I take this matter to WP:ANI? Is another forum appropriate? How does one deal with editors who editwar and do not discuss changes nor proposed suggestions? Blackworm (talk) 23:27,

I am an involved party who appreciates and agrees with the common sense comments by User:Johnuniq. We need to follow WP:N which is a pillar of Wiki policy and avoid language that is sensationalistic, POV and not becoming of an encyclopedia, particularly in the lead. I have not problem quoting a legal document in the body of the article that states the legal charge she was found guilty of. However I do object to POV terms like victim, child rapist and boy. What do you do with an editor who refuses to recognize consensus both on the article talk page and on this noticeboard?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

BLP

I think you might be better off taking this to the BLP Noticeboard. The editors there should have more experience dealing with the sticky situations that come up when dealing with these kinds of articles. Granted that page has less traffic but that might be a good thing considering the nature of BLPs and the fact that cool heads are often more important than numbers in those disputes. Cheers, Colincbn (talk) 01:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

If the opposing editors want to, they may take it there. But several editors here and elsewhere have favoured the long standing text, including the one admin who came to this discussion. They all seem to agree that "statutory 'rape of a child'" was fine in the lead, and yet it is still being editwarred, this time by a newly involved editor claiming a consensus. (!) [16] Blackworm (talk) 00:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Note that User:Jakew is still editwarring this change without any discussion: [17] [18]. Why are no admins stopping him? Blackworm (talk) 19:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

What is wrong with just saying "statutory rape"? The way you wanted to write it made the sentence reading awkwardly, BW:

Mary Kay Fualaau is an American former schoolteacher convicted in 1997 of the statutory "second degree rape of a child" of her 12 year old student, Vili Fualaau, for which she served time in prison.

Better just to say "convicted of the statutory rape of her 12-year-old student" etc. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs}

I'd actually suggest "convicted of the statutory rape in the case of a 12-year-old student". reads a bit more detached to my ear. --Ludwigs2 19:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Did either of you actually read the discussion and note what the sources said she was convicted of? In any case, I don't care any more -- it's obvious there is no neutrality here: statutory rape victims are "victims" in statutory rape and where offenders are male, but "students" in Mary Kay Letourneau's case. A 12-year-old male is called a "boy" everywhere else in Wikipedia, but in Mary Kay Letourneau's case that is non-neutral and editwarred out. Her crime is called "child rape" or "rape of a child" by sources, but we can't say that because editor's believe Mary Kay Letourneau made a point and a valid mockery of the law -- hey, he was asking for it! Whatever, let this encyclopedia be the people's rag for POV it so desperately wants to be. Blackworm (talk) 20:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The best thing is to write in as disinterested way as possible. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

No, the best thing is apparently to revert without discussion, and have lots of admin friends. Blackworm (talk) 23:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Pamela Geller and User: Bachcell

User: Bachcell is attempting to use the Pamela Geller article to push Geller's FRINGE theories and views, including trying to claim that Geller was justified in linking Elena Kagan to Nazism in a blog post: [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]. It's obvious to me that Bachcell is attempting to actively promote Geller's views, rather than simply describe them (as the article used to do, and is supposed to do). Personally, I don't think Bachcell should be editing that article if he can't do so without pushing POV, as well as displaying a "chip on his shoulder" in his edit summaries and talk page comments: [25]. His bad attempt at canvassing (for which I warned him) is icing on the cake: [26]. What should the consequences be, if any? Or should we just tell Bachcell to stay away from Pamela Geller for the time being? Stonemason89 (talk) 00:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks to me that Stonemason89 is declaring war and campaigning for punishment over posting ONE message to ONE other user interested in the topic. There is nothing wrong with stating what one editor considers a fringe view, such as a conspiracy theory (see all of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists) as it cannot be accurately described merely as an attack page. Please live by WP:CIVIL instead of dropping what smells like the threat of block after already issuing an ominous warning. Bachcell (talk) 00:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't the one using UNCIVIL terms like "pig pile".... Stonemason89 (talk) 00:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The point is that the article had a very one-sided presentation of the controversy. A pig pile is a neutral sports term for a bunch of people on top of one person, it has nothing to do with islamic connotations of pigs, or lipstick on a pig, police as pigs, or when pigs fly, etc. I have issued no warnings against you, nor tried to lobby for a block or ban against you, nor accused you of promoting fringe theories, or using uncivil language. You claim she is strictly FRINGE, but it's not clear what of her views qualify under the guidelines. She was one of the first to correctly call Hasan and Awlaki terrorists, which is clearly positive for some people, if negative for another POV. She was the first to make the mosque a decidedly mainstream and not a FRINGE issue. Even fringe conspiracy theorists have articles on WP as long as they are notable or have a wide audience, which Geller does have (she's on TV after all) . The article makes almost no positive statments about her, despite her large following (top 30 blog) and very little about what she herself stated she stands for. Media Matters clearly calls Geller at fault for the inappropriate picture (which remains in the edit) and for making the stretch that Geller states that Kagan "admires" the marxist, when she merely quotes the controversial person at the start of her thesis. This editor does not justify her article or what Media Matters appears to portray as an attempt to link Kagan to Nazism, but merely clarifies the facts of the case from both sides. That is hardly promoting an un-balanced point of view. The "queen article" used a a reference is itself an un-balanced attack article which is itself lacking in corroborating sources, and interviews sources such as CAIR and Media Matters that consistently fall into a predictable position in the matter of Islam, but that is hardly the only notable point of view. Since this is a neutral point of view notice board, it might be pointed out where the lack of balance lies, and who is the party that is preventing a presentation of "all sides". How can you be banned merely for documenting the views of the person in question? Where does it state it is pushing a POV merely by putting in information which does NOT attack the subject? Could Stonemason89 be promoting an un-balanced point of view by contesting or removing edits which do not attack Geller? Bachcell (talk) 01:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Sports term? Yes, but according to the source you just linked to, the term is also commonly used in porn and in a sexual sense. Also, there is plenty of evidence that Geller fits FRINGE. As the article and its sources point out, she has denied the existence of Serbian concentration camps, accused black South Africans of "genocide", defended Eugene Terre'Blanche and the English Defense League, claimed Obama's birth certificate is fake, called Obama an anti-Semite, hinted that Malcolm X is his real father, etc. All definitely fringe. Stonemason89 (talk) 01:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

um - someone keeps removing the link where Geller clarifies that she doesnt think "Malcolm X is his real father". Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 01:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand she said that she didn't actually believe that Malcolm X was Obama's real father; however, this happened after she once posted a blog entry that hinted that he was. So this was basically a flip-flop. Stonemason89 (talk) 02:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I will encourage editors familiar with NPOV to pay close attention to everything that is going on at that article. More eyes are surely needed. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 01:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I also have brought up how some content in the blog section that has been included is simply based on truth and not verifiability. All content in Wikipedia articles must be ascribed to a reliable published source to show that it is not original research. Yet, I have seen at least one edit summary that has stated otherwise. Truthsort (talk) 16:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Seems like much ado about nothing.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Glenn Beck Article Neutrality Questioned

I have reposted this from Glenn Beck prefix:Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. — GorillaWarfare ^talk 23:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe the Glenn Beck article is currently under the control of a group of biased editors with a pro-Glenn Beck agenda. If you examine the history of the article, it appears that information deemed negative towards Glenn Beck is routinely removed. At the same time, editors carefully craft sentences to obfuscate derogatory content. For example, here is a detailed critical review of the current (Aug. 30, 2010) 3-paragraph summary of the article:

The first sentence of the article describes Beck as a "conservative radio and television host, political commentator, author, and entrepreneur." This description presents Beck in the most favorable light possible. For example, he is not simply a "conservative", which is an incomplete, watered-down description of his political/social views. More appropriate, accurate monikers are neo-conservative, theocratic conservative, right-wing, Christian right, evangelical right, etc. Beck himself has described his political persuasion in a variety of sometimes conflicting, confusing ways, including as a militant libertarian, but never simply as a conservative. The sentence goes on to describe Beck's radio and TV work using the most gracious, formal, positive-sounding description possible: "host". Even Beck's own site describes him more accurately as a "radio and TV personality." Beck is an entertainer, first and foremost. And is Beck really qualified to be called a "political commentator"? Newt Gingrich, Wolf Blitzer, or Karl Rove are political commentators, but Beck is an entertainer, with no journalistic or political training/experience. His history prior to 1999 is unremarkable, notable for Beck's drug abuse, alcoholism, failure to complete more than a year of college, a failed marriage, and pop radio disc jockey gigs. He got his current shows because he was bombastic, abrasive, and entertaining to a large audience. He does have significant on-the-job training as a disc jockey. Similarly, the description "author" seems inappropriate for someone who at most "co-authors" books, and at worst may not actually pen any of his books. He has indicated that while books using his name may contain his beliefs and editorial approval, he does not actually type any words (Forbes, Apr, 2010). In June, 2010 Beck described his team approach to writing, clarifying: "There's clearly no way that I'm sitting behind a typewriter or word program and pounding this out. ... I have my vision and need someone to make sure that vision stays there."

The rest of the Summary reads like a press release from Beck's PR firm, singing his praises and obfuscating or failing to mention information deemed negative. I have a suggestion. The only way articles like this are going to be neutral is to have two inherently biased editors representing opposing viewpoints collaborate on compromise verbiage, and jointly manage the article.

- Jwilbiz (talk) 16:06, 29 August 2010(UTC)

The article looks fairly neutral to me, sadly some material is often inserted into articles like this which do not belong and so do have to be removed.

"conservative radio and television host, political commentator, author, and entrepreneur."

The current introduction with wording like that is neutral and accurate. Changing it to say things like "neo-conservative, theocratic conservative, right-wing, Christian right, evangelical right" is far more questionable and far less neutral.

If you feel certain things are being handled badly and need changing, you should raise the issues on the talk page so it can be debated. But you have made no comments on the talk page before making this post here. The only change you have made to the Glenn Beck article itself was partly to change the introduction to say...

"Glenn Lee Beck (born February 10, 1964) is a highly controversial American radio and television personality known for his theocratic conservatism and caustic tactics. A former drug addict and alcoholic who found salvation as a Mormon in 1999, "

Now i am sorry but there is no way that is a neutral or acceptable introduction. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The line mentioned above did not even last a day before it was reverted. If you don't like it fix it but keep a eye on POV yourself Jwilbiz. People complain about this article all the time but then refuse to do anything about it. It is pretty balanced as far as I can tell. And no, I am not a fan of Glenn Beck but I have plenty of edits on the article.Cptnono (talk) 04:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The only POV I see is not describing him as Libertarian conservative, which is what he considers himself. Toa Nidhiki05 23:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement

I substantially rewrote this article. Here is the diff.[27] I applied the policy WP:V in my edits, specifically the section on self-published sources

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

  1. the material is not unduly self-serving;
  2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
  3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
  4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
  5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Almost all of the self-published sources which were in the original version violated 2) and 3). I retained those statements which were commented on by secondary sources. I would like input on whether other contributors think the article as it exists now is neutral. One editor (on the talk page) doesn't think so. BillMasen (talk) 11:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

:I disagree with Bill's claims about the material he removed. Most of the deleted material involved neither claims about third parties, nor claims about events not directly related to the subject. The deleted material described LaRouche's theories about economics, all of which had been commented upon by secondary sources. According to most current press accounts, LaRouche is an economist by profession.[28][29][30]. I should add that my efforts to discuss the neutrality of the article with Bill and the other editor who supports him have been met by evasion and stonewalling. I would appreciate it if other editors would look at the article talk page and respond. Thomas Conneff (talk) 00:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

To the minute extent which LaRouche's economic "ideas" (which by necessity involve claims about things in which LaRouche is not personally involved) have been commented on by secondary sources, they have been included in the article. The point is that TC wants LaRouche defined as an economist in the lead, which is simply not supported by the sources.

In the articles offered, far more space is given to LaRouche's calumny of Obama-as-Hitler than to the economic credentials of LaRouche. He has none, having no more right to call himself an economist than I do to call myself a neurosurgeon.

I object to his characterisation of the discussion as "stonewalling". His problem is simply that he can't meet WP:RS. No amount of local newspaper articles will serve to define LaRouche as an economist. If you want to define him as that, find a non-vanity-press, book-length treatment of him, as I have done, which defines him as something other than a conspiracy theorist and antisemite. BillMasen (talk) 17:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

See also WP:BADPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.95.204.10 (talk) 18:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Good point! The easiest way to tell if one or more editors have an activist agenda is how often they seek to remove reliably sourced information from non-biographical articles, instead of cooperating and compromising with other editors to find a way to include it at appropriate length[31] It would appear Mr IP address is feeling remorse for violating this policy, and owning up.

As far as my own removals are concerned, not one of the removed items was from a WP:Reliable source. They were all self-published sources (and not all of them were favourable to LaRouche). BillMasen (talk) 20:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

::::I disagree entirely with Bill's account of what he removed. However, he does raise a relevant point. Prior to his re-write, the article was comprised of a broad selection of viewpoints, which as I understand it, is desirable. His re-write changed all that. Now the article is shaped in such a way as to emphasize only one particular source, which Bill describes as "a non-vanity-press, book-length treatment of him," published over 20 years ago. It is the most hostile caricature of LaRouche that I have seen; it purports to find nefarious hidden messages in his writings; and the author has been criticized by third parties for doing his own "conspiracy-mongering." To slant the whole article toward one source seems to me to be an ipso facto neutrality problem.

As for the issue of "stonewalling" on the discussion page, I can only urge readers to see for themselves. Thomas Conneff (talk) 21:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It is worth remembering that I added very little to the article. The article is not based on one source; it is based on all the WP:RS secondary sources which were contained in it before I got there. This includes several books and a large number of newspaper articles. On the rare occassion that a secondary source had something good to say about LaRouche, that was retained.

The lead is the only substantial part which I altered rather than reduced. I agree it would be preferable to have more than one source there, but I've been given lemons, so I'm making lemonade. I don't think that a local newspaper article is good enough to define LaRouche as what he desperately wants to be (an economist).

I would greatly appreciate it if more editors took an interest in this page, because as it stands agreement on it is not forthcoming. BillMasen (talk) 12:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Jesus myth theory and fringe

A large number of sources, whether secular or religious, indicate that the theory is fringe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bill_the_Cat_7/CMT_FAQ#FAQ_Question_.232

Yet Jesus myth theory does not suggest this at all, simply saying that "most scholars believe Jesus existed". Flash 11:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Reading Historicity of Jesus you do also get the impression this is a fringe theory. There is also the point that the Pauline epistles have been dated to a period when persons who had known Jesus personally would still have been alive. --Dailycare (talk) 20:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Although, I would suggest, reading Wikipedia articles to check whether other Wikipedia articles have the right take isn't a good way to go about things. The Jesus Myth Theory appears to be a minority sport amongst credible academics and writers, but I don't think "fringe" would be correct. --FormerIP (talk) 20:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It was once fairly credible, in the era when the Bible was the arbiter of history, then (if I understand correctly) dropped from favor as Biblical scholarship became a respectable field. There are also a fair number of scholars who concede it might be true, even if not likely. Not really fringe, though certainly a minority opinion. — kwami (talk) 07:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course there is the overlay that it is incendiary, telling one or two billion people that the foundation of their religion is a myth. Not sure whether or not it is Wikipedian to take that into account. North8000 (talk) 12:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be unconscionable to remove it because it is "incendiary". A large number of people have referenced the theory, and said it is possible but unlikely, or rejected it (if we don't count the people who agreed with it, who I suppose are "linked to the theory"). In other words, this is most definitely notable. BillMasen (talk) 11:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course we wouldn't delete it. The question is how it's presented. It's not crack-pot, but not mainstream either. I think the best we can do is cover the history of the idea and how modern historians have responded to it. The problem is which historians can be considered reliable, when there is so much external motivation for reaching particular conclusions. — kwami (talk) 11:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

No historian is reliabel, that is why we would put all sides of the story. Whatr we do is represtn the amount of both praise and critismism the thoerey recives, and repoprt it in prorpertion to prevaling accademic conosensus.Slatersteven (talk) 12:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

(remove indent) While I agree that Christ Myth theory as it is generally represented is fringe the problem is there are definitions out there that muddle matters.

• Jesus began as at a Myth with historical trappings possibly including "reports of an obscure Jewish Holy man bearing this name" being being added later. (Walsh, George (1998) The Role of Religion in History Transaction Publishers pg 58)(one possible reading of Dodd, C.H. (1938) History and the Gospel under the heading Christ Myth Theory Manchester University Press pg 17)

• Jesus was historical but lived c100 BCE (Price, Robert M. "Jesus at the Vanishing Point" in James K. Beilby & Paul Rhodes Eddy (eds.) The Historical Jesus: Five Views. InterVarsity, 2009, p. 65)

• The Christ Myth may be a form of modern docetism (Grant, Michael. Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels. Scribner, 1995; first published 1977, p. 199)

• The Gospel Jesus is in essence a composite character and therefore non historical by definition.(Price, Robert M. (2000) Deconstructing Jesus Prometheus Books, pg 85)

• Jesus Agnosticism: The Gospel story is so filled with myth and legend that nothing about it including the very existence of the Jesus described can be shown to be historical. (Eddy, Paul R. and Boyd, Gregory A. The Jesus Legend Baker Academic, 2007. pg 24-25)

• The Gospel Jesus didn't exist and GA Wells' Jesus Myth (1999) is an example of this. (Doherty, Earl "Book And Article Reviews: The Case For The Jesus Myth: "Jesus — One Hundred Years Before Christ by Alvar Ellegard" review)

• "This view (Christ Myth theory) states that the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology, possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes..." (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J 1982 by Geoffrey W. Bromiley) There are six different ways myths are thought to come about: Scriptural, Historical, Allegorical, Astronomical, Physical, and explanation for natural phenomena with "All the theories which have been mentioned are true to a certain extent." (Bulfinch's Mythology, "Origin of Mythology" chapter) Bromiley doesn't clarify which one he is using.

These and other definitions are why the term is such a mess--how it is defined is a mess.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Manila hostage crisis

Resolved

Earlier POV issue involving the lead

In the lead of the article Manila hostage crisis there is a line that reads: "As a result of the ten-hour siege, the ensuing shoot-out, and a botched rescue attempt by MPD watched by millions on live television news, eight of the hostages and Mendoza died and nine other people were injured. The Hong Kong Government then immediately issued a top-level 'black' travel alert for the Philippines. The assault on the tour bus to rescue the hostages was widely regarded by pundits at home and abroad as 'bungled' and 'incompetent'; the Philippine government also admitted that errors had been made and promised a thorough investigation, which they would report to the Chinese government. " I wished to edit to the following or something like it "At the end of the ten-hour siege and an assault conducted by the MPD watched by millions on live television news, eight of the hostages and Mendoza died and nine other people were injured. The Hong Kong Government quickly after the end of the ordeal issued a top-level 'black' travel alert for the Philippines. The immediate reaction to the assault on the tour bus to rescue the hostages by pundits at home and abroad was that it was 'bungled' and 'incompetent'. The Philippine government also admitted that errors had been made and promised a thorough investigation, which they would report to the Chinese government." However, I've been reverted twice here and here. The reason given by the reverting editor is that it violates WP:SYN. I do not believe it does and although asked on the talk page to explain, no comment by the opposing editor has been given so far. My concern with the current version is that it makes a cause and effect statement with no source attribution, is factually incorrect, and is defamatory. It makes conclusive statements even though the formal investigations aren't even finished and the preliminary findings can be interpreted to contradict the statements or at least their suggestive implications. The hostages were not killed by the siege (they did not die of starvation for example), according to an eyewitness account two hostages were already shot by the time the assault began, so the pool of possible victims due to the assault is six at max and that is pushing it. A preliminary report is that all hostage victims were shot by the gunman and not the rescue assault mounted by the police. Given the foregoing I ask that a third party make the changes I was attempting to, thank you. Lambanog (talk) 04:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC) Seems resolved for now. Lambanog (talk) 11:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC) A possibly new issue is developing revolving around appropriate See also links involving the same editor who previously blocked my edit regarding the above earlier issues with no explanation. I have therefore removed the resolved tag I had earlier put up and am awaiting further developments in case further mediation is necessary. Lambanog (talk) 13:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

In the article Manila hostage crisis I'd like to request another editor to remove the See also link 1998 Manila blackmail incident inserted by the same party who was also the one who tried to block my earlier edits to the lead. The link is unrelated, provocative, and unbalances the POV of the article. If it remains I might feel compelled to add another link to balance things out, but due to the possibly controversial nature of the article's subject, I'd rather a third party simply step in right now. Thank you. Lambanog (talk) 02:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

An edit has been made that addresses my concerns so this has been temporarily resolved. But I would like to see that it sticks for a little while before marking this request for neutral opinions as permanently resolved. Lambanog (talk) 16:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It appears I was justified to believe this issue wasn't over yet. Still unresolved. Lambanog (talk) 16:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I am hopeful this issue is now fixed. But waiting for confirmation from opposing party before marking it resolved. Lambanog (talk) 07:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Is this confusing for readers not in the know...

Currently over at WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, we've been working on amendments to the Ireland Place Infobox. Whilst we have everything settled upon there is one issue i would like to bring to the attention of this board - does the use of the Ireland pipelink, rather than just using Republic of Ireland unpiped lead to confusion for readers who don't know the difference between the two?

The current Ireland Manual of Style is that if the state and island are being talked about in the same paragraph/context then the Republic of Ireland is to be used to avoid confusion with the island of Ireland - however the island in this case is not being explicitly stated, though it is depicted in the map - so does that qualify the use of Republic of Ireland unpiped?

Heres Rannpháirtí anaithnid's sandbox demo of the infobox for when it applies to Republic of Ireland counties:

County Mayo Contae Mhaigh Eo
Motto: Dia is Muire Linn  (Irish) "God and Mary be with us"
Location
Map highlighting County Mayo
Statistics
State:	Ireland
Province:	Connacht
County seat:	Castlebar
Code:	MO
Area:	5,585 km2 (2,156 sq mi) (3rd)
Population (2006)	123,839 (17th)
Website: www.mayococo.ie

Do you think stating just "Ireland" is confusing for readers who don't know the difference between the state and the island? Mabuska ^(talk) 11:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

If you use State then it must be RoI and not pipe linked IMO so as not to confuse. Codf1977 (talk) 17:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

At last we've got a response from somebody lol :-) Mabuska ^(talk) 20:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

But not from someone who has not been involved in discussions around controversial Irish topics. Bjmullan (talk) 21:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, it would be better to say ROI rather than just Ireland. However id rather the infoboxes for Northern Ireland be changed to reflect the new agreement now if they have not already been. The issue of if it should say ROi or just I on the ROIs counties may take far longer to get agreement on. It will also take some time to get feedback, this board is sadly a rather ignored part of the wiki world. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Bjmullan. The reason i posted this here is for opinions from people outside of the topic to see whether it confuses readers from around the world as oppossed to those who already have a preference for which term and know the difference. Though i do agree we should implement the agreed parts of the new agreement whilst this one is sorted out, and i'll raise this back at the appropriate talk. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Richard Convertino / User:Furtive admirer

I've taken the bold step of reverting Richard Convertino to a version over 1 year and 40 edits old, to fix the massive POV rewrite of the article by the now-banned User:Furtive_admirer.

Most edits following the rewrite were attempts to remove POV content, though despite this, numerous POV statements and tone remained. For a few examples:

"He is a favorite of Detroit FBI agents, who like his courtroom drive."

"Jurors, for a second time, said that clearly these men were terrorists and that Convertino saved American lives by prosecuting them."

Note that the second statement is cited from [32] (Debbie Schlussel's political blog), yet is actually a quote copied verbatim from that site.

While some actual information may be salvageable, it's not something I'm prepared to invest time doing, and the article as-is absolutely cannot remain.

The other primary reason for my posting this notice is to encourage some investigation into the edits of User:Furtive_admirer before his ban. He (or perhaps she) authored or dramatically rewrote a number of biographies of (politically connected and sometimes controversial) living persons. Serious scrutiny should be brought to bear on a number of these edits, as several appear to troublesome, just from my cursory inspection. If this is not the proper forum for such a request (especially considering the potential time investment), please direct me to a more appropriate forum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.75.30.225 (talk) 11:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The edits of User:Furtive_admirer should be scrutinised if there is serious doubt over them. I'm not sure of the proper place to take this, but if they have edited articles to swing a certain point of view or bias and/or has twisted sources to state something different or used sources whose verifiablility and reliability are question then those edits should be checked out and either reverted/counter-balanced/or amended.

All statements that are questionable such as the following need a verifiable and reliable source otherwise they are suspect and candidates for deletion on grounds of PoV and bias:

"He is a favorite of Detroit FBI agents, who like his courtroom drive."

On the verbatim, unless its a sourced direct quote and styled as a quote, the text must be reworded so that it is not copied word-for-word as that in all possibility infringes upon the original sources copyright. If whole sections of the article are copied word for word then that is a serious issue and steps should be taken to amend.

I looked at that edit you supplied above and the manual of style that user used was incorrect and didn't provide an encyclopedic feel to the article and loaded in too many weasel words etc. You did right in reverting the edit even if it was so long ago. Mabuska ^(talk) 20:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

How should articles handle disproportionate coverage from a single news source?

Over the past month, I’ve been assembling sources in my userspace here with the intention of creating an article about the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case. (This link currently redirects to the article about the New Black Panther Party.) As can be seen from the page in my userspace, this topic has received a respectable amount of coverage from several well-known news sources, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the Wall Street Journal, CBS, ABC, CNN, and NPR. So I don’t think there’s any question that it’s notable enough to deserve its own article here. However, before I create this article, there’s something that I’m having a hard time figuring out how to handle about it: this topic has received more coverage in the Washington Times than in all other news sources combined. When a topic has received coverage from a single news source that’s this disproportionate compared to all other sources, what’s the appropriate way to handle it in articles here?

I don’t think there’s any question that the Washington Times is a reliable source, so the coverage it’s given to this topic should definitely be included. But if I give each news article exactly the same amount of weight here, then the 50-odd articles that the Washington Times has published about this case will completely dominate the Wikipedia article, which doesn’t seem like it could be a neutral solution. But on the other hand, it also doesn’t seem reasonable to give each newspaper the same amount of weight regardless of how much coverage they’ve provided to this case, so that the 50 articles about it in the Washington Times would only have the combined weight of the single (and fairly short) Los Angeles Times article. I imagine that the appropriate solution probably lies somewhere between these two extremes, but I don’t know how to determine exactly where. Can anyone offer any advice about this? --Captain Occam (talk) 08:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Washington Times i'd say is a reliable source. Though i would suggest build up as much of the article as possible with all the sources using what each one has to give if possible an even and unbiased viewpoint stating contradicting views giving by sources it there are any. If the Washington Times gives more precise detailed information then it should be included. As long as the article has a balanced and as neutral a feel and flow to it, i wouldn't worry about one source dominating too much unless that source has questions about its neutrality, impartiality, reliablity etc. Mabuska ^(talk) 20:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

As is stated in the Wikipedia article about it, the Washington Times is often considered a conservative newspaper, although in this respect it isn’t really different from the Wall Street Journal (which is also considered conservative) or the New York Times and the Washington Post (which are considered liberal.) At least in the United States, there aren’t many newspapers which don’t have any tendency in either one direction or the other.

Something else that’s probably the case for this topic is that it’s received more coverage from sources with a conservative tendency than those with a liberal tendency, maybe because liberal-oriented sources don’t think it’s as newsworthy as conservative-oriented sources do. (As you can see from my source list, liberal sources have still covered it, just not to quite the same degree). Since NPOV policy requires that viewpoints about a topic be presented “in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject”, and in reliable sources about the Black Panther case, conservative perspectives are somewhat more prevalent than liberal perspectives, I’m assuming that the presentation of these viewpoints in the Wikipedia article should reflect that proportion. Can anyone confirm for me whether I’m thinking of this correctly? --Captain Occam (talk) 01:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

For one thing you can just mention in some Non WP:OR way that WashTimes has covered this extensively and mention their editorial viewpoint. I'm sure there's a bunch of editorial and opinion pieces that have one particular viewpoint. (And mentioned any editorial views of any other news sources that have covered it significantly, I suppose, for balance.) I'm sure sources have mentioned that there is a liberal-conservative divide (and perhaps other opinions too ) on this, so that goes in too, in whatever non-WP:OR way you can do it. (Not looking at the article in question, I can't suggest how to do that off hand.) Actually I can think of several controversial areas where this is an issue and maybe it could be deal with more specifically on the WP:NPOV article, if you come up with a good solution. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

This is one of those stories where the media coverage is more important than the underlying story. You should look for academic articles that cover this, and explain why it received so much coverage in the WT. TFD (talk) 02:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Carolmooredc: I’m not sure I understand exactly what you’re suggesting. The issue here isn’t so much a matter of opinions as of what specific facts are being discussed. The Washington Times discusses a lot of specific facts that aren’t discussed by most other sources, and mentioning these facts casts Obama’s department of justice in a negative light. There may be similar facts which could be mentioned that cast them in a positive light, but if there are they aren’t being covered by reliable sources, at least not to anywhere near the same degree.

Based on Mabuska’s comment and my interpretation of NPOV policy, it seems like what I should do is probably to include most of the facts and details that have been included in the news stories about this topic regardless of their sources. And since conservative sources have covered this story in greater depth than liberal sources have, this means it’s inevitable that the article is going to contain more details which have been pointed out by conservative sources than have been pointed out by liberal sources. What I’m trying to make sure is that this would be acceptable.

TFD: If you check Google scholar, you’ll see that there aren’t any academic articles about this case. The news coverage comprises the entirety of what secondary sources have covered about it, so those are the only sources we can weigh against one another in determining what’s consistent with NPOV policy. --Captain Occam (talk) 02:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

If the disproportionate coverage is large and there is a noticeable contrast perhaps grouping the paragraphs according to news source may be appropriate. Write the story that all news sources agree on or think is worth mentioning in several paragraphs then group all the additional information added by the Washington Times in other paragraphs introducing it the way CarolMooreDC has suggested. Lambanog (talk) 02:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Most of the other news sources cover the same general topics that the Washington Times does; the Washington Times just goes into more detail about a lot of them. So I think breaking the article into sections based on news source would disrupt its overall flow too greatly. Your suggestion gives me an idea that I think could be a good solution, though: when a particular piece of information has been reported only by the Washington Times, and casts Obama’s department of justice in a negative light, rather than asserting it as fact I can make it clear that the Washington Times is what’s reporting it. --Captain Occam (talk) 03:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Echoing TFD, above, one of the hallmarks of a political POV is the effort to "set the agenda." Isn't it possible that the reason why Washington Times goes into more detail might be because the editorial board is promoting a conservative cause? It might be possible as well that other newspapers have simply not decided to focus any attention on this issue because other issues seem more timely or important. WP:NOTNEWS. If after some initial attention, only certain newspapers are writing about this topic, and no one else, that's a pretty good indication that the topic really doesn't have historical significance, or at the very least that true secondary sources haven't yet digested the purported political controversy. Steveozone (talk) 03:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

There are really two separate issues here. The first is whether or not the topic is notable. This has been discussed on several talk pages already, and everyone who’s expressed an opinion there has been of the opinion that it is. Even if we were to completely ignore the Washington Times coverage, I think that looking at the rest of the sources I’ve assembled in my userspace, it’s hard to argue the issue of notability. This topic is about as notable as the Resignation of Shirley Sherrod and the ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy.

And the other question is one of NPOV. It can’t be an acceptable solution to ignore what’s actually stated by NPOV policy—that the proportion of viewpoints in the article should reflect the proportion that exists in reliable sources—and instead make up our own rules, such as that certain reliable sources should be ignored on the basis of their assumed motives for covering this topic. I posted about this here to ask how NPOV policy applies to disproportionate coverage from a single newspaper, and I’ve received some useful advice about that. But to suggest that we ignore this policy and make up our own rules is really unhelpful. --Captain Occam (talk) 15:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Immigration to Norway

IMO the article Immigration to Norway is severely biased, as I've described on Talk:Immigration to Norway: selection and presentation of facts are made to make "immigrants in norway" appear as "criminals", "social problem" and "public expences".

I added a {{POV}} tag to it yesterday, but it was removed by an IP with a history of vandalism. I enlist the case here in order to bring further attention to the article. Bw --Orland (talk) 09:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The article does have some issues with PoV and appears to concentrate on certain aspects of sources to get a negative point across such as:

In 2008, it was reported that more than one third of inmates in Norwegian prisons were Muslims

This is clearly biased as they are still a minority and numbers showing other denominations should also be provied for balance. Also its incorrect to simply state Muslim as not all Muslims in Norway are bound to be immigrants - there is native converts in every country so the way it is worded hints of anti-Islamism. In fact i shall remove that statement from the article myself as it in no way states that all the Muslims are immigrants. I've also made over edits at the minute such as removing the anti-Semitic section as it makes no reference to immigrants but to Muslims and the article is about immigrants.

However if the claims are from a verifiable and reliable source then they have merit for inclusion as long as the source isn't cherry-picked to get what an editor wants into an article whilst leaving out things that may make it more balanced. However many statements especially in regards to Muslims are clearly biased and sectarian in overtone. Mabuska ^(talk) 20:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It's worse than I thought (that is, situation in Norway, not the article - must strike Oslo out of my retirement home shopping list). Look, the subject leaves no place for neutrality. The natives may tolerate the invaders but you cannot force them to be neutral, and vice versa. All that can be done is striving for a well-rounded and correct presentation of available sources. Indeed, calling all black-haired alien criminals "Muslims" may be incorrect - no one can prove that they indeed are. Perhaps, "people of races which are associated by the White Norwegians with immigrants from typical Muslim countries" is what the source actually meant. But if the source said "Muslims", there's no way around it. East of Borschov 11:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

But the source didn't mention immigrants anywhere in it so its irrelevant. It focused on Muslims and would be more appropriate for an article on Muslims in Norway. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Possible POV problems at Libertarianism

A very recent RfC closed that deemed the current inclusion of certain viewpoints at Libertarianism was largely appropriate according to the many RS provided. However, editors still dissatisfied with the RfC have created proposals today which ultimately aim to have different content at the page called Libertarianism, as previous attempts have been unsuccessful at removing the content that has been deemed as WP:DUE for inclusion.

Outside opinion posted at the Libertarianism talk page would be greatly appreciated. BigK HeX (talk) 00:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Kundalini Yoga's history in denial

The history of Kundalini Yoga is under dispute. [33]

In 1969 Kundalini Yoga was brought out of the secrecy and seclusion of India to the United States by Kundalini Master Yogi Bhajan, who began teaching it openly in group settings and made it for the first time widely available to interested students. These teachings were delivered in a practical format of classes for the Western householder and yogic practitioner, with regulated teacher training programs and a spiritual approach which became synonymous with the teachings of Yogi Bhajan. Today, it is openly taught at yoga centers all over the world, and is widely considered a powerful healing modality with an ever growing range of benefits.

User Gatoclass has consistently without aiding in the improvement of the article been in denial of Yogi Bhajan's historical contributions and significance to Kundalini Yoga. Multiple revisions without AGF [34] and use of ignorance as a basis for research [35].

This user has no knowledge of the subject, nor has ever contributed one word to it, or done any research besides stating his POV.

I have tried numerous times to resolve this dispute with the author (see two links above).RogerThatOne72 (talk) 15:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Ireland

I have tagged the above article with {{POV}} as I believe The failure of the article to mention what every school child knows, namely the island of Ireland is part of an archipelago called the British Isles for reasons related to the fact that a very small number of people dislike the name of the archipelago for political and historical reasons is pushing that view contra to WP's WP:NPOV policy. Codf1977 (talk) 16:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

There's a wee bit of background at WT:BISE. Note that in both cases (at Ireland, and at WT:BISE) I take no position on the correctness of the situation, and outside views are extremely welcome (not that I want to sound "needy" or anything...) TFOWR 16:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

If British Isles is mentioned at Great Britain? then it should be mentioned at the Ireland aticle, too. GoodDay (talk) 17:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Snowded (talk · contribs) removed the {{POV}} tag with this edit despite the fact the dispute remains un resolved, I have requested at Snowded Talk page that he re-instates the tag but he has declined. Can an un-involved editor look at this with a view to re-instating the tag with the hope of bringing in other editors. Codf1977 (talk) 14:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not uninvolved because I am currently trying to solve the problem, but allow me to comment anyway: The official main purpose of such tags is to mark problems so that other editors can deal with them when they get around to it. In this function they are simply not necessary while there is a discussion going on on the talk page that looks as if it is going to finish soon with a definite result that everybody can agree with. A second purpose is to alert readers to seriously misleading aspects of an article. Omitting mention of his presidency of the US at the Obama article would be an example of that, but the mere omission of "British Isles" from an article about Ireland simply doesn't require such a warning.

I don't think the question whether the article should be tagged during the discussion has a definite policy-based answer. That puts all sides that are currently edit warring about the tag in danger of being blocked. The fact that this is a known contentious area makes this more likely. Hans Adler 15:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

historicity of Jesus

There's a dispute over at historicity of Jesus and related articles about the proper way to frame some statements about scholarly consensus regarding the existence of Jesus and the historical value of the Gospels. These two edits give examples of the material under dispute: [36] and [37]. At issue are two passages in the article. One version of the first passage is "While scholars draw a distinction between the Jesus of history and the figure of religious faith, the vast majority of scholars who specialize in the historicity of Jesus are Christians who believe his existence as a historical figure can be established using documentary and other evidence,..." The source cited for this passage is a quote by Graham Stanton in which he writes "nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed." Is Stanton's text being represented in a fair and neutral manner?

A version of the second passage is "Devout Christian scholars may assert that mainstream historians consider the synoptic gospels to contain much reliable historical information about Jesus as a Galilean teacher..." The sources cited for this passage are Robert Van Voorst and William Weaver. Van Voorst writes that "The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds. ... Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted", and Weaver writes that "The denial of Jesus' historicity has never convinced any large number of people, in or out of technical circles, nor did it in the first part of the century." Is it appropriate to characterize the statements of Van Voorst and Weaver as being those of "devout Christians"? --Akhilleus (talk) 04:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's not fail to mention that Van Voorst is using Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing ("Publisher of religious books, from academic works in theology, biblical studies, religious history and reference to popular titles in spirituality, social and cultural criticism, and literature." per their own webpage's meta tag for descrition) and Weaver is using Continuum International ("a leading independent academic publisher, unconstrained by the interests of any global media group or academic institution, and based in London and New York."; why are these professionals going to such publications if their positions are that mainstream?--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

ONE POINT OF VIEW IS NOT A NUETRAL POINT OF VIEW!

Wikipedia claims to present everything from a nuetral point of view, but this is just a label to stop people from presenting their point of view. If it was truly a nuetral point of view, there shouldnt be anything on this whole website that hasnt been 100% proven and has no opposition to this proof. Everything that we see and speak in this world comes from an individuals perception, therefore a 'nuetral point of view' on a topic is something that doesnt even exist in our world. A 'point of view' is exactly that, it cant be labelled as 'nuetral'. The only 'nuetral' point of view possible in this world would come from somebody who cannot hear, see, smell or feel. As from the moment we are born we are influenced by everything that our minds experience. Please Wikipedia, please turn your site back into a place for freedom of speech and expression of thought. It will police itself, people will delete the BS themselves, or it may just open their eyes to a thought they have never been presented with. I thought this was a site dedicated to education, a tool to increase the intelligence of the human race, but i think im mistaken. Is WikiLeaks just a site built to make the people you believe in Freedom of Speech? Because i dont understand how Wikipedia can be such a police state when Wikileaks is dedicated to getting the truth out there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.225.77 (talk) 10:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

BruceGrubb's comment is unconstructive and unbecoming. Is he suggesting that the sources are unreliable? Then say so, and explain why. Do we have a policy of using books only published by academic presses?

The key point is this: Graham Stanton was a professor at Cambridge university, and the winner of an award from the British Academy. In the UK, it is hard to have higher or more prestigious academic credentials. He was used as a source for a statement about the views of most historians. An editor changed the text to say that this what most Christiansd believe. Yes, i have an NPOV concern because the result is to alter fundamentally the view being represented, and if we do not represent views accurately, the whole encyclopedia falls apart. But this claim that this is what most Christians think is the pure fabrication of the editor. My main concern is that this violates NOR. It may well be that most Christians believe this, but we still need a verifialbe source saying so, not just an editor's opinion.

Be that as it may, Stanton was not summarizing what most Christians believe, he was making a statement about what Christian and non-Christian historians believe. Yes, I take the word of a Cambridge professor over the word of another WP editor. It is why we have V and NOR policies right? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

BruceGrubb, Civilizededucation, and the IP seem to think that if Wikipedia editors believe a source is biased, it's ok to misrepresent their views. I seriously doubt this is in accordance with the NPOV policy... --Akhilleus (talk) 18:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Akhilleus misses the point. It has already been shown via Jesus now and then by Richard A. Burridge, Graham Gould which states "Jesus is also mentioned in the writing of the three main Roman historial writers from the end o the first century CE - Pliny, Tacitus and Suetonius" that Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing doesn't double check its author's claimed facts as none of these source actually mentions Jesus. In fact, of the three only Tacitus makes any mention regarding what the Christians believe about "Christ" and what he presents is wrong (Pilate's title was Prefect which had been replaced by a similar position called Procurator by that time.)

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J by Geoffrey W. Bromiley is another example of Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing's lack of professional editing. "This view (Christ Myth theory) states that the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology, possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes..."

Bulfinch in the "Origin of Mythology" chapter points out six different ways myths were thought to come about: Scriptural, Historical, Allegorical, Astronomical, Physical, and explanation for natural phenomena. He also said "All the theories which have been mentioned are true to a certain extent." so which type of mythology is Bromiley talking about? It is unclear as you have one sentence about Lucian's criticism regarding the Jesus story being being a pale imitation of Apollonius of Tyana followed by one talking about the idea that the death and resurrection story said to resembling dying and rising god cults like that of Attis, Adonis, Osiris, and Mithras. Problem is at one time Euhemerism was very popular with Encyclopædia of religion and ethics, Volume 10 (1919) edited by James Hastings, John Alexander Selbie, Louis Herbert Gray and J. G. Frazer The Golden Bough looking at the theory that some of these gods had been men. So instead of informing in a clear and concise manner Eerdmans allows a totally confusing passage in.

As for Stanton Amazon doesn't have page p. xxiii available for The Gospels and Jesus but it does have page 143 where Stanton firmly puts Wells' Jesus Legend (1996) in the Christ Myth category: "His case is quite simple: until the beginning of the second century AD Christians worshiped Jesus as mythical 'Saviour' figure; only at that point did they make their 'Saviour' a historical person who lived and taught in Galilee" but Wells himself clearly states in 2009 "In fact, however, I have expressed stated in my books of 1996, 1999, and 2004 that I have repudiated this theory (Christ Myth theory), and now really belong in their category 2. If the reader wishes a brief statement concerning my change of position and the reasons for it—briefer than I give in those three books or in the present one—I can refer him or her to my article "Jesus, Historicity of" in The New Encyclopedia of Unbelief, edited by Tom Flynn." (Wells, G. A. (2009) Cutting Jesus Down to Size. Open Court, pp. 327–328.)

If Stanton is wrong about Wells' Jesus Legend (1996) by Wells own words then you have to ask what else is he wrong about.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

if a source is biased, we should say so!! But we need more evidence than the editor's say so. What passes as evidence - like nameing the publish of the book - would be zapped as a violation of SYNTH and OR if we were talking about article content. Bias needs to be named!!! But we have to determine bias from reliable sources without violating NOR. One way is that many authors admit to bias (e.g. some say that they write as Chistians, or as women, or whatever). another way is to find a reliable source that says that the first source is biased - this is what we have been doing in the articles on the Race and intellience controvesy articles. Bot please, no violations of NOR. Find legitimate reliable secondary sources that explicity state that x's arguments in x's book are biased. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

What passes as evidence - like nameing the publish of the book - would be zapped as a violation of SYNTH and OR if we were talking about article content. True, but we're not, so it isn't. Obviously, in determining whether a source has bias which ought to affect how we treat it, the fact that it comes from a Christian publishing house (or a Marxist one, or animal rights one, or a revisionist one) may be a relevant factor. Reliable sources are not need needed to back up common-sense arguments made on talkpages. --FormerIP (talk) 23:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

@Akhellius. Actually I am saying that the statements about academic consensus from this field should not be used at all. These statements are of no value.-Civilizededucation^talk 02:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Civilizededucation and not just because of who the publishers are but because they themselves use Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words#Unsupported_attributions that we as editors would never be allowed to use--ie these sources can be used to break the spirit but not the letter of the guideline.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Is there anybody who thinks that PeaceLoveHarmony's edit here, which inspired Akhilleus's original post, was appropriate? john k (talk) 17:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Not this editor. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Aspartame: OR/Synthesis Dispute

I would like to resolve a dispute regarding my additions to aspartame. It appears there are a few bulldog-like editors patrolling it constantly, biting anyone who challenges their article. They keep undoing my edits, accusing me of all sorts, this time- bias, original research and synthesis, wheras I beg to differ: I stuck to what the numerous reliable sources I cited say exactly. There is nothing original, I have not synthesized anything, and every single statement is verifiable - yet they keep deleting it all - every single word is deemed unworthy of their article! This goes contrary to the NPOV guidelines on this which state:

"The neutrality policy is used sometimes as an excuse to delete texts that are perceived as biased. Isn't this a problem? In many cases, yes. Many of us believe that the fact that some text is biased is not enough, in itself, to delete it outright. If it contains valid information, the text should simply be edited accordingly."

Please can an administrator or two have a look through the aspartame page to assess this and make a decision on the content of my latest addition or my suggestions on the discussion, which I done to clarify a biased statement (explained in the discussion), or advise where to go from here? I don't even mind if it is all deleted, the only position I want to advance is a NPOV. It is quite a complex, controversial subject, and for a full picture, edits, sources and discussions of the aspartame page will need to be checked (which are quite lengthy). Thank you.КĐ^♥ 03:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but the other editors have the right of it: The edit you're trying to add is synthesis, and is not permissible. Yes, each sentence you are adding has a citation. However, the combination of those statements advances a position not supported by any individual source, and that's synthesis. If a reliable source had made this synthesis and you reported it, citing that source for the entire thing, that would be different. In this case, you're trying to draw together disparate sources to advance a line of reasoning, and that's exactly the definition of synthesis. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 15:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Why does the methanol content of fruit juice deserve its own paragraph in an article on aspartame? (Admins don't resolve content disputes, BTW). Noloop (talk) 15:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a mix of WP:SYNTH (plugging together sourced sentences in a way that misleads towards a synthetic conclusion) and WP:UNDUE (why is all this fruit juice nonsense at all relevant?). The editors on the article are right: Killdec, I understand you are in good faith, but you are doing it wrong. --Cyclopia^talk 17:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I accept that. But I just want to say that this started because of dissatisfaction with the original sentence, which is the real "fruit juice nonsense", as it only gives half of the picture (methonol in fruit juice), and misleads people to the conclusion that methanol is 100% safe, because fruit juice is 100% safe. I think to provide a NPOV the statement either requires clarification, or it should be removed (it is a statement that compares "apples and oranges" - as another poster in the discussion pointed out - and the sources I provided confirm there is really no comparison).КĐ^♥ 19:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't say I agree that the current statement has NPOV issues. The preceding sentence talks about "methanol poisoning;" in that context, no reasonable person would infer that fruit juice is 100% safe, if it contains more of a substance that can poison you than an aspartame-sweetened drink. It may be a non sequitor, but that doesn't necessarily make it non-NPOV. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 19:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses page - Equating Jehovah's Witnesses with Old Testament Prophets

This is a line that one editor who is opposed to Jehovah's Witnesses has placed on the main page.

Publications have also claimed God uses Witnesses as a modern-day prophet, warning about what is to come in a similar manner to Old Testament prophets.[294][295]

It is used as a way to try to implicate Jehovah's Witnesses as a false prophet. The editor is making strenous efforts to make that point on Wikipedia. I had appealled for comments from other editors. They have given comments on the talk page. But despite that, we still have this issue. The two references used are from 1959 and 1972. They do not state that Jehovah's Witnesses are the same as or similar to Old Testament prophets. Jehovah's Witness literature has stated repeatedly that they do not make prophecies, and that only the Bible, which the Old Testament prophets wrote, along with the New Testament, is inspired of God. The writings of modern Jehovah's Witnesses are not. Additionlly, these two articles speak of Jehovah's Witnesses similarity to prophets, only in the context that Jehovah's Witnesses preach the message already in the Bible. They do not make any new prophecies. The Wikipedia editor blocks attempt to edit this erroneous sentence. The reason is, it supports his strong POV. I feel the sentence violates the Neutral Point of View policy of Wikipedia and is biased.Natural (talk) 23:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

After posting this, it is noted, in reviewing the Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses page, that these two references, 1972 and 1959, are actually not taken from JW literature, but from Ray Franz's very biased writings against JW. This was not disclosed on the main Jehovah's Witnesses page. So, the sentence reflects both a bias and is unethical.Natural (talk) 23:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

Raised earlier at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 16#Jehovah's Witnesses - Doctrinal Criticisms section. Do we all repeat ourselves now? User:Naturalpsychology has posted a succession of talk page threads in the vain hope of gaining support for his view and posted an RFC on the article talk page with little support for his complaint. He is forum shopping and not listening to other editors. BlackCab (talk) 02:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

In relation to User:Naturalpsychology's second complaint here, I have now added a clear attribution of the contested statement with numerous citations. See [38] and [39]. His claim that Franz is "very biased" is a nonsense; his books are critical of the religion, but he is no more a "very biased" source than the Watch Tower Society itself. -- BlackCab (talk) 11:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Especially given that the word "Jehovah" itself is a mis-translation, they started out on the wrong foot. The essence of NP's complaint seems to be, "How dare you quote us accurately!" However, it's certainly best to attribute the source, as you've done. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

University of the People and Shai Reshef

I wasn't really sure where to take this, I considered the COI noticeboard, but I think this is more appropriate. These two articles have been subject to NPOV editing by SPAs for over a year now (one of the SPAs was actually the name of PR company[40], so there is some definite COI going on). In fact, the vast majority of edits to these articles are by SPAs, and although much of the content they add is fine, it tends to be suspiciously positive and advertisement-y in nature. I've posted to the talk page of University of the People, but I don't get much response there.

As far as I know, I'm the only non-SPA editor keeping an eye on them and trying to keep them neutral, but I think I'm at the point where I'm no longer neutral myself (I may be unnecessarily removing valid content), so I'd appreciate some fresh eyes and minds to help me out here. There's nothing really egregious there right now, and these articles are edited at a pretty slow pace, but as I said, they've been pretty consistently edited by SPAs for over a year now, and I'd feel better to know that there are some other regular WP editors keeping an eye on them. SheepNotGoats (talk) 19:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I share your concern, and have watchlisted both. If I get a chance, I'll try to clean out some of the inappropriate text. Johnuniq (talk) 02:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Dispute over ethnic origin of Clement of Ohrid

There has been an edit war (in wich I am involved) on the page Clement of Ohrid, a medieval orthodox saint. The dispute is about the origin of the person: whether he is Bulgarian, or Macedonian, or Slavic. I saw in the discussion page and history that there were previous disputes that have not been solved.

The point is that Clement is regarded as a pan-Slavic saint and patron by all Slavic People, as being one of the inventors of the Cyrilic alphabeth. Bulgarians and Macedonian try to monopolize him as been strictly Bulgarian or strictly Macedonian. Various sources refer to him as either Slavic or Bulgarian or Macedonian.

Currently the article is written as if he was a Bulgarian national hero. Whenever I try to change something it gets reverted almost instantly, although I am providing proper citation. Whenever a Macedonian editor reads this, he will immediately try to change, all the references to Bulgaria, and write Macedonia instead. Bulgarian editors that have the page on watchlist will revert instantly.

I think that the article should refer to a Slavic saint because all that he did promoted Slavic culture and language. That will be a reasonable compromise as Bulgarians and Macedonians are both Slavic nations, which did not exist at the time. It should also satisfy most readers and one-time editors, and there will be no further sporadic edit wars.

Svrznik (talk) 23:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

What sources do you have that he is Slavic?Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

After searching on google books, I was surprised to find that very few authors mention his ethnic origin explicitly. That is after I eliminated works written by Bulgarian or Macedonian authors. He is discussed in the context of his work, and his greatest achievement is the spreading of Slavic language in Medieval Bulgaria which at that time controlled most of the Balkan peninsula. The point is that in the 9th century, Bulgaria was Slavic dominated, but the ruling class was Bulgar of Turkic origin. Part of the aristocracy recently converted to Christianity and embraced the Slavic language, while other hard core elements sicked to Bulgar pagan traditions. Clement played a major role, and is one of the main figures that helped Slavic language resist the assimilation into Greek, and also made it prevail as the dominant language in Bulgaria and the whole Eastern Europe.

This is best described here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Y0NBxG9Id58C&lpg=PP1&dq=The%20early%20medieval%20Balkans%3A%20a%20critical%20survey%20from%20the%20sixth&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false

pages 128-129 and page 134.

and here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=G2bsJdYrwD4C&pg=PA66&dq=Clement+of+Ohrid+Slavic&hl=en&ei=myuXTJOeFcah4AaIprTcBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDkQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Clement&f=false

page 66.

Dimitri Obolensky a prominent Byzantine historian, in his book Six Byzantine Portraits, on page 9 calls him a "A Bulgarian Slav". You can download the book here: http://hotfile.com/dl/35219986/83ebf44/0198219512.rar.html

An online database of saints (https://saints.sqpn.com) lists him as a Slavic: http://saints.sqpn.com/saintc3h.htm

Svrznik (talk) 10:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

And everything else you have is your own OR on the subject. Sources (as you already pointed) treat him as a Bulgarian or a Bulgarian Slav (which is btw the same thing). Plus, instead of aiming for consensus you've broken 3RR on the article (again). Plus, you've being playing around with article names the whole day, not even trying to adhere to WP:NC. Great work.--Laveol ^T 19:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I can post more sources:

1. http://books.google.com/books?id=2cP0wc_E6yEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Orthodox+Church+in+the+history+of+Russia&hl=en&ei=QmWYTM-2OoLr4Aab77hc&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=slavic&f=false

On page 12 you can read: "Slavic desciples Naum and Clement".

2. http://books.google.com/books?id=ANdbpi1WAIQC&lpg=PP1&dq=A%20history%20of%20East%20Central%20Europe%3A%20East%20Central%20Europe%20in%20the%20Middle%20Ages&pg=PA146#v=onepage&q=Slavic&f=false

On page 146 you can read: "Slavic-speaking priest Clement".

3. http://books.google.com/books?id=hFVEOVpoHLsC&lpg=PP1&dq=The%20Orthodox%20Church%20in%20the%20Byzantine%20Empire&pg=PA100#v=snippet&q=first%20Slav%20bishop&f=false

On page 100 you can read "first Slav bishop".

4. http://books.google.com/books?id=-P_huGq9mV4C&lpg=PP1&dq=Slavic%20Scriptures%3A%20the%20formation%20of%20the%20Church%20Slavonic%20version%20of%20the%20Holy&pg=PA89#v=onepage&q=Greek-educated%20Slavs&f=false

On page 89 you can read: "they were Greek-educated Slavs" (talking about Naum, Clement and others).

5. http://books.google.com/books?id=-P_huGq9mV4C&lpg=PP1&dq=Slavic%20Scriptures%3A%20the%20formation%20of%20the%20Church%20Slavonic%20version%20of%20the%20Holy&pg=PA85#v=snippet&q=%22first%20Slav%22&f=false

On Page 85 you can read: "he [Clement] would be the first Slav in general".

I looked at the page about Charlemagne, and there was a similar dispute there. The solution is that he is not labeled as French, nor as German, but simply Frankish. His name is written only in Latin. I think Slavic will be a similar solution on this page.

Svrznik (talk) 06:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Susan G. Komen for the Cure

Can some people help me with this article? There's been scattered NPOV discussion on it for several years, and there are two facts about its current state: 1. Parts of it read like literature straight from the organization (because it IS wording straight from the org) and 2. User/IP 98.204.64.30 (who only has ever made edits about Komen or its founder) has recently popped in and qualified a lot of the edits I made regarding controversy with the organization and has removed things he/she considered "biased information," although it was sourced.

I feel that it is important that such a large organization is accurately represented, including both good works AND controversy (which surely exists for any huge non-profit as such), but this particular editor has deemed me "biased" and will likely delete/qualify anything I do. (In my opinion they are quite biased that Komen Can Do No Wrong, so there's that, but anyway.) Any outsider help is appreciated, as I never intended to stir up controversy here. Thanks. Sweet kate (talk) 14:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Categories

Are there any guidelines re category names? The recently created category "Famines_in_British_Empire" [41] is in my view a value-laden term. It has been created by an editor User:Zuggernaut who appears to be a borderline WP:SPA. This editor clearly holds the view that the British Empire was solely responsible for famines in India and Ireland, as demonstrated by his edits to various articles, but this is a matter of opinion rather than fact. "Famines in the British Empire" is clearly causally linking the fact there was a famine and the fact that it occurred under British rule. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 08:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it's not useful. There are already categories for Famines in India and Famines in Ireland as well as a general category Famines. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and discuss the subject rather than the editor. Shyamsunder (talk) 02:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Endocrine disruption

FellGleaming (talk · contribs) has written the following over at endocrine disruption:

The theory of endocrine disruption has been dismissed as junk science by some scientists, and there is no consensus that the concept is valid.[42]

However, that is not what the source FellGleaming quoted said. The source examined and presented both sides of the debate, not one side as Fell just did. The New York Times article wrote:

Where science has left a void, politics and marketing have rushed in. A fierce debate has resulted, with one side dismissing the whole idea of endocrine disruptors as junk science and the other regarding BPA as part of a chemical stew that threatens public health.[43]

The article goes into more detail about both sides, and it is neither neutral nor accurate to summarize the source in the way it is presented in the article by FellGleaming. I've asked Fell to revisit the source and fix it, but he refuses. Viriditas (talk) 11:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment by FellGleaming.

Viriditas has posted me to three different messageboards in the past 4 days, as well as following me to various articles and filling talk pages with threats and personal attacks. I'll save that for an upcoming harassment case if it continues.

To respond to this particular edit, the diff is here [44]. I reverted out an edit by Islandeden, restoring the article to its original state. Why? His text removed a text that stated there was valid scientific dispute, replacing it with a source that purports to claim "scientific consensus", basing this off a single paper. He provided no link in the cite, but I went looking for it and found it here, at the advocacy site "endocrinedisruption.net": [45]. As everyone knows, primary sources like this can be difficult to use properly, as they require more interpretation than a secondary source. And in this case, the editor's interpretation was severely flawed. The paper claimed no consensus among scientists in general, but simply consensus among the participants in this particular workshop. I thus reverted out the change as unsupported by the source.

The material Viriditas is referring to above was added to the article by a previous editor; my revert simply restored it. If Viriditas truly believed it was problematic, he could fix it himself. Instead, he is demanding I acknowledge I "misrepresented sources", as he says he is "building a case against me". Viriditas is, by the way, being discussed for sanctions on the climate change message board for battleground mentality tactics. In fact, it was my posting an opinion against him there that led to his retaliation here. Fell Gleaming^talk 17:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

First of all, a summary statement from an expert panel, synthesizing available literature, is a secondary source, not a primary source. The interpretation of existing data has already been performed by the experts on the panel, and our responsibility is to accurately convey their conclusions. I agree that "scientific consensus" is probably an overstatement based on this one expert body statement, but this is nonetheless a secondary source and probably worthy of discussion and inclusion in the proper context.

Secondly, regardless of who added the material, this is pretty clearly an inappropriate, slanted, and cherry-picked summary of this New York Times article. It seems FellGleaming accepts this point, maybe - at least he isn't defending the edit content, saying only that he reverted on general principles, I guess. So maybe the involved editors could work out a more suitable and neutral representation of the New York Times source on the article talk page, ideally with a minimum of posturing. MastCell ^Talk 19:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

A minor point perhaps, since Mastcell agrees the source was represented incorrectly, but an expert panel that doesn't cite or analyze any research or other primary source, but simply states the current opinions of the panel members, is probably best characterized as itself being a primary source. It's no different than had one or more of those experts directly written an article on the subject. I would be happy to work with Viriditas on this page, but I fear he's more concerned with his retaliatory efforts than improving the content for any of the six article's he's currently trying to report me for. Fell Gleaming^talk 19:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

FellGleaming, please revisit the article and represent the source accurately, without introducing bias. I've already asked you to do this on the talk page, and you have refused, saying " I simply reverted a problematic change; I wasn't specifically restoring that claim. However, I don't see that the claim (which was already in the article btw) is inaccurate at all. One side does dismiss it as junk science, and -- given there are two sides to the scientific debate -- no consensus exist.". This is the same response you give whenever a problem is raised with the way you use sources. You deny there is a problem, and you refuse to fix it. I've already used the talk page, which is why I'm posting at this noticeboard. Viriditas (talk) 19:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Alterdoppelganger at Pamela Geller

"New" editor Alterdoppelganger (talk · contribs) has come in to completely whitewash the Pamela Geller article to make it read as if she were writing the article herself. They claim the new version is "neutral", I see it as so pro-Geller as to be ridiculous. This is the version they keep reverting to. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Concerns and controversies over the 2010 Commonwealth Games

Concerns and controversies over the 2010 Commonwealth Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

You'll probably guess from the lengthy title of this article that it's attracting some less than neutral edits. More eyes would be very welcome. It's a serious topic - there have been very real failings by the organisers - but it's being used to slam India and the article is drawing every tiny little negative news story. 220.101.28.25 (talk) seems to be the sole voice of reason, which makes protection less attractive, but hopefully additional neutral editors will avoid the need for protection anyway. TFOWR 13:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

An Australian athelete has pulled out, bridge collapse, partial drop ceiling collapse in the weighlifting, some teams are delaying leaving, etc. so some editors seem to be going all out to dig up as much negative detail as they can. Don't worry too much about me, I hope (chances!) to go UzT early tonight. 220.101 talk^\Contribs 13:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Labour Party (UK)

Labour Party (UK) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

OK, I'll state upfront that - unlike the issue above - this is an article I could reasonably be said to being "involved" at. I can't recall how, I suspect through WP:RFPP (I've certainly protected the article before now), but I've had the article watchlisted for some time now and I've previously raised an issue at ANI.

There has for sometime been "genre-warring" over this political party's ideology. The party itself claims to be "democratic socialist". Historically (back in the dim past of October 2009) the article listed "democratic socialism", "social democracy" and "third way". This was changed by Riversider2008 (talk) to include "neoliberalism". This was removed at some point (after, I think May 2010). As of today the article only includes "democratic socialism", so - obviously - "social democracy" and "third way" have been removed at some point. They don't, however, feature much in this report.

For the past few months there has been an up-tick in edit warring over the "ideology" field in the infobox, mostly with IPs adding uncited ideologies, however to be fair all additions could probably be cited from historical versions of the article. More recently, following semi-protection by your 'umble servant, a discussion has started on the article's talkpage. Riversider2008 has referred to several archived discussions in which sources of varying degrees of reliability had been provided in support of "neoliberalism".

I remain unconvinced by Riversider2008's arguments for inclusion, as I believe "neoliberalism" is an extraordinary claim, requiring extraordinary sources. However, Riversider2008 does make the argument that "democratic socialism" has only ever been sourced to the party itself.

So... what ideologies should be included in the infobox? TFOWR 16:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Just democratic socialist. It was described as a socialist party in Klaus von Beyme's party categories. While sources say it has adopted neoliberal polices, as have all major Western parties, there are no sources that claim it is a mainstream view that they are now a neoliberal party. TFD (talk) 17:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, the infobox that I am arguing for does NOT baldly state that Labour has a neoliberal ideology or is a neoliberal party, rather the much softer position that neoliberalism is one of several ideological currents within the party. TFD is correct that very few sources state that Labour has become an entirely neoliberal party, but many point to a strong neoliberal trend within its leadership, which the infobox should reflect. Other UK political parties (like the Conservative Party) articles list a number of ideological trends or influences, so this is not unusual or 'extraordinary'. Simply listing 'democratic socialism' is a gross oversimplification of the more complex reality that the published literature points to, and by oversimplifying becomes POV. I'd request that editors spend a little time studying the weight and breadth of sources cited in the discussion before reaching their conclusions. Riversider (talk) 22:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Most western parties of any orientation have to varying degrees adopted neo-liberal economic policies. This was true of the Blair years and the fact should be included in the main body of the article. It is not however an ideology, and we are anyway past the "new Labour" period, post the banking crash etc. etc. The information box needs to place a party where it sits in the political spectrum, more detailed analysis and description belongs in the main body of the article. --Snowded ^TALK 05:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Clause IV does indeed say "democratic socialist" (and I went to check), but the privatisation bent they went on betrays that somewhat. Still, they are seen as reasonably left-wing by their base, and indeed by most of the public. Sure, the Trotskyists aren't too pleased they moved closer to the centre, but there you go. That said, we could do well to add more than one ideology to reflect the factions: Conservative Party (UK) has 5 and Liberal Democrats 2. Sure, Blair and Brown aren't in charge of the party, but you still have people like David Miliband or Peter Mandelson, who continue the party's Third Way credentials. Sceptre ^(talk) 07:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Or we could but those two down, information boxes are not really places for list of policies and practices; the article can provide context for those --Snowded ^TALK 07:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Football terminology

Hi all, I tried to initiate an RFC on the talk page of Football regarding this issue, but got nowhere, so i'm trying here now.

A few months ago I saw that there wasn't a consistent MOS rule regarding football articles. On some about American football, the term American football was used, and sometimes football was used. Likewise, on Association football, sometimes soccer was used, sometimes football was used, and sometimes Association football was used.

Ditto that on Gaelic football, Canadian football and Australian football.

There needs to be a standard NPOV accepted MOS term on all articles, or I can guarantee you that there will be edit wars in the future between partisans of the varying sports claiming their football is "the" football and forcing that POV down the throats of other users. I've already unfortunately been in edit wars with other users in the attempt to try and stop this from happening.

I don't care how it's done, I just want to see a way that all of these codes of football can be seen and treated equally in the encyclopedia. Doc Quintana (talk) 21:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is just forum shopping. You've already initiated an RfC, which failed to achieve any consensus whatsoever for forcing standardization across all articles on sports called "football", and posted at the NFL Wikiproject, which also failed to get the results you wanted. The fact is most editors just don't see this as a neutrality issue.

Let's not beat around the bush, Doc's problem is with soccer articles. That's the only type of football where the name is routinely pipelinked from just "football" ([[Association football|football]]). Articles on American football almost always use "American football" in at least the first instance. Occasionally they pipelink as [[American football|football]] (and Doc recently added a bunch of these pipelinks despite the lack of consensus for the measure), but almost always it is called "American football" in the first instance. The same is true for Canadian football, Gaelic football, and Australian rules football, as well as for rugby union even in places where that is known as "football". By contrast, association football is called simply "football" in articles on English-speaking countries that call it such, as well for many articles on non-English speaking countries. It is called "soccer" for Canada and United States articles, and "association football" in other instances, such as the main "association football" article and articles on Australia, New Zealand, and Ireland.

Doc Quintana's proposal basically asserts that either soccer articles must change, or else articles on all other types of football need to follow the soccer articles. Judging by the various discussions other editors do not tend to agree. Whatever happens with soccer articles, there is no reason to make sweeping changes to articles on all other football sports, especially ones that will just introduce further confusion.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The RFC was incredibly inconclusive, the results I wanted were some results, which i've said over and over again. I don't care if soccer articles change as long as there is a standard between soccer articles and the sport that is known as football in the United States. Doc Quintana (talk) 00:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The RFC was conclusive: there was no consensus that anything should be done any differently, so we default to the status quo and no changes are made. And if you're tired of "stalking", stop forum shopping and just discuss the matter in one venue.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Removal of non-free historical images

This issue, which at a first glance, is more relevant to another noticeboard, has a direct relation to neutrality. I noticed that non-free historical photos are gradually disappearing from many XX century history articles. They are being either totally removed or replaced with some much poorer quality photos. This process, which seems to be in formal accordance with WP:NFCC, in actuality may affect neutrality of Wikipedia. The problem is that, whereas many US, German or UK historical photographs are in public domain, national archival photographs are copyrighted in other states. As a result, overwhelming majority of US, Germany or UK related photos remain in Wikipedia, whereas most, e.g. Soviet or Russia related historical photos, which are non-free, are being removed as "redundant". The obvious consequence of that is that some part of Wikipedia's content becomes nationaly biased.
Sometimes that leads to a paradoxal situation: many articles about Soviet-German war contain mostly or solely the photos from German archives (because Bundesarchiv have opened many of its photos for free use in Wikipedia), and few Soviet photos which are still there have been nominated for deletion (see, e.g. [46]).
Despite my numerous attempts to explain to some members of the non-free media project that historical photos should be treated not in the same way as the endless Transformers toys, album covers, book covers, and the rest, all these arguments are being totally ignored for quite formal reasons (see, e.g. [47]). I would like to know the community's opinion on that account.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I've been concerned about this too, though my main concern is the removal of Holocaust images. Without those images our articles are going to be woefully incomplete, but because of the time frame of the Holocaust we have very few, if any, images regarded as free in the United States. There were some Holocaust images in the bundle given us by the Bundesarchiv, but many of them were not the Bundesarchiv's to give. I tried to point this out at the time, but I was asked to be quiet because it was such an important donation. I also think it's inappropriate for us to be forced to rely entirely on Germany for images from that era.

I share Paul's concern that we not treat historically important images in the same way we treat cartoons of the Simpsons. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• Paul, your arguments aren't being ignored. They are being considered. The issue is your arguments are being disagreed with. There's a big difference. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that some of my arguments have been considered. However, unfortunately, part of my arguments was simply ignored. For instance, I pointed out that the way Yad Vashem treats the Holocaust images ("you can copy them, but you can't sell them") is quite correct, and the attempt of some Wikipedians to collect libre images of the Holosaust and WWII (thereby providing a perfect opportunity for various businessmen to create commercial products based on these pictures) is hardly dictated by any rational needs. And, note, that "noble" goal (to care about the possibility of commercial use of the content that should not be sold) is achieved by decreasing the article's quality. This and many other my arguments are still unanswered.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I share these concerns of systematic bias on Wikipedia's treatment of non-free images as I've seen it reflected elsewhere. The tension is between Wikipedia's goals of delivering quality unbiased content on one hand and promoting free content on the other. If fair use is applicable I would use it for a truly superior picture. WP:NPOV can be invoked on one side of the argument; WP:Non-free content. In the end the general issue may require wider community consensus. Maybe through an RFC. Lambanog (talk) 02:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

This is in essence an external issue that Wikipedia is in no position to fix. If the US, UK and German governments legislate to release historical images into the public domain, while former Soviet states legislate to copyright historical era images (which is some what ironic given the supposed public ownership of all things in communist states), and the result is a systematic bias in the availability images and thus a perceived POV issue, I don't see how Wikipedia can fix that, other than to ban the use of PD images sourced from US, UK and German government archives to balance the lack of availability of images from post-Soviet states due to their copyright legislation. I don't think that is practical solution. The only thing Wikipedians can do is to lobby their respective governments to change the legislation. --Martin (talk) 01:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Re "...I don't see how Wikipedia can fix that, other than to ban the use of PD images sourced from US, UK and German government..." I already proposed a solution, which does not require any changes of WP policy. It is just sufficient not to remove non-free photos based on purely formal interpretation of WP:NFCC. I, as well as many other editors already explained that elsewhere. The only thing which is needed to fix the situation is to stop the flawed tendency to wrongly interpret WP policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I sympathise, some images are truly iconic. But playing the devil's advocate, WP:NFCC is not just Policy, but is Legal Policy, designed to minimise exposure to potential legal liability. I may be wrong, but I don't think it is a policy that the community can re-interpret without input from the Foundation's legal counsel. Wikipedia operates on a shoe string budget, the last thing they need is a law suit over copyright infringement, and the aim of WP:NFCC is to prevent that, as far as I understand it. --Martin (talk) 18:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Paul's sentiment. While the two editors who have given him the most headaches with are bona fide freedom fighters, there are editors in the disputed East European topic area who specifically target (Soviet) images for deletion to advance a POV. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 14:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Who? Do you want to name names, or are you going to refactor this statement? --Martin (talk) 18:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

IMO, the notorious EEML case is totally irrelevant to this thread. The problem is that some editors are obsessed with the idea to create a fully free content, even at a cost of decrease of the article's quality. They seem to be perfectly unbiased, believing that (by contrast to the policy itself) the policy's the letter of the rule trumps the spirit of the rule. However, one the of unintentional results of this activity is a creation of biased content. IMO, such an activity is more dangerous than the activity of EEML members.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Not only is it irrelevant, but Petri's assertion is just plain BS. What nexr, the EEML were behind September 11? --Martin (talk) 18:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Re "... playing the devil's advocate, WP:NFCC is not just Policy, but is Legal Policy, designed to minimise exposure to potential legal liability. I may be wrong, but I don't think it is a policy that the community can re-interpret without input from the Foundation's legal counsel. Wikipedia operates on a shoe string budget, the last thing they need is a law suit over copyright infringement ..." Not correct. The fair use is an absolutely legal thing, so WP does not become to be exposed to any potential legal liability as a result of that. A decision to make a totally free content is an internal WP policy, which is much stricter than American copyright laws. The major, and probably, the sole argument of the proponents of totally free content is that there is no limitations for subsequent use of such a content. More concretely, a fully free WP content can be used not only for education purposed but also for creation of commercial products. However, I do not think it is relevant here, because the idea to make money on the Holocaust or WWII pictures is intrinsically flawed. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

This is the thing I've found most disturbing when the non-free policy is taken to extremes. I've asked many times about this, about why we do it, and I've been told it's out of consideration for people who might want to sell our content. But who are these people? We should not be refraining from showing people Holocaust images because some businessman somewhere would prefer us to find a free one that he can package and sell. No one has ever been able to give me an example of a re-seller who would be inconvenienced by our use of these images. I once asked on the mailing list, and the only example anyone could think of was people who sell T-shirts! SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Paul, you're characterizing my stance (presuming, I think accurately, you are at least referring to me) entirely inaccurately. I'm beyond attempting to convince you of anything at this point. Nevertheless, it needs to be said to others reading that your characterization of my efforts is utterly false. Paul, I know you're going to disagree, and I'm the anti-Christ in Wikipedia editor form. Don't really care. Regardless, to the other readers; you can decide for yourself if this image with the hammer and sickle flag forefront and the Brandenburg Gate clearly in the background is somehow more biased (presumably against the Soviet accomplishment) than this image showing the same design flag hanging over the Reichstag, when the Reichstag is barely even in the image. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Below are your own words from there [48]

" @Paul: The reason is simple. I pointed you to the Gratis vs. Libre article because it is a fundamental concept that needs to be understood to understand our NFCC policy here. If we didn't make a distinction between Gratis and Libre, we could just follow U.S. Fair Use law and be done with it. Libre, which we follow, means anyone can use our content for whatever purpose they want to use it, including SELLING it. AP would never consent to the Rosenthal image being used in that manner. Therefore, we treat it as non-free and limit its usage within the project to as little as necessary, so as to maintain our focus on our libre goal. ... it is our choice. It's a fantastic one."

I expect you to either explain how concretely I distorted your words or to apologize.

I fully understand that it is your choice. Two questions remain to be unclear for me, however:

1. Whose concretely this choice is? Since you seem not to pretend to speak on behalf of the Foundation, you probably mean some influential group within the Wikipedian community. Please, name this group, because I, as well as many other editors do not belong to this group, and we would like to know, who are "you".
2. Why do you believe you have a right to impose your vision of the policy on other Wikipedians? And why have you decided we need a mediator between us and the policy?--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

One more question. In your previous posts you and your colleagues repeatedly state that photographs play auxiliary role. Please, point at the specific clause in the policy or guidelines which allowed you to make such a statement.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Re Brandenburg gates etc. I already explained why the Reichstag photo is essential, however, that belongs more to the article's talk page, not to this noticeboard. If you genuinely want to know the answer, we can continue there, just let me know. What is relevant to this thread is that it is much more easier to find free US or German photos than the Soviet ones. I spend enormous time in attempts to create a collage for the EF article using only PD photos. Most of them but one were from the US or German archives. In few month the last non-US and non-German photo I used for this collage had been deleted from Commons, and, fortunately I was able to find a free picture of Soviet Il-2 in Bundesarchive. As a result, the collage about Soviet-German war is now composed exclusively from German and American photos, and this situation is typical. All Soviet photos from Commons are either of terrible quality or nominated for deletion (or deleted). It appeared to be impossible to find a free WWII photo non-destroyed or non captured T-34, and so on. As a result, the articles are full of German tanks, German soldiers, German civilians, whereas the Soviet photos are of poor quality and rare.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• I am not going to apologize to you when I am, according to you, introducing bias into the article by choosing a free image over a non-free image. I didn't say you distorted my words. I said you characterized my stance in a completely false way. Unless you were referring to someone else (and I gave you the opportunity to reject that, and you didn't), you claimed that I believe the letter of the (policy) is more important than the spirit, that I am introducing bias into the article, and that in so doing I am more "dangerous" the EEML people (whoever they are). Good lord, if I'm so flippin' "dangerous" then report my biased backside to WP:AN/I and get me banned from the project. Enough with the rhetoric already!!!!! As to the rest of your post expecting something or the other from me, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. As to your collage, I don't care. I have no iron in that fire. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

If you believe I characterised your stance in a completely false way, then two explanations of that are possible: I either (i) lie, or (ii) misunderstand you. If you assume my good faith (and I believe you do), than only (ii) is plausible. Therefore, it is quite natural expect you to explain me how concretely did I misunderstand your words. The problem is however, that I doubt I misunderstand you.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: "if I'm so flippin' "dangerous" then report my biased backside to WP:AN/I and get me banned from the project." I am not going to do that for two reasons: firstly, I hate ANI, secondly, as I already pointed out, I think your activity generally leads to improvement of Wikipedia. However, every good thing can be misused. That is equally true for the WP policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Paul, I fully understand what you are saying, Wikipedia's decision to make content totally free, even for commercial use, makes it more difficult to make fair use of images. I agree 100%, I know of tons of images that are licensed for free distribution but not for commercial use (BY-NC-SA), so they cannot be used here, which is a bummer. Someone even brought up the issue of commercial usage of Wikipedia content with Jimbo here. This has to be sorted out at that level, to get the Foundation to change their content licensing policy, I would support you 100% there. But until that is done, blaming people like Hammersoft is pointless. --Martin (talk) 23:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

You are too pessimistic. The Foundation's resolution [49] says:

"Such EDPs must be minimal. Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works. An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals. Any content used under an EDP must be replaced with a freely licensed work whenever one is available which will serve the same educational purpose."

In other words, the historical photos, which illustrate historically significant events, should be approached not in the same way as majority of other non-free images. However, the use of the non-free historical photos is allowed only if some free photo which serves the same educational purpose is not available. Hummersoft & Co makes two major mistakes: (i) they treat most photos, including historical ones, as some auxiliary materials, so, according to them, the article without photos serves the same educational purpose. This idea is their own invention, I failed to find such a statement somewhere in the policy, and (ii) they mix two things: "a free photo which serves the same educational purposes" and "a free photo on the article's subject", which is obviously not the same. As a result, their standard arguments are: "we already have free photos on the article's subject, so we don't need the non-free one", and "we don't need a photo that describe concretely this article's aspect because the photos in general play just an auxiliary role, and, therefore, can be even totally omitted, and the same idea can be transmitted just by words". Obviously, all of that is not what the policy says, so I see absolutely no reason to modify it. What we really need is to prevent privatisation of the policy by a group of Wikipadians. obsessed with the idea of totally free content.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Paul, you're tilting at windmills. Nobody in this discussion is obsessed with totally free content. You also claim the existence of a non-free media project. Unless you are referring to Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media/Non-free, which is effectively dead as there's been almost no activity there this year, there is no such project. Further, none of the people involved in this discussion claim membership in that project. I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve by making such accusations. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, please, disregard my last words. If you think they are wrong I apologise. However, could you please address my other points, which you are constantly ignore. For your convenience, I reproduce them below:

1. Whose concretely this choice is? Since you seem not to pretend to speak on behalf of the Foundation, you probably mean some influential group within the Wikipedian community. Please, name this group, because I, as well as many other editors do not belong to this group, and we would like to know, who are "you".
2. Why do you believe you have a right to impose your vision of the policy on other Wikipedians? And why have you decided we need a mediator between us and the policy?--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

One more question. In your previous posts you and your colleagues repeatedly state that photographs play auxiliary role. Please, point at the specific clause in the policy or guidelines which allowed you to make such a statement.-

--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

NPOV dispute at Gavin Menzies

There's a dispute over a statement about Menzies - removed here by the editor saying NPOV is being violated. What do others think? Dougweller (talk) 15:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I am the one who marked that page non-NPOV after having noticed that the entire article is violating so many Wikipedia rules that I am not even going to bother listing them all. The most blatant one, a small statement as noted in that page discussion, which was used more as one example of many others. The problem with the rest of the article ranges from a clearly biased language and rhetoric, multiple references to anti-1421 blogs to character assassination. However, some of that same information can be kept if it is put in a much more neutral form, while removing some of the strong emphasis on the detail in his book 1421. This is, after all an article about the author and not a discussion blog about his books, which can be found elsewhere. These corrections is something the current editors have strong "opinions" against.
In addition after briefly inspecting both discussion and article page histories, it seem like the same issues have been repeatedly raised on several different occasions, just to be reverted by the same people. Some of these people, in addition, have been associated on earlier (see page histories) occasions with the same IP adress range, giving a weak evidence that these people either know each other or may even be the same person. It is sad that this page have become hijacked by an anti-1421 junta and therefore it is very important that other people get involved in this matter. Jahibadkaret (talk) 12:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

You are hopefully unaware that this article covers both Menzies and his books, as the book articles have been merged into this article. I'm not happy about accusations of sock or meat puppetry without evidence, particularly when you are tarring all the editors there, including myself, with the accusation. There has been some sockpuppetry, see Talk:Gavin Menzies/Archive 2#SPA using at least 2 IP addresses and canvassing which is possibly part of the 'repeatedly raised' that you mention. Your edit has been discussed in some detail now on the article talk page, with 4 editors including myself disagreeing with you. I've said there that I think your 'neutral' is not our NPOV. Menzies is rejected by most if not all academic historians and the article should reflect that. Dougweller (talk) 13:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Having looked at the article, it seems to me to be well within the guidelines of WP:FRINGE, and the article would not be neutral if the contested statement were removed. I've commented further on the article's talk page. I see no NPOV issue here. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 14:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thilo Sarrazin

I found a discussion at WP:HELPDESK#Article links to controversial sides. Race and IQ debate where an editor is concerned about bias and sources in this article. I've just removed the edits today by an IP (technically 2 IPs but almost certainly the same person), but I'm concerned that the article is still being used to push an anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim pov. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 11:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Let me add that German Wikipedia has a detailled article on Sarrazins controversial book Deutschland schafft sich ab, which might proof helpful in editing this article.--Greatgreenwhale (talk) 11:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Famine in India

Famine in India has been tagged with as POV, the reason being cited is than non-mainstream sources are being used. The POV allegation is seen in this diff [50]. The sources in question are the Nobel Prize winner Amartya Sen and European Journal of Development Research Prize winner Olivier Rubin. A direct like to Google Books or web sites has been provided in the article for easy access and verification. The content being attacked as POV can be seen in this diff [51]. A discussion between the editors can be seen in several sections of the talk page [52]. Is this a valid NPOV allegation? Is the content non-mainstream and/or non-neutral? Zuggernaut (talk) 03:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't see any POV issue here. In fact, omitting the views of a respected academic as published in an established journal would create a POV issue, not remove one. Whether or not the opposing viewpoint is "non-mainstream" depends a bit upon what your definition of "mainstream" is. It's not a fringe theory, but it does seem to go against the consensus in the field. Of course, in any field of study, consensus can change, and the fact that this research made it into a peer-reviewed journal argues that it's worthy of mention. It doesn't seem like it has undue emphasis, either. I think the objecting editor is in error. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 23:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The only issue I see is about the amount of space to be allotted to Sen's view and the criticism of it. Arguably, the discussion is more about the nature of democracy than about the nature of famine. Sen is a very prominent figure and his views on more or less anything are notable, but two or three sentences should be ample space to cover this. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Mode (computer interface): is an article biased where only negative sources exist?

Hi, I'm a major editor in the "Mode (computer interface)" article. This article contains substantial content merged from the deleted "Mode errors" article, describing how use of modal interfaces is likely to induce users to have errors while using it. Those effects are soundly referenced in the article.

This article has been twice tagged as biased by centering in the negative, and |both times I've asked the editors that tagged the article to provide sources for a different viewpoint, or to make (and discuss!) some solid edits that reduce their perceived bias. In both cases the editor raising the issue has never come back.

So my question is, what should be the next step to solve the dispute, and how can I improve the article so that this dispute is not brought back in the future? Diego Moya (talk) 14:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Is most of what is written about modes negative? If so, then the article has to reflect that. It seems from a brief reading, that modes are something that computer experts are trying to move on from. If that's the case, then it's useful for the reader to know that. You should refer any new editors to our sourcing policy: WP:V. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes I've been referring editors to WP:V, I think that's why they never returned :-) I'll try to find a source to reflect why there aren't any writings supporting modal design. Diego Moya (talk) 15:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Contraceptive mentality

Somebody have a look. Popped up on NewPages. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a lot of WP:OR to me. As most of the references are religious in nature, I redirected to Religious views on birth control. Grsz¹¹ 04:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)