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

Communist terrorism

Is it NPOV to describe the Viet Cong insurgency during the Vietnamese war as "communist terrorism" in the article Communist terrorism? TFD (talk) 01:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources which call it such? --Jayron32 03:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The source says,

Terrorism was commonplace in South Vietnam beginning as early as the 1950s. Targets included local political figures, police chiefs, teachers, nurses, doctors, military personnel, and others who supported the nation's infrastructure. From 1965 through 1972, terrorists killed more than thirty-three thousand South Vietnamese and abducted another fifty-seven thousand of them.... While the labeling stategy of the United States evolved over time, each of the related administrations linked terrorism and Communism as paired threats to American interests in the region. To reinforce the association, each relied on the convential Cold War narrative to publicly frame acts of terrorism during the war. The approach recalled the nation's war history by mapping the terrorist tactics of the Nazis during World War II onto the Communists in Vietnam. (In the name of terrorism: presidents on political violence in the post-World, Carol Winkler, SUNY Press, 2006, p. 17 [1]

This is rephrased in Communist terrorism#Communist Terrorism in The Vietnam War as,

In the 1950`s communist terrorism was rife in South Vietnam with political leaders, provincial chiefs, teachers, nurses, doctors and members of the military being targeted. Between 1965 and 1972 terrorists had killed over thirty three thousand people and abducted a further fifty seven thousand.

TFD (talk) 03:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds more like an issue for the original research noticeboard. It is a fairly common phrase that was used to describe the insurgency in Vietnam but you would be testing the limits of synthesis to incorporate that source. There are far better sources out there. Marcus Qwertyus 04:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The Four Deuces fails to point out it is taken from a chapter titled "The Vietnam War and the Communist Terrorists" So there is no issue here at all with either NPOV or OR. Tentontunic (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you see no difference between an author claiming that the U.S. government used the term CT and the author endorsing the use of the term? Notice the writer uses the term "Communist Terrorist" in scare quotes. TFD (talk) 17:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Given the context above, I don't think that the title of a chapter is enough to use the term without qualification. On a side note I also think the copy could be better written: phrases like "was rife" and "being targeted" seem clumsy, no offense meant to whoever wrote it. -PrBeacon (talk) 18:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

@Jayron. Your question "Do you have reliable sources which call it such?" is irrelevant to this noticeboard, because this thread is not about reliability, but about neutrality of the text we discuss. In my opinion, the same is true for the TFD's arguments, because if the author does not endorse the term "Communist terrorists", then this thread belongs to WP:RSN or/and WP:NORN, because, as Marcus says, the text may have some synthesis issues. Nevertheless, I agree with Marcus that it is possible to find some reliable sources that openly and explicitly characterise North Vientamese or Vietcong partisans as "terrorists", or even "Communist terrorists".
However, again, all of that has no relevance to the neutrality noticeboard. What is relevant to it, is the fact that many reliable sources exist that (i) explicitly state that the term "terrorists" in general should be applied with cautions to the national-liberation and partisan movements (see. e.g. William F. Shughart II. An analytical history of terrorism, 1945–2000, Public Choice (2006) 128:7–39: "What, if anything, distinguishes a terrorist from a “revolutionary”, an “insurgent”, a “freedom fighter”, a “martyr” or an ordinary criminal?"), or (ii) characterise the usage of this term in a context of Vietnam War as US, or, broadly speaking, Cold War propaganda. For instance, the current version of the article clearly explains (with sources) that "this term ("communist terrorism, P.S.) has been applied by the US administration to the actions of Communist partisans during Vietnam war to affect both the domestic and South Vietnamese public opinion and to justify the actions of the US army as "counterterrorist" measures."(Carol Winkler. In the name of terrorism: presidents on political violence in the post-World War II era. SUNY Press, 2006, ISBN 0791466175, 9780791466179, p.29-35.), therefore, we have no other choice but to conclude that, according to some reliable sources, the term "Communist terrorism" in this context is a Cold War legacy, and cannot be used without attribution. My conclusion is that the discussed section as whole contradicts to the neutrality principle and to other parts of the article and must be rewritten.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it's impossible to determine neutrality without reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

And of course on page 18, 25 and 32 of this book she says viet cong terrorists. Given the VC were of course communist then again, no issue. Tentontunic (talk) 20:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, the fact that you see no issue is a serious issue per se. Your conclude that the text is neutral just because it is (in your opinion) verifiable. By writing that you mix two independent policies. In addition, by saying that "Given the VC were of course communist then again, no issue" you demonstrate your infamiliarity with the WP:NOR policy: the source must explicitly characterise VC as "Communist terrorists", otherwise your conclusion is synthesis.

However, that is only a part of the issue. In actuality, the proposed text is even non-verifiable. Thus, whereas the author agrees that terrorism was common for South Vietnam since 1950s, on the page 18 the author does not call Vietcong "Communist terrorists", by contrast, he points out that the idea to couple terrorism with Communism belongs to the US administration and was used as a "public justification for the US involvement in the Vietnam War". Therefore, you simply misinterpeted the source.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

And that paul is pure wiki lawyering. To say the VC were communists is hardly OR. A source calling the VC terrorists is communist terrorist, to say otherwise is a waste of time. Tentontunic (talk) 20:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

And again all of this is more relevant to the umpteen attempts to delete the article than to any violation of NPOV at all. If one feels there is a POV, the procedure is to add balancing material, not to rehash the same ten thousand words over and over and over. This article has survived a sklew of AfDs - time to let it evolve and grow and not to keep sniping at it in every forum possible. Collect (talk) 20:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• A number of sources explicitly mention communist terrorism in Vietnam, for example see Inside the VC and the NVA: the real story of North Vietnam's armed forces By Michael Lee Lanning, Dan Cragg: "Pike concluded that the most horrendous example of Communist terrorism during the war, the massacre at Hue" and The war for South Viet Nam, 1954-1975 By Anthony James Joes: "The target of increasing Communist terrorism in the cities, the police forces of South Viet Nam continued to deteriorate" --Martin (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

@Collect. Wrong. You can easily see that neither I nor TFD are the proponents for the article's removal. At least, I made several additions of the text and the sources, which have been reverted by others. Let me reiterate: I do not propose to delete this article.

@Martin. As I already wrote, it is not a problem to support this material with needed references. The problem is that other reliable sources exist that directly connect the term "Communist terrorism" (in a Vientam context) with a Cold war propaganda. It is a neutrality noticeboard (if you haven't already noticed that).--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Mea culpa about the number: [2] removal of over 85% of article in one edit. [3] ditto without preserving edit history as required by WP policy about copyrights. [4] turning article into a dab page. [5] attempted redirect. [6] AFD 3. There were also AFDs 1 and 2 by the way. And note the !votes including TFD. AFD2? Paul Seibert. So your "strong delete" meant nothing? Thank you most kindly, but the forum shopping is evident. Sigh. And the MfD for "Communist terrorism (disambiguation)"? Closed as The result of the discussion was Speedy delete via G6 as blatant misuse of disambiguation. Too many bites at the apple now. Collect (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I pardon you, don't worry :). Speaking seriously, I failed to find anything in your diffs that support your assertion that I want to delete the article. Yes, I moved (not deleted) a significant part of the article, because it belonged to another article, and you perfectly know that. Therefore, I even don't know how to characterise this your assertion using the terminology allowed by the WP policy... I do not propose to delete this article because when you type "Communist terrorism" in google or gscholar you get a lot of hits. However, they refer to many quite different, and frequently not related to each other, things and sometimes are used as an alternative terminology for the events that are being described by other, more adequate terminology. Therefore, in my opinion, the article should stay, but it should discuss not a concept (no single concept of Communist terrorism currently exists), but various examples of application of this phrase by different writers, politicians, scholars and journalists: starting from the Red Terror (which should be briefly mentioned, the Nazi demagogic attempt to blame Communists in Reichstag fire, Malaya, Vietnam (as a part of propaganda efforts), left-wing terrorism (it is necessary to explain that sometimes terrorism of this type is being described as "Communist terrorism" and to provide a link to the main article), etc. We are quite able to write a good article, if we stop edit warring and forget old Cold War propaganda cliches. In any event, the way some editors follow (to combine as many bad things as possible and to contextually or directly link them to the word "Communism") will not work.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

A "Strong delete !vote is not a vote to delete? Really? Seems to me that "strong delete" means "strong delete" unless there is some "what does 'is' mean" moment has occurred. Meanwhile, trying to use this as one more forum to accomplish was not accomplished in any of innumerable other forums seems outre. Collect (talk) 07:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but you should look more carefully: I do not remember that I participated in the AfD discussions (at least I didn't find my name there). With regard to what I want to accomplish, I believe I described that in details in my previous post. And, please, if possible, try to stop your personal attacks.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Eh? Note all of the following deals with your specific words, and is not a "personal attack" in any way.

see [7] seems clear about your desires and intent.

[8] that you regard this a subcategory of an article into which you moved a great deal of content.

[9] where you removed 85% of the article to that other article.

[10] your precise rationale for disliking the article.

[11] wherein you state that "communist terrorism" is only found in regard to Malaya.

[12] where you say "Based on the google scholar search results, which demonstrated that the terrorist groups described in this article belong to the Left-wing terrorism article and not to this article, the content of the sections 2.1 - 2.16 must be moved there. Since this is a neutrality issue, no consensus is needed for that."

[13] where you say "I would say that these alleged "communist terrorist groups" are in actuality left-wing groups, according to majority reliable sources. Therefore, the content of this article simply has to be moved to the Left-wing terrorism, which will be done after Nov 4."

[14] (state of talk page included) wherein you write: "They possibly identified themselves with Communism, but they were not seen as Communist by large Communist parties, and were seen as "ultra-leftist" by others. Communism/Marxism is much more narrow term, and, accordingly, the Red Brigades etc should be moved to some more appropriate article" saying that "Communist groups" are only "Communist" if they are seen as officially communist by "large Communist parties." You specifically state: "One way or the another, whereas "Communist" is a subset of "Leftist", and whereas numerous sources calling them "Leftist" do exist, insisting on the word "Communist" is a violation of the neutrality principle. " This position is shared by TFD who even manages to say "Also, Orwell was writing about the "Communist Party". None of the groups listed in the article were Communist parties or had any official relationship with the Communists and therefore whatever he thought about Communists does not apply to them." "Delete I provided the examples of inadequate usage of the source, I addressed this argument specifically to Collect, however, he seems to completely ignore that my post. Therefore, his claim that "the claims are backed by WP:RS sources" is simply false" where a "Paul Siebert" used the word "delete" for a large section of the article (that is, everying about 'origins, evolution and history" of the topic. "Rename per Scholar results (see above). That should be done independently of the straw poll results, because the present name violates the neutrality criteria.--" where you specifically state that the name of the article itself can not be allowed.

[15] "I think, it is senseless to continue. Every article's section I checked belongs to "Left wing terrorism", not to "Communist terrorism" article, according to sources"

So let's see -- you never suggested deleting the article -- just renaming it, removing it, removing every single section, removing everything about "origins, evolution and history" and so on. I will take you at your word that you "never" sought deletion. I rather think this small assemblage of diffs shows your opinions adequately. Collect (talk) 14:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Re "seems clear about your desires and intent" To declare desires and intent does not contradict to the rules and the policy, provided that these desires do not contradict to WP:C, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Do you see anything in my desires and intents that contradict to them?

Re "that you regard this a subcategory of an article into which you moved a great deal of content" And why do you believe that was incorrect?

Re "where you removed 85% of the article to that other article." Yes, I did that, and I provided needed rationale, and this my step has been supported by many users;

Re "your precise rationale for disliking the article." Yes, I dislike wrongly written and biased article, in full accordance with the WP policy. I already explained why this article is biased and poorly sourced. Do you have any counter-arguments against that?

Re "wherein you state that "communist terrorism" is only found in regard to Malaya. " Sorry, but that statement is a blatant lie. From the diff provided by you it is clear that I wrote:

"In my understanding (although I didn't do a separate studies of this issue), what Petri means is that Malayan Emergency was the only case when the term "Communist terrorism" was used more widely than other terms to describe these events"

In other words, your statement is a lie at least for three reasons

(i) Firstly, I wrote "In my understanding (although I didn't do a separate studies of this issue)", which means that I didn't state anything, just expressed my opinion, which, according to my own words, was not based on the analysis of the sources, so it was not the ultimate one;

(ii) This opinion was not about Malaya, but about the views of another user (Petri);

(iii) This my opinion was not about "Communist terrorism" as the term applied to Malaya only, but about Malaya as the only known case when this term is being used more frequently than other, alternative terms.

Therefore, the only my advise in that case is: please, read the text you quote more carefully. Misinterpretation of my words is harmless, however, if you read the sources as carefully as you read my posts, you are quite able to badly misinterpret the formers, which may inflict serious damage on Wikipedia.

Re the rest of your post, I don't see any problems with what I wrote in the past.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Also note your own words: "[Obviously, someone wants the word "communism" to be associated with as many nasty words and definitions as possible. Of course, this article's content should be moved to the terrorism article (interestingly, the latter article even do not mention "Communist terrorism" as a separate type of terrorism). BTW, the same is true for "Mass killings under Communist regimes": the mass murder (the article mass killing redirects to, that is supposedly a "Mass killing under Communist regimes"'s mother article) mentions neither "Mass killing under Communist regimes" as a separate mass killing category, nor Valentino's, Goldhagen's, etc works. (IMHO, the very fact that so much efforts and WP space is devoted to killings under Communists, whereas almost no attention is paid to other mass killings, and to the mass killing issue in general, is a clear sign of someone strong bias) In my opinion, a redirect from mass killing to mass murder should be removed, the "mass killing" article should be extended by moving part of mass murder's, Mass killings under Communist regimes', Holocaust, Nazi war crimes, American war crimes' etc content there, and, if necessary, series of "Mass killings under..." daughter articles can be created. That should be done first, and only after that can I switch to communist terrorism." [16] which also appears to be an abundantly clear statement of your intent to remove anything where you feel "communist" is used as something only anti-communists seek to associate with "nasty words and definitions." I am not an "anti-communist" in any such sense - but it is likelwise clear that you have a WP:BATTLEGROUND outlook on this per your own talk page. Collect (talk) 14:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

A pure logical fallacy: "X in not always wrong" and "X is always right" are two quite different statements. --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Not only do I "lie" but I have a "pure logical fallacy"? Your supercilious claims thereon do not benefit any article. Nor do they benefit this noticeboard. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 13:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Upon taking a closer look at the source and the proposed text, I would say that it fails verification. The quoted source is about how the US government labeled this as communist terrorism, which is, of course, wholely different than saying it is communist terrorism. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

How incredibly fortunate then that I found another source which supports this content. Tentontunic (talk) 20:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

What is unfortunate, however, is that you continue to misinterpret the neutrality policy: if the sources A states that the Vietnamese partisans were labelled as Communist terrorists by the US administration, and the source Y states stat they were Communist terrorists, that does not mean that the source X can be rejected. But, in actuality, that what you have done. You removed the following text [17], that was supported by numerous reliable sources and that stated:

"...... Later, this term has been applied by the US administration to the actions of Communist partisans duringVietnam war to affect both the domestic and South Vietnamese public opinion and to justify the actions of the US army as "counterterrorist" measures.(ref. Carol Winkler. In the name of terrorism: presidents on political violence in the post-World War II era. SUNY Press, 2006, ISBN 0791466175, 9780791466179, p.29-35. /ref)......"

And added another text that directly contradicted to what the text removed by you said. This is a serious violation of the policy, and I request you to self-revert. The fact that you found another source that supports your POV changes nothing. This is my second warning.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Please take your warning, and then put it were the sun doth not shine. The second source most certainly does not contradict the first, perhaps you ought to look closer. Tentontunic (talk) 22:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

This is totally irrelevant. Since reliable sources exist that confirm that the originators of the phrase "Communist terrorism" (in this context) was the US administration, and that it was utulised to draw teh US into the Vietnam War and to affect the public opinion, that must be said in the article (so the text removed by you should be restored). Since no common opinion exists among the scholars on if partisans can be described as terrorists, the term "communist terrorists" must be used with attribution. Do you have any concrete arguments against that?--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It is really irrelevant whether or not the US government used the phrase "Communist terrorism" as Cold War propaganda, since your source states as fact that terrorism existed in Vietnam. The very first paragraph of chapter of the book you cite states the existence of terrorism as fact: "Terrorism was commonplace in South Vietnam beginning as early as the 1950s. Targets included local political figures, province chiefs, teachers, nurses, doctors, military personnel, and others who supported the nation's infrastructure. From 1965 through 1972, terrorists killed more than 33,000 South Vietnamese and abducted another 57,000 of them." That the US administration exploited that fact as propaganda does not diminish that fact or make it POV, no more than the Allies used the fact of Nazi atrocities as propaganda to motivate their people into action. --Martin (talk) 19:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

You are not correct. Firstly, the source does not state that this terrorism was Communist terrorism (it does not specify that at all). Secondly, this chapter is specifically about the attempts of the US administration to link terrorism and Communism to justify American involvement in Vietnam. To take some facts from this source and to reject other facts and the author's conclusions is a direct and deliberate misinterpretation of the sources. You also forget that other sources explicitly refuse to call partisans "terrorists". By saying that, I do not claim that the characterisation of Vietcong partisans as terrorists should be removed from the article, however, it is absolutely necessary to say that (i) the originator of this terminology was the US administration, which did that for propaganda purposes, and (ii) other sources do not characterise partisans as terrorists. By contrast, Tentontunic and the editors supporting him insist on removal of any other information but Cold war propaganda, which is in blatant contradiction with WP policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

So who were these terrorists that killed 33,000 and abducted 57,000 South Vietnamese, aliens from the planet Mars? A number of authors, such as Michael Lee Lanning, Dan Cragg and Anthony James Joes, do make the explicit connection between Communist insurgents and terrorism in South Vietnam. Nobody is claiming that Vietcong partisans were "terrorists", but that they used terrorism as a tactic in their insurgency. --Martin (talk) 19:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

They definitely were not aliens, which, of course, automatically makes them Communists (as we all known, all bad things are being done by either aliens or Communists). According to the existing viewpoints (major ones), the originators of term "Communist terrorism" (in a context of Vietnam) was the US administration, and, therefore, this term was initially politically motivated. Some authors explicitly call VC insurgents "terrorists", some of them use the adjective "Communist" (just to discriminate them from others), some authors directly link Communism and terrorism, and others explicitly refuse to apply this term to partisans, because the term "Terrorism" is vague. Neutrality requires us to say all of that in the article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

"Terrorists" itself is a loaded word, and arguably non-neutral POV. Contrast with "freedom fighters" — one is bad, the other is good, and (curiously) all of the terrorists are on the other side, and all the freedom-fighters are on our side. It's like a wire with high voltage on — there will be sparks where ever it touches, and needs extremely careful handling. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The article seems mis-named since it only addresses terrorism related to the Vietnam War. This sentence: " On December 6 1967 the Viet Cong used Flame throwers on civilians in the village of Dak Son killing 252 with the majority of those burnt alive being women and children.[13]", makes me wonder if we should have an article titled "Anti-Communist terrorism", to address the My Lai massacre of civilians. Or better yet, maybe just delete the article and merge it back to the Vietnam War article.   Will Beback  talk  19:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I fear you misapprehend the context. Collect (talk) 13:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The article in question is Communist terrorism, this is just a section within the article. Tentontunic (talk) 08:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know on how many notice boards and pages this article has popped up. The whole topic suffers from the fact that "communist terrorism" is a propaganda phrase that has been bandied around for about 100 years with very many different meanings (usually "stuff the other side does", but with different "stuff" and different "other" and different "sides"), and with different intentions (tainting insurgent movements with the association with "communism" and tainting "communism" by association with acts of terror). Treating the topic as a meaningful concept in its own right is about as reasonable as an article on "capitalist imperialism" as a valid concept. To answer the original question: Based on the source, no, it is not correct to describe the Viet Cong insurgency as communist terrorism, although the insurgency certainly included acts of terrorism. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting claim -- but Wikipedia has thirteen articles mentioning "capitalist imperialism." Including Anti-imperialism which is quite definitely mainly aimed at that topic. Meanwhile, I find it interesting that people can assert that people who admittedly engage in terrorism are somehow not terrorists! It is neatly analogous to a person who has committed multiple arsons complaining when he is called an "arsonist." :) Collect (talk) 17:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused. Are you referring to my comment? An insurgency is not "people". And acts done by members of an organization or group don't universally reflect on the organization or group, and much less on all members. Compare "All Americans are evil torture-murderers". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Collect, were you not aware that the British referred to their sphere of influence as an Empire? That the heads of state of Russia, Germany, Austria, France, and Belgium called themselves emperors? That they called themselves imperialists? That scholars refer to them, as well as the Spanish, Portugese, and Dutch (even U.S.) overseas possessions as imperialism? They do not however refer to anti-imperialists as Communist Terrorists. TFD (talk) 20:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Try to understand that I do understand English. The term "capitalist imperialism" has nothing whatsoever to do with the "British Empire" or the "Iranian Empire" or the "Japanese Empire" or the "German Empire" or the "Chinese Empire" or the "Empire of Siam" or the "Empire of Brazil" or the "Empire of Mali" and so on ad infinitum. BTW, Leopold II was "King of the Belgians" and never "Emperor." I suppose you simply forgot that fact. And your last sentence makes absolutely no sense at all in this discussion. Collect (talk) 18:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Why are you talking about capitalist imperialism? TFD (talk) 02:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I responded to Stephen's " Treating the topic as a meaningful concept in its own right is about as reasonable as an article on "capitalist imperialism" as a valid concept." Look back in the list of threaded messages to see his post. Then you injected the Belgian Emperor (sic). To follow threads, look at indent levels - I trust you will find his post. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 07:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

You provided the article Anti-imperialism as an example of an article "quite definitely mainly aimed at that topic ["capitalist imperialism"]". In fact the article mentions the Roman Empire, the British Empire, Spain, etc. I suggest that the Roman and Spanish empires were not capitalist. TFD (talk) 13:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk about a digression! I pointed out that WP has many articles referring to "capitalist imperialism" and "Anti-imperialism" is but one of them. From that article: Lenin held that imperialism was a stage of capitalist development, is a central tenet of the longest section in the entire article. Your note about the "Roman Empire" amounts to a part of a single sentence. And "Spain" or "Spanish" is not even found at all in the body of the article - contrary to your apparent assertion (other than a single aside about the "Spanish-American War"). Meanwhile, this digression has absolutely nothing to do with the points I raised, and is a thorough waste of our readers' time. Collect (talk) 19:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Idris al-Senussi

Idris al-Senussi is a claimant to the abolished throne of Libya. The man has gained quite a bit of notoriety in the media, including most recently in the U.S., in light of the protests against Gaddafi. But the legitimacy of his claims have been widely questioned.

• The two main sources used in the list, Christopher Buyers and Henry Soszynski, both present the son of the last crown prince, Muhammad al-Senussi, as the rightful heir.
• In 1995, a British magistrate ruled that "The world of make belief has totally absorbed Mr Idris Al-Senussi in this case. Mr al-Senussi wishes people to believe he is the heir presumptive to the Libyan throne. ... [T]he clear evidence in this case says that crown prince Muhammad, son of the last Crown Prince of the Kingdom of Libya, has a stronger case".
• This case followed his attempt to convince British members of parliament that he was the "great nephew of the late King Idris of Libya". However, David Williamson, co-editor of Debrett's Peerage, instead described the man (after also mocking his claim) as "the second son of the sixth son of the second son of the younger brother of Idris's father." (The Sunday Times) Buyers' genealogy matches this association exactly. Soszynski doesn't list him at all.

There is now a disagreement regarding how best to present his claim on List of current pretenders. WP:LIST requires a verifiable inclusion criteria, and this list currently requires a legitimate link to the throne. The order of succession in Libya was codified in Art. 45 of the Constitution: primogeniture, or failing that, nomination by the reigning king. This man fails both of these, and it's verified by independent sources. Similarly dubious claims are presented in the article either in plain prose or in a footnote, but not as a main entry. The other editor involed claims that presenting claims unequally violates NPOV. As for myself, I consider it a violation of NPOV to give dubious claims the same weight as those that are generally recognised; see the following relevant sections from WP:NPOV: I'm hoping that editors here, familiar with the policy, can determine which is the right way to go. Any comments would be greatly appreciated. Nightw 08:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Furry fandom

NPOV dispute about sexuality in the Furry fandom article. My claim: two Master's theses (and a third academic paper deemed un-citable by a furry wikipedian) assert the emphasis on sexuality of the furry identity and in the furry community. These verifiable, highly reliable sources are being rejected on the basis of personal anecdotes by self-identified furry wikipedians. In general the article's NPOV is compromised by such editors who revert edits about the sexual nature of the fandom.

• The two Master's theses:
  • Morgan, Matt (2008-03-25). "Creature Comfort: Anthropomorphism, Sexuality, and Revitalization in The Furry Fandom".
  • Eric Stephen Altman (May 2010). "Posthum/an/ous: Identity, Imagination, and The Internet" (PDF).
• A third academic paper, deemed "personal essay":
  • Cameron Lindley Cross (2006). "On the Fringe of Queer" (PDF).

Somewhat related to this NPOV issue, bad references and original research that puts the fandom in a positive light remains unchallenged. -Furry-friend (talk) 19:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

All the policies work together. While doctoral dissertations are generally considered reliable sources, master's theses are not usually given that status. Undergraduate papers don't count at all. NPOV requires that we include all significant views with weight according to their prominence. But views which are not found in reliable sources need not be included at all. I suggest that the theses, if used at all, should be kept at arm's length, more to show the level of academic interest in the topic than for their actual contents.   Will Beback  talk  19:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Why aren't master's theses usually regarded as reliable sources, and why don't undergraduate papers count at all? Suppose some undergrad scribbled something, backed it up reliably, and got aced by a professor who passed it on to another professor, who also thought it a good paper... — Rickyrab | Talk 02:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand this approach. Other, much less reliable sources are given prominence in the article. The very first sentence which defines the fandom is taken from a small newspaper. How is it that one non-academic article from a newspaper takes precedence over two other Master's theses? -Furry-friend (talk) 20:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you know the writer of the newspaper article?Slatersteven (talk) 20:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's in the article -Furry-friend (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Are both theses making completely novel claims about the sexuality aspect? If they are you are out of luck, but if they aren't I'm sure there are usable sources in the reference sections. Just be sure to actually read the sources before you use them.Griswaldo (talk) 20:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I must wonder again why I'm "out of luck" while most of the article cites press, non-academic publications, and even user-edited website. -Furry-friend (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Because, MA theses are not considered reliable sources. Hence any novel claims made in them are unusable. Non-novel claims can be sourced elsewhere. What is it you don't understand about MA theses not being reliable? This is the consensus here. You can try the RS/N but I assure you you'll get the same answer there. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

So I need a PhD thesis or a widely-cited MA thesis to stand against personal anecdotes and newspaper articles? Or will a newspaper article be enough? -Furry-friend (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Personal anecdotes which haven't been published in reliable sources should not be included either. But otherwise you're correct.   Will Beback  talk  21:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I will suggest using a newspaper article as a source and see how it goes. -Furry-friend (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Even though I recognize the proper Wikipedia policy on this issue, I'd like to note that I think it's absurd. Were the conclusions of these research theses made as personal anecdotes in a newspaper article, they would be considered more reliable and more worthy of being cited. -Furry-friend (talk) 13:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhpas it has something to do with editorial oversight.Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

As one of those who was involved in the discussion, I will offer my input. Furry fandom does include a degree of adult material and sexual aspects, and there is already a section of the article that addresses this. The consensus up to this point has been that this section gives that aspect of the fandom an appropriate level of coverage. Furry-friend is trying to use the master's theses to claim that the current degree of coverage is not sufficient and has been trying to make changes to other sections of the article, including the lede, that would give the impression that sexuality is a more pervasive and inseparable element of furry fandom.

Of the two papers he cites, I have been unable to access the Morgan thesis due to restricted access. Myself and at least one other person have raised issues with the Altman thesis, or at least the manner in which it is being cited by Furry-friend. For example, he employs a definition of what a furry fan is that in actuality applies only to a specific subset of furry fans. That may be well and fine within the scope of Altman's thesis if that's what he wishes to address, but what Furry-friend is attempting to do is to turn it around and use Altman's conclusions based on this sub-group as applicable to furry fandom as a whole. There were other issues brought up in the discussion.

The issue was raised that some of the more active contributors to the article are members of the fandom (myself included) and whether that would disqualify us as having a neutral point of view on the subject matter. My response to that is that I'm not trying to push my opinions, but rather to keep the article consistent with my observations, and I believe the other involved fans are doing likewise. In other words, I would characterize our actions as exercising editorial discretion rather than POV-pushing. I don't know the extent of Furry-friend's involvement in either furry fandom or anti-furry. It seemed interesting that his prior experience as a Wikipedia editor was just enough to get past the semi-protection against newly registered users (the article is semi-protected indefinitely due to past vandalism). There's no rule against people who have personal experience in a subject contributing to articles about that subject; it is my understanding that when handled appropriately, the improvement to accuracy and completeness more than outweighs any potential neutrality issues. If this weren't the case, then we might, as an extreme example, have the reliability of Neil Armstrong, if he were to contribute to articles about the Apollo moon landings, being questioned by moon landing conspiracy theorists on the grounds that his point of view is biased. --mwalimu59 (talk) 18:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Haha, so you are to the furry fandom as Neil Armstrong is to the Apollo moon landings? Jokes aside, that still qualifies as original research and personal anecdotes. The "specific subset" you are referring to is nearly 80%. Since other internet surveys are included in the article, I'm going to go on a limb and cite it. As much as I don't like self-selecting samples, I'm going to cite it as apparently internet surveys hold more credence than Master's theses. -Furry-friend (talk) 20:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

If I may add my personal anecdote, there is a backlash by furries about the prominence of sexuality in the furry community which, Morgan concludes, stems from shame, which is perfectly natural when discussing sex, and non-mainstream sex in particular. I believe this is amplified by the unflattering portrayals of furry sexuality in the media. This backlash is what leads to the NPOV issue in the article. Anecdotally, the vast majority of fursonas I have encountered are sexualized or hyper-sexualized. Non-anecdotally, I can point to the sources I cite in the article, which time and again note the prominence of sex in the fandom. Morgan argues sexual empowerment through furry iconography is what defines (or redefines) the individual in the furry fandom. -Furry-friend (talk) 20:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I took a look and that paper seems to have been self-published by the film student who wrote it. If so, it would not be an acceptable source.   Will Beback  talk  20:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I realize this, however the other article editors have no issue with similar surveys. Two wrongs don't make a right, but perhaps an experienced editor can take out all of the unacceptable sources in the article, starting with original research. I avoid doing so because it will undoubtedly create conflict. -Furry-friend (talk) 21:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The WP:verifiability policy applies to all articles. I don't know which sources you're referring to. I suggest you discuss the issue on the article talk page and if community input is needed start a thread at WP:RSN.   Will Beback  talk  22:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

You're free to remove unreliable sources from the article (especially when they don't cover trivial facts). But so far you have shown more interest in adding sources (both reliable and unreliable, you don't seem to make a difference there) that suit your point of view rather than actually improving the article. --Conti|✉ 22:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh please. Why don't you remove all the internet surveys yourself and see what happens. -Furry-friend (talk) 08:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

That is not a helpful response. Try again? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Atypical NPOV Issues

I would like to write an article(s) about a project I'm involved in on an ambiguous and partially undisclosed level. We purposely engineer an environment suggesting endless supposition of who precisely is involved, as the project itself has an attitude of atypical relativeness, and so we believe we've become specialists at bypassing subjectivity and adopting an alternate point of view. (I say "alternate" and not "neutral" because I feel in many ways there is no such thing, for even a news publication decides what type of facts constitute objectivity, subjectifying its internal relative neutrality.) Paradoxically, we often hype and market this nature (and the project) ad nauseum, but we generally (or have come to be able to) do so in a conscious, crafted, calculated way, and often as a parody of its own ego. (We might wager the argument that this ego, even when uninflated, is an unavoidable consequence of the general principles and methods involved, but we're far too in the know to be certain we're not fooling ourselves.) Hence, one's right to suspect an especially high susceptibility to subjectivity (excuse the alliteration) but the opposite should also be supposed. I think we've evolved the latter skill, and are experienced enough to write with epitome NPOV.

For a microcosm example, I choose the phrase "has an attitude of atypical relativeness" (above) rather than a phrase with more miniature spin, such as "a philosophy of radical objectivity". Even though someone can have a philosophy seen as negative to some, that philosophy is a respected scholastic field of study seems to cast a warm light on that what's in question has been thought through intelligently by someone or something involved. And, while describing something as "radical" may judge it light or dark, it's more a plus when paired with something already having positive spin (e.g. "objectivity", which is a little more often than not seen as a better thing than its opposite). Also, I attempted to throw in a negative to the revision to counter the infinitesimal precision of exact neutrality. The phrase "has an attitude" usually connotes an undesirable one, and is something someone suppressing a negative bias might use. That the phrase must be modified after the point where it would create a gramatically correct sentence sans the modification is something that may have gone unnoticed to someone less specialized in "atypical relativeness". You may or may not agree with these details, but my point is that I was able to catch myself subconsciously on this particular word-to-word level. Likewise, I revised "expert" to "specialist", "mysterious" to "ambiguous", and "craft" to "engineer". (Rhetorically, this is conrived to an extent for demonstration.)

While all this should be enough to make my general inquiry obvious (how to write about the project neutrally here, given that a place that promotes neutrality via understandings of precision and complexity intrinsically offers allowing exception to policies prohibiting writing normally prone to bias), the question is complicated by the vast/excessive (POV-depending) amount of original terminology and concepts that need or could use extensive explanation or promotion to be understood. That is, its creative sope. More specifically, a largely undiscovered one. A good example would be a hidden library of sci-fi/fantasy books of a single epic (e.g. Star Trek, Star Wars, Wheel of Time, Lord of the Rings) of which A) only a few people read or have read, whose opinions would reflect a larger whole, B) has an established body of material worth noting, and C) incorporates unique/confusing concepts best nutshelled by its maker(s). (This latter point is key, a close example being the book Godel, Escher, Bach.) This scope in combination with being very "little discovered" suggests a potential nightmare of spam for a place like Wikipedia. Again, we think we're extremely sensitive to these subtleties, and our sense of noteworthiness is based on these factors. For instance, I would not write an article about a book we've not posted, nor one contradicting the consensus of minimal feedback.

Our project as a whole is largely a template for potential projects, or an ambitious web of them. We consider something to have substance when its strongly developed as a concept as well as via significant posted/published material, and I think we're at the point where a few key/core articles would be at home with the spirit of Wikipedia. Unfortunately, our projects are exceptionally prone to confusion and complexity, so it may be a long wait for a third party to decide they understand one enough to relay it. Of course, our desire to eliminate extension may be tainting objectiveness, which is another reason I'm inquiring beforehand.

I hate mentioning specifics when I try to talk about our stuff objectively, because it always seems to turn out pluggy. I can't even say my own nickname anymore without feeling like I'm pushing a flyer into somebody's face. For instance, discussion boards can have a positive effect on the search engine status of a site, so even mentioning a keyword or two can be technically plug-esque. If you want more specific examples about what I'm talking about, you can search the net for the phrases "difficult to maintain total and fully up-to-date continuity", and "free for nonprofit use and free in general anyway". These should bring you to two pages that speak to our attention to detail, and you may explore from there. (You can also check the list of junk in my profile, but not all is what I'm talking about.) The projects these two phrases should bring you to are two I'd consider writing an article about if deemed appropriate. Please advice on how to proceed, thanks.

Squish7 (talk) 07:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what's atypical about it. You want to write an article about a personal project. That's against Wikipedia policy. -Furry-friend (talk) 11:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

It's against general official policy, not the spirit or point of it, and not the details, given documentation mentions the possibility of exception. If a project potentially difficult for a third party to sum up whose core specialty is objectivity and the establishment of the equal weight of all points of view via writing and reading is not a potential exception, I don't understand what would be. At the least, it falls under "atypical" by definition.

Wikipedia is vast, documenting everything under the sun. Intrinsically, no blanket policy or simple method of documentation is going to hold for practically everything in the universe there is to document, and an intelligent publication should be able to evaluate and consider special situations. Almost always, it's near-impossible to fully detach from personal bias when attempting to write objectively about one's own project(s). In addition, most artworks can always be summed up well by a smart third party who's familiar with the work. These are roots of the general policy you speak of, and a project which lies outside of them lies outside the point of the policy. Our project plays with the entire medium of writing and reading and experiencing art, and in doing this we think we've developed a better ability to write objectively about our own project than most third parties.

Epitome NPOV is formed from the masses. An article on a widely known project incorporates the average voice of everybody exposed to it. It's generally impossible for an individual to speak with that honed tone. There are absolutely infinite things one might say or leave out in an article that attempts to be neutral. Out of this infinite pool of potential articles, only a scant handful qualify for true NPOV. I believe we have a rare ability to generate such an article, but I wanted a feel for its potential acceptance before drafting one, as it would be a major undertaking to write with A+ NPOV, however possible. We're fluent shifting around internal voices and tones, but have not written with a truly anonymous external voice.

Consider a narcissistic clique of con artists with better skill to forge a detailed police report about their activities than any single investigator, motivated primarily by the creative endeavor of doing so, with bias toward benefit in check. -Squish7 (talk) 23:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like your project is still at a very early stage and not yet notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Look at the WP:Article wizard which will guide you through the process. If you are sure that your project is notable, i.e. it has been written about independently, then you should ask someone else to create the article for you. Best of luck with your project. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Coatracking, editorializing, and edit warring on Employee assistance programs

I'm making this report as a third party uninvolved in the original dispute. In November 2010 Albertoarmstrong (talk · contribs) began adding content to the article Employee assistance programs related to workplace bullying ([18]). This content was summarily deleted on 17 November but reverted by an IP (likely Albertoarmstrong forgetting to log in) a few hours later. In January 2011 Cknoepke (talk · contribs) became involved in editing this section and the two have been involved in a prolonged edit war ever since. I warned both users and requested full protection of the article to prevent the edit warring from continuing. Now that I've had a chance to look over the content issue, I disagree with both users' preferred versions of the article and I think this whole section should be deleted as coatracking, or at a minimum drastically trimmed back to remove editorial content. I'm bringing this issue here to get some consensus from editors who (theoretically) have more experience with these sort of issues than I do. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

Prior to my involvement the article had no references. It read like an advertisement for EAP and I think Wiki frowns upon that practice.

I started a new section "Workplace Bully Concerns" and backed it up with about 15 independent references (from US, Canada, Britian .. "worldview"). Despite this another editor (Cknoepke) keeps attacking it (just read the Discussion Page). I haven't bothered with others edits as I'm sure readers can judge for themselves what's what. On Jan 5, 2011 Cknoepke wrote: "You are correct in assuming that I am an EAP professional, but I am an external contracted provider ....." Cknoepke is by their own admission a private EAP provider, so they have a vested interest in censoring my edits.

As for the "coatracking" claim against me: the article started out as "coat racking' (before me) as it was written as an advertisement for EAP.

Albertoarmstrong (talk) 19:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello

A third party review of the article and discussion page would be very helpful as it illustrates the manner in which discussions about various content changes have taken place (or, in many instances, have not taken place). This, coupled with (Albertoarmstrong)'s constant baseless accusations of vandalism and attacks on my credibility (based, as you can see, on one statement where I disclosed that I am a professional in the area) has lead to what I believe to be an intractable argument: Albertoarmstrong has illustrated that he believes the article to be his own and is unwilling to discuss even minor modifications for NPOV or other purposes.

Cknoepke (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

"Bully managers" in Wikipedia's voice? I'd have to agree that that section is a mess. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

Cknoepke wrote: "he believes the article to be his own" This is a false but EAP providers sure believe it theirs. Cknoepke inserted a paragraph at the end of the Workplace Bullying Concern section but misrepresented the reference so I had to insert a direct quote from Cknoepke's own reference to put in the correct perspective. If I thought the section was "mine" I would have deleted it.

Cknoepke wrote: "and is unwilling to discuss even minor modifications". Again false. We had extensive discussion on the Discussion Page.

A Quest For Knowledge wrote: "Bully managers" in Wikipedia's voice?" That the terminology used in the references, so why can't that language be reflected in a Wiki article?

A Quest For Knowledge wrote: "I'd have to agree that that section is a mess." I used about 15 references so how can it be a mess? Albertoarmstrong (talk) 20:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict x2) I'm not going to lie: this article as it existed before Albertoarmstrong edited it was a terrible, unreferenced, promotional mess. However, the article as it exists right now is still mostly the same terrible, unreferenced, promotional mess, though marginally better referenced and coupled with a new section on "Workplace Bullying Concerns".

Note that the name of this forum is the Neutral point of view noticeboard. I brought this issue here first because I believe that adherence to neutral point of view is the biggest problem with both Albertoarmstrong and Cknoepke's preferred versions of this article. Here is how I would summarize this issue:

1. The article started off as unreferenced blatant promotion for EAPs.
2. In an attempt to correct this issue, Albertoarmstrong piled on some criticism of EAPs.
3. Cknoepke challenged Albertoarmstrong's content by adding a bunch of {{dubious}}, {{fact}}, and similar tags, which Albertoarmstrong responded to by adding citations.
4. A previously uninvolved SPA rewrote the "bullying" section in accordance with the promotional nature of the rest of the article ([19]). An edit war ensued over this version of the article, with Cknoepke supporting the promotional version and Albertoarmstrong supporting the negative version.

A strongly POV article does not magically become neutral by adding a bunch of the opposite POV. In my book, that only compounds the problem. This entire article needs to be rewritten from scratch. I can't even find a good NPOV version to revert to, including the original version.—KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Albertoarmstrong: It has so many things wrong with it, I'm not sure where to even begin, but let's start with the first sentence: "Workplace bullying or mobbing targets should be leery of EAPs, particularly in-house EAPs." This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not a how-to guide. We're not here to give people advice. The very next sentence begins, "Unfortunately," which is a violation of WP:EDITORIAL. This is terrible writing, no offense, and if this has been going on since October, I don't know what to say. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi A Quest For Knowledge,

Actually, another editor inserted the "leery" word. Other than my edits, the rest of the article "implies" advice because its promotional material.Albertoarmstrong (talk) 20:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I have made what hopefully will be the first of several requests for consensus on edits that will make this article more NPOV. Please see Talk:Employee assistance programs#Edit request 28 March 2011. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Due weight and numbers of sources

Just moved this over from WP:RSN, since I figured here was more appropriate. This is Gibraltar again, I'm afraid.

An editor is currently citing an argument made here (in a mediation case since closed), which judges the due weight of points to be made in an article based on the raw number of sources found in a search of Google Books. The methodology is to search for keywords in books that contain the word "Gibraltar" in the title.

I have three questions:

• Is this a reliable means of judging the appropriate weight to be given to subjects in articles?
• Would it be a reliable means of judging the appropriate weight to be given to subjects in articles, if it was confirmed that all of the sources actually mention the piece of history concerned?
• If it was not done through Google Books, but rather through a count of sources containing the point collated by some other means, would this be a reliable means of judging appropriate weight?

Thanks, Pfainuk talk 18:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

To add to the above, I was about to start a new thread. I am involved in the above discussion so will not comment but add further information.

It has transpired that two editors who have been arguing the edit they prefer is justified per WP:DUE and WP:V but they do not have access to any sources whatsoever. They are relying upon limited searches of google books, often from google snippets. Having no access to any sources I'm at a loss to see how that can make an argument based upon WP:DUE. 20:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The question of relying on Google hit counts was a side issue at RSN. It seems appropriate here because establishing relative WP:WEIGHT (or balance) is central to NPOV. And it is an intriguing idea. However, it has been discussed at RSN#Archive 54, where it rejected. Main problem is that Google hits are only on strings of words, and any inference beyond the numerical occurrence of a specific string of words is unsupported. Also, the domain referenced (nearly all the garbage on the WWW) has no particular authority.

The simple answer to the question posed is: No. The very idea that proper WP:WEIGHT can be determined by any simple numerical or (not so simple?) statistical measure (whether Google hits, or citation counts, or ??) is misleading. Such measures might show how notorious a subject is (i.e., how much it is being discussed), but how much weight any discussion or viewpoint or argument should be given depends in a large part on the quality of the argument, expertise and reliability of the proponents, etc. These have to be assessed by the editor, require some familiarity of the field, may even require expert knowledge on specific points, and in the end are subjective. It appears there is not, nor even could be, any "simple" arithmetical determination of due weight. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually the original question was whether it is reasonable to rely on Google snippets from reliable sources as evidence for the occurrence of a single phrase, and I gather that you might accept this. We are currently trying to follow a bibliometric approach to another vexed question and I take your point that bibliometry cannot be determinative. In fact we have been stuck on a fundamentally subjective issue for two years of argument, and I can't really see any way to solve it. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

No Richard that wasn't the original question at all, due weight is argued on the basis of the number of google hits. And as we've seen it isn't a suitable argument at all. What we've now found is that those making this argument, don't have access to sources and the argument pursued for 2 years to the frustration of any attempt to improve the article is one that isn't sustained by policy. Please do not confuse the question and allow outside comment and don't deter it with walls of text as virtually every attempt to elicit outside opinion is. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

May I point out that this is the NPOV notice board? As to whether due weight can be determined by any "bibliometric" means, I have given you my opinion. Now you both are sliding back into the more general question of reliable source, which seems more appropriately discussed at WP:RSN. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Gibraltar#RfC: Due weight & NPOV in the History section I have started an RFC to gather outside opinion related to this issue. Those who have commented here may care to contribute an opinion. Thanks. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I finally found WP:Google searches and numbers (an essay proposed for policy), which states: "One of the biggest fallacies in determining notability of a subject is the results of a Google search...." Yes. Google can be a useful finding tool, and the results useful as a very rough measure of notoriety. But not as metric for purposes of WP:WEIGHT. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

As a side note, I completely agree with JJ. But nobody has used Google search. We have used Google books (not google search) search and then have checked the books one by one in order to see if they were specifically about the issue at hand (and each non-complying source was discarded). In my opinion, this process avoided many of the drawbacks signaled by WP:GNUM I also agree this is not a final criterium, but I would say it is a very strong evidence suggesting notabilityl.

Please, JJ and other outside editors, could you please give your opinion on this? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 23:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Hence the third question above. Whether the count of sources, where the weight given to each point in each source is not considered, is appropriate. JJ addressed this above:

The very idea that proper WP:WEIGHT can be determined by any simple numerical or (not so simple?) statistical measure (whether Google hits, or citation counts, or ??) is misleading.

It also is patently false for you to say that "each non-complying source was discarded". Your much-repeated thirty-seven hits on San Roque included primary sources, histories of San Roque and a biography of an Austrian general. Many of the books concerned are not available except though Snippet view, which we have already seen cannot be used as a reliable source. It included at least one source that didn't include the words "San Roque" at all. But even if they had been discarded, that is addressed by my second and third questions above. Pfainuk talk 07:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

  I have proposed (below) that all discussions on Gibraltar be continued on the talk page. However, it may be useful to try to resolve this discussion here, provided it stays on topic ("Due weight and numbers of sources") and does not slide into other aspects of reliable sources or such.

  It seems to me you all have slightly different takes on what, precisely, the issue here is. Is it a fair statement, and generally agreeable, that the issue here involves a reliance by Imalbornoz (and one or more others?) upon Google or Google Books to either 1) determine the reliability (and therefore the weight given to) individual sources, or 2) determine the proper weight (balance) to be given a sub-topic as represented in the aggregated sources? (And please, no debate yet, just let me know if this is a fair understanding of the situation.) - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Point 2 is what is argued primarily by Imalbornoz and one other. The argument is used for two claims, one based on a Google Books search, the other based on a raw count of quotes provided by others without regard for context. Point 1 is only argued inasmuch as the sources counted for point 2 are not otherwise assessed for reliability (or indeed content). Pfainuk talk 18:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

To put this into perspective, Imalbornoz has adopted this technique for a reason. As we found out during the mediation case here he doesn't have access to sources Diff [20] Regarding Jackson and Hills, I wish I had access to the books. I think Ecemaml has one or both. I think I'll ask him.. Jackson and Hills are named as the primary sources of his edits - he relies on a 3rd party for quotes. Similarly he relies heavily on Google snippets. This is a very misleading way of editing, for example here [21] where even after I pointed out that Chapter III of Andrews p.54 is about the period after Utrecht he continued to claim it supported his edit, though it did give me the clue to find the snippet and technique he'd used. He searched in Google Books here for Shrimpton the Hapsburg Governor from 1705 to 1707, unfortunately Andrews introduced a discussion of the corruption of early Governors by referring to Shrimpton's dodgy deals earlier. (I recently found a copy and can confirm he is incorrect). Then there is this example [22], well I had a look at this list here. He also claims to have compiled a filtered search, in which he personally verified that each text was relevant. However, as Pfainuk notes it contains much irrelevant material, including the Austrian General or simpy San Roque. Sadly I don't think there is any substitute for actual research from reliable sources. At best what we see with these searches is simply the observation of Confirmation bias since the search terms predicate the outcome, and if the editor is looking for terms to support an edit, which is what we see here it is inevitably biased. We look to the sources to dictate the edit, we don't write the edit and then look for sources. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Whoa — a big wave of text just overwhelmed me! Look, I was seeking assent; a simple "yes" or "no" would be an adequate answer. Instead, we have argumentation with supporting points, and the chickens are loose again. You folks are just too ready to dance, but I really need smaller bites. I think you will make more progess if you go slower (por favor!), one small point at a time. (Think in terms of using low-gear, where using a higher gear will either loose traction (spin the wheels) or stall the engine.)

Let's try this again, and I'll simplify the question. Is it a fair statement (i.e., close enough) that the issue presented here regarding numbers of sources is about the use of Google (or Google Books) by Imalbornoz? (A yes or no is adequate, thank you.) - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

• Yes Wee Curry Monster talk 23:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
• Yes (the use of Google books as one argument -not the only one- of a set that also included qualitative arguments, please see here for example). -- Imalbornoz (talk) 07:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Looking good. Let's wait a tad longer before continuing, in case there are any dissents. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 02:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, but it also applies to Imalbornoz's use of raw counts of sources that are gathered by means other than Google Books (but instead provided by an outside editor), that similarly do not take account of context or weight given to the points by the individual source. Pfainuk talk 17:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, the preliminary formulation of the issue, as far as it goes, seems generally acceptable. I am leery of Pfainuk's extension, but we will see where this goes. Before proceeding I want to establish certain caveats. First, this is not the reliable sources noticeboard; this is not the place to discuss the criteria or means of identifying reliable sources. We will be discussing that part of NPOV concerning the due WP:WEIGHT or balance to be given certain issues, and particularly a certain use of numbers of sources to determine that balance.

Second, Imalbornoz is not on trial here. He is the proponent of the usage under discussion (and I am curious, are there any others?), and I hope will be a worthy champion of that usage. But we presume he uses it in the belief it is satisfactory, and the discussion here is only on whether the usage is satisfactory.

Now I need some clarification: What is being weighed here? Is it the space or treatment accorded certain sub-topics? Or is it possibly something else, say the weight to be given various sources? Imalbornoz, perhaps you could provide a short explanation? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

It is both the space and treatment of the certain sub-topics. Deph of coverage is excessive and the quantities of text dedicated to certain details are grossly out of proportion with coverage in sources. Related to this, is that sources are not used for the edits, rather Google Book searches used to justify a pre-determined edit; Google Book searches then become an example of Confirmation Bias. Another issue and I appreciate it you wish to cover one at a time, is that this is achieved at the expense of a) not covering signficant events as opposed to details and b) the range of relevant opinions in the literature. The latter can be dealt with later, I merely raise it to register there are multiple issues with proposed methods. Wee Curry Monster talk 07:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the number of sources was not an argument per se. The argument was a benchmark of events in the same section of the article. Quite a few of them are mentioned by fewer sources (some of them maybe only by a couple of sources) than the events that WCM and Pfainuk want to remove. So I thought that it was quite unconsistent to remove some facts cited by 37 sources and keep some events mentioned by fewer sources in the same topic area (Gibraltar). Counting the number of sources seemed to me a good objectivization of this inconsistency. Again, this was only one argument (call it circumstantial evidence) among other more qualitative arguments.

Regarding the text, the factuality of the events is not under dispute. It is the importance of the events for the History of Gibraltar and their due weight in the article that is under dispute. WCM and Pfainuk want to eliminate detail to a point that the events are not actually mentioned because they say they are not important to the topic (the history of Gibraltar in an overview article):

from

• "there was widespread raping, almost all houses of the town were looted, all churches except one were desecrated and almost all the villagers left -the largest part to a nearby town called San Roque."

to

• "they [the invaders] were frustrated when, after three days of violent disorder, almost the entire population of the town left citing their loyalty to Philip V, the Bourbon claimant.". -- Imalbornoz (talk) 09:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I won't comment in detail but no one is suppressing anything and I for one am tired of the constant accusations of suppressing material, see the footnotes for a start, in fact we're arguing for greater detail. The fact of the matter is, its this additional details to address a NPOV issue that is obstructed by the demand to mention a detailed list of crimes to the detriment of other significant events. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I've prepared a sandpit comparing the two proposed texts here for editors to judge for themselves. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow, another deluge of text!!! Okay, for you guys this is relatively short, but you really need to practice on shorter. One step at a time. WCM: your first sentence ("It is both...") would have been adequate, and even the second sentence was not out of line. And if you truly appreciate that I want to take one issue at a time, you would not introduce "another issue" (at least, not yet). Okay? Also, there is a rather serious matter raised by your statement that you are "tired of the constant accusations of suppressing material". I have looked closely at Imalbornoz' statement (and let's not raise up old issues not "in evidence" here), and the only basis I see for your statement would his statements "events that WCM and Pfainuk want to remove" and "WCM and Pfainuk want to eliminate detail...". These appear to me to be very plain, objective statements of fact; I do not see that these amount to any "accusations of suppressing material". Your complaint is a misrepresentation (perhaps only a misunderstanding?) of what Imalbornoz was saying; it is an invalid strawman argument. It is also some what inflammatory, which does nothing to help us. (I hope I will have these comments in place before anyone else comes back at you with a hot retort. Everyone cool it!) Also, and for everyone: supplying alternate texts is a good thing — on the article's talk page. On this noticeboard we should stay focused on the usage complained of.

Imalbornoz: a good start, even if over lengthy. Let me ponder on that for a bit. And everyone stay cool. A slow, considered step forward progresses much faster than rapid fire missteps that have to be retracted. Also, I added indentation above (pushing the boundary of talk page etiquette) to make matters clearer. To the same end, would anyone object to permitting me to freely indent, reduce, emphasize, or even hide your comments in this discussion? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Eliminate, remove, suppress are one and the same thing and it happens to be untrue. This is not a misunderstanding, nothing is eliminated or removed the content is still there - please take a look. My comments are not a misrepresentation in the slightest but the accusations of eliminating, removing or suppressing are. I have no problem with hiding comments if they're tangential - feel free. But WP:TPG would indicate you should note edit by indenting, reducing or emphasizing.

Anyway we're dancing around the issue of actual relevance, hit counts in google searches whther in google books or plain google are not a substitute for research of reliable sources but the argument presnted here is that it is. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

JJ, I won't object. Thank you for taking the time to mediate in the discussion. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 23:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course it would be improper to change any remarks to the point of misrepresenting them, and I hope to avoid that. But with you all's permission I may reduce or even hide extraneous comments, for the purpose of clarifying matters and seeking a resolution satisfactory to all concerned.

WCM: Quite a bit of the "dancing around" I see here (and on the talk page) seems to arise from your comments, which prompts other editors to respond, and around the houses you go. Keep in mind that not every comment you feel should be said is necessarily useful. I think we should have a side discussion about this. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

After considering the prior comments I have two questions. First: am I correct in understanding that the issue presented here is not the weight to be given to various sources themselves, but rather to the weight the sources (individually or in aggregate) provide regarding the inclusion (or not) of certain events?

Second: is it possible that issue here can be boiled down to selection of alternate texts, such as Imalbornoz quoted above? Not that the example above is the only alternative in dispute, but: is it a representative example of the core issue? (And "yes" and "no" are adequate responses.) - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

• No. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
• Yes. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 08:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that I fully understand the questions. (Minor reformatting. -JJ)

On the first, I think the answer is yes and no. The weight given to each source is significant to the point in that Imalbornoz's argument weighs all sources equally, regardless of reliability and content. The weight the sources provide regarding inclusion is significant in that the question is as to whether certain points in the article are given more weight than is due to them based on sources, and whether this ought to be decided based on a raw count of sources or on the weight given to the point by individual sources.

On the second, the whole point is that we are trying to find an alternative text to that currently in the article. Now, the possibilities for a new text are obviously theoretically endless, but we must be sure that the new text does not give undue weight to any particular point - and particularly the arguments of one side or other in a modern dispute (bearing in mind that this is not an article on that dispute). Pfainuk talk 18:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

So we need some finer resolution. WCM, I want to hear more about your "no", but let's hold off on that until we can sort out Pfainuk's points.

Pfainuk, on your second point it seems to me that you have only stated generalities. Of course the possibilities are endless, and we must avoid undue weight. What I am asking is whether, out of those endless possibilities, two statements could be taken, representative of each point of view (perhaps the from/to versions quoted by Imalbornoz), and the issue here reduced to determining which is "best". Is that clearer?

Re your first point, I think you are saying that the weight of a source — essentially how much impact it has — may vary depending on reliability, etc. Which is correct. But the means and criteria of determining what the weight of a source should be is a matter for WP:reliable sources, and not appropriate here. I am hoping that is not part of the issue here, that you all have (at least potentially) some degree of consensus regarding the weight to be accorded the sources, and the issue here is the application of those weights to determine an adequately balanced point of view. Is that clearer? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Rabbi Pinto - Assistance

A major feature story ran on Rabbi Pinto, the largest story ever written about him and the few editors who control the board didnt allow neutral entrees to be placed. Need assistance from curious non interested parties.

The article was syndicated and picked up by Globes a major Israeli paper, The Real Deal a major NYC real estate publication and Vos Iz Neas Religious news service but entire chunks of article werent included. Can we have new eyes please ?

Would suggest adding: "Considerable questions have risen regarding Pinto’s organizations finances. A report by a leading New York Jewish newspaper has revealed a “contrast between the rabbi’s lifestyle and his reputation for modest living, and questions about the rabbi’s image as a business guru when his own not-for-profit faces financial problems.” The Forward stated: “The business troubles at Mosdot Shuva Israel could be seen as ironic, given Rabbi Pinto’s reputation as an adviser to businessmen, and particularly to real estate brokers.” 65.112.21.194 (talk) 13:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

If you make a concrete proposal on the talk page ie. what text you would like to add and give links to support that text, then I will participate in the discussion on the talk page.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be a little forum-shopping going on here. Versions of the above request have been posted at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism, an RfC, and on four different user talk pages (all today).

Some related background is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Babasalichai/Archive. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah...so...we (the "few editors who control the board", by Babasalichai's description) did include a lot of information from the report the sock mentions, we just didn't include the more polemic and statements. Yes, it's the largest story ever written about him (at least, in English), but it's still only one story, and most of it isn't even about him (it's about the organization he is a member of); certainly not enough to use phrases like "considerable questions". However, if anyone feels like investigating, the story is linked at the article, and there's at least 3 of us who can/have discussed it there. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying I support his proposal, just that I need to see specifics before I can comment one way or another. If its already been discussed among multiple editors and the editor is just forum shopping to try and subvert an existing consensus then that is another story altogether. Thanks for your comment.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

47th of foot regiment

Disregard

 – Non-actionable due to lack of information, lack of NPOV issue, and likely wrong place. J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Correction: The 47th of foot was commanded By Lt. Colonel John Hale (1725-1806)rather than Major General James Wolfe during the battle for Quebeck City, Plains of Abraham. Sept. 13th 1759. Col. Hale was the fast friend of Gen. Wolfe and on Wolfes request carried the dispatch of the victory back to King Geo. III, returning Wolfes remains to England. He was granted a warrant to raise one of five new cavalry regiments being formed, patterened on the succesful model of Cromwell's cavalry. John Hale was the founder of the Death of Glory Boys, the 17th Lancers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.66.133.144 (talk) 00:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Huh? Correction to what?

Please note that this noticeboard is for the discussion of WP:NPOV issues (possible violations of Neutral Point of View) that haven't been resolvable on an article's talk page. You have not claimed any such issue, nor even an article (47th of foot regiment?); there doesn't seem to be anything to discuss here. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps our OP means 47th (Lancashire) Regiment of Foot? James Wolfe is mentioned, "John Hale (soldier) (1728–1806), British soldier" has no article, but appears on the John Hale disambigution page. Perhaps the post should be moved/copied to the relevant articles talkpage? - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 10:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, likely that's what the poster had in mind. But even as a request for a correction this is non-actionable as there is no source provided. I would advise the poster that requests for change should be posted on the talk page ("Discussion") of the specific article, and also that reliable sources are required to document the material. With that, I think there is nothing more to do here. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The label "alternative"--as in category:alternative journalists

--A Jimbo quote...: Template:Jimboquote--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I think such a category has some use, if perhaps small--say, in cases where someone hasn't received journalistic training and does non- "MSM style"(?) work? however, perhaps these type of individuals really should be incorporated into the more general category of journalists, for maximum NPOV, too-- . So, either way--that is, keeping these two cats separate or combining them--is fine according to my own pov.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Is this an accepted term in the national media or in academia? If so, can we see some refs and a definition of what the term means? If not, then it may be POV or OR.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Well (of course, FWIW), there is a 2010 book, Alternative Journalists with chapters: Michael Moore, Alex Jones, Eduardo Montes-Bradley, Michael Yon, Amy Goodman, Alexander Cockburn, Kevin Pina, Thom Hartmann, Wayne Madsen, Hugh Hewitt, Charles Karel Bouley, Stephanie Miller, Michael Jackson, Steve Dillard, Abraham Sarmiento, Jr., Jim Hightower, Andrew Goldberg, Larry Bensky, Alex Bennett, Charles Foster Johnson, Marc Cooper, Dennis Bernstein, Neil Rogers, Phillip Frazer, Jeremy Scahill, Marlene Garcia-Esperat, Wakas Mir, Ed Morrissey, Aaron Glantz, John H. Hinderaker, Isabelo de Los Reyes, Rick Rydell, Teodoro Casino, Jeffrey St. Clair, Paul and Shirley Eberle, Mohammed Omer, Dahr Jamail, Jon Rappoport, Laura Flanders, Jay Marvin, List of Progressive Talk Radio Hosts in the United States, Dave Kopel, Scott W. Johnson, T-Bone Slim, Francisco Aruca, Mike Malloy, Stephen Bainbridge, David Barsamian, Robert Parry, Deepa Fernandes, Bob Cesca, Patricio Guzman, Janine Jackson, Paul Mirengoff, Pierre Carles, David Moberg, Jim Naureckas, Neil Demause. I'm an idiot. That book is a reprint from Wikipedia!

And here is where the phrase alternative journalist is used per a Google Books search (plus: plural; alt. journal-ism).

The problem is: Where do we draw the line for inclusion, with regard such a category? What constitutes its parameters as either a sub-set of "journalist" or a grouping that partially overlaps with it?--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 19:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 19:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Not knowing the history behind the creation.... Is this the same as citizen Journalism or is a simple "Other Category" for those who dont neatly fit in any existing category? The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 20:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

or is this simply desciptive of some one who works for Alternative media like an Alternative news agency or Alternative newspaper The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 20:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

there's no doubt that many newspapers are labeled "alternative". For example, the free weeklies distributed in a number of U.S. cities get that label. But I'm not familiar with it being applied to the journalists themselves. Some of them may write for a variety of sources, so it would be inappropriate for us to use that category on our own based on their contributions to alternative news sources. Like any category, we should be able to find sources which use it about the individuals to whom it's applied.   Will Beback  talk  21:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I thumbed through a couple of dozen sources now, I am seeing no consistent use. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 03:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

A question on weight

How much weight ought to be given to a source which although published in a peer reviewed journal has since has received little to no citations, and which the author himself says is a new way of looking at things? The source in question is "Phillip Deery. The Terminology of Terrorism: Malaya, 1948–52. Journal of Southeast Asia Studies, Vol. 34, No. 2 (June 2003), pp. 231–247." and it is used to support an edit which claims the use of the term communist terrorists during the Malayan emergency was propaganda. The majority of sources I have read do not say this, so is giving one paper which does breaking WP:UNDUE? Tentontunic (talk) 22:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

You answer your own question when you say it has received little or no citations. A single paper giving a completely alternative viewpoint to the majority of the literature that is 8 yrs old and has received little attention since is a WP:FRINGE opinion even if it is published in an otherwise reliable source. Journals do publish fringe theories to encourage debate. Being somewhat familiar with the history myself I would agree with your assessment that this is giving undue weight to a fringe opinion. Hope this helps. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I have to ask since I dont have acess was there a rejoinder to it? Those are always very illuminating. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 02:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

When posting a request to this board you should refer to the source, providing a link where possible, and explain what claims it is used to support. For example:

In Communist terrorism, the following passage is referenced to Philip Deery's article, "The terminology of Terrorism: Malaya, 1948-52", Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, Vol. 34, 2003:[23]

"In 1948, an anti-colonial guerrilla war, the "Malayan emergency", started between Commonwealth armed forces and the Malayan National Liberation Army. The insurgents were led by the Malayan Communist Party and their their actions were labeled at first as "banditry" then later as "Communist terrorism" in British propaganda."

It appears that this description in the source is presented as factual and is supported by sources. The author does not say that this is "a new way of looking at things", merely that he seeks "to throw some new historical light on the use of political language during the early years of the Emergency" by "charting the shift in the language used to depict Communist insurgents in Malaya". But the Wikipedia article does not report that part of the article.

TFD (talk) 05:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

No you're confusing fact with opinion, that is the opinion of the author, which you present as fact. Not acceptable usually. Wee Curry Monster talk 07:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

See WP:NPOV: "Avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion." There is consensus that propaganda was used on both sides during the Cold War and also that it was used by the British government during the Malyan Emergency. See for example 661 hits for "malayan emergency"+propaganda at Google books. If you can find any serious sources among these that take a different view, then I will change my mind. TFD (talk) 15:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Sigh, see [24]. It is actually referred to above. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Totally different issue. Tentontunic claimed that the connection made by Deery between the use of language and propaganda during the Malayan Emergency was "a new way of looking at things". In fact the topic has been addressed in hundreds of books. Does that make the connection correct? No. What makes it correct is that it is a consensus view. If it is not then it would be possible for Tentontunic to find sources challenging this view. TFD (talk) 16:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Um -- saying that a view which others have not seen fit to decry therefore makes it "consensus" is an interesting sort of argument. Thus if a person wrote an article connecting Gnarphism with Daphne du Maurier, and no one thought enough of it to refute it, then that opinion becomes "consensus"? Nope. Consensus requires affirmative acceptance of the view by others. Ignoring a fringe view does not make the fringe view into the consensus view. Collect (talk) 16:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I did not say that, the papers author did. Were is your source that this is a consensus view out of curiosity? Tentontunic (talk) 16:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Collect, there are hundreds of books that discuss British propaganda during the Malyan Emergency and none that I could find that challenge this view.[25] The British themselves called it propaganda, as is documented in Emergency propaganda: the winning of Malayan hearts and minds, 1948-1958.[26] TFD (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Tentunic, you appear to apply a different standard on whether we can refer to "propaganda" used by the British during the Malayan emergency and whether we can label the insurgents "Communist Terrorists". TFD (talk) 17:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Explain please? Were have I applied different standards? Tentontunic (talk) 18:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

You believe that we can call the Malayan insurgency "Communist Terrorism", despite the fact that this terminology does not have the support of academic consensus. Yet you object to using the term "propaganda" in reference to the British during the Malayan Emergency because "The majority of sources I have read do not say this". What makes your position especially bizarre is that you are arguing to use jargon that was abandoned 40 years ago. TFD (talk) 18:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe noting, the sources I have read say communist terrorists, they do nto say they were called this as a propaganda exercise. They were called terrorists becasue they engaged in terrorist activities. And of course they were communist. And as for jargon which was abandoned 40 years ago? Malaya's Secret Police 1945-60: The Role of the Special Branch in the Malayan Emergency Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (15 Dec 2008) ISBN 978-9812308290 what is the date this book was printed? And there are hundreds more the same. Tentontunic (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The source was discussed on WP:RSN and it seemed to be resolved there. It was suggested that weighting was not a question for that board but one for this one. However, it seems that there is still disagreement about the reliability so I am taking it back there. We will try and resolve reliability there, alongside other sources used in the article, and then any weight issues can come here. I hope that people already involved in the discussion will refrain from commenting and some further uninvolved people will give opinions. My opinion, already expressed on RSN, is that this is a normal academic source. It's a paper in a good journal. I see no sign whatsoever of fringe status. If anyone wants to pursue the line of argument that the source is fringe, then we could also ask on the fringe theories noticeboard. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Malaya's secret police deals extensively with British "propaganda" during the Emergency. For example, "This directive [No. 16] ... deals with propaganda.... General Briggs played a significant part in arranging for the government's information and propaganda services to become.... propaganda was the responsibility of the Department of Public Relations...." (p. 155)[27] Also, "The High Commissioner suggested... that such emotive terms as 'war', 'enemy' and 'rebellion' should be avoided, and names such as 'banditry' 'thugs', 'terrorism' and so on be used instead. The true meanings of these euphemisms needs to be understood by the research scholar, for a literal interpretation of their meaning would lead to ill-foirmed conclusions that the British colonial power... was not faced with an outright war.... I was not until...1952 that the British colonial authorities decided to replace the term 'bandits' with 'communist terrorists'."[28]

Your source says that CT was a euphemism used as part of British propaganda. That is what the article should reflect.

TFD (talk) 19:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually no it does not, at least on p13. No mention of propaganda on that page at all. They even got an official legal definition. and on p158 it does not say that they were called CT`s as part of a propaganda operation. It talks of keeping morale up. Tentontunic (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I raised this again at RSN. The notion that "journals publish fringe theories to encourage debate" is not in line with WP:IRS, where academic research articles are treated as sources of high quality. Does it need also to go to FTN? Itsmejudith (talk) 20:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

If you wish to post at FTN go ahead. This is about weight, how much weight ought to be given to an article which has next to no citations and sank without trace? You have already said you believe it reliable, that is not the issue here, it is weight. Tentontunic (talk) 20:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I will only post at FTN if someone wants to say that it is fringe, as above. Your challenge still is really about reliability. I am alarmed at your formulation "next to no citations and sank without trace". As I already said, very many academic articles are uncited. It does not equate to "sank without trace". You do not seem to be very familiar with the norms of scholarship. I hope we will get some more comments on RSN about reliability. If this source is judged reliable for the article, and some other sources on the same topic are also judged reliable, then we will be in a position to weight them against each other. As you know, where there is a disagreement of scholarly opinion we should reflect both sides. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

In fact the source is used to represent a view that is found in hundreds of sources and is the consensus of writers. Tentontunic, the source Malaya's secret police, which you provided is quite clear and I have no idea why you are writing "no it does not, at least on p13" when I clearly typed out what appeared on that page. Here it is again, and anyone can check it: "The High Commissioner suggested... that such emotive terms as 'war', 'enemy' and 'rebellion' should be avoided, and names such as 'banditry' 'thugs', 'terrorism' and so on be used instead. The true meanings of these euphemisms needs to be understood by the research scholar, for a literal interpretation of their meaning would lead to ill-foirmed conclusions that the British colonial power... was not faced with an outright war.... I was not until...1952 that the British colonial authorities decided to replace the term 'bandits' with 'communist terrorists'."(p. 13)[29]

Itsmejudith, there is no disagreement in scholarly opinion.

TFD (talk) 20:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you read past what you need? Perhaps you ought to look at why they avoided terms such as 'war', 'enemy' and 'rebellion' it was to stop insurance premiums going up. There is noting in that book which says the British called them terrorists as part of a propaganda campaign. Tentontunic (talk) 20:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

It says, "At the outset of the Emergency, the British colonial government attempted to downplay the seriousness of the situation so as not to affect public morale. The government was anxious to ensure, too, that commercial insurance rates were not affected...." IOW the government had more than one reason to mislead the public. So what? The first casualty of war is truth. TFD (talk) 21:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. It does not say communist terrorism was used as part of a propaganda campaign does it? Thank you. Tentontunic (talk) 21:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

You appear to be unaware of what propaganda means, and I suggest you read up on it. It is essential that the articles we edit do not repeat propaganda without attribution. TFD (talk) 21:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

You will both do better to allow for external opinion if you do not deter it with walls of text, with tendentious arguments between yourselves. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, the whole point of these boards is to get an outside perspective, not to perpetuate their disagreement in yet another forum. FWIW, TFD appears to be applying his personal viewpoint and saying this is "propaganda", that's synthesis. --Martin (talk) 21:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Martin funnily enough I arrived at the same conclusion regarding WP:SYN, however, I declined to comment at the time as it seemed doomed to be ignored. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The word "propaganda" is clearly a judgemental word in context - intended to imply "but anything propaganda is clearly false" or the like. Unless multiple reliable sources use the term "propaganda" in a discussion, the use is undue weight at best, and likely far worse with regard to how we treat the readers (the ultimate customers for the article). We must always be cognizant that pushing WP:TRUTH is contrary to WP policy. Collect (talk) 00:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. That governments, especially in violent conflicts, use propaganda, is an entirely unsurprising and ordinary (as in "not extraordinary") fact. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 02:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The sources say it was propaganda, the British government called it propaganda and unlike the U.S. there are no historical revisionists who say otherwise. We go with the consensus of historians - there is not even a fringe element with a different view. If I am wrong, please present a single source that differs. TFD (talk) 03:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

"At the outset of the Emergency, the British colonial government attempted to downplay the seriousness of the situation so as not to affect public morale." -- This is almost though not quite the same as saying that the British colonial government used propaganda. It would be reasonable, though a bit weak, as a source for the claim that they used propaganda. But if I understand the situation correctly this is not the question here: TFD quoted this from a source which Tentontunic claims contradicts the claim about propaganda by not mentioning it. It does no such thing. In fact, as TFD pointed out correctly, it supports the claim, although the other source is still better for that purpose. Hans Adler 09:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

"Almost" = "close but no cigar." If the important word "propaganda" is not directly used in a source, it has attained sufficient current notoriety as a term as to bar it being used as a paraphrase. Collect (talk) 20:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

You might want to read the discussion thread before commenting. The word propaganda is directly used in the source and was acknowleged by the British government. TFD (talk) 05:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you never tire of being wrong? Were exactly within the book does it say the term communist terrorism was used as british propaganda? It does not. That is what this is about, were they called communist terrorists as propaganda? If deery himself says this is a new way of looking at things then how much weight ought to be given to it? That is the question at hand. Tentontunic (talk) 09:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I said "the word propaganda is directly used in the source". Please see the excert from the source that Paul Siebert has kindly reproduced below. Before posting again, remember that other editors can compare your comments with the text below. TFD (talk) 17:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

No you said Malaya's secret police said the term communist terrorist was in this book and that this book directly supported Deery. In that it was a term coined by british propaganda. Admit you are wrong and that this book does not in fact say communist terrorism was coined as british propaganda. Tentontunic (talk) 17:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

@Martin. I would say, the aim of this board is to get new arguments, no matter who will provide them. So, let me summarise what I have read. Firstly, the source, (Deery) clearly says:

"The article therefore aims to fill a partial historiographical gap in studies of both the Malayan Emergency and the Cold War generally. I have chosen the Emergency as a case study since it clearly shows the British government grappling with this issue of political terminology within the broader context of anti-Communist propaganda."

"In fact, the Malayan Races’ Liberation Army (MRLA), the military wing of the MCP, was a guerrilla force. It was similar to, for example, the Communist movement in China during 1928-45, the Huks in the Philippines from 1946 to the mid-1950s and the Vietminh in Indochina from 1941. Although historians have readily discerned the strategies of guerrilla in these rural-based rebellions and insurgents have often identified themselves as guerrillas, it was rarely a term used by authorities at the time. Guerrillas are proud to be called guerrillas, but to call them ‘bandits’ is to link them with criminality. A guerrilla is not a bandit; as Eric Hobsbawm points out, ‘banditry has next to no organization or ideology, and is totally inadaptable to modern social movements … [It] was and is inefficient in every way … [and] is incapable of effective guerrilla organization’. This obviously was not the case with the MRLA."

• * *

"The hybrid term ‘Communist terrorist’ accomplished two objectives. ‘Terrorist’, like ‘bandit’, sought to deny the MCP political legitimacy while ‘Communist’, as A. J. Stockwell noted, ‘located the emergency firmly in the Cold War’. The use of the term ‘terrorist’ was, of course, intended to demonise the MCP. Terrorists’ lack of legitimacy stems from their incapacity to effect change. Due to the disparity between the political aspirations of their resort to violence and the means at their disposal, they are forced to operate clandestinely, out of weakness, so the actions of the MLNA ‘terrorists’ – sabotage, intimidation, murder – were the tactics of the weak against the strong. From a position of weakness, their use of available resources was economical: insurgency is cheap, counterinsurgency costly. In this sense, ‘terrorism’ was more accurate and appropriate than ‘banditry’. Even in the 1950s – before Palestinian plane hijackings, Irish Republican bombings or Italian Red Brigade assassinations (and certainly before ‘9/11’, which unleashed a flood of inconsistent etymological analyses) – ‘terrorist’ was one of the most misleading words in the English language. Universally accepted definitions were and are elusive; there is not one terrorism, but a variety of terrorisms. Walter Laqueur recently remarked that although the search for definitions will continue, ‘any attempt to find a common denominator, a formula as suitable for Irish 19th century terrorism as for narco-terrorism in Columbia or al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, is bound to fail’."

In other words, the author clearly states that the major goal of the article is to analyse the British anti-Communist propaganda, using Malaya as an example. Then the author gives an example of the propaganda term "Communist terrorism" and explains the reason for its invention and usage. Therefore I see neither original research nor synthesis issues here. The sources is reliable (highly reliable), according to the conclusion made on the WP:RSN. However, taking into account that this noticeboard is devoted to the neutrality issues, please, explain, does anybody see any problem with presenting this view as mainstream? Are there any other reliable sources that claim that the term was not propaganda?--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any other which says it does? Of all I have read none have said communist terrorism was coined as part of a propaganda exercise by the british. This is not about reliablilty, it is about weight. Tentontunic (talk) 17:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not know who coined it. The source states that it was used by British propaganda (which is not the same), and the "Communist terrorism" article also says the term was "used", not "coined". However, I would say, it would be an oversimplification to reduce everything to just anti-Communism. Thus, Nicholas J. White (Capitalism and Counter-Insurgency? Business and Government in the Malayan Emergency, 1948-57 Modern Asian Studies, Vol. 32, No. 1 (Feb., 1998), pp. 149-177) argues that Britain had other serious reasons to avoid using adequate terminology:

"In the event, no scheme was needed: the commercial insurers (and the agency houses who represented them in Malaya) continued to offer cover, but at much enhanced premiums. Both the imperial and colonial governments went out of their way not to provoke the guarantors. For example, the Cabinet's Malaya Committee was careful to ensure in May 1950 that the changed official description of MCP insurgents from 'bandits' to 'communist terrorists' would not have an adverse effect on the insurance market."

"At a meeting between Creech Jones and the RGA in August 1948, businessmen voiced concern that the insurance companies which offered protection against 'riot or civil commotion' might rule that the situation in Malaya amounted to 'rebellion or insurrection' and consequently would reject claims arising from strikes and terrorist activities. To safeguard the interests of its members, the RGA requested that the Malayan authorities desist from using words such as 'rebellion' or 'insurrection' in public statements and official documents. It was made plain that if this approach failed the government would be asked to meet all claims for loss of life and property. The commercial insurance market in Malaya was split between London and New York under so-called reinsurance arrangements. A view had to be taken on both sides of the Atlantic as to the exact status of the situation in Malaya. Neither the imperial nor the colonial government, however, was prepared to define the precise nature of the emergency."--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Well neither of those sources say it was used as british propaganda either, or am I missing something? So you have one source which says these people were called communist terrorists as a part of british propaganda? That`s it, out of hundreds of sources? So back to that question of weight? Tentontunic (talk) 18:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

One good source is sufficient. You yourself should conduct this research - using Google books it`s real easy. Fueridi for example wrote, "The representation of the Malayan guerrillas as criminals required a careful control over the vocabulary of prpaganda, with endless debates on which words to use to characterize them. In the end the term `bandit was dropped in favour of `communist terrorist`. (p. 214)[30] BTW unlike the U.S. where Vietnam still hits a raw nerve, the British are fully able to accept their history. TFD (talk) 18:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Another source:

"To this end, the British were prepared to direct propaganda that met these needs, hence they played down the external support of the communists so as to portray them as isolated, weakened, and therefore within the easy control of the British and local militia.32 They also tried to label communists as “bandits”, suggesting to the masses the clear and present threat to their financial and economic well-being. This term was to be further reified through social practices, and between February and April 1950 an “Anti-Bandit Month” was organized, mobilizing 420,000 people to work with security forces in an anti-insurgent operation. The “month” saw the mass issuance of publicity materials, radio talks, and speeches while participants helped conduct road checks and assist in squatter resettlement. 33 In one of the official Anti-Bandit Month publications, for instance, the image of the communist as a bandit was given characteristics that spoke to different ethnic communities in various ways. In general, the “bandits” were seen as hindering education, the conduct of trade unions in Malaya, and they were also seen to disrupt the financial livelihood for the Chinese, subvert Islam for Malays, and were identified as having become outcasts in India for the Malayan Indians.34 Following criticisms by the British Foreign Office on the myopic nature of “bandit”, the term was gradually phased out and replaced by “Communist terrorist”."(L Yew. Managing plurality: the politics of the periphery in early cold war singapore. International Journal of Asian Studies, 2010, 159-177)

I believe this source will also be useful for the article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

And another source which does not say communist terrorist was used as part of a british propaganda campaign. It would appear to me that Deery`s paper ought to be given no weight at all. Tentontunic (talk) 18:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

And the source clearly links the use of "bandits" as being the "propaganda" in an effort to minimize the fact of "communist terrorism" which was the non-propaganda term! The British sought to minimize the problem and used "propaganda" per your own quote to say "bandit". Thanks for making clear that the "communist terrorist" was not the propaganda term! Collect (talk) 18:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The term "Communist terrorism" is found in the article just one time, in the phrase quoted by me. This phrase states that this term has been applied to communists by the British Foreign Office to replace myopic "bandits". Therefore, I simply do not understand what do you mean: the source does not state that the use of "bandits" was a part of "propaganda" in an effort to minimize the fact of "communist terrorism", it states that the word "bandits", which was later replaced by "Communist terrorism" was used to fight against "guerrilla" (this term is used by Yew to characterise the insurgents). Please, avoid circular arguments in future. --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

It is not a circular argument. We have here before us a question of weight, what weight ought be given to Deery`s paper? Given the lack of sources which say communist terrorism was used as part of British propaganda then what weight ought be given to the one source you have found which describes it as such? The answer is of course, none. You have been given ample time to produce a few other sources which back Deery`s paper. All you have provided do not. I would ask you stay on topic and not go off on a tangent. Does any of the sources thus far presented by you (three by my count) state that the term communist terrorism was applied as part of a British propaganda campaign? Tentontunic (talk) 22:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: "Given the lack of sources which say communist terrorism was used as part of British propaganda" This statement is false. We have at least two sources that state that it was propaganda, at least one source that states that it was dictated by financial and political needs and no sources that question these claims. Since the search was not exhaustive, I cannot guarantee that other sources do not state the same, however, since the sources already provided by me are quite sufficient, I see no reason in providing additional sources.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, the Malayan Emergency is long over, and Collect and Tentontunic are the only two people who are insisting that the British did not use propaganda. I suggest they read about the war. There are two very good novels about it as well: The Virgin Soldiers and And the Rain My Drink. It was a bit like Vietnam, but with one difference - we won. Maybe that is why the British are less sensitive about accurately portraying the history. TFD (talk) 01:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Cannot agree. Reading fiction is hardly useful in this case. I would summarise the thread as follows. Whereas most Cold war time sources use the name "Communist terrorism" for Malayan emergency, recent publications in peer-reviewed journals (I mean the publications specifically devoted to the subject, not the publications that just briefly mention the subject and use a traditional name for brevity) describe emergency as a guerrilla war or anti-colonial insurgence. Therefore, in the absence of alternative viewpoint, I suggest to treat the works of Deery, Yew and White as mainstream. --Paul Siebert (talk) 01:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Your inability to provide a source to back Deery`s claim that communist terrorism was used as part of British propaganda quite simply means you may not use him at all. Using Deery is WP:UNDUE as was pointed out right at the start of this section. Tentontunic (talk) 07:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I provided two reliable sources (in addition to two sources that are already in the article) that confirm the fact that the term "Communist terrorism" in a context of Malaya reflected the essence of those events incorrectly, and were dictated by political and others motives. Two of them (Deery and Yew) explicitly use the word "propaganda", saying that the CT came from the British authorities. Another sources Stockwell, also confirm the idea that the usage of the term "communist terrorism" served to put the uprising into the context of the global Cold war. If someone believes these sources do not support these claims, they may ask for a third opinion on WP:RSN.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

No other source has been provided to support the claim that communist terrorism was used as a part of british propaganda. Tentontunic (talk) 14:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

as the latter statement belongs to the WP:RSN I posted the question there.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

One good source is sufficient. You yourself should conduct this research - using Google books it`s real easy. Fueridi for example wrote, "The representation of the Malayan guerrillas as criminals required a careful control over the vocabulary of prpaganda, with endless debates on which words to use to characterize them. In the end the term `bandit' was dropped in favour of `communist terrorist`. (p. 214)[31] BTW unlike the U.S. where Vietnam still hits a raw nerve, the British are fully able to accept their history. In order to write a neutral article we must recognize the consensus of informed writing and not use Cold War terminology that has been long abandoned even by the British government, who acknowledge that it was propaganda. (Mind you they called it "good propaganda" at the time, as opposed to the bad propaganda of the "CTs". TFD (talk) 15:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

No, one source is not sufficient. It is giving undue weight to one paper which the author himself says is a new way of looking at things. If no other sources can be provided to back Deery`s claim the communist terrorism was used as part of british propaganda then it is a question of weight, not reliability. Tentontunic (talk) 15:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

No, the issue is RS - are peer-reviewed articles published in Academic journals RS. Deery in fact does not say that viewing the term CT as having been developed as part of British propaganda as a "new way of looking at things". May I suggest you show the article to one of your teachers and ask if they agree with your reading. In any case, I have just provided you with a second source that (Fueridi) that says the same thing. And of course any reasonable reading of the source you provided would come to the same conclusion. Furthermore you are unable to find any alternative account for the use of the terminology. OTOH if you believe there are insufficient sources to write this article, then I suggest you list it for deletion. TFD (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

No it is a question of weight, this is not the RSN board, just in case you had missed that. I have yet to see a source which says communist terrorism was used as part of british propaganda. This is a question of weight. The uninvolved editors who have commented seem to agree that no weight ought be given to deery`s paper. Tentontunic (talk) 16:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The question is in the relative weight. Although no alternative viewpoint has been provided, it is natural to propose that these alternative viewpoints may be:

1. That this term (in the Malayan context) has been used initially by by some scholar or journalist, and only after that by the British authorities;
2. That this term was the common term the Malayans themselves used to describe the rebels, and the British authorities just adopted this terminology;
3. (Provide your own version).

However, no sources in support of these claims has been provided so far. In the absence of alternative viewpoints we cannot speak about weight. The only question is if these views are supported by others. As my quotes demonstrated, they are. However, since it has been claimed that they aren't, we have to continue on the WP:RSN.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

How many times need it be said? It is a question of weight, Deery is the one source you have found which says they were called communist terrorists as part of british propaganda. One source only out of hundreds which says this. This is a question of weight, and given the failure of any editor here to find a source which back this claim then Deery as a source is undue. Tentontunic (talk) 16:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

In the absence of alternative viewpoints this one has a 100% weight. In addition, Yew supports what Deery says. Btw, he directly supports what he is saying by citing him. Anticipating a request to provide the source that quotes Yew, let me point out that it is a very recent article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

This is one non-involved comment, would be glad to read others. Deery is mainstream history and his view should be represented in the article. Contrary views should be there too if and only if there are sources of equivalent quality that express the contrary views. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

There are no contrary views. And I will now present a second source (for the fourth time btw, ignored by Teutonic each previous time), "Fueridi for example wrote, "The representation of the Malayan guerrillas as criminals required a careful control over the vocabulary of popaganda, with endless debates on which words to use to characterize them. In the end the term `bandit' was dropped in favour of `communist terrorist`." (p. 214)[32]". TFD (talk) 21:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I have not ignored your source, I have in fact responded every time, your source does not say the term communist terrorist was used as a part of british propaganda. Do you know why they dropped bandit? It had naught to do with propaganda. Tentontunic (talk) 22:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Put your telescope to the other eye, Nelson. TFD (talk) 02:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

One needs to show that the words appear together. TFD (talk) 00:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC) Care to explain why this reasoning does not work here? Given only one source actually supports the sentence communist terrorism was used as a part of british propaganda. Tentontunic (talk) 08:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

See Fueridi, "The representation of the Malayan guerrillas as criminals required a careful control over the vocabulary of propaganda, with endless debates on which words to use to characterize them. In the end the term `bandit' was dropped in favour of `communist terrorist`." (p. 214)[33]". TFD (talk) 13:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

And no matter how many times you copy and paste that, it does not, nor will ever say communist terrorist was used as part of a british propaganda campaign. In fact the source does not even mention why the usage of bandit was dropped. You can not demand that editors provide One needs to show that the words appear together. TFD (talk) 00:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC) this when you yourself choose to ignore it. Tentontunic (talk) 13:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

And I do not think a Professor of Sociology who normally writes, as he puts it, In his books he has explored controversies and panics over issues such as health, children, food, new technology and terrorism notice the controversies bit? I would not call him a good source on a historical subject. Tentontunic (talk) 13:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The book was published by I.B.Tauris and the description of the use of language in order to win "hearts and minds" is not controversial. If you have a source that challenges this view then by all means present it, but it appears to be how the subject is perceived by all writers. Both terms 'bandits' and 'CTs' btw were part of British propaganda. The insurgents did not call themselves bandits and CTs, and neither did neutral scholarship. TFD (talk) 14:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Eh? [34] appears to be "neutral scholarship." As is [35]. Add in [36]. [37] etc. all belie the claim that no neutral sources used the term. The "insurgents" (quaint term) were indeed "communists" so that cavil fails as well. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

And again no. The source does not say communist terrorism was used as a part of british propaganda. I am rewriting the section anyway using mainstream sources so it matters not that you are unable to admit that you cannot fond another source to support your contention. Tentontunic (talk) 14:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

And are you saying that any source which uses communist terrorism is not neutral? All the sources, hundreds in fact are not neutral? Tentontunic (talk) 14:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

You have it the wrong way round. TFD (talk) 14:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The amount of sources that use this term is irrelevant. None of them discussed the origin of this term. By contrast, all mainstream and reliable sources cited here confirm that this term was used by British government for political and economical reasons, and had no or little connection with the essence of the state of things in Malaya.

The phrase don't have to appear verbatim in all sources we cited, it is quite sufficient that it supports the current text. If there are any doubts in that, one can go to WP:NORN, the last major noticeboard that has been left unspammed.

Since Deery dissected the propaganda issues in details, there is no need for other scholars (and for himself) to return to this issue again: each scholarly article must contain new ideas, not just repetitions of what has already been said. Some articles cite Deery, which adds credibility to what he says, others sources (e. g. Fueridi) put forward similar, or somewhat different (Yew) ideas, and no sources question the idea that the term "Communist terrorism" was used by British propaganda. In addition, many sources use the term simply because that during the Cold war era it was the common term for Malayan emergency, along with generic "guerrilla war":

• "malayan emergency" -"communist terrorism" "guerrilla war" 236 results [38]
• "malayan emergency" "communist terrorism" -"guerrilla war" 23 results [39]

It is easy to see that "Communist terrorism" is just one, and not the most common term, so I see no weight issues at all.

Again, if some wants to continue this (already senseless) discussion further, they can go to the last major unspammed noticeboard (WP:NORN), although I doubt is a success to this enterprise. --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Re "are you saying that any source which uses communist terrorism is not neutral?" As "neutrality" means "means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources", the term "neutrality" is applicable to what the Wikipedians write, not to the sources. In this particular case, that means that it is necessary to write that "the Malayan emergency was a guerrilla war (refs to many sources), which was characterised as "Communist terrorism" (references to other sources), for propaganda(ref to Deery and Fueridi) and financial (ref to Yew) purposes.

PS. If some doubts on that account exist, one may go to the Malayan emergency talk page and discuss the way the ME should be represented in the CT article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Unless you can actually find other sources to support this statement. as "Communist terrorism" in British propaganda then you are giving undue weight to the one source you did find which actually says this. The one uninvolved editor who has commented has also said this. Tentontunic (talk) 15:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

A reliable source says that the term was used as part of British propaganda. Unless you can find sources that provide a different narrative, there is no reason to question that source. In fact using multiple sources for one fact is poor style. TFD (talk) 15:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I stumbled across something of interest today, Robert B. Asprey was of the opinion that the British turned to the "far more realistic term of communist terrorism" War in the Shadows: The Guerrilla in History By Robert B. Asprey pp574

Firstly, the book published by iUniverse is much less reliable than the sources cited by me. To cherry-pick junk sources to back one's POV is not the best strategy.

Secondly, this term was probably more realistic that earlier "bandits", however, that does not mean that it was more realistic than "guerilla war".--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The proper place toi dismiss any source as "junk" is at RSN. The source does appear to be SPS, but that is a different term from "junk." I suggest you post there if you feel it is junk in order to get fresh eyes thereon. Collect (talk) 11:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Do not see any reason to go there: when I used the Penguin Books' book as a source, it was dismissed as "junk". Even the article published in reputable peer-reviewed journal was dismissed as alleged "junk" - and now the same person tries to use a self-published book as a source - just because it allegedly supports the POV they are pushing.--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

You do realize this is a reprint yes? It was not self published originally you know. Tentontunic (talk) 13:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Cite the RS publisher. If Paul does not like it, then RSN is the place he must go. I am tired of removal of sources because of IDONTLIKEIT reasoning. Paul does not say the material is not relevant at least. Collect (talk) 13:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, iUniverse is hardly a reputable publisher, much less reputable that the sources I use. iUniverse does not specialise on history publications, and it is not clear if its books are being reviewed at all. Again, to dare to come up with such a junk, after my top quality sources have been attempted to be rejected by the same person under the same pretext is a blatant example of double standards.

Secondly, I still haven't seen the extended quote. If the source in actuality says that the "CT" term was more reasonable than "bandits", that is correct, but irrelevant, because my sources do not contradict to that. They only state that the "CT" was much less adequate than "anti-colonial partisan war".

Re IDONTLIKEIT, since I (by contrast to someone else) always provide concrete arguments, my only recommendation is "Physician, heal thyself".--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you blind? The first print from 75 was not self published, and was in fact highly praised. As collect said, I shall cite the 75 version which is perfectly reliable. Tentontunic (talk) 14:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

You should have to provide correct reference. The second volume of this book has been published by iUniverse, a self-publishing company. That is your responsibility to give a full citation, so I am not blind, but you are not accurate. In addition, if the book you refer is a 35-years old book, it is very possible that it reflects the Cold war myths common for those times. Regarding the essence of my objection, I still see no quote from the book your cited, so it is not clear for me what is the context the words were taken from. Without seeing the quote it is hard to judge about relevance.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

No, you do not understand. The first and second volumes were printed in 75, the iuniverse print is not a second volume, it is a reprint of both in one book. Now do you understand? Tentontunic (talk) 07:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Hotpads.com Wiki entry reads more like promotion than neutral point of view

Here's a link to the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HotPads.com Last 2 sentences in the intro paragraph seems out of place on a site like Wikipedia. I'm a little surprised it got past the editors. <<All features are designed to create the most user-friendly, comprehensive, and personalized location-based housing search experience online. Whereas many real estate websites are mash-ups of other mapping applications, like Google Maps, HotPads uses its own original mapping application.>> Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.68.91.86 (talk) 23:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

At AFD almost no sources and certainly none having depth of coverage The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 02:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Due weight and factual accuracy

We're really going around the houses on this one, I'm afraid.

It is argued that WP:WEIGHT only applies when the factual accuracy of a point is in dispute. That is to say, that there is no problem from a WP:WEIGHT perspective with giving a point whose factual accuracy is undisputed significantly more weight than it is given in reliable sources.

In the case concerned, the point given significantly more weight than is present in reliable sources is accepted to be factually accurate (broadly, there are some disputes on detail), but are the points argued by those on one side of the modern dispute to further their cause.

Is this argument an accurate reading of policy? Pfainuk talk 18:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. Allowing at the outset that I make no claim to being expert on policy, yet there are points that might be raised. Like, it seems to me that the question you have raised here is not quite the same as the argument you refer to at Talk:Gibraltar. Both seem worth discussing, but I am a little concerned lest what is discussed here gets carried back to there in a way that might not be appropriate. (As a side comment: is it possible that you and the other editors at Gibraltar might work up a joint statement as to just what you all think the issue is? That is a somewhat sophisticated approach, but you all seem to be reasonable enough and cool enough to do that.)

As to the question raised here, my understanding is that you have a point whose general "factual accuracy" is not in dispute. That is, it is agreed that certain events happen, though there may be some quibbling about the exact details. So the issue is not about whether these events happened, but how much prominence they should be given. (Close enough?)

My initial take on this is that WP:WEIGHT is about prominence. But — what makes this question tricky — is that the policy seems focused on opinions, views, viewpoints, and disputed interpretations. What you have here is (effectively) undisputed fact(s); the "weighing" is in regard to their presentation. WP:WEIGHT says: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." Note the "overall significance to the article topic." And just further on, what seems to be key here: "Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." (emphasis added.) In brief: no, WP:WEIGHT is not limited to only "when the factual accuracy of a point is in dispute."

A warning: while reliable sources might be relied on to some extent regarding proper weight, I think there are other factors that might be considered. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

May I offer a little more information. These facts are included to explain why the population left and some authors do make that link. Others do not for example Andrews contradicts it directly. Opinions vary signficantly including the expectation of a counter attack, loyalty to Philip and others. The range of opinions in the literature isn't reflected, with a focus on only one. Clearly this is unsatisfactory for NPOV, particularly as the sole opinion represented reflects the Spanish national narrative.

In additon, I cannot see how Imalbornoz has established due weight regarding the opinion in the literature. He does not have access to either of the sources he cites (Hills, Jackson) and both are only available in snippet view via Google Books. He relies on a 3rd party for second hand quotes from texts he does not have. He claims notability on the basis of Google Hits.

Hence, I believe this is why Pfainuk has asked for external opinion on the arguments advanced by Imalbornoz rather than his own comments. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Gibraltar#RfC: Due weight & NPOV in the History section I have started an RFC to gather outside opinion related to this issue. Those who have commented here may care to contribute an opinion. Thanks. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I will go out on a limb and claim, as a correct reading of policy, that 1) an editor may not cite sources that he has not seen, and 2) notability is not determined by Google hits. If that is not sufficiently clear and authoritative perhaps more senior editors might be requested to comment.

I would also point out that two distinct issues have been raised here, and care should be taken to not confuse them. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Muammar Gaddafi

What has happened with this article in the last month is one of the worst examples of politically-motivated recentist bias I've ever saw on Wikipedia. Just compare this revision from February 21 and the current revision as of March 30.

There is a standing bias in wording of half of the section titles, compared to the older version. While much of content hasn't changed, the way in which article is currently structured is blatantly non-neutral.

The almost empty Economy section was created, with no any mention that Libya became one of the most prosperous states in Africa with the highest HDI under Gaddafi. Instead, there is only a dubious statement that the eastern separatist regions "became impoverished under Gaddafi's economic theories".

Another one-sentence section "Prosecution for massacres" was created, as if there is good evidence so far (other than Twitter, Facebook and biased journalism) that there were "massacres" and not just fighting separatists.

At the same time the Public works projects has been reduced in size, tagged with no good reason, renamed to more ambiguous "Public works", stripped from the subsections and put into less prominent position in the article.

And so on. The question of the deteriorated neutrality of the article has been raised multiple times at Talk:Muammar Gaddafi, but nothing has been done about the issue. Hope somebody intervenes. GreyHood ^Talk 18:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Without looking at the article (I appreciate that this may reduce the credibility of my comment - however, if I happen to hit the nail without looking, maybe it actually increases it), this sounds very credible and describes exactly the sort of thing that WP ought to have effective mechanisms for avoiding. Undoubtedly there are currently ample sources for a whole range of things (true, false, fair, infair) that portray Gaddafi in a poor light. Concentrating exclusively on those isn't NPOV, however much editors think that that Gaddafi-is-a-shit represents genuine neutrality.

BTW. I'm not saying it doesn't. But obscuring the other side of the case remains wrong. This isn't meant as a defence of Gadaffi. Stalin, Hitler, Mao and George W Bush also presided over considerable economic success. The fact that they are also shits doesn't mean that their association with anything that might be considered positive should be excluded from their articles. --FormerIP (talk) 20:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

What I just quoted in the section above (from WP:WEIGHT) seems relevant in this instance: "Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text ...." I see the prospect that Gadaffi's supporters would want to emphasize his public works, etc., while his detractors would want to diminish coverage of same. But how to determine the appropriate balance I don't know. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

At least, two months ago the balance was more appropriate. And the article was rather stable for months and for years. Why change its structure and tone so much because of the recent events? I'd propose to return to the older order and naming of sections, of course with addition of one or two sections specifically devoted to the recent events. GreyHood ^Talk 20:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Duloxetine: badly in need of a re-write or at least a re-edit

The article is a big jumble of two different viewpoints, even mid-paragraph. Either the entire thing needs to be ditched and re-written, or at least somebody needs to separate out the bogus negative stuff with the valid ones, and put them together in some sort of different subsection. Every single symptom section seems to refer to some obscure study about how it didn't work for this symptom, while talking about how it's treated for this symptom.

Here's the "Major depressive disorder" section:

Duloxetine has demonstrated efficacy for the treatment of major depressive disorder. In three out of six well-designed properly controlled pre-marketing trials duloxetine performed better than placebo; the three other trials were inconclusive.[17] Recently, duloxetine was shown to be effective in elderly with recurrent major depressive disorder where it improved cognition, depression, and some pain measures.[18] A meta-analysis of these trials indicated that the effect size of duloxetine as compared with placebo was weak-to-moderate, and similar to other 11 antidepressants studied.[19] The rationale behind the development of duloxetine was that inhibition of the reuptake of both serotonin and norepinephrine would make it work better than selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), which inhibit only the reuptake of serotonin. However, in a comparative meta-analysis of clinical trials duloxetine appeared to be insignificantly less effective than SSRIs.[20] A head-to-head comparison of duloxetine with an SSRI escitalopram (Lexapro) found duloxetine to be both less tolerable and less effective.[21] Another analysis of the comparative efficacy of modern antidepressants found duloxetine to be significantly, by 30-40%, less efficacious than mirtazapine (Remeron), escitalopram, venlafaxine (Effexor) and sertraline (Zoloft). Duloxetine was similar to fluoxetine (Prozac), fluvoxamine (Luvox) and paroxetine (Paxil). The tolerability of duloxetine was significantly worse than the tolerability of escitalopram and sertraline.[22]

A review in Prescrire International summarizing the existing evidence noted that duloxetine has limited efficacy in depression and no advantages over other antidepressants. Prescribers observed that, taking into account the risk of hepatic disorders and drug interactions, there is no reason to choose duloxetine when so many other options are available.[2] Similar analysis was presented by Drug and Therapeutics Bulletin, which is a part of the respected BMJ Group.[23]

References or not, it's still slanted and biased, showcasing a minority opinion as front and center, while contradicting itself with somebody else's edits. This article has been on the Noticeboard before, but that was two years ago.

I have put in Conflict & Undue templates for the article until it is fixed. SineSwiper (talk) 23:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Franklin child prostitution ring allegations

The subject of criminal charges is referred to by newspapers variously as a "nationally active Republican politician" (he was vice chairman of a Republican council), a "prominent Republican", "a rising star in the Republican party" or a "major Republican fundraiser". Three editors were happy just to mention the connection only in the lead ie: "Republican fundraiser Lawrence E. King" and not to mention the connection at all in the article. One very active editor repeatedly deletes this claiming that any mention of his Republican affiliation is pushing an "all Republicans are perverts" agenda which is POV pushing and a BLP violation. It took some time to get him to accept using the word "political" and the lead now says "prominent political fundraiser Lawrence E. King". This disagreement has been ongoing in talk since early January. Wayne (talk) 11:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The same newspapers point out that King was a Democrat for most of his life, but that didn't make it into the Wikipedia article. Instead, the criminal was described exclusively in the Wikipedia article lede as a Republican. The party identification of Democratic state senator Ernie Chambers and frequent Democratic presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche, who flogged this scandal for every political point they could score, was also never mentioned in the Wikipedia article. If we're going to mention political party affiliation, we need to be even handed about it, particularly in this case where the most salient allegation (a large scale child prostitution ring that allegedly flew child prostitutes all over the country) was never proven, and in fact produced a perjury conviction and prison sentence for one of the accusers.

Yes, for a few months years before his embezzlement conviction, Lawrence E. King changed over to the Republican Party. But prominent Democratic Party members were backing even more hideous allegations that turned out to be nothing but a smear campaign. Either the political affiliations need to be completely described on both sides, or they need to be left out. By the way, I am the one who proposed using a compromise word "political" instead of "Republican," Wayne/WLRoss was the one who eventually accepted it, and the diffs are available to prove it. I grow very weary of these misrepresentations. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

It is worth noting that this editor has been pushing for inclusion of an unreliable source in this BLP article (which espouses the minority/fringe POV even though it criticizes LaRouche), on the article Talk page here. The issue was taken to WP:RSN, where several previously uninvolved editors unanimously agreed that the unreliable source should not be used.[40] Dissatisfied with this result, the editor has now brought his grievance to WP:NPOVN. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I looked into this in the past, and King is commonly referred to as a "Republican fundraiser" in reliable sources. Part of what made the story so salacious were his connections to Washington politics. However his main title was manager of a credit union, and so that should be used first with the fundraising role mentioned later.

• The grand jury did not identify those suspected of engineering the hoax. But it did indict two witnesses who it said had given perjured accounts in the tangled case, involving a failed credit union formed to help the poor that was headed by a nationally prominent Republican. [..] The rumors about child sex abuse, drug trafficking and other offenses began to circulate in late 1988 shortly after the failure of the Franklin Community Federal Credit Union, which was headed by Lawrence E. King Jr., a former vice chairman of the National Black Republican Council, an affiliate of the Republican Party, who has entertained generously at Republican national conventions. He has been indicted on charges of embezzling money from the credit union, which closed in November 1988, but a Federal magistrate has ruled that he is not mentally competent to stand trial at this time.
  • Omaha Grand Jury Sees Hoax in Lurid Tales WILLIAM ROBBINS, Special to The New York Times. New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Jul 29, 1990. pg. A.19
• Lawrence E. King Jr., everyone now agrees, had a remarkable knack for stretching a dollar. On a salary of $16,200 a year, the credit union manager drove a $70,000 white Mercedes-and still could afford to spend $10,000 a month on limousines. His credit card charges topped $1 million, he owned a four-story house on 26 acres overlooking the Missouri River, and his floral bill alone came to $146,000 during a fragrant, 13-month period in 1987-88. A former McGovern Democrat who converted to the GOP, King threw a $100,000 party for 1,000 close friends at the Republican National Convention in New Orleans two years ago, leasing a warehouse used to store Mardi Gras floats. Four years earlier, before singing "The Star-Spangled Banner" at the Republican convention in Texas, he hosted a similar bash by renting Southfork, the ranch used to film "Dallas." [..] Moreover, King's high profile in the GOP has "got the Republican Party here as nervous as a long-tailed cat in a roomful of rocking chairs," added former state senator John DeCamp, a Republican. [..] King once served as business committee chairman of the National Black Republican Council, an organization with official ties to the party. Federal Election Commission records show that he donated more than $30,000 to various political causes in the 1980s, including $2,500 to the Republican National Committee, $15,000 to a gay rights political action committee and, in 1987, $1,000 to Jack Kemp plus another $5,000 to a Kemp PAC. "He was in fact a contributor, but one of thousands," a spokesman for Kemp said Thursday. "They met at a fundraiser but King was not a personal friend."
  • Omaha's Hurricane of Scandal; Larry E. King Jr., in the Eye of the Storm Over Fraud, Prostitution Charges; [FINAL Edition] Rick Atkinson. The Washington Post (pre-1997 Fulltext). Washington, D.C.: Apr 1, 1990. pg. f.01
• King, 45, a flamboyant entrepreneur once hailed as a black role model and embraced by the national Republican Party, is accused of using the Franklin Community Federal Credit Union as his personal treasury. Prosecutors and federal regulators say he looted about $37 million in depositors' funds, spending lavishly on clothes, gifts and parties. [..] In his heyday, from 1983 until late 1988, King was ubiquitous here. In addition to the credit union, he owned fashionable restaurants, rode around town in limousines and mixed with the city's arts, business and Republican establishments. A polished tenor, he sang the national anthem at the 1984 GOP convention in Dallas and threw huge parties for black Republicans there and at the party's 1988 convention in New Orleans.
  • SEX-SCANDAL TALK DELUGES OMAHA Andrew Cassel. Philadelphia Inquirer. Philadelphia, Pa.: Mar 12, 1990. pg. A.2
• He became politically active, too, as a fund-raiser and a contributor to the Republican Party. He maintained a second home near Embassy Row in Washington. He sang the national anthem during the opening ceremonies of the 1984 Republican National Convention; later, he threw a party for several hundred convention-goers at Texas' Southfork Ranch, where scenes of the television show Dallas are shot. Mardi Gras was the theme of his 1988 convention party in New Orleans; the menu featured alligator meat.
  • Fallen Hero: A Credit Union Fails, And Omaha Wonders: Was It Bamboozled? --- Manager Lawrence King Jr., A Role Model for Blacks, Is Sued in Misuse of Funds --- Limousines and Lavish Parties By Robert L. Rose. Wall Street Journal. (Eastern edition). New York, N.Y.: Feb 8, 1989. pg. 1
• King was an active Republican, working with the party's Citizens for America and the National Black Republican Council and singing the national anthem at the 1984 GOP convention in Dallas. Last summer, he orchestrated a party at the GOP convention in New Orleans for 1,000 people under the auspices of the Council on Minority Americans, a group he heads. Caterers estimated that the party cost $100,000.
  • Credit Union Boss Sued for $34 Million Reports Say Funds Allegedly Diverted to Pay for Lavish Life Style; [Home Edition] Los Angeles Times (pre-1997 Fulltext). Los Angeles, Calif.: Nov 24, 1988. pg. 5

I don't see any reason to exclude the party affiliations of other involved parties, where they are mentioned by relevant sources. However party affiliations from the past, prior to the scandal, seem less relevant.   Will Beback  talk  22:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Will, but some of the same sources feel that King's previous Democratic Party prominence was worth mentioning:

• In 1972 he headed a national political organization, Black Democrats for George McGovern. But he gained greater prominence after he had switched parties a while later, serving for a time as vice chairman of the National Black Republican Council, an official affiliate of the Republican Party, and becoming a familiar figure on the Republican social scene.
  • Omaha Grand Jury Sees Hoax in Lurid Tales WILLIAM ROBBINS, Special to The New York Times. New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Jul 29, 1990. pg. A.19

I think we should allow previously uninvolved editors to take a look at this before we make any final decisions. I would also suggest to you, Will, that Wikipedia has the advantage of 20/20 hindsight. Political affiliations which may have seemed very important at the start of the grand jury investigation may not have seemed important at all once the grand jury labeled it a "carefully crafted hoax." Look at the news reports published after the grand jury published its findings.

There are several other NPOV issues that should be discussed with uninvolved editors since we're here. Apostle12 and WLRoss/Wayne have been POV-pushing and it has led to numerous policy violations, as uninvolved editors unanimously agreed at WP:RSN.[41] Violations include WP:V, WP:RS and WP:BLP, three of our most important policies. Any attempt to talk them out of these violations is described as a personal insult.

In particular, the two words "with minors" have repeatedly been added to describe sexual activity. These two words are completely unsupported by the reliable source. They are pure poison. They push conduct far across the line, from merely scandalous (sex between unmarried consenting adults) to a Class X felony. Lawrence King is out of prison now, presumably broke and would welcome an opportunity to sue some deep pockets like Wikipedia's for libel. Any immunity we may enjoy from such liability should not be seen as a license to engage in a smear campaign against him. And of course Wikipedia's usual critics would be given fresh ammunition for a fresh round of attacks. But every time I remove the words "with minors," it seems they are added again.

I regret to suggest sanctions but I have reached the limit of my patience with these two, and I seem to consistently face 2-to-1 odds when trying to protect and enforce Wikipedia policy. Only when I went to RSN was I not completely alone in this. I don't have the time to baby-sit this article and accordingly, I regretfully recommend a 30-day topic ban for both of them. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

An affiliation with the Democrats 20 years before the events of the article is hardly relevant outside the subjects own biography. No one has prevented any mention of Democrat and I myself suggested mention that Democrats as well as Republicans were accused. There has also been no violation of any Wikipedia policies and no use of the source referred to since the RSN despite a very limited consensus (after failing to get consensus Phoenix and Winslow began inviting editors to comment until he got what he could claim was a consensus in his favour) which only applied to the publisher and didn't address the reliability of the author (the actual edits included only the authors claims that were supported by primary sources). I believe "with minors" was added by another editor and then replaced once after P&W reverted it so I dont think "repeatedly added" applies and considering that the Fraklin committee stated that King should have been charged, it may have been them (a primary RS) who used the term. Then of course, the civil case judge found the claim true which should remove any BLP problem but I'd need to find where the term was mentioned and the context so I cant say the edit was right or wrong. P&W is free to "talk [us] out of these violations" all he likes, it is the agressive attitude [we] consider an insult. Is it possible that a discussion can take place without P&W assuming bad faith, making personal attacks, making threats, exaggerating and including material beyond the purvue of the topic being discussed? Wayne (talk) 20:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

That Lawrence King was a "prominent Republican" and a "rising star in the Republican Party" is beyond refute and, in my opinion, relevant. He was invited to sing the star-spangled banner at both the 1984 and 1988 Republican Conventions; he maintained a residence in Washington D.C. where he entertained lavishly, primarily among Republican circles; and he gained prominence only after he switched from being a Democrat to a Republican. His identity as a Republican and his connections to the Washington D.C. Republican elite constitute a large part of King's notability.

I agree with Wayne's analysis above. P & W engaged in repeated massive reverts of good-faith edits, referring to the good-faith edits of other editors as "garbage." He proceeded in a heavy-handed, arrogant manner in violation of WP:OWN, insisting that other editors defer to his impeccable judgment. He talked down to other editors, using condescending phrases like "please educate yourself as to the difference." P. & W. accorded no one even the slightest respect, relying insted on repeated threats and browbeating.

The clause "with minors" was explicitly supported by Bryant and implicitly supported by many other sources; however once P. & W. pinpointed his objection to the inclusion of this phrase (in concert with exaggerated and inflamatory accusations of "plagiarism"), the phrase was readily eliminated out of deference to his concerns. P. & W. writes "But every time I remove the words 'with minors,' it seems they are added again;" this assertion is simply a lie, as any dispassionate review of the the record will clearly demonstrate. There is no question that the allegations against Lawrence King included sexual crimes "with minors," however this phrase will be reinstated only after further sleuthing allows reference to other reliable sources (beyond Bryant) that explicitly support inclusion of the phrase.

P. & W.'s own POV-pushing has in fact been relentless. He seems finally to have backed away from his more outrageous assertions (e.g. that all those who question the propriety of the Douglas Country grand jury findings must be LaRouche followers, or, alternatley, that they must "have drunk a slightly different brand of kool-aid"). P. & W. persists in labeling as "conspiracy theorists" anyone who entertains the possibility that former Senator Ernie Chambers, the Franklin Committee, former Senator John DeCamp, investigative reporter Nick Bryant, and others might deserve a measure of credibility. Despite the fact that 70% of Nebraskans agreed with the dissenting view of the Franklin Committee, and nearly as many considered the Douglas County grand jury proceedings to have been "rigged," P. & W. attacks this as a "fringe" point of view.

The article has emerged as reasonably balanced at the present time, though an aggressive search for adequate sourcing (now that Bryant has been eliminated as an RS) will be necessary to improve it further. The progress we have made has been in spite of P. & W., who has refused to engage in collaborative editing, instead favoring ad hominem attacks on anyone who disagrees with his perspective. Apostle12 (talk) 09:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

POV about LDS Mormons belonging to Christianity

The article The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints describes the religious body to be a restoratinist Christian religion. Renowned references like the Britannica, Oxford English Dictionary, among others don't define the Church of Jesus Christ LDS as a christian religion. Therefore I see the NPOV policy violated and ask other Wikipedia editors to resolve the dispute. --217.5.199.242 (talk) 13:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

While the LDS church is about as theologically distant from Christianity as Hinduism, they are derived from Christianity, they describe themselves as Christians, and so the anthropological approach is to say they are a Christian religion. It's not saying they truely are Christians, though, if you want to look at it that way. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I smell a Scotsman here. LDS is a Christian Church (and, BTW, Britannica agrees, as far as I can figure out from snippets online). Christianity is a somewhat mushy concept. But if we accept Southern Baptists, the Roman Catholic Church, Episcopalians, and the Syrian Orthodox Church, I see no reason to exclude Mormons or Jehova's Witnesses. Of course, the only true Christians are adherents of Platonic Gnosticism. All others will Burn In Hell (tm). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, the Baptists, Catholics, Episcopalians, and Orthodox are trinitarian monotheists who believe in the incarnation, at least; but yeah... And no, the only true Christians (tm) are the Circumcellions. ;P *TWHACK!* "Laudate Deum!" Ian.thomson (talk) 14:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

What a compelling doctrine! And to think I never heard of them before. Rumiton (talk) 14:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

There are a couple of distinct issues here, first the questioner needs to understand that 'Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' is a distinct subset of what are collectively called Mormons. And since the question was specifically about LDS, then we need to restrict the debate to that article. The typical LDS view is that they are the correct branch of Mormonism. Many LDS members describe themselves as 'Christian', but not all. The typical argument I have heard is "'Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' has Christ in the title, so how are we not Christians?" That alone I do not find to be a compelling argument, since anyone can make a religion and include Christ in the name ("Balloon Christ Believers"). LDS Mormons believe that Joseph Smith set them back on the proper Christian path and that other Christian religions were in error. Most Orthodox Christian religions do not regard LDS as Christian. When comparing the set of beliefs of LDS versus Orthodox, there are several significant divergences.

The article Mormonism and Christianity describes these differences in detail. A quote from that article:

Mormons do not accept non-Mormon baptism nor do non-Mormon Christians usually accept Mormon baptism. Mormons regularly proselytize individuals actually or nominally within the Christian tradition, and some Christians, especially evangelicals, proselytize Mormons. A prominent scholarly view is that Mormonism is a form of Christianity, but is distinct enough from traditional Christianity so as to form a new religious tradition, much as Christianity is more than just a sect of Judaism.

As far as the exact proper way to approach this in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints article, I believe I would lean toward something like "is described a restorationist Christian religion", just adding the word 'described' maybe. -- Avanu (talk) 15:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

We had a long ArbCom case about a similar topic regarding Jehovah's witnesses. LDS is classified as restorationsist christian in so far as they profess to restore the original form of early christianity. It doesn't matter whether other christians actually accept them as christians or not. Restoriationists are recognized by stating that they restore the original "correct" form of Christianity. Not by the degree to which they are distinct from other denominations.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

"Mormons do not accept non-Mormon baptism nor do non-Mormon Christians usually accept Mormon baptism." - possibly, but the same is true for many other Christian faiths. E.g. most Baptists do not accept Roman Catholic rites at all. See Jack Chick. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what is meant by 'rites', but Baptists would accept a baptism done by Roman Catholics. -- Avanu (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Depends on the Baptists and it depends on what you mean by "accept". See Believer's baptism. There are all kinds of denominational and sectarian differences within Christianity. At the end of the day Mormonism falls within the Christian family. Don't believe me, then look at the sources. I'm not sure why this is even being argued. If we do what we are supposed to here on Wikipedia, and follow the reliable sources, then there is no doubt. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 02:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• comment - Christian theology of course describes itself as a continuation of the religion of the Old Testament, just as Muslim theology (see eg "Messiah#Islam") describes itself as a continuation of both Judaism and Gospel of the Messiah, Jesus, in turn. Yet, because of the distinctions among them from what is normally understood as "Judaism" and/or "Christianity," we classify them both as separate and distinct branches of Abrahamic faith. The Mormon faith(s) are analogous.

  Would it be possible, as a compromise, to classify "Latter Day Saint Christianity" as a distinct branch of Abrahamic faith (actually, Sikhism and Bahai could conceivably be added too) yet keep this use of the self-describing term "Christianity" within the designation itself?

  --Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

People, can you please give your feedback here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints#Argument_against_Christianity I would like to see this discussed on just one page, and that is the page where the debate started. --217.50.56.198 (talk) 17:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Mormonism is classified as Christian in reliable sources. This IP appears to be treating the talk page of the entry as a forum to argue against the way that reliable sources classify Mormonism. Notably, in order to do so, s/he claims that sociologists are not reliable in this matter, only theologians are. It's the other way around I'm afraid. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

A Christian religion is one emphasizing Jesus of Nazareth as a central figure and considering his teachings (alleged or otherwise) to be important. By that mark, Mormonism is a Christian religion. — Rickyrab | Talk 01:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

About the LDS

People, can you please give your feedback here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints#Argument_against_Christianity I would like to see this discussed on just one page, and that is the page where the debate started. --217.50.56.198 (talk) 17:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Fertility Monitors and NFP

Fertility monitor

I have cleaned up this article a bit and posted to the talk page, but I'm not very active on Wikipedia, so I won't be able to follow the discussion. This article provides no counterpoints and uses material sourced entirely from the webpages for the products, or third party webpages claiming that the products can be used off-label for birth control. NFP may or may not be a good method of birth control, and if any of this stuff checks out, it's great news. But if it doesn't, it shouldn't be here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.46.81 (talk) 02:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

== Emehmotors.com ......THE RISE AND FALL.

This is the tiny little company started by a girl . He was supported by his brother and it grew to a mega company. They grew up poor with thier mother in a tiny village of West Africa. They all mi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ginikanwaobivuilo (talk • contribs) 04:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Is the % of pages in secondary sources the only indicator to measure due weight?

We're having a discussion about a paragraph in the History section of a summary article. Some editors want to include certain events and some others don't. (If you feel curious, I can tell you that the "events" we're talking about are 1) the widespread rapings, desecrations of all churches but one and the lootings of almost all homes in Gibraltar when it was captured in 1704 and 2) the subsequent exodus of practically all of the inhabitants of Gibraltar -of whom the largest part specifically established themselves in a nearby place called San Roque).

One argument used by the editors who don't want to include the events is that they only add up to a very small % of the total information included in the main sources about the whole History of Gibraltar, and therefore dedicating two sentences to those events would give undue weight to them. On the other hand, they recognize that those events "are included in Hills, Jackson, Francis, Bradford and all major British historical works".

The other editors contend that the sources only can talk about the information that was recorded at the time, and even if it is very important they can not go for pages and pages talking about the events if there was only original information for one or two pages, and therefore the number of works that mention those events is a better measurement of "weight".

My question is: should we use the % of pages dedicated to an event in secondary sources as the main indicator of "weight", or are there other issues to take into account even if that % is not too large? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 23:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

For information, Imalbornoz's claims above that editors seek to remove the fact that violence occurred and the fact that the townspeople left are strongly misleading. It is proposed that these points be summarised, not removed (see this RFC, which contains the proposed text).

Also, the argument is not that a raw percentage alone is pivotal, but that the points concerned are given very much less weight in reliable sources than in Imalbornoz's preferred version of our summary. That is to say, no other factors have been found that would convey weight on the details that Imalbornoz wishes to include. Given quite how much weight he wishes to put on these points, this is not surprising.

Imalbornoz has only disputed this inasmuch as he argues that weight can be measured purely on the basis of the number of sources found that mention the information, without any other regard for the content of those sources. On Monday this board did not consider this an appropriate way of measuring the weighting of points in the article - a point that was reconfirmed about an hour ago. It would be useful to know if this has changed since then. Pfainuk talk 22:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Just to address the specific question asked. Such percentages can only give the roughest of indicators. It is the quality of sources that you should be considering. Is this actually a situation where there is a disagreement between scholars? If so, it would help if one or two scholarly sources on each side could be listed. Or is it not that at all, in which case a different question needs to be asked? Itsmejudith (talk) 14:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

To answer Itmejudith's question, I don't think there is any disagreement in the vast majority of sources. No sources deny the widespread rapings, desecrations, lootings, and the exodus, mainly to a place called San Roque (at least, none of the editors in this discussion have found any -and we all have made extensive searches of sources). On the other hand, the vast majority of relevant sources do mention these events.

To give some more specific information, the two sides of the dispute are:

• Some editors want to keep the current text, as they consider that it is very relevant to the population of Gibraltar, very notable, and is mentioned by almost all relevant sources. The text is:

“ The terms of surrender provided certain assurances but commanders lost control, sailors and marines engaged in rape and pillage, desecrating most churches, and townspeople carried out reprisal killings. By 7 August, after order was restored, almost all the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and fled to San Roque and other nearby areas of Spain. ”

• Some editors want to reduce the mention of the events arguing that the proportion of the text in relevant sources is disproportionately low compared to the weight given in the article. The text they propose in order to replace the text above is:

“ ...but they [the Anglo-Dutch commanders] were frustrated when, after three days of violent disorder, almost the entire population of the town left citing their loyalty to Philip V, the Bourbon claimant. ”

You can check some excerpts from the main sources here.

Thank you for your comments. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 14:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Please be aware that these excerpts are taken out of context, for the purpose of promoting Imalbornoz's position.

The points on weight are reasonably clear. The dispute is as to which of the following should more appropriately be the basis for the weight on the points to be made:

• The weight given to the points by reliable sources, taking into account not just the length and detail given, but the context it is given in and other similarly appropriate factors.
• The raw number of sources found by certain editors that mention the point, regardless of context and weight given to the point by those sources; taken with statements that events are "very notable".

In judging this, it is worth pointing out that the points that are given massively more weight in Imalbornoz's preferred text than in the sources, and that he describes as "very notable", happen to be exactly the same points as are used by one side of the modern dispute in pursuit of its goals. Pfainuk talk 15:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

You folks really are "going around the houses" — and the block, and popping up three places just on this noticeboard. Which isn't getting you anywhere. I think it is time to round up all the chickens an put them back into one pen. So I propose that all further discussion regarding Gibraltar be consolidated and kept on Talk:Gibraltar. Any objections? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for being the one to pop up in the third place... but please understand that us chickens are a bit tired of hearing each others' cacophony (for two years now) and are desperately wishing to hear some fresh outside opinion. Which -I agree- is no excuse for not being able to agree to post just one consensus question in the noticeboard instead of filling it up with our separate questions... We'll go back to our place ;-) and pray for some outside commentators who help us out (not easy, I think we've already bored out of the discussion quite a few mediators and commentators). Thank you very much for your time and your interest. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 23:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

For info, I created that example of Bibliometry. For the record, I don't consider that or any other form of Bibliometry at all useful in deciding WP:DUE and have consistently said so for the 2 years I have tried to engage constructively with Imalbornoz. I merely offered a Bibliometric example to show just what a crock of bullshit it actually is. However, WP:DUE is consistently argued by Imalbornoz on the basis of Bibliometry but his chosen "metric" is the number raw hits in Google searches, condemned on this very board as unacceptable, that opinion has been ignored and this is now described as "ingenious" bibliometry believe it or not. Those reading these comments may wish to take this into consideration.

Whilst, I don't claim Bibliometry is at all useful for establishing WP:DUE, it can be useful to illustrate when massively undue weight is given to certain details contrary to the quantity of text and depth of coverage guidelines in WP:DUE. Like when 14% of the history section in an overview is dedicated to documenting a list of crimes and stating a single reason for the exodus (several are noted by historians) and to the exclusion of explaining the geopolitical reasons for the Gibraltar capture. And when most serious histories treat it on the basis of little more than a footnote.

We decide WP:DUE on the basis of weight of opinion attached in reliable sources, this is not established by Google Snippets, selected quotes obtained from 3rd parties or hit counts in searches in Google Books - this is how Imalbornoz has sourced his edit - he doesn't have access to sources of his own and has admitted so in discussions. We will make a lot more progress if some people go to a library. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

  I would like all of you involved in this issue to take a moment to look at one of the reasons why you all have been going "around the houses" on this (and for two years?!!).

  All of the editors concerned here seem to be intelligent, articulate, interested and informed on the topic (some topics are not so fortunate), and care about it to a degree that approaches passionate. Which is the problem! All of you have a great deal to say on both the topic and the issues. So you keep saying it. Witness WCM's last remarks: I proposed that further discussion be consolidated elsewhere, Imalbornoz said (at length, but essentially) "okay", and WCM wants to — discuss the issues. (WCM, please don't take offense here. Everyone here has done this; your remarks were just closest to hand.) So one of you goes flying out of the coop, then another, you keep exciting each other, and pretty soon you are scattered all over and pulling in different directions. Right? (That's a "rhetorical" question, don't have to answer!) Keep in mind that I am not against discussing issues. I am saying that you shouldn't be popping off at any time with whatever is bugging you. As it is, you have one "side" firing off a broadside of points, then the other side responds with a different set of points, and there is so much shrapnel flying around that everyone else is ducking for cover.

  I think (for whatever it's worth) you all need a bit more discipline in staying focused, particularly in taking up just one sub-issue at a time, so that you don't choke on them. Let's take this back to the talk page, and I'll try to help you sort matters out there. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 02:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not in the least offended. The thing I think you're missing is the claim that "ingenious" Bibliometry establishes WP:DUE so overwhelmingly, that anyone who disagrees is "suppressing" material because they're "embarassed" by the material and you can ignore them and impose content. The "ingenious" Bibliometry is not a sustainable argument under wikipedia's policy. But hey why bother with the tedium of reading sources when you just have to fire up Google Books? Wee Curry Monster talk 21:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

  I didn't "miss" it, I am (for the moment, and in this place) ignoring that claim. This is what I was just talking about: you folks just keep going on and on and on. And in the process you raise more claims and subsidiary points, and no wonder your arguments are spread all over the map. To make any progress you need to slow down and spend time on single issues.

 Please note that this claim for "bibliometry", or some aspect of it, is being discussed above (at #Due weight and numbers of sources), and I hope we can resolve some part of this claim there. As to various other issues: as I have proposed here, I recommend that you all try to keep them on Talk:Gibralter. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if mediation would work on this one. Underneath it all, there is an issue of how much weight to give to some events that are covered by historians. It has become utterly entrenched. Each side repeats the same arguments; uninvolved editors find it hard to know where to start. Not everyone has access to all the historical texts. Something is needed to break the logjam. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

  Yes. I am having a go (a bit of an experiment) at trying to help these folks at the discussion above, but that will probably drag out for several weeks. In the mean time I hope any further outbreaks of this running dispute might be quelled. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

sock blocked
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Leo Prime/Lio Convoy Attempts have been made by editors to move this page from Lio Convoy, the better-known and more-used title, to Leo Prime. --UnstableBiosphere (talk) 16:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC) The above would be the latest in the banned user Editor XXV's ever-expanding sockfarm, all connected with his peculiar obsession with that article. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Indo-Pakistani War of 1965

An editor has recently been trying to add a non NPOV source on the article Indo-Pakistani War of 1965. I tried to invite him on talkpage to discuss it but is continuing to revert all other editors. Moreover he is reverting any neutral(non Indian and non pakistani) source including one from BBC. I would like further assistance into the matter.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 20:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

"Neutrality" is the term that is applied to WP articles, not to sources; it means that all reliable sources should be represented "fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias". There is no problems with using www.pakistanarmy.gov.pk/awpreview/textcontent.aspx?pid=1965, however, one has to keep in mind that it is highly probable that this source reflects the viewpoint of the Pakistan government, so alternative viewpoints (if they exist) should be also represented. The second potential problem is that this source seems to be a primary source, so one should use it carefully and in accordance with WP:PSTS.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy theories - Architects & Engineers petition (continued)

Continuation of discussion from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#9.2F11_conspiracy_theories.2C_Architects_and_Engineers_for_911_Truth_petition

I'm sorry, the status quo (i.e. repeated removal of reliably sourced, neutrally worded, factual material from the article by a minority of editors) is simply not acceptable. Leaving these deletions stand is not a solution - it's clearly against WP:NPOV to allow this kind of omission. Any other suggestions for resolution? And if the NPOV noticeboard and the article talk page are not appropriate places to discuss this, can you suggest a more appropriate place? Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

No, for every reason that's been said in the countless previous discussions. GoN clearly has a faulty understanding of NPOV and OR. His repeated attempts to continually bring this up at different venues everytime the consensus is against him is beyond WP:IDHT. Ravensfire (talk) 13:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

  Strong no. GoN, this is the proper place to raise an NPOV issue (instead of the noticeboard's talk page, which is where you last raised the issue). But this is no longer an NPOV issue, it's issue of you repeatedly beating a WP:DEADHORSE. (There are other subsidiary issues, but I think everyone is tired of hearing them.) You have been advised to GIVE IT A REST. Please do so, for at least six months. If you can't hear that — or are willfully not hearing it? — would some kind of administrative action catch your attention? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Race and intelligence

I need some help on how to address the POV issues that exist from the Race and intelligence article title. Is AfD the only route to fix this?

The article content was originally given a completely different context. From the creator's edit comment copied large section from Racism

• the article would be more acurately labelled Race and IQ and it should be noted that IQ can be a very crude measure of intelligence
• title (including race and iq) accepts the premise of the question WP:UNDUE which is inconsistent with the scientific community
• requires context or interpretation

None of the studies should be used without explaining why they might be statistically misleading and while there are studies that counter point by point other studies this does not give an encyclopedic article. But really the encyclopedic item is the larger Nature versus nurture debate.

I think it should be merged into another article the closest is Heritability of IQ but doesn't quite have the right name. Tetron76 (talk) 15:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree and would welcme your input to the article. It is unfortunately mostly a battleground between Single Purpose Accounts working to promote scientific racism and other editors who disagree but have less dedication to the topic. You should know that the article was the subject of a recent arbcom case and is subject to discretionary sanctions, so only the best behavior is encouraged there. Also you should know that it is part of a larger problem of pov pushing on articles related to race and intelligence in a very broad sense - articles such as J. Philippe Rushton, Race, Evolution and Behavior, Race and crime, Race and genetics and many others have similar problems. ·Maunus·ƛ· 12:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Smooth jazz

Smooth jazz is a subgenre of jazz, however, an editor is trying to push a view that it isn't. Most of the early smooth jazz musicians root their influences to older styles of jazz (i.e. George Benson roots his influences to Wes Montgomery). Is there anything I can do about this? ANDROS¹³³⁷_TALK 22:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I added a disputed about template to warn people that there is currently a dispute (without violating the three revert rule), the only thing I can suggest you or any other editor can do is find numerous sources which both comply with Wikipedia policies and guidelines and which also back up the assertion that smooth jazz is a subgenre of jazz. Not easy from when I looked for sources a while ago, although I do believe that smooth jazz is a valid subgenre of jazz. I'd go have a look again for sources now, however it is late in the UK and I have work tomorrow morning, so bedtime is upcoming for me. --tgheretford (talk) 22:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Would this link pass WP:RS? ANDROS¹³³⁷_TALK 15:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

That source could be considered by some as a primary source, considering its interests in the genre. We could really do with a number of links, preferably from organisations which don't have an interest in smooth jazz, such as learning academies, radio measuring organisations or any other third party organisation who meet the reliable sources guideline. That link alone probably in my personal opinion, wouldn't be enough to quantify the statement that smooth jazz is a valid subgenre, particularly so considering it's interests in the genre. --tgheretford (talk) 19:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I've had a look around Google, there are a number of general jazz websites (much better arbiter of secondary source) and newspaper websites which offer a historical view and oversight of smooth jazz, maybe worth going through search results and pulling up sources from the aforementioned organisations into clarifying that smooth jazz is a valid subgenre of jazz. Hopefully then, we can agree consensus across all sides over the definition of smooth jazz. Coincidentally, I'm listening to smooth jazz as I type this! --tgheretford (talk) 19:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Criminal black man stereotype

Someone should take a look at this article, it suffers from many of the same problems that caused the recent spectacle about "Jews and Money" - i.e. presenting a racist stereotype as reality.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Certainly not helped by you deleting all material regarding the stereotype having some factual cause due higher crime rates for blacks.Miradre (talk) 13:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Could you please be more specific in describing what kind of help you are seeking? Even better, there are instructions at the top of this page for getting a good response to your concern. Right now I am not sure what the problem is. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 07:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)