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

Sailor Moon (English adaptation)

I'm posting this here as an effort for a dispute resolution, so some help here would be greatly appreciated. The discussion at WT:WikiProject Sailor Moon#Is this correct?WP:Sailor Moon (The beginning starts with a different issue so if you're reading it, it may be best to skip the first few paragraphs). The question with whether that article is aWP:POVFORK or a legitimate WP:SPINOUT article. The POV contention is that it places undue emphasis on the importance (ie the overall impact and not the quantity of sources) of the English localization of Sailor Moon vs. the Japanese when sources do not support this. The counter-argument is that more sources cover the English version and its a natural spinout article.∞陣内Jinnai 23:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Jinnai. I have a slight correction to offer - it's not that more sources cover the English version, it's that it is a natural spinout article which meets the GNG. --Malkinann (talk) 23:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

it makes no sense to separate english localization and distribution. A more logical choice as jinnai has said (and so have I) is to make an anime article. Not to mention has information that can easily merge to the other daughter articles such as list of sailor moon chapters and list of sailor moon episodes. Plus it gives undue weight to each individual alteration instead of actually summarizing it.Bread Ninja (talk) 03:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

also not too long ago, you were defending the article status by saying how much influenced the series had in the west. Its not a very good spinout. Its definitely POVFORK just by looking at the title sailor moon (english adaptation). Suggesting there's a different work with the same name when its just distribution and localization. Also gives undue weight and a lot of original research. Later you've admitted an anime and/or manga article could exist and meet the GNG but denied because this article meets the GNG. This article splits into two distinct medias that can easily help make more concrete article(s).Lucia Black (talk) 06:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you think I've been inconsistent - I have been having difficulty working out what you want to do with the article, and may not have understood what you were getting at at all times. I do not feel that the current name of the article implies there is a different Sailor Moon work (although the dub was radically different, people "became" fans by arguing on the internet about dub vs sub, as discussed by Neo and Patrick Drazen). I do not feel that the English adaptations article should be merged because it is a valid SPINOUT article, supported by multiple reliable sources, which meets the GNGs. --Malkinann (talk) 11:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Meeting the GNG does not mean something deserves an article though. If you read WP:N it clearly says its just the bare mininimum for showing notability and other factors could way in for deciding whether an article should exist. In this case its my contention this is a POVFORK even if it meets the GNG and therefore shouldn't exist as an NPOV violation.∞陣内Jinnai 17:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I proposed a clarrification at WP:N#change to GNG which addresses this.∞陣内Jinnai 01:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Malkinann, is your point that because the article passes WP:GNG as you argue, then WP:POVFORK and WP:SPLIT do not have to be considered? patsw (talk) 16:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand how it is a POVFORK, as the "point of view" that the English adaptations are important comes from the sources. The daughter article was apparently spun off due to size concerns with the main Sailor Moon article. (Talk:Sailor_Moon/Archive_1#American_Sailor_Moon) At the AFD, it was argued that it had the ability to be a discrete topic. I am concerned that arguments from style guidelines such as the WP:MOS-AM are being allowed to override notability. --Malkinann (talk) 17:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

But that's the problem. The sources don't establish that the English adaptation is more important than the Japanese one which doesn't have an article and does have sources to back it up its importance nor is the localization shown to have enough unique attributes to it. What is currently in the article appears to be a glorified list of English works which completely goes against the way we split media lists. As I mentioned on the other page, we don't have Dragon Ball (English localizaton) or Dragon Ball Z (English localization) even though we have far more sources for that. That is because it would be a POVFORK to say somehow the localization is more important and unrelated to the original Japanese production that it deserves its own article. We have also suggested a more appropriate split - splitting the anime from the manga and making an inclusive list of all the types of media - that wouldn't be a POVFORK and would satisfy your concerns that there's too much info.∞陣内Jinnai 18:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Why do the English adaptations have to be more important than the Japanese Sailor Moon to get an article? We don't have any articles on Dragon Ball Z because the anime-manga manual of style was used as a bludgeon, without regard to notability. A hypothetical List of Sailor Moon media is not a good idea because of WP:SIZE, and I don't know what you'd have in mind with splitting the anime from the manga. --Malkinann (talk) 20:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

notability isn't everything. a list of sailor moon media would not go against size if the article is what it states it is: a list of media. Examples such as list of kingdom hearts media and. List of final fantasy videogames are good examples. Why the need to have a separate article for localization? Again Malkinann you admit to ignore MOS.Lucia Black (talk) 20:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I tend to give preference to content over the precise form of said content - it's a valid style of editing, and one which helps to grow the encyclopedia. I don't know what the proposed list of media would contain at present, but it would be more sensible, I feel, to make a List of Sailor Moon albums or List of Pretty Guardian Sailor Moon albums, etc, splitting it up by type, to aid in navigation and readability. The anime-manga manual of style is all too often used as a bludgeon. I generally find that it impedes me from improving the encyclopedia, so I tend to ignore it. Ignoring a rule which impedes one from improving the encyclopedia is one of the founding principles of Wikipedia, and is not in itself "bad". --Malkinann (talk) 20:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

That shows a big sign of bad faith on your part. Because it's not just 1 rule, but an entire guide. To ignore the guide is to accept exceptions as a norm when it can easily be avoided (in this case especially). And you use the same logic we are using to make a List of Sailor Moon albums but when it comes to proposed anime article you are against it because it would mean merging it back? If the anime article was made first, would you have proposed a separate article for english adaptations knowing it would mean merging the anime article back? You accept English localization as a separate entity because it meets GNG and only GNG. Even if you ignore the one guide we have for anime and manga related articles, you don't even seem to use a different general guide either. You only worried about if it passes one rule, you forget about the others. SO how are we going to move on from here? If consensus favors our proposition over yours, would that evn change anything for you?Lucia Black (talk) 21:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

These guidelines get applied independently of each other: If you create a WP:POVFORK then passing WP:GNG is irrelevant. If the consensus opposes a WP:SPLIT, passing GNG is irrelevant. If fact, asserting a article passes GNG is only relevant when it is challenged that it does not pass GNG. patsw (talk) 01:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Independently but they're all meant for all articles. Still...malkinann says its a WP:SPINOUT but its more like an attempt of WP:CONTENTFORK but focused on one specific POV which jinnai said is againt NPOV.Lucia Black (talk) 01:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

the article is rather inconsistent. Its all about english releases and distribution along with alterations made. There is heavy undue weight made specifically for the emphasis of the english localization. Not onlyis it all based off undue weight but the content can easily merge to other more relevant articles. Which for some reason seems to be ignored whenever mentioned.Lucia Black (talk) 21:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Lucia Black, I have had considerable trouble understanding your proposals for the articles - even understanding which articles you were talking about at any given point. Perhaps I overlooked the proposal you're thinking of. Could you please restate it concisely?

The reliable sources in the (English adaptations) article and the main Sailor Moon article state that the English adaptations of Sailor Moon (chiefly the anime, but also the manga) are important, moreso than other English adaptations, as they provided an influx of girls and women into the anime and manga fandom, took manga out of the 'comic book store ghetto', and along with Pokemon and Dragon Ball Z, were one of the major series of the 90s in the English-language fandom. It is a valid SPINOUT because there is more information on the English adaptations than can comfortably exist in the main Sailor Moon article. The argument from 'there is no article for DBZ' is an 'other stuff doesn't exist' argument, and ignores the sources about Sailor Moon. The Manuals of Style should serve articles, not the other way around. What is being proposed here is an erosion of notability for the sake of an outdated and generalised idea of style. Malkinann (talk) 19:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Read the article and you'll also note that the influence of the Japanese manga and anime had equal (but different) impacts and greater for the manga as it redefined the magical girl subgenre and yet inspite this there no spinout for that. Why? Because there's no need. Similarly, there is no need for a spinout of the English influence of SM which is arguably on the same level for the anime. A spinout of the anime, dealing with both, may be warranted or a spinout on the worldwide impact of SM may be warranted, but not a spinout of English SM. That's a POVFORK.

If its about the impact of DBZ, Pokemon, SM and a few others, then that should be covered all in one article.∞陣内Jinnai 19:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no spinout for that because there are not the amount of sources available for that topic as there are for the English adaptations. Perhaps one day we will have the sources, but not yet. There is the need for a spinout of the English adaptations for issues of size, weight, and notability. I still don't understand why you feel it's a POVFORK. DBZ, Pokemon and SM are covered in 'one big article', which the English adaptations is a notable spinout of - Editing of anime in American distribution. --Malkinann (talk) 21:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Just because there are more sources on something does not mean we must bow our heads and submit to the publisher-or-perish nature of Western media.∞陣内Jinnai 22:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I am deeply concerned that the reliable sources are being ignored in favour of style. I sincerely doubt that the sources about the adaptations were produced in a publish or perish environment, as I've had trouble finding academic sources on Sailor Moon. Perhaps you could post at WT:VERIFIABILITY and seek a clarification there regarding publish or perish, as you did with the GNGs? --Malkinann (talk) 22:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I am deeply concerned in your flawed perspective. The article is again separated in two convenient medias, release information being merged to their independent articles such as list of sailor moon chapters/episodes. All is left is english development and alterations which seems to have specific changes of undue weight so then trimming to general. The only way this can be justified is adding reception over it. The problem isn't that the article can't be merged its whether you willing to accept it. And its not over style. The information is best suited in the main article and the other two daughter articles I already mention. An anime article would be more reasonable than this article.Lucia Black (talk) 00:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Lucia Black, everyone has a different idea of common sense. My perspective is based on paying attention to the sources and the GNG. Yours appears to be based solely on style. Is your proposal to split the (English adaptations) article three ways between Sailor Moon, List of Sailor Moon episodes and List of Sailor Moon chapters? I would like to point out that the disadvantage with this organisational scheme is that it has the effect of erasing English adaptations as being a valid, notable topic. What are the advantages of your proposed organisational scheme? --Malkinann (talk) 19:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Not true, they are part of others that are more notable. The topic itself notable because its made uup of several pieces that are best suited for other articles. And again, not organization issue, its the fact that the article acts as a main article. If it were a valid topic, then it would have to have some sort of reception. Separating english information from the main article because of original research. Yes, it is original research by implying it a general topic but. Its not. Article is made up of several pieces.Lucia Black (talk) 01:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The English adaptations article is also part of other articles that are more notable - it is a valid SPINOUT article of Sailor Moon and the Editing of anime in American distribution articles. I have already explained to you, both here and in the original discussion, that the (English adaptations) article has reception throughout the article. An article is made valid by the existence of reception itself, not by the format that the reception takes inside the article, as you are suggesting. Your proposed reorganisation has the clear disadvantage of obscuring a notable topic, as defined by the GNGs and the reliable sources about the topic. What are the benefits of your proposed reorganisation? --Malkinann (talk) 04:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

No its not, the structure and title of the article suggest it to be equal to Sailor Moon as a seperate entity. Its not a spinout of Editing of anime in american distribution, if it were that would be the smallest spinout build up of undue weight. There's no reason to separate english information from the main article. This is english wikipedia, so most of our information is going to be about english sources about english adaptations. So nearly impossible to prove sailor moon as a special case to separate english release and distribution of it away from the main article if you're going to base the reception the main article has from the current unless you looked specific reception about the original versions of sailor moon. Its bias per english, the idea is not only localization information but releases and distribution that can easily merge to list of sailor moon chapters and list of sailor moon episodes, which then distribution history and alterations is all that the article is left with, which has heavy unndue weight and original research. The article attempts english versions as a completely separate entity from the main article, but it also made up of individual pieces that are part of something much more relevant. The topic itself isn't notable as a separate entity from the main article because its information that readers look for IN the main article. We shouldn't separate them by languages even if significantly altered from the original.

This isn't WP:SPINOUT, this is WP:CONTENTFORK and shows strong signs of WP:POVFORK.Lucia Black (talk) 05:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The structure and title of the article do not suggest it is equal to Sailor Moon as a seperate entity. It is a spinout of Editing of anime in American distribution, as a specific, reliably-sourced case study on Sailor Moon's English adaptations. The reason why it was spun out was to give appropriate weight to the English adaptation in the main article - there are too many sources on the english adaptations to comfortably exist within the Sailor Moon article. The information is summarised inside the Sailor Moon article, and the rest has been spun out into the English adaptations article. I have been giving you specific examples of reliable sources throughout this merge discussion, which you have persistently ignored. It is too notable to be merged as you suggest - to do so obscures this notable topic. This is a notable SPINOUT based on the reliable sources available, not a POVFORK. Malkinann (talk) 08:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, even if it was spun out of editing of anime in american distribution, that still doesn't justify the article for current use, being not just about the editing, but also release information and distribution which you are miraculously ignoring a lot more. You justify the article for what you think its about, you don't see what it actually is. A dumping ground for all information of english distribution which happens to include alterations. Not just editing, but release information and broadcast history aswell. The article mirrors itself as a main article whether it is or not, that's what it does. Though it came from a page that is meant merely on localization of anime, the article does not appear to be just a spun out.

but let's take this back a step, the article it was spun out from is editing of anime in english distribution. The article current state is made up of mostly specific changes per individual series along with some general information, the article structure-wise if filled original research along with again tidbits of specific anime series. Spinning out the article into its own article wasn't good idea. There was no clean up for undue weight, original research, etc. An article made mostly of those specific series, the best course of action would've been to merge that information regardless of size (because let's be honest out of the many problems, undue weight is clearly there). If it couldn't fit, make it and let me tell you, the editing and censorship is the easiest thing to summarize to something more general than to be going to each specific change they have made.

overall, splitting it to its own article wasn't the best choice given that the article itself is still to this day not properly structured nor supported. The article also isn't just a mere spin out, as it covers more than localization of sailor moon, but english distribution which the editing of anime in american distribution was not about despite being a factor in the title. the information is best suited in its respected articles even if it started out as a very very weak spin out to another article that barely makes itself out to be a main article. But it can't be a spin out of both. Its either one or the other, and you can't make reasons as if they were spinned out from both articles. The article treats itself separately whether considered a part of it or not. I personally don't think you've read the article...because everyting you've said about it didn't apply. The topic being english versions of sailor moon, not just alterations, not just distribution, but its all english versions of sailor moon. A topic like that challenges the main article sailor moon.Lucia Black (talk) 09:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Lucia Black, your unfounded and patently false assumption that I have not read the article is grossly uncivil and unhelpful. Please retract this. --Malkinann (talk) 10:20, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Please reread it...you say what the article is, but its not that...my questioning has been because you have said false things about the article. The article isn't solely about what you say it is. The article isn't just about localization, but broadcast history and release information of english releases exclusively, information much more vital to the main article or at least to the anime aspect. This is not a valid spin out considering the situation both this article and the article it was spun out are in. The article may have started out as a weak pin out but clearly its not relevant anymore, new information has made it bias to english information (what should be accepted universally and intergrated into the main article).Lucia Black (talk) 10:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I re-read the article when the discussion was started, and have been keeping an eye on it during this discussion. You, on the other hand, have apparently never even edited the article to try to fix the grievous problems in it that have lead to your proposal of this split-merge. I find your repeated attempts to discredit me by implying I have not read the article deeply upsetting, as I find your accusation that I have said false things about the article deeply upsetting. I may have become confused, as you have been both incredibly unclear and incredibly uncivil to me throughout this discussion. Could you please provide diffs where I have said false things about the article? --Malkinann (talk) 10:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

the topic itself is what leads me to merge it. If you want mee to do this the slow nd painful way and slowly clean it up and merging small information to their respected articles until there's only localization information which the article would then be small enough to merge.

regardless your statements and reasoning are only based off singular things. You refuse to see it at a grander scale. For one you're reasoning as a good daughter article being too big for the main sailor moon article in a summary while having the rest in that article, but refuse to see the other information, the title, the article divided into two specific medias only hint a more proper split could be in order. But then it gets switched around by being split from editing of anime in english distribution when clearly there was not the sensible thing to do and don't use commonsense on me, commonsense within the guidelines and policies is what I'm trying to say.

so let's forget about everything else...let's get to the main point on why its not nuetral pov. I'm just going to bring one topic at a time out of the many in this situation. So here goes: the article is bias per all english versions of sailor moon, why make a separate article separating the english versions info (which is not just localization information) when information like that is still vitally relevant to the main article? And not accepting GNG reason. Saying english versions are notable is saying the main article is notabl (because its vital to be in the main article), not the specific topic. Why distinguish them separately?

I do not see any point in attempting to follow your convoluted reasoning if you cannot accept that I have read the article, and if you cannot retract your uncivil statements insinuating that I have not, and that I have said false things about the article. --Malkinann (talk) 11:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

you make it really hard to because you switch you reasoning around and around...I just don't think you actually understand what the entire article is trully about....it deeply fustrates me that you say this but when reading the article is more than just that. Uncivility comes along way and assuming bad faith isn't what I'm intending to do. Regardless, you acuse me of ignoring points you mentioned, I accuse you of ignoring things I said. Your pointing a gun at someone who's also pointing a gun back at you and claiming there is no gun pointinng at you but are offended.

the article is all about and only about english versions of sailor moon which include but not limited to localization in which you continuously implied that it is through spinout of editing of anime in american distribution. you only see the localization part, you don't see the rest that changes the topic into something more broad. which is why you mentined how it was summarized in the main article of sailor moon and in (excessive) detail in that article.

you have switched your argument several times. First by saying it was a split mainly from sailor moon, suddenly both sailor moon and editing of anime, then it resulted from editing of anime being a specific case.

so...all in all....jinnais second comment says it all. I'm just wondering, to you what is POVFORK?Lucia Black (talk) 11:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I have consistently said from the beginning that the article meets the GNG and therefore should not be merged. It is completely unacceptable that you should accuse me of not having read the article - it's completely false, grossly uncivil, and I don't see the point in responding to your argument until you can accept I have read the article, if you cannot retract your uncivil statements insinuating that I have not, and that I have said false things about the article. It is a notable daughter article of both Sailor Moon and the editing of anime article - SPINOUT is a synonym for daughter article. It should not be merged because to merge is to obscure this notable topic. --Malkinann (talk) 20:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

That's the only thing that has been consistent, regardless. I take back that you have not read the article. Instead, I say you don't understand what the article is trully about. Spin out leads to daughter articles however not every daughter article isn't notable (that saying spin out is just a way of avoiding the word split). For one, the article relates to english versions of sailor moon, violating NPOV. Spinning out a Pov of the main topic. For example, character articles don't get often split unless it has specific reception to that character to prove it being more important than the rest of the characters in the list article. This article does not justify why it should exist. Regardless if considered a spin out of editing of anime in english distribution, the article uses summary style mainly on sailor moon. Its not really a daughter article of editing of anime in english distribution because the article isn't dependent on the editing of anime in english distribution, although it is related to it. That article is also filled with bias and unverifiable claims, so in the end, a spin out of that article isn't justified.

Saying english versions of sailor moon is notable, is saying the basic building blocks of the main article being split into a daughter article, without clarification of why it needed to be spun out to be an independent. Spinning out media is one thing because its not a pov, its media. However, this is pov of sailor moon media. This clearly fails NPOV......there's no two ways about it. Calling it a spin out doesn't justify because the article isn't merely about just localization.Lucia Black (talk) 22:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Please also retract your assertion that I have said false things about the article - you simply misunderstood me. The spinout simply takes the notable topic of English adaptations of Sailor Moon and treats it in a more in-depth way than the main article can, and in a manner which does not take the notable topic and split it amongst three articles, as you are proposing. The article was spun out, as I have already explained, in order to give the appropriate level of detail in Sailor Moon, treating it in more detail on its own page. There was too much information on the main Sailor Moon page, so it was spuyn out. How does the English adaptations article fail NPOV when the alleged POV comes directly from the sources - that the English adaptations of Sailor Moon are important? How is your proposed reorganisation beneficial? Your proposed reorganisation has the effect of obscuring a notable topic. --Malkinann (talk) 13:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

First off, the topic may meet the notability guideline, but guess what: Every notable English adaptation of an anime does. We don't have School Rumble (English adaptation, Serial Experiments Lain (English adaptation), Revolutionary Girl Utena (English adaptation), Fruits Basket (English adaptation), Ranma 1/2 (English adaptation), Black Butler (English adaptation), One Piece (English adaptation) (redirects to One Piece), Naruto (English adaptation), Pokemon (English adaptation), Dragon Ball (English adaptation), Bleach (English adaptation), Hetallia (English adaptation), Tenchi Muyo! (English adaptation), Tokyo Mew Mew (English adaptation)... All of them and hundreds more meet the GNG because they all have more easily accessible English reliable sources.

Second, when there is too much info, we summarize per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, specifically what should have been done instread of and before any spinout article. From what I've seen, that step appears to have been skipped.

Finally, it fails the NPOV specifically because it gives undue weight to indivisual and often minor changes (especially when compared to titles like One Piece where episodes were cut & pasted, merged and rearranged to form wholely new episodes with different storylines). In addition, it gives undue weight to English sources. Just because you can find more sources, especially English vs. non-English, doesn't mean you need to cover everything. There comes a point where sources don't add anything new or only minor things and we summarize content. Finally, it gives undue weight to the English version over the Japanese inspite evidence that the Japanese version had as much, if not more, impact solely because there happens to be more English sources talking about it. That's WP:Systemic bias.∞陣内Jinnai 16:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The reason we don't have such articles on these notable topics is because of the biases of the manual of style. The organisational system that you and Lucia Black are proposing has the effect of obscuring the topic of how Sailor Moon was adapted into English, making it harder for people to find information about that topic. All of these changes were noted by reliable sources, so how is it NPOV to include them? How does the existence of the English adaptations article give undue weight to the English versions "over" the Japanese? If anything, it allows the English versions to be discussed in-depth in their own daughter article, freeing up space in the main article to discuss the Japanese versions. --Malkinann (talk) 22:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

No, that's not the reason why we have such articles. Organization has nothing to do with why this fails NPOV, regardless our proposal does relate to a better organization. The article is splits english versions from the original version because there is significant ammount of localization information.

I don't see how it doesn't fail npov. Noting its existence isn't enough to split it into a separate topic. Its definitely povfork to split individually...splitting per media to cover both japanese (original) and english sources. The mainn reason why we cover japanese in general is because it was originally released there but most of the time the main articles are dependent on english. its taking english pov over japanese as if they need to be separated but they don't.Lucia Black (talk) 22:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Malkinann, do you really think the average Wikipedian reader is so dense that they cannot follow section links inside the article Sailor Moon to #English adaptations? In addition, do you honestly think the average reader won't think to look at #Reception and #Legacy where further info would likely be found?∞陣内Jinnai 23:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

My thought is that a reader might come to the "English editing of anime" article, and try to find information on the adaptations of Sailor Moon from there. I don't see how this has anything to do with the topic at hand, and I don't see how the article fails NPOV. --Malkinann (talk) 23:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

the main article also splits the information wrong. Why split media individually but then compile all english media aswell? This has nothing to do with understanding issues for the readers part. The only reason why there's a daughter page of this is because the main article is set up oddly.Lucia Black (talk) 23:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Its POVFORK, and the only reason why it looks like SPINOUT is because all english related info was forked into its own separate section when it can go to its respected sections.Lucia Black (talk) 23:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Why is it a povfork? How is it a povfork? Please stop muddying the issue with reference to the MOS-AM. --Malkinann (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

how is it NOT a povfork? The main article didn't properly organized the info and was already aiming for bias. It splits the localization and distribution of the same media separately from the main media section. Stop bringing up MOS-AM.Lucia Black (talk) 00:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

As you are asserting that it is a POVFORK even though it has been accepted as a SPINOUT for many years, the onus is on you to explain why and how it is a POVFORK. As I have already explained, the "point of view" that the English adaptations are important comes directly from the reliable sources that discuss the subject, making it a SPINOUT and not a POVFORK. Why do you still think it's a POVFORK? How do you feel the article is a POVFORK? The article has NEVER "aimed for bias", and I would appreciate it if you did not repeat such an inflammatory assertion. --Malkinann (talk) 00:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

At this point your reasoning has shifted again, now to the incredibly useless reason that consensus years ago is still valid. Consensus can change. The article does aim toward bias just by separating english localization of all sailor moon media simply for the reason of existing. I suggest you cool your jets. The article is accused of povfork sticks. POVFORK isn't about not having enough sources.Lucia Black (talk) 00:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I am simply pointing out that there is a prior consensus, which you are trying to change. The onus is on you to explain why and how it is a POVFORK. I have explained how it is not a POVFORK but a SPINOUT, I would appreciate it if you could do the same - without appeal to the anime-manga manual of style, or the general incivility I have heard from you throughout this discussion. If you cannot even be bothered to explain your position in a clear and civil manner, I don't see how I can understand your position. Your accusation that the article is a POVFORK does NOT "stick" without a clear and civil explanation of how it is a POVFORK and a clear and civil explanation how your proposed reorganisation is better. --Malkinann (talk) 00:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Stop it. Your the one getting uncivil at this point and yes accusation of povfork does stick. You seem to assume if its spinout, it can't be povfork. So I'm going to ask you what povfork means to you.Lucia Black (talk) 00:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The onus is on you to explain why and how it is a POVFORK, as you are attempting to change prior consensus. Your accusation that the article is a POVFORK cannot "stick" without a clear and civil explanation of how it is a POVFORK and a clear and civil explanation how your proposed reorganisation is better - I need to understand where you're coming from before I can even begin to think about changing my mind. I cannot see any advantages to your proposed reorganisation - only the clear disadvantage that it obscures a notable topic. --Malkinann (talk) 00:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The article is about distribution and localization of sailor moon. Those are two aspects of the main article, yet it presents itself separately.

let's look at it like this, if one article is for japanese version and the other is english version, why leave the english reception of the english version of the series in the main article?Lucia Black (talk) 02:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

let me put it in simpler terms....distribution and localization are ascpects of media, therefore POV, and forked separately from the article, hence POVFORK.Lucia Black (talk) 02:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The English adaptations article does not "present itself seperately" - it is summarised in Sailor Moon and repeated reference to issues in Sailor Moon are made in the "Editing of anime..." article. The specific issues with the English adaptations were split off in order to allow the article to focus on the general reception of Sailor Moon - for example, the aborted "Saban Moon" pilot is discussed in the English adaptations article, but isn't mentioned in the main Sailor Moon article. "distribution and localization are ascpects of media, therefore POV, and forked separately from the article, hence POVFORK" makes no sense to me. Could you please elaborate on your thinking here? --Malkinann (talk) 04:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The main article also isn't properly organized. It appears like a proper spinout because the main article separates overall media from the english versions which is unacceptable.Lucia Black (talk)

The main article is organised in a way that serves the information we have. The English adaptations article looks like a proper spinout because it is a proper spinout. --Malkinann (talk) 22:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

that's not true. The main articles media section splits media that was released in english from the same media initially released in its original language. Its not a complete povfork as it doesn't spinout from the main article however the idea still applies as its still POV influenced. Therefore a spinout of that section is still a strong POVFORK.Lucia Black (talk) 03:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Malkinan: A POVFORK is a type of spinout so you are correct in so far as that aspect is concerned. As to the structure style, that does raise a red flag especially when the infromation could be grouped into various other sections, possibly with seperate subsections for Japan and The US (or The West if enough non-US sources can be found). That kind of subdivision of a Legacy or Impact section is acceptable if there is enough prose to maintain both sections and both are clearly of signifigant weight.∞陣内Jinnai 21:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no clear advantage to the proposed reorganisation. What would happen to the the Saban pilot information? The very clear disadvantage of it is that the topic of English adaptations is lost as a daughter article to the Editing of anime article, obscuring a notable topic. --Malkinann (talk) 21:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Seems you're still missing the point. Its a subjective disadvantage. You keep proving to us more and more how POV influenced this really is.Lucia Black (talk) 23:58, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

For pointing out that the organisational system should serve the information, not the other way around? What would happen to the Saban Moon information under your proposed reorganisation? What are the advantages of your proposed reorganisation? --Malkinann (talk) 00:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to deliberately ignore the organization card you so effortlessly bring up because at this point jinnai and I have made our point very clear. This isn't for organization, this is for nuetrality. I don't know how that keeps being missed.Lucia Black (talk) 00:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Not a "card" - please assume good faith. I cannot understand why your proposed reorganisation is a good idea, as it has the effect of obscuring a notable topic, and ignores the reliable sources. --Malkinann (talk) 00:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

"obscuring a notable topic" = "non-NPOV".Lucia Black (talk) 01:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow, is that really what you understand? The topic of adapting manga and anime into English have attracted academic attention - including the Sailor Moon adaptation. It is a notable topic. Your arguments are from style over information. --Malkinann (talk) 01:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

No it goes deeper, but the point continues to be dodged whenever it takes more than 2 sentences so. I'm just using simple caveman sentences to emphasize what is being dodged.Lucia Black (talk) 01:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The topic of adapting manga and anime into English have attracted academic attention - including the Sailor Moon adaptation. It is a notable topic. Your arguments are from style over information. The anime and manga manual of style is a biased document and I don't find it helpful in maintaining Sailor Moon, so I ignore it. The sheer incivility I have been subjected to at every point of this discussion by you is quite frankly disgusting. I have had so much difficulty in even trying to understand your convoluted and ungrammatical argument and then you insult me. The more you do so, the further we get away from resolving this. --Malkinann (talk) 01:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

So you're allowed to be offended by accusations yet you are allowed to make even bigger accusations such as claiming you know our intention? You don't promote civility you demand it while not following example.

We have made it significantly clear up til now for even you to properly understand 12 comments ago but again was effortlessly dodged. Point being its POVFORK, the english media separated by the same media in the original language already shows POV influence and to spinout that pov influenced section into a daughter article proves it is a POVFORK.Lucia Black (talk) 02:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

If you feel I have misunderstood your intentions, please feel free to explain it again. I am not attempting to "dodge" anything - I simply do not agree with your assertion that your reorganisation has any advantages. The article is a SPINOUT based on reliable sources, not a POVFORK. Your proposed reorganisation privileges style over information and has the effect of obscuring a notable topic. --Malkinann (talk) 03:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

POVFORK is a type of spinout which jinnai made perfectly clear 13-14 comments ago. Again....this is not for the sake of organization, not for the sake of organization, not for the sake of organization to the 100th power.Lucia Black (talk) 03:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Jinnai and I propose changes of presentation that involve organization. You seem to think organization is the main reason while not intending affect presentation.Lucia Black (talk) 03:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Not all SPINOUTS are POVFORKS - Sailor Moon (English adaptations) is a spinout which is NOT a povfork, because it is a notable topic and a daughter article of a notable topic, which the anime manga manual of style does not serve. Your proposed reorganisation has the effect of obscuring a notable topic. I don't understand what you mean by " Again....this is not for the sake of organization, not for the sake of organization, not for the sake of organization to the 100th power" and "Jinnai and I propose changes of presentation that involve organization. You seem to think organization is the main reason while not intending affect presentation". Do you mean your three-way split of Sailor Moon (English adaptations) between Sailor Moon, List of Sailor Moon episodes and List of Sailor Moon chapters? That is what I mean when I say 'your proposed reorganisation'. --Malkinann (talk) 04:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The article's notability is based on the main article as you said a while back as part of summary style, but the fork itself is based on pov influenced section therefore povfork regardless if its existence of sources. Povfork isn't all about not having enough sources.Lucia Black (talk) 04:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand your point. The English adaptations article is a daughter article of Sailor Moon, and was spun out due to size reasons, as the amount of information could not comfortably live inside the Sailor Moon article any more. The topic of the English adaptations of Sailor Moon is a notable topic due to the reliable sources that discuss it. It is a valid spinout, not a povfork. --Malkinann (talk) 05:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

And this is where the inconsistency shows. Due to size issues it was spinned out yet claim notable on its own. The key piece of the article is made up of localization of the english versions and lavished with distribution information and copyright status for the sake of having big enough size to spin out in the first place. Having enough reliable source to merely state its existence isn't enough to spin out. Its because the main article biasly separated the english media from the same media released original language that it gives of the mask of being a proper spinoff without the question of povfork BUT! because it splits the media is split into two separate POVs making both non-nuetral POV and if that isn't fix it can lose its GA status.Lucia Black (talk) 05:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

How is it that the English adaptations article cannot be both a spinout due to size and notable? The article is not padded out to seem more notable, as you seem to be implying. The reliable sources do not merely state the English adaptations existence - they discuss the adaptations' importance, which is why the English adaptations article meets the GNG. The reorganisation you propose is biased against the notable topic of how Sailor Moon was adapted into English. It is a notable spinout, not a povfork, and the fact that the English adaptations article exists does not make either it or the Sailor Moon article NPOV. --Malkinann (talk) 06:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

if its for size it is dependent on the main article for notability (list of X chapters, list of X episodes) if its for notability then the article would have to prove its importance individually (reception) which in this case its the former. We/I are not bias against how sailor moon was localized.and just accusing us without of a basis of proof shows this discussion is turning into an uncivil finger pointing war. The main article is bias to present the media nuetrally because it splits the media released in its original language from the same media that was released in english (if you cannot understand that then clearly you do not know what NPOV is about). Information on how it was localized is relevant to the main article in its own "localization" which can be significantly trimmed to having the key details. However this article is about localization, distribution and copyright status. Meaning all aspects of english POV. Articles can fail NPOV even if they have reliable sources. Its a straight forward POVFORK. If you read it, it says POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or otherpage. Instead ofresolving that disagreementbyconsensus,another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. .Lucia Black (talk) 07:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

It was split for size because the main article was too big - being split for size does not necessarily mean that it "depends" on the main article for notability. It has already proved its notability by the existence of multiple reliable sources which discuss the English adaptation, which are present in the English adaptations article - just not in a reception section. Just because the sources are not presented in a reception section DOES NOT mean that the English adaptations article is unnotable. Pointing out that the anime manga manual of style is a biased document which should be ignored in this case does not mean that this is "turning into an uncivil finger pointing war". The writing of the manual of style in general downplays the topic of how the English adaptations were received, and your proposed reorganisation is simply fitting a square peg into a round hole - for example, where would the information on the Saban series go? I agree that articles can fail NPOV even if they have reliable sources, but the English adaptations article is not a povfork - it is a spinout, and was created to discuss the English adaptations in more depth because the length and amount of sources on the topic meant that it could not comfortably fit within the Sailor Moon article. --Malkinann (talk) 08:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not even considering MOS-AM and will not need to prove my point. And merely discussing the existence of the change is one thing, impact is what helps separate/reception/legacy is usually what helps articles become independent. This is why there are some franchise articles that don't merit their own individual manga or anime article but still merit a list of episodes and list of chapters.

Here's the thing...every reason you have said here does not counter against POVFORK. Not one. Now I hope with that, you put things into a different perspective.

And this is where the starting/finish line of the endless cycle is at which I'm sure we passed for the 50th time.

You continuously mention subjective things such as feeling the need to go into further detail. This is a POVFORK.....and it proves it just by the second paragraph which I quoted:

POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or otherpage. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus,another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view.

You try to counter POVFORK with notability.Lucia Black (talk) 09:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe your idea of a "proper" reorganisation stems from the MOS-AM, which is not useful here. I have already told you that the reliable sources discuss the impact/reception/legacy of the English adaptations, they don't merely discuss the existence of it. For you to continue to insist that the reliable sources merely prove the existence of the English adaptations is disingenuous and unhelpful. " POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or otherpage. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus,another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view." does not apply here because there was no disagreement at the time the article was split. I still do not understand how you can think this article is a POVFORK. --Malkinann (talk) 09:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The organization I proposed was for the sake of nuetrality, distribution info of manga and anime belong in those articles. Localization in the main article where most of the media is covered. And you miss the point of the quote as it doesn't matter if it was done with in agreement or disagreement, it was still the course of action taken. And despite you claiming the sources provide reception/legacy/impact the article barely provides any. Most of it from what I see are petitions. But the point being that this article is a big big POV that was split from the main article. The articles that revolve around english info to be notable yet it splits how english media was produced. So in a way its production info, ut it doesn't stop there it also has release information.

I believe you don't know what povfork is...and as uncivil as you may think it sounds. Covering our understanding of npov is the only way we can spot the twisted turn within the reasoning. How is this not a povfork and what would it look like if it were one?Lucia Black (talk) 10:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

What are the advantages of your proposed reorganisation? Where will the Saban pilot information be? "POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or otherpage. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus,another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view." does not apply here because there was no disagreement at the time the article was split - it doesn't appear to apply retrospectively. The article was created as a spinout, not in response to a dispute, as the archive I linked above makes clear. I don't believe the sources in the article mostly discuss fan petitions - might I respectfully suggest that you reread the sources found at Sailor Moon (English adaptations)#References? The article is not a POVFORK as the reliable sources discuss the English adaptations' importance, and it is a daughter article of the topic of the "Editing of anime..." article. The idea that "distribution info" (as you simplify it) of manga and anime "belongs" in those articles is an idea from the MOS-AM, and I believe this idea does not serve this notable topic - I don't see how your idea comes from NPOV. NPOV is about "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". That the English adaptations of Sailor Moon are important is a significant view that has been published by reliable sources. My position is that the structure you are proposing is POV because it ignores the sources and obscures the adaptations as a notable topic. --Malkinann (talk) 10:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The pilot info can and should be added to a production/development section per the FA example in School Rumble which has the English production info in the last paragraph.∞陣内Jinnai 23:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The failed pilot has nothing to do with the production of the rest of Sailor Moon. I don't feel this is an appropriate merge. --Malkinann (talk) 00:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

It can be placed in a subsection called "Music Video Concept" within the proposed "localization" section. Distribution section isn't necesarry for a section since distribution info would go in the media sections (in which get too long, they get spinned out into list of x chapters/episodes) . Overalll removal of unverified info would work too.

the article is a POVFORK because the split was based on POV. It compiled both distribution, localization and copyright status separately of the main article in the gaze of it being one big topic however its not. Its POV. It mirrors the main article only focused into one POV. As I quoted before only you focused on how it comes to be, not what pov fork actually is.Lucia Black (talk) 01:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The Saban Moon pilot is not a music video at all - perhaps re-reading through the sources which discuss it might clear your mind up on what it is? I have asked you to specify the material you have problems with - it may be verifiable, and the editing policy says that is a good alternative to deletion. The article is not a POVFORK because the article is based on reliable sources discussing its importance. It is summarised in the main article, the English adaptations article does not "mirror it only focused into one POV". Your use of the quote appeared to imply that the current dispute existed at the time of the article's creation - which is not the case. Furthermore, you attempted to use this fallacy to say "therefore POVFORK". The article is not a POVFORK and has never been one - it is a valid SPINOUT which meets the GNGs and should not be merged - especially as there is no clear advantages from the merge, and the clear disadvantage that it has the effect of obscuring the English adaptation of Sailor Moon as a notable topic. --Malkinann (talk) 03:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

then its a spin off concept or Pilot Concept anyways it seems to be in the wrong place. What the article doesn't do compared to the main article is its importance as a whole singular topic. Instead the article relevance is expressed in small areas such as petitions and not much of any individual impact of the entire topic. Having sources and saying it hmeets GNG does not counter against povfork.Lucia Black (talk) 04:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The importance of the topic is addressed in the reliable sources. The article is a spinout, not a povfork. --Malkinann (talk) 11:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

But not as a whole topic.Lucia Black (talk) 16:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:PARITY

The Parity section of the WP:FRINGE guidelines is a favorite of fringe apologists, who interpret it as carte blanche to use just about any sourcing they please to support OR and SYNTH in articles on fringe topics. It is also misused to present a fringe topic from the in-universe persepective fringe topic in articles on the topic.

I've started a discussion of the talk page of the WP:FRINGE guidelines. This isn't a formal RfC, but a request for open-ended input on the question whether the Parity section needs to be re-worded for clarity. To keep the discussion centralized, please comment on the talk page of the article, here: [[1]]. Your input would be greatly appreciated. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Criticism section on Occupy Wall Street

I wrote a summary of some criticisms of the movement, using the same words as the sources. The sources were were themselves describing those criticisms. It was challenged and removed apparently because it sounds POV. I would like outside observers to take a look at it. Description here. Thanks all! B^e——C_ritical 00:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we clearly need more input over this. The 'criticisms' seem to be insults, and the sourcing is questionable, in that it isn't sourced to critics... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I provide quotes from the sources on the talk page. Aren't we supposed to use secondary sources, not primary sources? The sources are: The Chronicle of Higher Education which is the major news service in the United States academic world, CBS news site, and The New York Times, an article by Kate Zernike who was a member of the New York Times team which shared the 2002 Pulitzer Prize for Explanatory Reporting. B^e——C_ritical 04:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

There has been little outside input, and there have been no arguments offered which invalidate the sources or indicate that my summary of them was unrepresentative. All arguments seem to boil down to dislike of what's being said, not arguments that it is somehow out of Wikipedia process or rules. This isn't how it's supposed to go. You're supposed to be able to summarize good sources, and if you do it properly but people still object you're supposed to be able to call in outside help to build consensus. Anybody out there? B^e——C_ritical 00:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

This is simply untrue: "All arguments seem to boil down to dislike of what's being said" .. At least two of us are saying that the tone is not impartial, as required by NPOV. Becritical has just made the astounding claim (on the talk page) that NPOV is determined by the sources. Furthermore, he is dominating discussion there by replying to every single post. It seems that he is eager to frame the criticism as only he sees fit. Someone else please advise him to let up and let others weigh in too, as I've already tried twice. As we say, there is no deadline to get it right. -A98 98.92.187.126 (talk) 02:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

There's no requirement of an impartial tone. There's requirement that the sources be described in an impartial tone. One does that by impartially summarizing the reliable sources. If we have highly reliable sources to back it up, we can say "Conservatives and Tea Party activists say OWS is a shiftless, indolent, messy, anti-Semitic and drug-addled mob engaged in class warfare, and that the protester's grievances are far removed from the political mainstream." That's reporting what the sources tell us in an entirely impartial tone. See comparison on the talk page [2] B^e——C_ritical 03:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

That is not correct, not at all! At WP:NPOV there are multiple references to writing with an impartial tone. Rather than introducing strong and angry language, rewrite the information with a neutral tone, dropping the inflammatory quotes. Binksternet (talk) 03:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, let's see you rewrite the sources "impartially." See if you can convey how our RS secondary sources portray the conservative view of OWS without leaving out information or whitewashing our reliable sources. You will find that you are merely doing a whitewash job. B^e——C_ritical 04:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure I could do it if I worked very hard at it. The difficulty we both know that the task entails should be a signal that the material is not suited to the encyclopedia. We are not here to inflame the reader. Binksternet (talk) 04:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Did you really say that? Because that's what I've been saying, that people just don't think what our RS have to say is fit for Wikipedia. But that's not our choice to make. B^e——C_ritical 04:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

It's quite possible that this particular material run by the reliable sources is inappropriate because it's not relevant, given undue weight, is reporting on punditry and controversy rather than the subject of the article, etc. On the other hand, it's clear that there is a lot of criticism, antagonism, cultural clash, etc., over the OWS protests. I don't think you could tell the story of those protests without mentioning the response they've gotten, positive, negative, indifferent, and antagonistic. Political and cultural responses to what's essentially a political and cultural event are noteworthy encyclopedic information. So I think the problem if any is the tone, and selecting sources that are encyclopedic in scope. The proposed language seems more news-ish and essay-like than encyclopedic. Newspapers may be reliable sources, but we don't construct news articles out of them. Just my opinion, I haven't looked at this in a whole lot of depth. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Love to see you over there even if you end up disagreeing with me. B^e——C_ritical 05:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Ugg boots - is "It's a generic term" the mainstream view?

If you are involved in contributing to this article and you wish to share your opinion, please note your involvement and nationality. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

This is about the Ugg boots article. The hatnote states that it's about the boot style, and the hatnote does not limit the discussion to the countries of origin, Australia and New Zealand. Therefore this is about the boot style in the entire world. The article has naturally attracted a severely disproportionate group of editors from Australia and New Zealand, with only a few editors from other countries. The WP:CSB project is designed to counter the kind of systemic bias that arises when one demographic group is dominant.

Ugg boots are a fashion phenomenon, with worldwide sales growing 5000% in the past 16 years. Deckers Outdoor Corporation is almost entirely responsible for this growth, and has trademarked the word "ugg" (or terms like it) in 145 countries, including all of the 29 most heavily populated countries, as the brand name for its line of sheepskin boots. [3] [4] Opinion polling has been introduced as evidence in the courts of several countries, that proves an overwhelming majority of the people in these countries perceive "UGG" as a brand name; Deckers has also introduced declarations from professionals in the footwear industry who stated that "UGG" is widely recognized in the industry as a brand name, not a generic term. [5] (Walter, John F., February 25, 2003, UGG Holdings, Inc. -v- Clifford Severen et al, United States District Court.)

The term "Ugg" originated in the slang of two tiny countries, Australia and New Zealand, and is in common usage there to describe a boot style. There are also 110 other countries in the world where Deckers did not trademark the term, but they are not part of Australian or New Zealand culture. So what we have here are 145 countries (including the 29 most populated ones) saying "It's a brand name," two tiny countries saying "It's a boot style," and 110 countries undecided. WP:WEIGHT, a section of WP:NPOV, clearly defines "It's a brand name" as the mainstream view, and "It's a boot style" as the minority opinion. Deckers UGG brand dominates the worldwide market for this style of boots. Australian companies only retain a significant share of the market in Australia.

A group of editors from Australia and New Zealand are attempting to treat "It's a boot style" as the mainstream view in the Ugg boots article. They are planning to change the current version of the article, which is fairly well-balanced and close to compliance with WP:WEIGHT, [6] to a version that more closely resembles this one: [7] The entire "Concerns about quality" section will be removed. Four key words, "a protected trademark or," will be removed from the article lede. In addition to the changes shown, the Australian editors also want to remove the product counterfeiting cases won by Deckers worldwide. Essentially, they want to remove all the cases that Deckers won, and keep in the article all the cases that Deckers lost.

Aussie editors have repeatedly claimed that the word "ugg" has been removed from the Australian trademark registry, without any basis in fact: [8] [9] The fact of the matter is that only the trademark "UGH-BOOTS" was removed from the registry, and it was for non-use. The Australian government's intellectual properties office, IP Australia, released a fact sheet stating explicitly that IP Australia could not and would not declare "uggs" to be a generic term, and that only the courts had the authority to do so. [10] So far, no court has ruled on the matter.

The fact sheet is posted on the Deckers corporate website. Deckers could be subjected to severe civil penalties, and its corporate officers extradited to Australia and prosecuted in criminal court, if they altered or forged this official government document. This PDF scan should be treated as a reliable source. Much of the content of the IP Australia fact sheet has been mirrored by other reliable sources. [11] [12] The IP Australia fact sheet was once posted on the official government agency website, but it was removed. [13]

The "Concerns about quality" section is an expansion and correction of a single sentence that has existed in the article for several months. None of the Australian editors had any problem with it when the single sentence stated that quality testing showed an Australian company making the best ugg boots. But when the quality testing results were more accurately described as a pair of Australian "fake uggs" being the most difficult to tear apart, followed by Deckers Ugg boots as the toughest brand made of genuine sheepskin, and all the other Australian brands "fared poorly for quality," suddenly the Australian editors wanted to delete the new section, "Concerns about quality."

This encapsulates the approach of the Australian editors to this article. If material supports the idea that "UGG" is a brand name, or if it makes Deckers look good, they want it out of the article. If material supports the idea that "UGG" is a generic term, or if it makes Deckers look bad, they want it in the article and they want to expand upon it. The history of this article, aside from the usual vandalism that a fairly high profile subject attracts, has been low scale edit warring between a large group of Australian editors who believe "It's a generic term" should be presented as the mainstream view, and a small number of other editors who realize that "It's a brand name" should be and is the worldwide mainstream view.

The article's talk page and its archives are loaded with enormous efforts to resolve this dispute, covering a span of over one year. At the start of your response, please indicate whether "It's a generic term" should be treated as the mainstream view or the minority view per WP:WEIGHT. Also indicate whether the current version of the article should be retained, or reverted to the earlier version preferred by Australian editors that does not contain the "Concerns about quality" section, and removes all the counterfeiting cases that Deckers won. Thank you.

• Minority view. It's 145-2, with 110 undecided. I believe the current version of the article should be retained, with the "Concerns about quality" section, the counterfeiting cases Deckers won, and the four words, "a protected trademark or" in the article lede. Phoenix and Winslow (talk)
• I am involved. The efforts to use Wikipedia to promote the UGG trademark and UGG brand are exasperating, and have nothing to do with NPOV. We know Deckers owns the trademark "in 145 countries worldwide" (as the short lead says), and there is no reason to use an article about boots (see title Ugg boots) to hammer the reader with primary sources showing that Deckers has or has not won this or that legal battle. If it is notable, write an article on the UGG trademark legal issues, but please stop trying to use an article on boots to defend a company against counterfeiters and convicts down under (as I've asked on the talk page, please identify any text in the article that unduly promotes some interest and we can consider removing or rewording it). The Ugg boots#Concerns about quality section is a joke as it uses a pathetic puff piece from a space-filling entertainment show with zero reliability—the "review" consisted of pulling a few boots apart, and to no one's surprise, the significantly more expensive genuine boot was harder to pull apart! The source fails WP:RS, and the information is not encyclopedic. Johnuniq (talk) 07:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

"... please identify any text in the article that unduly promotes some interest and we can consider removing or rewording it." Unfairly attacking the leading company in an industry "unduly promotes" all its competitors, both lawful and unlawful. By creating an article that undermines and dilutes the worldwide legal rights of a company that is obeying the law, you are (intentionally or not) enabling those who victimize that company by breaking the law. The requirements of WP:WEIGHT are clear. There are 145 countries (including the 29 most populated countries) where "It's a brand name," and only two tiny countries where "It's a boot style." Wikipedia policy forbids us from presenting "It's a boot style" as the mainstream view. The "pathetic puff piece" was sufficiently reliable for all the Australian editors (including you) to accept it when the article said, "An Australian boot was highest quality." But now that the article more accurately says, "The American company's boot was the highest quality made of genuine sheepskin," suddenly you object to the reliability of the source. The testing was done by an independent consumer advocate; if necessary, we can identify the TV station that reported it as sensationalist in nature, but that doesn't make the testing itself unreliable. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• I'd have to agree with Phoenix and Winslow that the current version is best. I'm not sure that the Concerns about Quality section may need better referencing.MONGO 17:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I think Phoenix and Winslow is contending that the current version is not best. Can you clarify what you mean by 'current version'. Thanks. Donama (talk) 05:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• I am disturbed that a purely legal system influenced heavily by well-funded companies - trademark - is being used to identify what is fundamentally a social construct based on common usage. It's certainly one factor to consider but it definitely isn't the only one. ElKevbo (talk) 20:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you. Public perception is constantly being manipulated, everywhere we look in mass media, including the Internet. Look at the advertising banner across the top of this page. Click on it. You're being asked for a donation. In the process, there is an effort to alter your perception so that you will believe your donation will go to a good cause. Sadly, that is the world we live in; and we must be neutral narrators describing the world we are observing, not pining away for a better world without commercialization and mass media manipulation. Deckers has successfully manipulated public perception throughout most of the world, to identify "UGG" as a brand name. Do we deny it? Do we pretend it hasn't happened? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• Before making any comments, I want to be clear that P&W's request that we "state our nationality" is unreasonable. I am, however, involved in the discussions, and happy to acknowledge that.

Currently, there is an article on UGG Australia and another on Deckers Outdoor Corporation, both of which extensively discuss the UGG brand. There is a second part to the story, though: the style of boots, only identified as ugg boots, which originated in Australia and New Zealand. This isn't a case where a trademarked term became generic because of a failure to enforce the trademark, but where a previously-used term was trademarked after it had entered common usage. Thus it makes sense to acknowledge that there are two stories to tell: that of Deckers' and their UGG Australia brand, and the earlier and ongoing use of the term to describe a style of boots which originated in Australia, has particular cultural significance in Australian and New Zealand, and which is only properly identified under that name. To manage this we have used the multiple articles - in particular, one entirely about the brand, and a second article about the style, the latter of which acknowledges of the wider issues with the use of the term. Thus the Ugg boots article discusses the broader history, the trademark disputes where they are related to use of the term itself, and issues surrounding the boots in general, retaining balance by covering both Deckers' brand and the broader picture, and by using a hat note to link to the brand-specific article.

In regard to the two points raised by P&W above:

• With the court cases, the general consensus is that cases of counterfeiting UGG Australia boots belong in the UGG Australia article, as they are specific to one brand. However, cases which impinge on the use of the term itself belong in the Ugg boots article, as they refer to the broader style rather than a single example of that style. It is a difficult line to draw, but the approach has been to look for the use of "the generic term defence" in the court case.
• The problems raised with Concerns about Quality are the subject of an Talk:Ugg boots#RFC on Concerns about quality section, so raising them here while the RfC is ongoing feels a bit like forum shopping. However, the issue is that there is only one source being used, and that source is unreliable. Consensus looks to be to remove the section, with P&W as the main proponent to include it, but consensus is yet to be determined by a neutral party. - Bilby (talk) 01:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

You haven't discussed mainstream view and minority view per WP:WEIGHT, Bilby. What's your opinion on that question? Is "It's a boot style" the mainstream view? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this is a fringe issue, so no, I haven't discussed it. The question is how do we handle having a well known style, and a better known brand. The solution at the moment is to have an article solely devoted to the brand, an article devoted to the owner of the brand, and an article on the style which makes extensive mention of the brand. That seems to more than meet any weight concerns from the brand's perspective. - Bilby (talk) 03:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Who said anything about fringe? This is mainstream view and minority view per WP:WEIGHT. Minority is not fringe. Having one or two other articles related to this subject does not absolve us of our duty to deal with this specific subject in compliance with WP:WEIGHT. Does it? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

No "nationality" need be marginalized simply because they have a relatively smaller populace as compared to the U.S....just wanted to be clear on that issue. The WEIGHT of any article is based on what the reliable sources tell us...I'm thinking that Bilby is correct in his last comment but a simple clarification need be made in the independent articles so as to render single page views less confusing.--MONGO 05:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

It isn't Australia vs. US. It's Australia and New Zealand vs. 145 countries, including China, India, Russia, the US, Brazil, Indonesia, Pakistan, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Mexico, Philippines, Vietnam, Ethiopia, Germany, Egypt, Iran, Turkey, Thailand, the Congo, France, the UK, Italy, South Korea, South Africa, Myanmar, Colombia, Spain and the Ukraine. These are the 29 most heavily populated countries in the world. [14] Tanzania (Number 30) is the most heavily populated country in the world where Deckers does not own an UGG-related trademark. Tanzania is an impoverished country near the equator, it isn't exposed to Australian culture, and I doubt that very many people there wear imported sheepskin boots of any sort.

Skipping past Tanzania on the list of countries by population, countries 31-35 (Argentina, Kenya, Poland, Canada and Algeria) all have Deckers-owned "UGG" trademarks registered. Country 36 (Uganda) doesn't but, like Tanzania, it is an impoverished equatorial country that is not exposed to Australian culture. This pattern repeats all the way down the list. All of this is confirmed by reliable sources. It doesn't marginalize any nationality either, Mongo. That's simply how mainstream views vs. minority views are determined. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I am neither Australian nor American, and I have been involved in trying to build consensus towards a neutral article in place of the mess of unsubstantiated corporate mythology that sits in its place at the moment.

There are many matters which P&W has not seen fit to disclose here, such as his/her low-frequency edit-warring in attempting to keep the article in its current poor state (and, as a result of such edit warring, the article has been protected for the last month), but the most important factor to consider is this: This is an article about ugg boots. It is not an article about the Ugg Australia brand (which has its own article), nor is it an article about Deckers. It is reliably sourced that ugg boots were invented in Australia in the mid 1960s. P&W's contention that ugg boots were invented by an Australian emigrant to America in the 1970s is not sourced to anything more reliable than corporate mythology. Even the notion that the phrase "ugg boots" is trademarked in any country of the world other than America has never had a reliable source presented to back it up (when requested, all P&W could find was a free hosting site and a blog entry).

So, therefore, in the article about the generic ugg boot style, it is wholly appropriate for the mainstream view to be the reliably sourced description of ugg boots as a generic style invented in Australia in the 1960s. The alternative suggestion, being that ugg boots were invented in America in the 1970s, is sufficiently fringe that one would not be surprised to find a surrey underneath it.

Lastly there seems to be an unlovely streak of anti-Australian sentiment running through some of the contributions to the debate, in matters such as the description above of Australia being a 'tiny' country (Australia is in fact ten times the size of Texas), the statement recently on the talk page that Australians "are obviously associated with the various factories etc, linked to the Australian Sheepskin Association and EXTREMELY BIAS!" (sic), and the attitude shown here [15] towards an Australian editor against whom P&W seems to be pursuing an apparently unrelated feud. Daveosaurus (talk) 03:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

It's true that Dave isn't from Australia. He's from New Zealand, which shares the same culture and slang, and predictably the same beliefs about the phrase "ugg boots." Three reliable sources agree that Shane Steadman invented ugg boots, but that small point is a distraction. Australia is geographically ten times the size of Texas, but we're talking about population; and as population goes, Australia is ranked 52nd among nations of the world, and New Zealand is ranked 123rd. [16] The phrase "ugg boots" doesn't need to be trademarked since "UGG" is trademarked as a boot brand in so many countries. The Wall Street Journal is a supremely reliable source, and has reported that Deckers owns the trademark in over 100 countries. [17] The "blog entry" Dave disparages is the website of a well-known law firm. [18] An article about ugg boots, for over 98% of the countries of the world where the phrase is known, should be an article that is principally about the brand since in those countries, the phrase is understood to refer to the brand. We cannot allow the other 2% to determine content for the 98%. That's what WP:WEIGHT is about. Clearly, "it's a boot style" is the minority view and "it's a brand name" is the mainstream view worldwide, and the Ugg boots article should be structured accordingly. It isn't anti-Australian sentiment, Dave. It's pro-Wikipedia policy sentiment. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 05:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if "X is a Canadian so it is only natural he shares the exact same views as Y who is an American" would go down very well?Mandurahmike (talk) 21:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I am sure that was a rhetorical question but for those who are wondering.... um...not. At all. Even in the English-speaking parts of the country. Elinruby (talk) 03:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• I am not certain I follow all this, but for what it is worth, I have these thoughts: I do think it's a bit unreasonable to ask people their nationality. The fact that I am comfortable giving mine does not make this true of everyone, nor do I agree that this necessarily determines an editor's position. I will however say that I am a Canadian/British citizen who lives in the United States and that I have never touched any article about Ugg anything. Yes, I personally have heard of these boots as a brand. But there are many things I have not heard of. I think that weight may be the wrong argument to have about the situation though. If you already have three separate articles can you not handle the matter with a "for other uses see" notation? Or am I misunderstanding something? Seems like you have a) in Australia it's a boot b)a company has copyrighted the word outside of Australia and New Zealand, info on that discussion and c) a brand. An I correct in thinking that someone wants to edit a) to include bits of c)? I think there should be brief mention perhaps, with wiki links. It's not a matter of weight to my eyes so much as that if I understand the situation, there is already an article covering the material. And by the way, "Australians "are obviously associated with the various factories etc, linked to the Australian Sheepskin Association and EXTREMELY BIAS!" is not a productive comment ;) and to the best of my understanding a blog must, to be usable, have oversight by a news organization. Elinruby (talk) 11:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

"An I correct in thinking that someone wants to edit a) to include bits of c)?" No, what's happening here is the Australians and the New Zealander want to edit Article A to expel everything they find inconvenient to Article C. WP:WEIGHT is part of WP:NPOV, the most important policy at Wikipedia. It applies to all articles. Removing inconvenient material to Article C does not enable the editors of Article A to ignore this policy. And I repeat, it isn't a blog. It's the website of a respected law firm, and the material in question is independently confirmed by a separate source. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand how something in article a is inconvenient to article c. Elinruby (talk) 09:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Well that misunderstanding is the result of my unfortunate sentence structure. Here let me try it again. They want to remove from Article A any material they find inconvenient, and expel that inconvenient material to Article C. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I see. You may not like my answer then, as this is essentially what I propose, with modifications. I personally fail to understand the passion being expended here, but I am trying. What is the point of having extensive discussion of counterfeit and quality issues of a brand of boot on a page about a different topic? I think it should be mentioned with a link to another page for further information. See detailed proposal below. If it doesn't work for you, perhaps you could suggest another. Elinruby (talk) 07:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

If you go to the talk section for this article and note some of Phoenix & Winslow's comments about the importance of "protecting Deckers trademark rights" then the reasons for his zeal should become clear. I really don't think anyone looking to protect trademark rights needs to be editing Wikipedia.Mandurahmike (talk) 21:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

As far as weight goes, my point is that if the subject of an article is that "in these countries it's a style of boot" then this is the place to discuss the usage in those countries, not elaborate on all the other uses. Yes, there are a lot of other countries in the world. Other stuff exists. And if ugg is used differently in those countries and means a type of boat or banana or red-bottomed gorilla there, then that usage is also separate and if that usage is notable then it should get its own page. The other pages can be mentioned and linked to. This opinion supposes that there are in fact separate pages. (I keep saying that because I don't see why all this would cause a year-long argument if there are three pages.) As for the law firm, I dunno. I am being told that external links are generally not considered reliable. Respected they may be, but let me take a shot and ask if Deckers appears on their client list? Hmmm. Lawyers are advocates, by their nature. Not always objective. I am having my own struggles with this policy and disagree with the way it's gotten applied in the article I am working on, so possibly I am not the person to ask, but that is what I am hearing over in my corner on *that* topic. Elinruby (talk) 09:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Elinruby. User:Phoenix and Winslow wants to go much further than that. He wants Deckers financial details such as sales records etc mentioned and he wants almost every court case involving Deckers listed (see his first post above). He also wants the word generic removed from the article. Wayne (talk) 02:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

No, that is incorrect. I want one sentence, which already exists in the article mentioning how sales have increased 50-fold, to mention a dollar amount from the 1990s and a dollar amount from a few years ago to illustrate the growth. No further financial details, just total sales from two years. Wayne removed these dollar amounts just before the article was locked and I want them restored. I don't see the harm in that. Also, since "generic term" is trademark-related legal terminology (look at any government's IP website and you'll get confirmation of the fact very quickly), use of the phrase "generic term" should be limited to the trademarks discussion in this article. I'm not advocating removing it from the article entirely. I just want it limited to the trademark section to prevent confusion. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

ok, but is this in the page about the brand or about the style? If the style... well. I don't understand. But I made a proposal below and under it you would get a brief section for anything you think should be there as long as it doesn't enrage the other people, lol. Would that work for you? Elinruby (talk) 07:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Countering systemic bias

Elin, each article is required to obey Wikipedia policy. Whether we have two articles about ugg boots, or five articles, or 125 articles, each one must obey policy, including WP:NPOV and its subsection, WP:WEIGHT. "It's a generic term" cannot be made to appear to be the mainstream view. It is the minority view, just as the view that the Iraq War was just and good is a minority view worldwide. Each of the many articles exploring aspects of a single subject can explore nuances. Nuances about the origins of the term "ugg boot" and the boot style itself are thoroughly explored in this article, and I'm certainly not suggesting that coverage of such nuances should be diminished in any way. But each individual article, specifically this one, cannot make the minority view appear to be the mainstream view. WP:NPOV forbids it. Already, the entire first half of the article is dominated in an overwhelming manner by the minority view. Now the proponents of the minority view want to take over the second half of the article as well, removing evidence that "it's a brandname" is the mainstream view.

What we have here is the kind of systemic bias that the Wikiproject WP:CSB was intended to reduce: the subject matter has attracted a large group of editors from a particular demographic group, and they're all in agreement that the article should be edited in a manner that preserves and advances the culture of that demographic group at the expense of all others. If they were Americans rather than Australians, I suspect there would be a lot more Wikipedia editors taking my side in this dispute. See the Iraq War analogy below.

WP:WEIGHT states, "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." In terms of quantity of text, the minority view roughly equals the mainstream view in this article; but in terms of prominence of placement, the minority view overwhelms the mainstream view in both the lede and the body of the article. In both the lede and the body, the minority view gets prominent placement; and if the Australian and New Zealand editors have their way, there will be a little bit about the mainstream view tacked on at the end, almost appearing to be an afterthought. The solution should be obvious to everyone. We must follow the policy here, which represents the consensus of the entire Wikipedia community. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 07:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe you are mistaken when you say you are applying policy. You do not, I notice, say where YOU are from, but apparently it is neither Australia nor New Zealand. And we seem to be talking about an article about what the word ugg means in New Zealand and Australia. Why should an article about usage in certain cultures present its own topic as a minority opinion? It just needs to say that in country x y and z (somebody said there were others besides NZ/AU but I don't know what they are) ugg is a type of boot and then go on to discuss that. Elinruby (talk) 07:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

No, Elin. We have been instructed repeatedly that this article isn't just about "what the word ugg means in New Zealand and Australia." It's about what the word ugg means IN THE ENTIRE WORLD. Attempts to add "in Australia and New Zealand" to the hatnote have been repeatedly and vigorously reverted by editors from Australia and New Zealand. Since it is about what the word ugg means in the entire world, the mainstram view is that it's a brand name.The minority view is that it's a boot style. And weight needs to be apportioned in this article accordingly. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

No Phoenix and Winslow. The lead specifically states that the term is only generic in Australia and New Zealand so there is no need to repeat it in a hatnote, other than to promote Deckers. This article is about the style of boot not what the word "ugg" means. You have been pushing the it's about the brand name wheelbarrow for two years now and have lost numerous RFCs yet you continue to filibuster and keep bringing it up for new RFCs despite only getting support from socks and SPAs. You deliberately? get the article locked by edit warring for your version despite those edits still being the subject of an ongoing RFC and despite opposing editors refraining from editing at all apart from reverting you. You only came to this noticeboard because you were losing the latest RFC. Please stop your POV pushing and stop your constant misrepresentation of sources to support your cause. Two years of failing to gain consensus for your version should give you a clue and two years of your disruptive editing to promote Deckers is enough already. Wayne (talk) 01:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Wayne, if it's really an article about the boot style in Australia and New Zealand, the hatnote is the one place where that needs to be said the most. But as we've been told repeatedly, it's about the boot style IN THE ENTIRE WORLD. With the sole exception of Elinruby, who eems to support me only on the question of including specific sales figures, each and every one of the previously uninvolved editors on this paged in the RFC has supported me completely. The last two times the article was protected, the final edit before the protection was yours, and both were reverts — so your accusal that I am edit warring is a little amusing. Look past the army of Australians and New Zealanders who have migrated here from Talk:Ugg boots, and who dominated the RFCs there, and take a look at the previously uninvolved editors. I count five of them, and four of them support me 100%. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Again your post is manipulative. You said and have always maintained: "It's about what the word ugg means IN THE ENTIRE WORLD" not "the boot style IN THE ENTIRE WORLD" as you now claim which is a major difference. I find your denial of edit warring amusing. I may have made the last revert but it was reverting you repeatedly adding material against consensus that was still going through a RFC which is a violation of the WP policies you frequently claim to be the champion of. And why is an "army of Australians and New Zealanders" migrating here? because you tried to not only exclude those editors from participation but didn't have the good faith to leave a notification on the article talk page that the issue had been taken to a noticeboard. As for your claim that "four of [the five uninvolved editors] support [you] 100%," I just re-read the entire discussion and we have one editor partially supporting you, one new WP editor who seems not to understand what the issue is and three largely opposing your edits. Add the "army of Australians and New Zealanders" and the current consensus is nine rejecting your edits/one supporting your edits and one who supports some of your edits. By including your own vote that makes it 9/3 against you. The only reason you get any support at all is because uninvolved editors are not aware of how far you want to push the article into being a puff piece promoting Deckers. Wayne (talk) 10:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

That is what articles do. They discuss their topic. Not other topics.

Other topics may get a mention if they are relevant, and perhaps a link. I mean. If I write an article on, shall we say, the Green Party in the United States would you expect me to devote a majority of the article to the platform of the Republican party? And the Democrats, let's not forget the Democrats, they outweigh the Green Party too... but wait! Which is more mainstream?? And what if we give the Republicans 55% and the Democrats 45% because that is where the polls are, but something changes that ratio? Or do you think we should use Congressional seats? Stock market results? What is "mainstream"? In American politics doesn't it usually mean "people who agree with me"?

I proposed a solution and you don't like it. I am very sorry, but I do not have another one. Nor do I really care whether you go on to negotiate a peace with the other people on that page, frankly. I am dealing with a different piece of silliness over in my own corner and have absolutely no feelings about ugg boot traditions, standards or litigation. At all.

You are the one who wanted uninvolved editors, remember. It seems to me that my proposal gives you plenty of places to edit up a storm and portray the matter as you see it, but you insist inserting your views into a page about a related but different topic. Even supposing you can come up with some way to decide who is mainstream that isn't ridiculous on the face of it, doesn't doing this your way result in multiple pages that say pretty much the same thing?? I must be misunderstanding your position. This is not an invitation to explain it further. I have invested all the time I am willing to invest on this topic and will now take it off my watchlist.

I did mean to mention earlier that if there is already a percentage growth number on the ugg is a type of boot page (as there apparently is, although I am not sure why) then I see no harm in adding the numbers giving the range.

I'll also mention that the other people here seem to be at least willing to listen to one another and you, hmm, not sure. No doubt you think I am wrong, but you don't need to explain that to me either. Ta Ta. Elinruby (talk) 07:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

In regards to specific points raised by Phoenix and Winslow here. Deckers wanted IP Australia to provide a fact sheet that omitted the use of the word generic that was used frequently in the case. This is posted on Deckers website. Editors would like to use the original case transcript as the reference rather than the fact sheet. This is strongly opposed by Phoenix and Winslow who disingeniously often notes "So far, no court has ruled on the matter (ie generic status)" when in fact, courts do not rule on generic status at all but base each case on current public perceptions.
Regarding the "Concerns about quality" section. The original paragraph was brief, merely mentioning that uggs were generally made in China due to cost and that Chinese made uggs were found to be superior to Deckers and Australian made. This never had consensus and several editors wanted it removed due to the unreliability of the source. Phoenix and Winslow later expanded the paragraph, added brand names and gave it it's own section. Wayne (talk) 02:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'd like to see some mention of anyone from Australia or New Zealand complaining about the reliability of the source before last month, when Liangshan Yi (editing as an anon IP editor) expanded the description of the quality study. (I'm not the one who expanded it.) Provide a link or a diff please, to the pre-October discussion about the unreliability of Channel 7 as a source. The protests about the reliability of the source suddenly started after the section was expanded. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't do diffs on *my* account. I repeat, I'm just some other poor slob who wound up here with a dispute. Somebody may look at the diffs, but it won't be me :) Elinruby (talk) 07:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

While mention that the boots are counterfeited is relevant, details of each individual counterfeit case belong in the brand name article and/or the Deckers article not this one.
This is not a question of NPOV but forum shopping after the loss of an RFC. Apart from SPAs and socks, who have been a significant problem,[19][20][21][22] Phoenix and Winslow has been the only editor supporting these changes and the constant edit warring to promote Deckers over the last 12 months has led to the article being locked. Wayne (talk) 02:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Just so we are clear, I have zero authority on this page; I am here checking on my own issue, which probably seems as convoluted to you as this one does to me. But. If you really care about the opinion of someone who really knows very little about fashion much less brands of boots, I'll make an attempt to understand this. I suppose there is something to be said for fresh eyes (?) Let me ask this: this discussion concerns the page about the Australian use of the word for a type of boot? A), to use my labels above? If so then it does seem to me that court cases about counterfeits belong with b)copyrighting a word in use or c) the brand, probably the latter. It seems to me that an "other uses" redirect should be in use if it is not. Of course if there are not in fact three different pages, then I understand nothing and should probably refrain from commenting in utter ignorance. But assuming this is true can't the page about the australian/NZ usage have a (very) brief section titled "Ugg boots outside Australia/NZ" with wikilinks? And the other pages have corresponding links back? Elinruby (talk) 09:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

It is a good thought. I guess, though, that the problem is that there are three possible subjects. There is the particular brand, UGG Australia, which is owned by Deckers; the style of boots, of which Deckers is one of many manufacturers; and the cultural issues for the boots in Australia. At the moment, we have, as you identified, an article on Deckers, an article on UGG Australia, and an article on the boot style. The difficulty is that there is only one term which properly encompasses the style - "ugg boots" - which is the traditional term than was used prior to it being trademarked, and which is the only way of identifying the style. (There is a Sheepskin boots article now, but that encompasses a range of sheepskin footwear). Accordingly, the article on the style uses Ugg boots. Any discussion of Australian issues is included there at the moment, but even if we spun off that discussion, it would still seem reasonable to have an article on the style itself.

The problem we face is the push to have the Ugg boots article focus predominately on UGG Australia and issues around Deckers' defence of their trademark. Some coverage is important, as it would be seriously remiss for the article not to mention the best known brand. Where we are having difficulty is that a couple of editors, predominately Phoenix and Winslow, wish to focus more on the brand and less on the style in general, and seem to feel that the current tone of the article is more directed to the style and doesn't provide enough emphasis on Deckers. Others, myself included, wish to focus more on general issues, and less on those that face the particular brand. Hence the due weight concerns. The general consensus was to discuss UGG Australia in mostly general term while acknowledging their impact on the growth of the popularity of the brand and thus their historical role, and only cover court cases where they had a broad impact. This meant leaving specific counterfeiting cases of Deckers' shoes to the UGG Australia article unless they had a broader impact, and limiting the coverage of Deckers-specific information. - Bilby (talk) 11:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• I am involved in the ugg boots article. I respect that the purpose of this discussion is to obtain a NEUTRAL perspective on whether "ugg boots" is a style of boot or merely a brand of boot. As an editor of the page, I understand I'm not deemed neutral (much as Phoenix and Winslow is not neutral). Nevertheless, I'll still point out that ugg boots are definitely a style of boot which preceded the brand by many years, as demonstrated by references on the ugg boots page. To deny this is not propagating a minority view - it's just a fact, for which abundant evidence exists. I would contend that to view ugg boots as merely a brand constitutes a strong commercial bias that's well out of line with the aims and principles of Wikipeda. Donama (talk) 05:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

right, I think the AU/NZ usage deserves mention. If I understand this discussion, there are three different pages and the one we are talking about is the one about the style of boot, ie the AU/NZ usage. Please confirm that this is the case. If not my answers would be different (and might include a suggestion that you consider separate pages....) Elinruby (talk) 09:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Then have Ugg boot as a diambig and link it to the three articles. One re-titled “Ugg boot style in the antipodes.” With that article only discussing the boot in Australia and New Zeeland. Slatersteven (talk) 12:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem being that the style doesn't only exist in Australia and New Zealand. The style of boots are available internationally from manufacturers based in multiple countries, including China, the UK and the US. The current article isn't about the style in Australia - it is about the style itself, and mentions the Australian origins, but isn't limited to that. - Bilby (talk) 13:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

ok. Remember, I know nothing at all about any of this. That was shorthand. The "boot style" page maybe?

Yes, but if it was resticted to only the fact that then it would avoid this issue. At the end of the day we seem to have a number of articels that discuse (at length) the same material.Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this is a problem, and it has been raised before. The difficulty is that the push has been to make every article that mentions ugg boots into something primarily about Deckers. I'm not sure how dropping the article about the style is going to be a fix to that. Ideally, I'd like to see the trademark dispute as either something on ugg boots or a separate article, with counterfeiting cases on UGG Australia, and UGG Australia having a brief summary and a link to that trademark dispute. The current repetition of content doesn't seem viable to me, either. Maybe I should be bold and see how it pans out. - Bilby (talk) 20:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion:

• Page one, titled Ugg(boot style). I personally find this interesting and if it's something about which two whole countries can have cultural controversies then it's notable. Covers ugg style boots in whatever country, any cultural issues(?) etc. Uses a creation story for the boot that is acceptable to the boot style people. Must mention alternate version, briefly. Final word to the people who feel that boot style is the proper usage. P&W gets to write say three sentences/sixty words max about the brand *in Australia and New Zeland and anywhere else it's been a boot styel* which must be acceptable to the editors working here. Disambiguation at the top.
• Page two, titled Ugg(copyright issues) This is the one I'd like to read one day. About problems caused by copyright of word in daily use. Litigation about that. Distinguish from Kleenex for example. Compare to anything comparable, like one-click shopping cart, maybe, or Blackboard (?) This is where the fights will be. If necessary go to paragraphs of two sentences ie "so and so says this (ref).On the other hand, so and so says this (ref)." Writing would probably be smoother if you can allocate out sections instead ;P I have no idea whether the word is or is not copyrighted in Australia, you'll have to duke that one out or get another opinion on that. If it it's an issue and there have been lawsuits the boot style page should mention it in as dispassionate a manner as possible.Disambiguation at the top.
• Page three, Ugg Australia(company), covers history of the company, gets to give its own genealogy of the branded boot but must mention the existence of the boot style. This probably best done in a separate section written by boot style people with the same constraints as P&W has on the boot style page. P&W and/or other brand people must agree with it however reluctantly. Disambiguation at the top.

• Page four(?) Decker page, or is this on Ugg Australia? Final word to Decker advocates, but must contain brief mentions of other versions of events, histories, lawsuits, etc. Must be acceptable to all parties.

Or, if I am full of it, just tell me to go away and I will. No, I do not think you need to have three pages that all cover all of that in some proportionate amount of coverage to population or land mass or anything else if that is what you have :) if you all have equally time and energy wouldn't you wind up with three identical pages? I'm from a small culture myself more or less (a couple really) and think (in my utter ignorance of all things Ugg) that if something is about culture and tradition then it is separate from whatever aspect of that culture got copyrighted (or not) and the people who copyrighted it (or not), and whether this did or did not happen, or should have. The *size* of the culture doesn't matter. Notability of the cultural icon is what matters. I think.

But maybe the above or some modification of it can be agreed upon by at least some of you from each of the various warring factions? You could have your own mosaic, your own easter accord, lol. (obscure cultural references, no worries..) And of course it won't be enforceable because really, any of you can write anything you want on any page at all. But that doesn't mean you should... Elinruby (talk) 04:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of WP:NPOVN

For the benefit of Johnuniq, Bilby, Daveosaurus and any other Australians and New Zealanders who choose to join them: the purpose of NPOVN is to get outside opinions on the POV question, not to carry the endless debate from Talk:Ugg boots to yet another forum. I'm seeking editors who are previously uninvolved. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you get to tell them not to comment. At least, in the discussion on my post below, the other editor comments and comments and comments ;P Elinruby (talk)

I concour. Nor is it valid to debar anyone based upon nationality.Slatersteven (talk) 12:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

of course, that doesn't mean that you *should* comment or that you won't look like an ass if you do... not that I am saying that any of you fine people do. Just saying, remembering other arguments in other places. But no, I think the nationality thing was a bit silly and rather rude as well. I actually think I am somewhat less qualified to propound on the subject than what the bunch of you would probably get if everyone concerned got together and picked straws for someone to just decide this. But eh, in programming they have this thing they call fresh eyes. If any of the above helped, then great. I have participated mainly out of amused fascination with the concept that people have beliefs about boots and alternate timelines concerning them, and argue for a year over this. But then, green chile would no doubt baffle you, let alone arguments about signage on Chinese restaurants, giggle. Seriously, hope that helps a bit. Bye bye now. I am not going to look at the pages lest I get sucked into this, but I'll look one day and see what you did. Elinruby (talk) 04:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't tell them not to comment. I simply want to make it clear that I am seeking previously uninvolved editors for a fresh perspective. The fact that all AU/NZ editors seem to be going one way, and all other editors seem to be going the other way is significant. Let me draw an analogy. How would all of you feel if a large group of American editors who voted for George W. Bush started editing Iraq War and made it into a jingoistic, "Stars and Stripes Forever" article? The American Bush voters, by sheer virtue of their numbers, have consensus and throw their weight around, removing anything negative about the war (such as evidence of war crimes by American troops, and any mention of criticism or the anti-war movement) to other articles such as Criticism of the Iraq War and Opposition to the Iraq War. In effect, they make it appear in the Iraq War article as though the war proceeded without a hitch and without controversy, and that the pro-war position was the dominant one throughout the world. Would that be a good result for Wikipedia? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

well if the page is about "ugg is a traditional style of boot" and Australia and New Zealand is where this statement is true, isn't that kind of natural? If I were working on the page for Quebec I'd expect to find people who think it's a country, joke about tuques and skidoos and do their shopping in Plattsburg. And they would be annoyed if you insisted on inserting PePe LePew into the article, if that helps you see the way I am understanding this. As for your Iraq war analogy, ok. But what if there was a page about the theory that Iraq was the tipping point for the arab spring, another that dealt strictly with military events, a third that dealt with Guantanamo and a fourth that talked about the peace movement? Taken together, four perspectives that give more nuanced coverage than one article that's been edit warred to death, and nobody has to argue which perspective is more right or important. Heck, you could make it a portal, and I am sure somebody has.....Elinruby (talk) 07:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Since Phoenix and Winslow got to post a wall of text about his views on the issue I think it's only fair that his opposition from that entry clear up their own positions so the neutral editors are privy to all the information in reaching conclusions of their own, surely? (I know you aren't saying it isn't - I am merely contributing my view at this juncture) -- To wish to prevent us from commenting here reeks of an attempt to gain "consensus" on his own terms where he has previously and repeatedly failed (not that that prevented him from editing, regardless).Mandurahmike (talk) 22:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I have no authority to tell anyone to do anything. But coming here with a dispute has been instructive in that it allows an insight into Other People's Problems, is what I was referring to. And mostly they are incomprehensible ;) Just saying that this sort of brawl mainly just leaves other people wide-eyed. The above discussion has been responded to point by point so many times that *I* can't really follow the flow, and I was in it. If there is no consensus still then a fresh entry might increase your chances of further intelligent comment, tho I am not sure whether the rules allow this. But it seems as though this is a place to voluntarily work toward consensus and you can't do that if someone just says no you are wrong. I am not sure what your next best step might be. The dispute resolution board maybe? Good luck. Elinruby (talk) 03:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so I am from the United States. I know the Ugg name as a Brand Name... and I have bought two pair based on that premise. If it's just a "style" of boot, then there is something "AMUCK!" It's being sold here as a brand name, currently. I think it's being sold as a brand all around the world, actually. No, it's not considered a generic term at all. Otherwise they would be called ugg-style boots (note the lower-case "u"). I do like reading about the history that a woman called them UGLY and that's how they got their name! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristieSwitz88001 (talk • contribs) 05:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC) Signed ChristieSwitz88001 until I get a formal "signature!" ChristieSwitz88001 (talk) 05:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I really disagree with Bilby's assertion that term was previously used. There are a myriad of safeguards to prevent common words from being trademarked. Moreover, no one has provided any evidence that the word was in common use across Australia when the mark was registered in 1971. Quoting the government fact sheet, "Based on information available at the time, the UGH marks were found to be suitable for registration and in the absence of any successful opposition actions were subsequently registered."[23] Furthermore, both the actual decision of the register in 2006 and Fact Sheet clearly state that the mark registered in 1971 was removed for non-use. So objectively speaking, this is an issue of a mark that was legitimately registered and then was removed for failure to use that mark in a 5 year period.

Even the Macquarie dictionary recognized the "ugg boot" to be a proprietary term. Given these facts, there is no way to assert that the term has always been common.

On a broader level, I find it very telling that no one in Australia objected or raised concerns until 2003 when Deckers began to see great increases in profits. Overnight, the sheepskin boot was transformed from an embarrassment to an icon. The subsequent trademark dispute, in my opinion has become a large part of this story and it has been treated as such since the inception of the Wikipedia entry.

As for what to do going forward, we must confront the question of scope. Is this international or is this nation-specific? Even if the term was considered generic (which the facts do not even support), that perception certainly only exists within Australia and New Zealand. There is no dispute that the term is a registered trademark outside of these countries, and therefore by definition, it is not generic Further, there have been countless cases outside of these two countries where challengers have formally asserted that the term was generic and in every case, the court has found that the term was not generic. I'm not sure how any reasonable mind could argue that the term is generic outside of these two countries given these facts.

The "ugg boots" article should be renamed "ugg boots in Australia and New Zealand." This is what the article is about, and the title should reflect that.--Factchk (talk) 16:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Factchk who obviously doesn't.

• There are NO "myriad" safeguards to prevent common words from being trademarked. The process is as follows: IP Australia accepts the word of the applicant (ie:Deckers) that they own the trademark (sub-section 27 of the Trade Marks Act I995 - quote: "the person claims to be the owner of the trade mark") and accepts the mark (sub-section 44 of the Trade Marks Act I995). IP Australia then announces the application in their trade journal and if no one objects in the next three months the mark is officially registered. How many people would purchase the trade mark trade journal?

• A generic term can be registered if the trade mark in it's entirety (term + logo) is designed so that the product can be distinguished from marks used for similar goods (sub-section 41 of the Trade Marks Act I995). Opposition to registration of a trademark can not be made on the grounds of generic use alone, the trademark in it's entirety must be considered (Part 5 Division 2 of the Trade Marks Act I995).

• From the original court transcript (Page 10): "The evidence overwhelming supports the proposition that the terms UGH BOOT(S), UG BOOT(S) and UGG BOOT(S) are interchangeably used to describe a specific style of sheepskin boot and are the first and most natural way in which to describe these goods which should innocently come to the minds of people making this particular style of sheepskin boot. The terms thus lack any inherent capacity to distinguish the particular goods. The Yellow Pages®, Internet, magazine and dictionary uses of these terms make it quite clear that these terms are generic...The [trademark] registration should not therefore be viewed as conferring rights in the generic term, or terms, from which it is derived. The uses of these generic terms by the opponent are not, therefore, uses of [Deckers] registered trade mark."

• Rather than the false claim that "the Macquarie dictionary recognized the "ugg boot" to be a proprietary term" supports your view, the true case is that the Macquarie dictionary and the Oxford English Dictionary both originally listed the definition of the term "ugg boot" as a generic term for the style. The Macquarie changed it's definition in 2003 to avoid litigation after Deckers threatened them with legal action and the Oxford changed theirs in 2006 after Deckers sent them a letter requesting they change the definition to recognise their trademark.

• Rather than the false claim that "no one in Australia objected or raised concerns until 2003 when Deckers began to see great increases in profits," the true case is that no one objected until 2003 when Deckers sent letters from their lawyers telling Australian manufacturers to stop using the word ugg.

I find it rather strange that you keep making claims that have been discredited in previous discusions. Do you read Talk at all? Wayne (talk) 02:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually Wayne I do check my facts.

1. As per IP Australia, both the fact sheet and the decision itself relate the following: “In this case the Registrar determined that the trade mark had not been used in Australia within the three year period ending 30 November 2003 and was therefore removed from the register as of 22 February 2006.” [24] This is a removal for non-usage of the mark. Had Deckers slapped that particular mark on a pair of boots and sold them in Australia in 2002, it never would have been removed.

2. The Macquarie dictionary in its revised edition of 1985(over ten years before Deckers acquired the mark) had a listing for “ugh boot” which read as follows: “ugh boot, n. a fleecy-lined boot with an untanned upper. Also ug boot, ugg boot. [Trademark]” You can view it here[25].--Factchk (talk) 16:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly, the Trademark Act was amended in 1996. Deckers trademark would not have been accepted for registration under the new amendment (sub-section 61 of the Trade Marks Act I995). Wayne (talk) 02:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The Macquarie Dictionary makes no mention of trademarks whatsoever in the ugg boots "entry - ugg boot - noun a boot with an upper made from sheepskin with the fleece tanned into the skin, the fleece being on the inside of the boot and the leather on the outside. Also, ug boot, ugh boot. [origin uncertain; ? shortened form of ugly boot]". It is absolutely ridiculous that we have people here trying to assert that there is "no proof" the term was ever generic when there are countless references to the word in generic contexts which have been proven time and again from decades prior to Deckers. To claim otherwise is to become a mouthpiece for a corporate mythology that wants to claim their "ugg boots" are the original deal, imbuing them, by proxy, with concepts of being the greatest quality amid the "knock-offs". While this may be shrews business sense, it's not the version of reality we should seek to present on Wikipedia - The reader should be presented with all the facts and be able to piece together the exact situation with the provided information. Swallowing the generic term under a tsunami of corporate lore weakens the article. The only interests being served by trying to erase the existence of the very real generic usage of the term are those of Deckers and their bottom line. People who seek to be fully educated about the truth and history of ugg boots get the shaft. Fighting to weasel out of acknowledging the generic origins (and continued genericism) of the boot does little more than exacerbate the situation of ignorance which allowed a generic term to be trademarked in the first place.Mandurahmike (talk) 17:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Mike, the Macquarie Dictionary labeled "ugh boots" as a trademark in 1985 [26], over a decade before Deckers had any interests in the brand. Its not a matter of "corporate lore," its a matter of public record.--Factchk (talk) 19:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Factchk, I hope you noted in that entry the word "ALSO" before the part that said "ugg boot trademark" - This is NOT the Macquarie Dictionary "labeling ugh boots as a trademark" it's acknowledging the existence of an "Ugg Boots (TM)" in ADDITION to the generic term. The key word here is ALSO. You'll also surely remember the court decision which stated that it should never have been made a trademark and the fact that Macquarie no longer even lists this as one of its alternate definitions. No one here is arguing for a second that someone trademarked "ugg/ugh/ug boots" in Australia at some stage before being removed due to being a generic term. I'd fully support the dictionary re-adding the "Ugg Boots [Trademark]" alternate definition since I seek to give readers information about ALL the definitions of ugg boots. I presume, since you're citing this entry which clearly recognises a generic term by only including the trademark as an alternate meaning, you'll be supporting the proposal to create a few "ALSO" articles here on Wikipedia so the other definitions aren't swamped by the Deckers one as they are now?Mandurahmike (talk) 17:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Mike, you’re only reading what you want to. If you look at that entry it does not say “Also Trademark,” it says “Also ug boot, ugg boot. [Trademark].”[27] The “also” refers to the alternate spellings, same as they do in any dictionary. The acknowledgement of the trademark status of “ugh boot” in 1985 makes it clear to me that it was a recognizable brand in Australia at that time. Now how the usage changed over time, what others uses were available in the 80’s is certainly open. But nonetheless you cannot claim that “ugg is and always has been a generic term.” That’s arguing for the same exclusivity that you find repulsive from Deckers.

Furthermore, you again persist in this notion that the original 1971 mark was dismissed because it was generic. That requires me to once again refer you to the IP Australia fact sheet which states explicitly that the mark was removed because it had not been used in Australia within a particular 5 year period.

I think I see why you are confused about this manner. The delegate of IP Australia stated in 2006 that the evidence supported that similar terms were used descriptively. I don’t disagree with that. In Australia as of the present, similar terms are used descriptively to refer to a type of boot and not exclusively a brand.

At no point in that sentence, however, did the delegate state that the mark was invalid BECAUSE it was used descriptively. At no point whatsoever in the decision did the delegate state that the present use of the term made the mark invalid. This is backed up by the IP Australia Fact Sheet which stated explicitly that only the court has the right to determine if a mark is generic the court has not ruled as such.[28]

Therefore, given these facts, it ought to be crystal clear that the mark was removed for non-use.--Factchk (talk) 19:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

It's you who are reading only what you want. The dictionary provides alternate examples of how the word MAY APPEAR - the trademarked example being one of them. The entry clearly refers to a generic style and no amount of skirting around the definition will change that. I also find it increasingly ridiculous the way you are claiming something that anyone who lived in Australia during the past 50 years would refute, as though you know better. If "ugg" was a "recognisable brand" in Australia EVER, don't you think Deckers would have been able to prove this and save the need for their court defeats in Australia? I mean, surely they just need to find a pair of, advertisement for, reference to this "recognisable brand" of which you speak? So, we've got several letters which were later removed from the dictionary backing the concept of trademark (amid other definitions and spellings) against hundreds, if not thousands of examples of the term being used generically in advertising, common parlance, and in the media for decades as well as the anecdotal evidence of anyone who grew up in Australia and owned a pair of ugg boots. I know when I had my first pair circa 1980, purchased from a stall at the Wanneroo Weekend Markets in Perth, I was only calling them their naturally and only name - "ugg boots" - The attempts here to make it sound as though the generic use is somehow similar to the way Americans use "Kleenex" and "Hoover" is nothing but an attempt to blot out the history of the boots in favour of history according to Deckers. This is why the Deckers point of view has been resoundingly defeated in every discussion on the main talk page for ugg boots and in various forum shopping forays such as this one. Again, Wikipedia is not here to present corporate truth, it's here to present the real truth. It is not here to pick up on technicalities and offer factoids to cling to a position by citing a lack of absolute, 100% proof, even where this clearly exists. If you can offer me just one example from 1985 or earlier of some "ugg TM" products pre-dating Deckers and from Australia I will cede your point. Surely if the "brand" was so "recognisable" it shouldn't be too difficult, right?Mandurahmike (talk) 22:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to settle this... I bought a pair of Ugg slippers. It has a trademark stamped across the instep so that everyone can see it. Genuine UGG with a trademark symbol. So "Ugg" is the brand name... and that's why I bought them. Their popularity got so vast because of the trademark... and the quality that goes with that name. NOT some "ugly" and "similar" footwear that is synthetic. ChristieSwitz88001 (talk) 10:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC) ChristieSwitz88001 (talk) 11:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Much of what has been talked about is irrelevant. Stop looking at the needles on the pine on the tree that's in your face(s). Step back and look at the entire picture, and the reason "Ugg boots" was listed as an article. It was not an independent article based on some generic style of boot. It was to explain the great brand of footwear that originated in Australia. Sure, there are common off-shoots from it that are generic. But the focus of the article should be about the 'ORIGINAL BRAND and QUALITY that the world has come to know and love (or hate, depending on personal view)! K.I.S.S. ChristieSwitz88001 (talk) 11:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC) ChristieSwitz88001 (talk) 11:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The ugg brand has it's own article. Editors wanting to promote a particular brand should disrupt edit the appropriate article. Wayne (talk) 15:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• Shouldn't Wikipedia wait for a legal request from Deckers before deciding that it is necessary to refactor an article in order to avoid damaging their trademark? I would welcome the removal of any incorrect information (does any text suggest Deckers does not own the trademark?), but see no reason to add a bunch of synthesis by listing legal cases to make some point, particularly when that point has very low encyclopedic value for the topic (it's an article on a style of boots—it's not an article on trademark or legal issues). The reason I keep watching this article is that I oppose the use of Wikipedia to unduly promote commercial interests—Deckers can look after themselves without using Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 11:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

We're not making a point. That would violate WP:POINT. Our goal is, and your goal should be, compliance with WP:NPOV in this article. Forget about all other articles according to WP:STUFF. Concentrate on this article please. How does removal of the "Concerns about quality" section, removal of the counterfeiting cases, and heavy emphasis on "It's a generic term" in the lede and the first half of the article make this article comply with WP:WEIGHT? I look forward to your explanation. Liangshan Yi (talk) 23:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The "concerns about quality" section is sourced from an Australian current affairs programme with about as much credibility as The National Enquirer. Its inclusion is cherry-picking of the highest order. The counterfeiting section has nothing to do with the subject matter and is only included to seemingly discredit people who call their boots ugg boots who aren't Deckers (since the counterfeiting issues are about copying Deckers designs, they do not belong there at all). Oh, and by "heavy emphasis on the generic term in the lead" I assume you mean "it being mentioned at all" - because that's basically what you've got there right now. A few words about the generic concept. Of course this article should be weighted toward the generic term because that -- is -- what -- the -- article -- is -- about! We already have articles about Ugg Australia and Deckers Outdoor Corp. Here we go arguing the same old thing again in yet another of Phoenix & Winslow's forum-shopping expeditions.Mandurahmike (talk) 17:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Forget about the articles about Ugg Australia and Deckers Outdoor Corp. because "other stuff exists" and WP:STUFF requires us to ignore it. "Other stuff" does not excuse an NPOV violation in this article. The counterfeiting cases include use of a generic defense. The consensus on the article Talk page is that the generic defense makes these cases relevant to this article, since this article is about what? The generic term. If there was a counterfeiting case in the United States where the generic defense was used successfully, and this expanded the use of the generic term by force of law, I am completely certain that you would want to include it. So these counterfeiting cases are relevant to illustrate the limitations of the generic term and its lawful use. If the quality section is cherry picking, and the source is unreliable, why did you (and all the other Australian editors) fail to object to them during the months they were in the article before I expanded them? And if it is "cherry-picking of the highest order," again, why did you fail to object for so many months, and where is the "basket of cherries," so that we can pick another "cherry" that is more to your liking? Liangshan Yi (talk) 15:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• "It's a generic term" is the minority view. The ratio of 145:2 defines it as a minority view under WP:WEIGHT, even if we ignore population. If we study population, the ratio would be approximately 150:1. Arguments about other factors are a distraction, and possible a deliberate diversion. For nearly all the people of the world who have heard the word "ugg" and have an understanding of its meaning, "ugg" refers to a brand name. This is true not only in the United States, but also Europe, Canada, India, Indonesia and the Far East. The weight provided to each view in this article should be apportioned with these facts in mind. The amount of space, the wording of the lede, and the positions of the paragraphs supporting each view are all factors in determining weight. Currently "it's a generic term" dominates the lede and occupies the first half of the article. This is an enormous amount of weight. Editors from Australia and New Zealand, rather than correcting this problem, want to make it even worse by removing material that supports "it's a brand name." I encourage new people in this discussion to carefully consider the cultural bias of these editors, and apportion weight to their arguments accordingly. Seeking the nationality of editors may seem inappropriate, but for the limited purpose of the inquiry about cultural bias, it is appropriate. Liangshan Yi (talk) 20:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
• It appears to rather pointless join this discussion a week after was started even though I've been a long term contributor to the article, I wasnt aware of this "discussion" taking place, by excluding those editors it created a bias, after reading all the crap above nothing has changed, all of the above arguements are in the talk page of the article. The problem is that while Deckers uses the "Australia" in its brand name it wishes to have no mention anywhere on the internet that the orgins of the style is from Australia. To this end its spent countless millions of dollars in legal actions, yet where the stye originate the term was ruled as generic by IP Australia, the ruling itself allows for parties to challenge the ruling to the Federal court within 30 days otherwise the ruling is ratified by the Federal court which is what happened. Somewhere in all of this meaningless discussion was a suggestion(appologies to the editor who suggested it for not crediting but I cant find the dif, found it thx Elinruby) for Ugg boot (style), Ugg boot (trademark disputes) Ugg Australia Deckers Outdoor Corporation each given weight to its individual subject matter and each having a breif mention of the other with all linked from Ugg Boot as a disambiguation, thats not an unreasonable solution. Gnangarra 23:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that may be the best solution although from the previous misrepresentation of the trademark disputes by Deckers SPAs and meatpuppets I expect the edit warring would simply move to the Ugg boot (trademark disputes) article. On the plus side, it would be much easier to expose biased interpretation of sources in a dedicated article. Wayne (talk) 01:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Solution?

Several editors have suggested a solution. As this is the only arguement that has had support from both involved and non-involved editors it should be voted/commented on.

Suggestion:

1. Ugg boots article be renamed Ugg boots (style)
2. An Ugg boot (trademark disputes) article be created
3. A disambiguaton page be created for Ugg/Ugg Boot/Ugg boots that contains links to Ugg boots (style), Ugg boot (trademark disputes), Ugg Australia and Deckers Outdoor Corporation

• Support or keep existing - Two years of arguing with SPAs who have lost more than a dozen RFCs on the same dispute needs to end. Wayne (talk) 01:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Wayne, I would like to see links to these "more than a dozen" RFCs that were allegedly "lost." So far, I count only one that was properly filed. Yours was not, and that would make only two. Without being properly filed, how can uninvolved editors become aware of them and participate? Liangshan Yi (talk) 13:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Only one was a "proper" RFC. The Deckers editors rejected the others because none ran for 30 days which wasn't considered neccessary at the time because the consensus was so overwhelmingly against them. The RFC guideline is not fixed policy so the other discussions are still legitimate consensus building discussions, ignoring them is simply philibustering. I point out that many uninvolved editors have taken part in the page over the years. Wayne (talk) 00:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Then there was only one RFC, not "more than a dozen." Please stop lying, Wayne. Liangshan Yi (talk) 04:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

As a new user with a total of 19 edits, you may not be aware that Wikipedia is not like the rest of the Internet: suggesting that another editor is lying is regarded as a personal attack and is prohibited (see WP:NPA). Everyone is assumed to be mature, so occasional flare ups occur, but repeated attacks result in blocks. If you think an editor is mistaken, just say so. Johnuniq (talk) 09:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

As I said above. There was only one RFC and around a dozen consensus building discussions which the pro-Deckers editors lost. Please read what people write. Wayne (talk) 12:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• I'm happy with this approach. I don't think it will solve anything by itself, so much as redistribute the problems, but that would make it easier to tackle them and allow each article to better focus on their core issue. - Bilby (talk) 02:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• Highlighting Bilby's Support here so it's easier to see.Mandurahmike (talk) 22:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. This solution goes in the wrong direction. This article should be merged with UGG Australia. False accusations of SPA and sockpuppet status have been repeated here constantly and do not contribute to a positive climate. Such accusations belong on the pages created for such purposes. Wayne knows where those pages are, but he doesn't know how to start an RFC properly; so that alleged RFC wasn't "lost." Make your allegations on the appropriate pages, where they will be declared "unlikely" again by Checkuser. Liangshan Yi (talk) 07:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• Strongly Support The "Make it all about Deckers" brigade hasn't had anything approaching a consensus in the two and a bit years I have been editing the article. while the other position has consistently produced strong simple majorities. It's time to end the forum shopping and solve the fact that these articles have been going nowhere for years. There's no question of undue weight if items which are, at their very heart, different concepts have their own entries with very limited mentions of the other entries ---where appropriate--- without it turning into the situation we have now where we have three articles about Deckers. If we to merge "ugg boots" into "Ugg Australia" as the opposing editor above suggests, we would be changing Wikipedia to conform to the corporate myth that Deckers products, and only Deckers products are ugg boots. WEIGHT is not a question when the style and the brand have their own articles -- all we need to do is make it clear that this article is about the STYLE and the other is about the BRAND. Cutting out a lot of the Deckers-related overkill on this article would go a long way to such disambiguation.Mandurahmike (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• Also, Liangshan Yi, you'll have to excuse us for some level of wariness over socking/meating because there have been cases of proven sockpuppetry and also some possible cases in the past and this entry does seem to attract a bizarre amount of brand new Wikipedians who immediately begin composing elaborate talk page posts supporting Deckers, citing wikipedia guidelines etc as though they were old hands who had long been involved in both the article in question and Wikipedia in general.Mandurahmike (talk) 17:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I was previously known as 63.171.91.193 and other IP addresses. I have even had another account for a brief period in 2010, but lost the password. Previously, my "single purpose" for more than a year was editing the Liangshan Yi Autonomous Prefecture article. As you can see, I have many more than 19 edits and I am an "old hand," not a "brand new Wikipedian." Liangshan Yi (talk) 21:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• See here. Pro-Deckers editors that have been confirmed as sockpuppets: Linda1997, Bigdog2828, Barclaygla09, Illume1999 and Youngteacher. Likely SPAs on this article: Middlemarch2256, Cowboysforever, Factchk, 63.171.91.193[29] (Liangshan Yi) and Phoenix and Winslow. Wayne (talk) 00:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes I have repeatedly seen there and I encourage you to read at the bottom, the Checkuser finding of "Unlikely." Please stop lying about that and other elements of this discussion, Wayne. Liangshan Yi (talk) 04:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The following is quoted from the finding of the Checkuser administrator, Tnxman: "The two named accounts [Liangshan Yi and Cowboysforever] plus P&W are all  Unlikely to be related to each other. Looking back (and correct me if I'm wrong), it was never established that P&W had any alternate accounts. There were some possible matches, but nothing concrete. There are accounts tagged as P&W, but I'm can't see why." I ask you again, Wayne. Please stop lying about this. Liangshan Yi (talk) 05:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I never accused you of being a sock. I said you were likely a SPA,  Unlikely only applies to the sock investigation. As I said above, please read what people write. Wayne (talk) 12:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

See my remarks above. As you are aware, I previously edited as 63.171.91.193. I also edited using other IP addresses and I also had an account briefly, before I lost the password. If I am an SPA or meatpuppet, my "single purpose" was editing the article about Liangshan Yi Autonomous Prefecture. Combining the work from IP addresses and my previous account, I have been working on that article for more than a year, while I have only worked on Ugg boots for a little more than a month. The proof is readily apparent in my contribution history for 63.171.91.193 and in my contribution history for my current account. Please withdraw your accusation, Wayne. Liangshan Yi (talk) 21:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. Editing another article does not invalidate the claim. See here. Wayne (talk) 23:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Editing another article for a year, and then editing this article for one month (in which editing of the article was blocked for almost the entire period), invalidates the claim with respect to this article. Liangshan Yi (talk) 01:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Editing an article on two days five months apart is hardly editing another article for a year. 63.171.91.193 made only 3 edits prior to June 2011 when it made 17 edits to the Prefecture article in a single day. The account was then dormant until October 4 when it became a SPA on this article. The Liangshan Yi account then took over on November 6 as a SPA on this article. Wayne (talk) 13:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose “Ugg (Registered trademark)” footwear should be the primary article with headings of:

I)Genuine Ugg (Registered trademark) footwear

A) History

1) How Ugg started

2) Trademark disputes - with appropriate links to other Trademarks

II) Generic ugg-STYLE boots

I really don't care for the idea of titling the article "Ugg boots" because Ugg brand could easily come out with other Ugg Products. Currently Ugg has not only boots, but slippers. So that could be discussed under "Genuine Ugg Footwear."

The "Generic ugg-style boots" (or whatever) would best be discussed, with appropriate links, within a separate heading.

ChristieSwitz88001 (talk) 17:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Deckers can label/market anything they like under their brand "UGG Australia" that doesnt make them ugg boots, nor is it relevant to any article about ugg boots. NO matter how much emphasis is put on deckers in the article it still doesnt change the basic fact that Ugg boots originated in Australia and were being prodcued well before the trademark was registered in the US, it was another 15-20 years before Deckers even got involved. It also doesnt change the fact that ugg boots are a generic term in Australia. Gnangarra 08:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Your suggestion seems to be a violation of WP:SOAP. BTW, Deckers can bring out other products under the Ugg brand but they would be "Ugg brand slippers" not "uggs". Uggs already are slippers. Wayne (talk) 00:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Forgive me, but this really sounds to me like making content on skunks a section of the article on Pepe Le Pew. Elinruby (talk) 00:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The world doesn't revolve around Ugg Australia. The 'Ugg Australia' article does though. So your suggestions are more appropriate to that article. This article is about ugg boots in the generic sense. Donama (talk) 22:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support since I have noticed the vote, I'll cast one in favor of my own proposal, separate articles with disambiguation, specific topics and headers either as above or as agreed upon. If there's a consensus for separating the topics, the next but separate question would be how. If you ask me. I am bowing out again to deal with a different set of issues. Thanks for listening. Elinruby (talk) 20:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The Pepe Le Pew example is exactly what merging "ugg boots" into "Ugg Australia" would be like. The article the SPA above you is suggesting, also, already exists - it's called "Ugg Australia". Again, this move would be just another attempt to make the history of ugg boots all about Deckers Outdoor Corp. "generic 'Ugg stle'" would be a misleading term because this strongly implies that the boots are "in the manner of Ugg Australia styles" when they are not. Deckers do not own any trademark regarding the generic style and I think that's one of the major things getting lost in their vigorous attempts to quash any use of the word "ugg". All they own in the countries where we have established they own the trademark is the right to describe their products by the name. If we take away a Wikipedia article for ugg boots as a generic concept - ie, the name by which they have been referred to since the year dot - they no longer have a signifier with which to be described. It would be like if Nathan's Famous one day was able to trademark the term "hot dog" and from that moment on everyone else had to refer to their product as "cylindrical manufactured meat product" or "Hot dog style sausage product".Mandurahmike (talk) 22:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

A better analogy was brought up in Parliament. MP Robert Baldwin said the controversy was the same as if an Australian company had registered the trademark "cowboy boot". Wayne (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Abstain since I think the current arrangement is already best. Corporate horns simply need to be pulled in and sock/meat puppets for corporate interestes need to stop being spawned. If a change to the structure of articles must occur I would support this. Donama (talk) 22:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• I'll agree with that, too - this would be my preferred result, given that we basically have the situation suggested here already with the "Ugg Australia" "Deckers outdoor corp" and "ugg boots" article. If only the corporate interests of the first two would cease to dictate the reality presented in the third.Mandurahmike (talk) 22:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• I'd find the trademark article an interesting read, since according to what I see here the process may have been other than the usual brand name becoming a generic term. If a generic term can become a brand, then man has bitten dog, so to speak, regardless of the legalities. If that page does not exist yet, it would be a fair amount of work though, which I have no intention of doing myself. But there seems to be almost enough material in this discussion alone. Elinruby (talk) 00:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with Donama that the curent articles should be all thats necessary for the product, but that isnt possible because no matter how editors act in good faith, all concessions to content have been by the "Australian editors" and support for alternatives to aleviate the level of disruption have also came from "Australian editors". Here we have another solution that was originally proposed by an independent editor who responded at P&W request which specifically tried to exclude the "Australian editors" from the discussion who have all supported yet another compromise solution, while the collection of associated accounts meat/socks/cabals what every you want to describe them clearly arent interested in resolving the matter who will continue to disrupt until they can rewrite history of Ugg boots so that its in accordance with Deckers POV. I Template:Support this solution its time to stop the disruption. Gnangarra 08:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• If I thought there was any hope that Elinruby's compromise solution would put a halt to the incessant edit warring from the Deckers fringe, I would support it, but unfortunately previous failed attempts have shown that this will not be the case. Therefore I must reluctantly abstain . This is no reflection on the quality of Elinruby's suggestion, and it should be noted that Elinruby, a completely fresh and uninvolved set of eyes, devised a solution that is very close to the structure of the articles as they stand; the main difference being that Elinruby also includes a disambiguation page instead of hatnotes, as at present. (I prefer the hatnotes technique as it involves less unnecessary complexity).

A few very short comments after having skimmed the rest of the debate: Of the brand new editors, whether Liangshan Yi is a sock- or meat-puppet is irrelevant as s/he has a serious conflict of interest here: [30] (You should not be participating in an attempt to bolster your cousin's business. Also please note that accusations of lying such as these [31] are likely to be construed as personal attacks). ChristieSwitz is an obvious P&W meat-puppet (the the last four months, all but three of P&W's contributions have been attempts at furthering his/her edit war; two of those three are a fulsome welcome to an apparently brand new editor, shown here: [32].) Factchk is incorrect when s/he claims "no one has provided any evidence that the word was in common use across Australia when the mark was registered in 1971"; a few minutes' looking in the local library a few months ago was all I needed to find just such evidence in "The Way We Wore", a book about popular fashion in New Zealand throughout the ages, published by a highly reputed publisher (Penguin Books). The ultra-low quality sources cited by P&W to back up the "145 countries" myth pale in comparison. The suggestion by Slatersteven (who was canvassed here: [33] that the article Ugg boots be moved to a complicated geographically based phrase would come across as amounting to censorship-through-obfuscation. P&W does not appear to realise that Australia and New Zealand are two separate, sovereign nations which are separated by over a thousand miles of open sea. (In comparison, the United States and Mexico are separated by nothing more than a river. Should I assume, based on proximity, that P&W may as well be Mexican and spends his/her time swilling tequila and doing to cactuses whatever it is that Mexicans do to cactuses?)

In short, this entire waste of time has been fomented by an editor who, having failed to gain anything even approaching consensus when trying to convert the Ugg boots article into an advertising piece, has edit warred to the point that the article is now locked and is forum shopping in an attempt to get his/her way. As this attempt at forum shopping has obviously failed I would suggest that an uninvolved administrator collapse the whole mess and let people get back to the business of finding neutrality. Daveosaurus (talk) 09:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

FYI. Liangshan Yi is the editor previously known as — 63.171.91.193 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Wayne (talk) 12:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I have made dozens of other edits, including most of the recent edits to the article about Liangshan Yi Autonomous Prefecture dating back for more than a year. I only started editing this article a month ago. Liangshan Yi (talk) 15:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, it is only fair to observe that WLRoss, Bilby, Gnangarra, Mandurahmike and Donama are from Australia and Daveosaurus is from New Zealand, and therefore all these editors may be influenced by cultural bias. They may be "interpreting and judging phenomena by standards inherent to one's own culture. ... Cultural bias occurs when people of a culture make assumptions about conventions, including conventions of language, notation, proof and evidence. They are then accused of mistaking these assumptions for laws of logic or nature. Numerous such biases exist[.]" Neutral observers should take this fact into consideration when determining consensus, and assign weight to their comments accordingly. Liangshan Yi (talk) 16:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not "from Australia". I live in Las Vegas, Nevada, USA and although I was born in Australia I have lived in the United States for the best part of the last decade. US culture is as much my own as Australian culture and I'm in a better position than most to "interpret and judge phenomena by standards", other than my own, than many others.Mandurahmike (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

How long did you live in Australia before moving to the United States? My understanding is that for your entire life before moving to the United States, you lived in Australia. If this is the case, then you are principally Australian in your outlook and in any cultural biases you may have. In my case, I spent the first 18 years of my life in Liangshan Yi Autonomous Prefecture in China. Then I spent five years studying at a university in Europe. Then I moved to the United States, and I have even applied for citizenship using the I-140 Immigrant Petition. But I consider myself Chinese, and my cultural biases are Chinese. Liangshan Yi (talk) 21:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Um. Applying for residency is not the same as applying for citizenship. Not that it matters. I disagree with the underlying assumption that editor's opinions should be discounted based on either nationality or ethnicity. Not all truths are universal. How would you feel if I went to a page on your hometown and put in a lot of edits like "and they eat lots of chop suey and egg rolls there"? Chinese food in the United States is not the same as the food most people eat in China, right? And yet, to use the argument made above, that is only one country out of however many, so therefore... the *real* Chinese food is what is served in restaurants elsewhere. See my point? Elinruby (talk) 05:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I have no conflict of interest. My cousin works in a factory owned by a Vietnamese corporation, that produces boots for Deckers under a contract. My cousin has no financial interest in the company, so I am not "bolster[ing] [my] cousin's business." He is just an entry level employee and I have never been within 500 km of the factory, or been in any contact with management or any other employee besides my cousin. The person more likely to have a conflict of interest is Gnangarra, who has admitted entering the Uggs-N-Rugs factory in Australia, visiting with the MacDougall family (owners of the factory), and creating the photographs that appear in the Ugg boots article in that factory. [34] Gnangarra was also a tour bus operator for many years, touring ugg boot factories in Australia. [35] This is a much more likely conflict of interest, but WLRoss makes no mention of it. WLRoss is in the habit of making false accusations and exaggerations. His remarks should be completely disregarded. Liangshan Yi (talk) 16:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Liangshan Yi has no need to make mention of my activities, I have no conflit of interest, I have been open and honest in all my work I have declared when I have been in contact with anyone associated with any subject I work on not just ugg boots as your diffs show. I am not related in any way to the owners of Uggs-N-Rugs, I am photographer I support the values of Wikipedia first and foremost. Yes I entered Uggs-N-Rugs to take photographs, no I havent visited with the MacDougall family my only contact has been when at the factory which they own. I'm happy to go to any other manufacturer to take photographs if they want I'm suprise that Deckers lawyers and Deckers management both of whom have edited the article never took that offer at the time. The photographs were taken to show the process of making ugg boots and I have never hidden that fact, nor the fact that Uggs-N-Rugs is within 30 minutes of where I live. Gnangarra 23:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Today is the start of a four-day holiday weekend in the United States, the longest holiday of the year. Any decision on consensus should wait until well after American editors have returned from their holiday. Liangshan Yi (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Why should consensus wait to be decide after a holiday in the USA isnt that just 1 of 200 odd countries, or 1 of 145 markets that Deckers claim to have a trademark in, this is an international project as you all claim dont expect to be treated any different. We can wait until the four day holiday it'll be fun to watch all the new accounts appear to support your POV, and in all fairness this discussion should only be closed by someone not in a country that Deckers hold its trademark, nor where its a generic term and where ugg boots arent manufactured so that the person deciding consensus has no conflict of interest does that sound reasonable. Gnangarra 23:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Ugg boots are only "just a style" in Australia and New Zealand. In most of the world, UGG is a trademarked "brand". This is an absolute fact.

All Wikipedia editors are entitled to their own "Opinions" but not their own "Facts".

Fact 1. Outside of Australia & New Zealand the style is not widely called "ugg boots" unless referring to the UGG brand.

Fact 2. Every single legitimate company (and there are many and quite a few of these are owned by Australians), outside of Australia and New Zealand, refers to this style of boots as either sheepskin boots, classic sheepskin boots or Australian sheepskin boots.

The below list is an example of just some of the Global Manufacturers of this style, none of which refer to this style as an Ugg boot:

EMU, Koolaburra, Aussie Dogs, Warmbat, Australian Luxe Collective, Fit Flops, Green Lizard Australia, Love from Australia, Koalabi, Ausiie Boots Australia, Shepherd, Jumbuck, Overland, Shoo Republic, Seekin, Celtic, Morlands, Mou, Lamo, Sketchers, Chooka, Bearpaw, Old Friend, Staheekum, Minnetonka, Ricardo B.H., Lugz, Brodie, Flurries, Cloud Nine, KOS, Aukoala, Rocket Dog, Country Leather, Akala.

Some of these larger brands are naturally getting their own following i.e. "Hey, she is wearing...UGG's, Emu's, Bearpaw's, Warmbat,s, Koolaburra's, Chooka's", etc

Fact 3. The only countries using this term "Generically" or in "Common Language" are just Australia and New Zealand and as trademarks are national, yes, I word can be generic in one country and a valid trademark in another.

Fact 4. Decker's have many legal rulings in many countries outside of Australia and New Zealand protecting their 145 valid and legitimate trademarks and have not lost a single complaint concerning the name therefore, the trademark for "UGG", is today, valid and IS A BRAND NAME.

Fact 5. Many very large "Global brands" become "Mainstream" due to their massive market share and public recognition i.e. Ipod, Coke, Band-Aid, Bubble Wrap, etc, etc. This is very different from becoming "Generic" and "Public Domain"

To fully understand this, see: List of protected trademarks frequently used as generic terms

Fact 6. In the 1970s, an Australian trademarked "Ugh-boots" and another Australian trademarked "Original UGG Australia" in the USA and many other countries. These are the very first trademarks and Decker's legally purchased these trademarks and have built a billion dollar business from their trademarked brand. They are the worldwide market leaders in this category and in 99% of the world, the word Ugg means their (Decker's) products.

The bottom line: Only in Australia and New Zealand is the word "Ugg" used generically or as common language. In the other 99% of the world, Ugg is synonymous with a brand. Therefore, a section needs to be finalized just for "Ugg boots in Australia and New Zealand" with references to the history in just those countries and their use in just those countries today as per P&Ws suggestion. Another page is necessary for the famous brand "UGG Australia". This is the fair and balanced way to handle this dispute based on facts and not national pride.

I know that most of the Australian editors will always disagree but Wikepidia is about facts and is a global encyclopedia and they must understand the global facts about this subject. If you were to discount the 6 proud and very dedicated Aussies & Kiwis ( Wayne, Gnangarra, Donama, Mandurahmike, Daveosaurus, Bilby ) "opinions", you would see that is actually easy to get widespread consensus on these factual and accurate statements that will clarify what has unnecessarily become a confusing and "culturally bias" mess. --Cowboysforever (talk) 21:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC) — Cowboysforever (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Wow When an NPOV report generates so much text from so many editors for an article on a style of boots, it is a dead certainty that enormous COI issues are involved. Please just get Deckers to write to an official Wikipedia representative pointing out any legal problems with the current articles. When someone draws up a list showing each editor's ethnicity, please add a column showing the date the account was created and the percentage of edits made outside the area of Ugg boots. Johnuniq (talk) 23:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Here's what's happening in the real world: Deckers won the trademark war, and therefore the war of public perception. Deckers marketing efforts, closely linking the word "ugg" with their brand, are everywhere. In every country except Australia and New Zealand, Australian manufacturers are forbidden by law from doing the same for their own products; and therefore the brand of sheepskin boots devouring the lion's share of the market is Deckers brand UGGS. They've sold US$1 billion worth of boots so far this year; no Australian-made brand is anywhere close to that figure, all are in fact extremely tiny compared to that figure, and most are small "cottage industry" operations run from a sheep ranch. This story is very much like the Operating system story with a reversed timeline: a fairly diverse world marketplace has become increasingly dominated by a single company. Therefore Deckers must realistically be a very large part of the story of Ugg boots, the boot style. Efforts to create an article that focuses on court cases Deckers lost, and ignores the many cases Deckers won, is like trying to write an article about Operating systems and pretending that Microsoft doesn't dominate the market, and never did. Deckers is the Microsoft of ugg boots (the style, not just the brand). There's a small and determined minority that hates Microsoft, just as there is a small and determined minority (disproportionately represented in this discussion) that hates Deckers; but Deckers, and Microsoft, are still the kings of their respective hills. Efforts to squeeze them out of the article, while leaving in the David-against-Goliath story of a single defeat at the hands of the cottage industries, defies this reality. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 05:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

but this is not an article about Decker. Or Decker wins, or market share, ot Decker anything else. It's an article about the people on the sheep ranches, from what I gather, and you *really* don't want me to get started on the Microsoft angle, cause see, here's the thing -- that topic is discussed in the Microsoft article and any related articles that may exist about litigation (and I am sure there are many) but *not* in the articles about Linux, Debian, iOS or Android. Ai. Elinruby (talk) 05:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Even using the Operating systems article as a comparison, as P&W does above, it seems that Microsoft Windows get's coverage, but only a small amount - the detailed MS Windows-specific information is left to other pages. It is a fair comparison, in that sense, with ugg boots, which I see as covering ugg boots in general and providing Deckers with coverage as an important part of the history, but where Deckers-specific information should be left on Deckers-specific pages. - Bilby (talk) 11:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Then the Deckers-specific IP Australia action by Uggs-N-Rugs and Mortels should be left on Deckers-specific pages as well. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

It appears to me, that there should be article(s) (2) of ugg-style boots Australia, and Ugg boots for the rest of the world. --- two totally separate articles whose information/origins really did come in the same place. It's clear that the Aussie doesn't speak from the entire world's perspective, so that person should have an Aussie article to fit the Aussie/NZ views. Separate them out. That would settle the debate. ChristieSwitz88001 (talk) 08:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I have an idea... let's use KLEENEX tissue as an example. I believe everywhere they are considered "KLEENEX," when actually, they are "tissues." If KLEENEX brand decided to make suspenders, we certainly wouldn't dream of calling them KLEENEX... Now, how would you handle writing the article with that example? ChristieSwitz88001 (talk) 08:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The example has been raised before, but doesn't really hold. There are two main differences. The first is that Kleenex was a brand name before it entered common usage, whereas "ugg boot" was in common usage before it became a brand name. The second is that there is a viable alternative term for keenex – tissues – that uniquely identifies the product, while there is no viable alternative term that uniquely identifies the ugg boot style of footwear. - Bilby (talk) 08:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• POSSIBLE SUPPORT If the theoretical Ugg(style) is named Ugg (style in Australia and New Zealand) or Australian Sheepskin Boot(style) then that would be fine with me. My concern is with scope and proper nomenclature. The reality is that only Australia and New Zealand identify UGG as a style as opposed to a brand. That necessitates either limiting the terminology to the regions where it is appropriate or using the internationally recognizable descriptive term. It’s similar to how Wikipedia has constructed the Soft drink page. An item or form can colloquially be called by different names but it still posses only one technically correct name which to be used by Wikipedia. Sheepskin boots are called "uggs" in Australia but their technical and correct name is still Australian Sheepskin Boot.--Factchk (talk) 15:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Another solution?

I would like to have two volunteers from among the editors from Australia and New Zealand to participate in mediation. I would recommend Bilby and Donama, since they have best demonstrated an ability to remain civil during a heated discussion. May I have two volunteers please? Liangshan Yi (talk) 21:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Cool mediate with just two editors, that means I'm not bound be any deal you make with them. Mediation is open to all editors not just those you selectGnangarra 23:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh hang on a minute thats what you wanted, oops I mean P&W when you started this discussion you didnt want to engage with Australians now your going to go play somewhere else. Gnangarra 23:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

It is my understanding that only two editors from each "side" in a dispute are allowed to participate. Since you are an administrator, I would hope that you would respect the results of mediation, no matter who from your "side" participates. Liangshan Yi (talk) 23:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

All involved editors may participate. The "two editors" refers to the minimum number required. I doubt mediation will be of help as none of the pro-Deckers editors have respected any previous consensus nor expressed any interest in resolving the dispute outside their own view that the article must focus on Deckers. Wayne (talk) 00:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I just need two editors who are going to certify the dispute for mediation. Wayne, since you don't want to participate, I hope that you will accept the result. Liangshan Yi (talk) 01:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

As consensus has rejected the pro-Deckers position again, mediation is little more than further forum shopping. Wayne (talk) 01:29, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Yep, the puppetmaster has lost here again and seeks to move on another forum. I love the way it's the Australian editors who are painted as uncivil and yet none of us made repeated unilateral edits without any sort of consensus. I think we've all been remarkably patient given the ridiculous way this article has been filibustered by corporate interests for years now -- we're on this endless cycle -- P&W makes edits that he has no business making, edits are reverted, discussions begin - P&W finds himself massively in the minority - a bunch of "red" accounts show up saying exactly the same thing he is - check, try another forum, and repeat. We've all been through this so many times and, while I can't speak for the rest of the editors, I am getting very sick of it.Mandurahmike (talk) 02:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

As a mediation attempt was rejected here with no counter-proposal, I do not see how this would be fruitful. Elinruby (talk) 02:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Formal mediation needs the acceptance of all parties to be viable. It isn't "certified" in the same sense as an RfCU, but starts with the agreement of all involved editors. It may, as I recall, be managed by the selection of a representatives, but all involved parties have to support the request. I'm not sure that this requirement can be met. - Bilby (talk) 11:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, it appears that acceptance of mediation must be unanimous, and no Australian editor is going to step forward to represent the group. So neither one of these two conditions will be met. Desperate efforts to delegitimize anyone who disagrees with Australian POV-pushing and cultural bias are falling on deaf ears at Checkuser, where all the accusations seem to be resulting in a verdict of  Unlikely. I count Bilby, Donama, Gnangarra, Mandurahmike, Daveosaurus and Wayne on one side; and Liangshan Yi, ChristieSwitz, Cowboysforever, Mongo, Factchk and myself on the other. Six against six. Where do we go from here? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

My point in the above is that it isn't a process of selecting representatives, but having everyone agree to mediation first, then, if that's how they wish to run it, selecting people to have the discussion. There is no "certification" process. I'm willing to support formal mediation, and who is involved in discussion is something that should be determined once that process has started, not before. However, if everyone doesn't support it, it won't be able to go ahead anyway. - Bilby (talk) 23:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I support formal mediation, and so do Bilby and Liangshan Yi. It appears to be the only way to resolve this, and I hope for a constructive and collegial process. I'll check with a mediator about the requirements. We have plenty of time, since the most recent protection on the article will last well into February. The article is stable, and we won't be distracted by any edit warring. This is a good opportunity. Let's not waste it. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:02, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Firstly no ones speaks for me and I dont dont speak for anyone except me. I have no problem with a mediation process thats done in good faith but I have yet to see any indication that that will happen this discussion started by intentionally excluding people and ended with a "solution" to further exclude people, yet happily recognises an SPA. Gnangarra 01:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

He's also conveniently leaving out Jonuniq in his list of opposition while, as you say, including the brand new, yet strangely wordy and vigilant SPAs such as Cowboysforever and ChristieSwitz. This attempt at "mediation" is nothing but another form of shopping around for an answer that suits him and Deckers.Mandurahmike (talk) 20:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

For the record the above is a comment not a vote against. I don't consider myself involved, so I abstain. If there is a hope of resolving this I do not want to stand in its way. I do however think it would be simpler to go the route suggested above and just have Decker's lawyers provide you with a list of Things They Don't Like. Before I wander off again I'll mention that P&W is doing a fine job of causing dislike for the brand. I for one will never knowingly buy a Decker item of clothing after watching him/her in action. Elinruby (talk) 18:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments—very trying business. Since we have passed NOTFORUM by now, I will mention that my sole interest in the issue follows from my dislike of the frequent attempts in various articles to exploit the work of excellent contributors in order to promote some external entity or POV—I spend most of my time reverting or refactoring promotional or misguided material that is added to lots of articles (unrelated to Ugg boots). I was astonished to see that P&W is effectively an SPA who, in recent months, has focused on promoting the interests of a company, so I am not aware of any editors who support the Deckers material who are widely experienced editors and not SPAs (those comments do not apply to MONGO, but I think their sole involvement in this issue was two brief and not very conclusive comments above). Johnuniq (talk) 01:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

"Effectively an SPA"? I have an extensive editing history from long before I started working on this article. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that Phoenix and Winslow has an account on the Spanish Wikipedia (created 26 August 2010) that has made 0 edits outside of the Ugg Boot article. Wayne (talk) 06:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I see that my wording does not quite convey what I meant to say—sorry. Yes, P&W is not an SPA. However, in the past few months (from around May 2011), P&W's contributions have focused on the Ugg issue. Johnuniq (talk) 03:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I am confident that mediation is the best way to resolve this dispute. We have an equal (or nearly equal) number of people on both sides of the issue. I do not believe that the number of editors accepting mediation must be unanimous. However, if the number of editors accepting mediation makes a consensus, and the mediation produces a new version of the Ugg boots article, and the editors have agreed to accept the result of the mediation, wouldn't those who refuse to accept mediation be "outvoted"? Liangshan Yi (talk) 04:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're mistaken there. All involved editors have to agree to mediation before it can go forward. A Request for Mediation won't be accepted otherwise. - Bilby (talk) 04:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I've asked for some guidance from a member of the Mediation Committee [36] and I'm hoping for some clarification on this, Bilby. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Asking for mediation on this proposal is extremely dishonest. The rejection of your original proposal had consensus and this alternative proposal was only offered in the hope you would accept it and thus refrain from edit warring on the article. The original consensus stands. It is about time you accepted that you have lost all your attempts to include promotional material in the article and move on. Wayne (talk) 07:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I am the member of the Mediation Committee who was asked about this dispute, and I am happy to clarify the situation. To answer the specific question, yes: requests for mediation must be consented to by all the disputants (with the exception of inactive or blocked editors, or disputants with only a passing or minor involvement). To provide some additional commentary, I would remark that the purpose of mediation is to assist the parties in formulating a mutually-acceptable solution that accords with site policy. There is no question about being "outvoted", because the solution will be agreeable to all—and therefore will require some form of compromise by every faction of the dispute. If the notion of compromise on the matter of content that is being disputed seems absurd to any of you, then I question both whether mediation is appropriate for you, and whether you need to find another hobby; we work by consensus on this project. Good luck in your discussions. (This comment is made in my personal capacity as one with mediation experience; I am not commenting on behalf of MedCom.) AGK [•] 14:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Afghans in Pakistan

Hi, can someone please look at the edits of user:Mar4d in the Afghans in Pakistan. He is editing with anti-Afghan POV, trying to make Afghan refugees living in Pakistan look veyr bad and make his own Pakistanis look good. Can someone please neutralize his edits because when I do it he keeps reverting it and I'm not in the mood for this childish revert war game. Thanks.--NorthernPashtun (talk) 16:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll not comment on user:Mar4d's edits, as I don't know enough about the subject. I would however suggest that you do little for your case by suggesting that "Pakistanis are known for lying" in an edit summary. [37] AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Andy, what I meant by Pakistanis are known for lying was to say that Pakistani officials are known for lying. They were telling the world that Osama bin Laden was in Afghanistan everytime questioned but it turned out that Osama was safely living in a giant mansion next to Pakistani military base and next to Pakistan's capital. This Mar4d is a Pakistani and he's doing the same thing here in Wikipedia in the Afghans in Pakistan article, he's ONLY adding negative things about Afghans... trying to demonize Afghans or evil doers, criminals and terrorists. He is bashing Afghans because he does not like them. This is the problem here, he's miserable and trying to waste our time.--NorthernPashtun (talk) 18:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• (uninvolved)Strong oppose:This argument seems to be defending the racist comment from the edit summary even further which is a personal attack against his opposing editor and racist in general as well. The left over part of the argument is mostly based on prejudice. The editor merits to be a typical POV pusher on basis of just that. I suggest further action should be taken in addition to the WP:3RR block on account of this. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• NorthernPashtun has since been indef-blocked as a previously-blocked sockpuppet. Some of Mar4d's edits have been concerning, however, so if someone still wants to look into this a little ... I have to plead content-ignorance here, as well, but both editors seemed to be POV-warring some in the articles to me. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 18:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Good call I guess. The content is a clear POV dispute and has to be weighed by citations, but since the editor concerned has been blocked his edits are safe to be reverted I think, as per that with him being the only opposing editor the section should be closed and blocked editor's edits reverted. Eventually other genuinely interested editors will balance the content if there's any POV possibility from Mar4d's side. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I welcome intervention into this issue as NorthernPashtun is clearly taking things out of hand here, by engaging in WP:Personal attacks and making irrelevant comments as the above diff. clearly shows. I have been editing this article with neutrality, and so far, have been trying to make sure that my sources comply with WP:RS. However, NorthernPashtun has a certain POV with which he views the particular section I'm adding and is constantly trying to tamper with reliable, sourced content to tones that do not fit the context. For example, I add information on militants from Afghanistan seeking refugee in Pakistan, yet he keeps changing it to "Afghanistan-Pakistan" without providing any valid rationale. His behaviour suggests that he is not willing to engage in open, mature dialogue but rather wants to go down the inevitable path of edit warring. It would greatly help if he lets me work and expand on the sections I am currently working on and not needlessly interfere. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I can't comment on article content, but we certainly have an edit war on our hands and I rather suspect this may not be the correct forum for this discussion. I have blocked both users for 24 hours for violating 3RR (and the incident is noted on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#that noticeboard), but a more permanent solution would be welcome.

On second thought, this may be the right place, but I'm certainly not the right one to comment on the content involved. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

At a brief look into the related Pakistanis in Afghanistan, both are coming close WP:3RR violations. They each have 2 reverts of each other over tag issues (Mar4d [38] [39]; NorthernPashtun [40] [41]), Northern Pashtun has another revert of Mar4d at [42] about which Mar4d may or may not have another one at [43] (claimed copyright infringment, so may be immune from 3RR).

After a similarly brief look into Afghans in Pakistan, both users violate WP:3RR. Mar4d reverts on smuggling [44] [45] [46] as does Northern Pashtun [47] [48] [49]. Skipping quite a ways down the article history, Mar4d adds a link [50] and is reverted by Northern Pashtun [51] and re-reverts [52]. A glance at the edit summaries suggests even more reverts - all in this 24-hour period. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 18:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Maps of the Golan Heights

There has been a recent attempt to include in articles on sites within the Golan Heights maps that show the territory as being in Israel. This is an extreme minority claim that is rejected by nearly every single country on the planet. I think it is an obvious violation of NPOV to claim Syrian territory as being within Israel and the coordinated attempt to do so at several articles has reached a breaking point. Is it acceptable for a map to be used in the infobox of an article on a site in the Golan as showing the territory in Israel? nableezy - 17:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The details of this issue are unimportant. The important part is that if an image is put onto an article then it has to be there with the consensus of all editors. If a particular map is controversial, do not try to solve the controversy or even talk about what is right or wrong. Only identify the major points of view and make sure that they are all represented. This could mean using two maps, or one map with different borders shown and notes about who accepts which border. Talk it through on the pages in question and then if there are problems report back here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Stop Online Piracy -- systematic removal of cn tags and re-insertion of weasel words and bias

No, I have not raised the issue on the article's discussion page. I have done this ad nauseum on the related Protect IP Act page and devoutly wish to have no further discussions with Xenophrenic. I have spent most of my free time for the past week on that page, which came to my attention through a third editor's despairing RfC, and I still owe comment on the Wikiquette case that she opened. ((Personal attack removed)) -Xenophrenic) Discussion, to put it mildly, has mostly not been fruitful.

Nor can I conceive of any conceivable reason to remove fact and cn tags. Quite outside of the doubts I may (and do) have about the foundedness of the statements attributed to various politicians, they require attribution at a minimum.

Some of the other edits (diff) also speak for themselves, for instance:

• preventing US citizen access to or use of foreign sites that allegedly are in violation of US copyright law

becomes: combating foreign rogue sites

• increased penalties for intellectual property infringement.

becomes: increased penalties for intellectual property theft

• The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and labor groups allegedly both support

becomes: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and labor groups have come together in support

A couple of of points -- some but not all of the edits change edits that I myself made. Changes are fine and even good. Changes that make the article less reliable are not. If the editor feels a need to change recent edits, the trend should be to a middle ground, no? Documentation would also be good. Elinruby (talk) 15:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Your examples are damning. Very poor handling of NPOV. Binksternet (talk) 17:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Your examples require subject matter understanding which I do not have so I cannot say whether they are NPOV or not. You say that Xenophrenic is not a listener but is an arguer; where are the arguments and discussion related to this? I am not seeing where you asked him why he made the edits which he did. Where is the discussion about this issue? Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

There has been no discussion about this issue. The unwarranted personal attacks and "commenting on editors" aside, there is some ground for legitimate concern on the part of the original poster about attribution. The missing "citation needed" tags are the inadvertent result of reverting an IP's series of POV edits. The 3 examples above actually use the verbiage (rogue, theft...) from the House Judiciary Committee sources. Since the article is already dripping with no fewer than 5 templates (at last count) demanding NPOV balancing, copy editing and expert input on top of the still present various 'cn' tags, the few swept away in the revert seemed redundant anyway. The article is in need of a major rewrite. (Thanks for the addition of some tags, Binksternet, but you just scratched the surface...) I'll be doing what I can to help remedy that, but I've been postponing any major effort until later tomorrow, as there is a committee hearing on this very bill that will be concluding. There should be an influx of additional relevant material from reliable sources from which to work. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Let me restate that. First, I apologize for only giving one link. I was very frustrated when I made that post as it undid many small changes I made attempting to correct the article's bias. I have not specifically objected to the latest round of edits, no. There seemed little point, as I have been talking about the article's bias for a week with no response. I have made a number of posts on the discussion page about specific examples of bias, such as here, where I explain why I put a pov tag on the page (Nov 10). On the same day I also said "article is largely a paraphrase of the legislation: Some secondary sources are needed and the language needs to be simpler, clearer, and to actually say something." A little later, also on Nov 10, I noted that the article does not mention that the proposed legislation seems likely to make YouTube illegal, under the header "the proposed overturn of safe harbor needs discussion and also the criminalization of streaming". On Nov 13 I explained my reasons for putting a fact tag on the content section. Xenophrenic did not respond to any of those posts. ((Personal attack removed) -Xenophrenic) Thanks for your thoughts and attention. Elinruby (talk) 08:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect. The "unwarranted personal attacks" to which I referred are your comments above about me in your opening paragraph. Please refrain from commenting on editors. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Actual wording is negotiable. I don't mind clarifying that this is an opinion. I think I should add though, that the article was the subject of a request for comment. ((Personal attack removed) -Xenophrenic) Elinruby (talk) 10:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Please refrain from commenting on editors. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey I found the link where he cites calling him "dude" as a personal attack! It's here towards the end of the sentence. I'd forgotten the anklebiting remark but will admit to saying something about ankle-biters, in an edit summary, I believe. I'm only human ;) I mean, just *look* at that page and realize that this is the result of someone else's request for comment. The article is already pretty deep down on the despair scale, because the other editors are trying to play by the rules. Elinruby (talk) 08:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

It would be well to remove from the article the words "rogue" and "theft", and the phrase "come together". Or, provide an attributed source for exactly one instance of those words and phrases rather than using them in Wikipedia's voice. Such a move toward neutrality does not hinge upon the results of legislation. Binksternet (talk) 05:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

If we are really moving toward actual neutrality, then use of weasely and whitewashed words such as "infringement" and "alleged" should also be attributed, instead of advancing one editor's particular flavor of neutrality. Describing an individual's act of murder instead as "a contravention of an individual's subsistence" in the interest of supposed neutrality seems a bit disingenuous. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I've made some revisions which remove a good portion of the polarizing tone from the article. I've kept the NPOV tag until resolved, but the others have been removed for now. I'd like to consider myself an "expert" on both the technical aspects presented in the bill, and the Intellectual Property related aspects, so please let me know what else should be done. C_(u)w_(t)C_(c) 00:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. If you or someone else has the time and inclination, the Protect IP Act is the Senate bill and that article has many of the same problems. Elinruby (talk) 11:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC) 10:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

It appears that 90% of the above listed concerns have been addressed. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I answered this, but the answer seems to have been removed. As the originator of the post, I feel that the above examples are largely dealt with, but that other examples come up on a daily basis. I have not looked at the article today so I won't make a list here. I am not certain whether to close this post, make a fresh list in a new post, or append. Closing this post seems like the most appropriate for now, as I am really tired. Elinruby (talk) 20:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Eyes needed

We need some eyes and attention from people familiar with contemporary literature on race at Mongoloid race, Negroid race, Caucasian race and Nordic race. They are all entrenched in a pre-1950es understanding of the concept of race and contain little if any references to contemporary literature or debates.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I looked at Nordic race, and think that the solution there is to ensure it sticks to the topic, i.e. the obsolete concept, and doesn't suggest that it has any currency now. So the haplotype material has to go. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Mongoloid race is even worse, any help would be appreciated.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

China

Just as an FYI, there is a debate about The merger of "China" (Chinese civilization) and "People's Republic of China" into one article - Talk:China#The_move_was_surprising_-_7_opinions_on_the_move

Even though there is a current debate over whether "China" should be simply defined as the "People's Republic of China" - some admins argue that POVTITLE allows the usage of POV names if most people in English refer to the subject by the POV name, even if the POV dispute is still active.

WhisperToMe (talk) 04:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Taliban

An editor on the Taliban article insists it is not neutral to write that the Pakistan Inter-Services Intelligence have given aid to the Taliban. This is widely reported as fact, and the two sources I added to the article are from the academic press. He is insistent on it being an American intel agency only POV and I assume he means this is not mainstream thinking due to this. So is this not neutral? The Last Angry Man (talk) 09:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The issues with the current version are as follows:

1. The article tone in general implies that Pakistan is an ally of Taliban,
2. It is stated at certain instances that Pakistan's military supports Taliban while Pakistan denies it and no refutation has been added. (The above editor is reinstating the content without adding the refutation not following WP:NPOV and is instead asking me to balance it which is his responsibility as per WP:VOLUNTEER. Note that I've cleared the WP:BURDEN on me by giving relevant reliable citations.)
3. Inter Services Intelligence (Pakistan's intelligence agency) is included in the infobox as an ally of Taliban which in no case is suitable (even if the body does end up containing so along with Pakistan's refutation) because it is a clear POV case.

As of now I've given the editor these citations against his POV: [53] [54] [55] [56]. Although he agreed about these being reliable refutations but he insists that these are 'press releases' of Pakistan and not the mainstream thinking in response to which I've given him a mainstream citation [57] to prove my point. Further more the citation he added (reliable or not) itself states that it is involving certain prejudice/stereotyping to analyze Pakistan's role [58]. In addition there is a whole dedicated article on the ~10 year war of Pakistan with Taliban & their allies War in North-West Pakistan which proves the above editor's POV wrong. You might also note that the editor himself is using WP:WEASELs like 'widely accepted fact' to push his POV and is not following WP:HEAR as well inspite my repeated clarifications. A detailed discussion should be reviewed at Talk:Taliban#Content_removed_.26_POV_tag.3F.

I'll like to point out whether or not he is right on this matter, the subject is still a controversy (as per citation contradictions) and the article should be written in a neutral way in anycase and the infobox inclusion as per that is completely unjustifiable. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Thi i from your first source the BBC "Pakistan supported the Afghan Taliban before the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States. It was one of only three countries to have diplomatic relations with the Islamist group." So again, now that they deny aiding the Taliban this suddenly means the mainstream view that they have is now contentious? Just because the ISI deny having ties to the Taliban does not make it contentious, any intel agency would deny ties to such group. The Last Angry Man (talk) 11:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The dispute is not whether they had previous ties to them or not. (Even United States had previous ties to Taliban during the coldwar but now they are at war with them. The case is the same here too). Anyway, we should stick to the topic (which is the current relation) and not present our own assumptions rather let the citations do the talking. Your current argument is baseless. Lets wait for a neutral editor to comment otherwise it wont go any better than the talk page discussion. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Yes, but the problem is that all your citations are just press releases from the government which say "not us" I on the other hand have have supplied high quality sources which say the ISI continue to aid the Taliban, here is another Terrorism financing and state responses: a comparative perspective Stanford University Press pp94-96 The Last Angry Man (talk) 11:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I have given you a citation from the mainstream (other than a press release) as well. And I've listed your remarks in reply to my citations in my comment as well as linked the talk page discussion which already covers what we are discussing right now. I guess we've both made are cases clear. So lets wait for neutral input and continue the discussion on basis of that. Otherwise we'll just repeat the same talk page discussion here which will flood the topic discouraging neutral input. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The Last Angry Man is absolutely right. Here some more sources to back that up:

• Human Rights Watch: "Pakistani aircraft assisted with troop rotations of Taliban forces during combat operations in late 2000 and ... senior members of Pakistan's intelligence agency and army were involved in planning military operations."[59]
• New York Times: "Two years ago, Jalaluddin Haqqani [leader of most devastating Taliban faction "Haqqani network"] ... was called a "Pakistani asset" by a senior official of the Inter-Services Intelligence, the nation's powerful spy agency, as a way of explaining why the Pakistani Army did not move against him." [60]
• International Business Times/BBC: "Commanders of the Taliban told the BBC that they and thousands of other members of their groups were trained and armed by Pakistan’s military intelligence and security service." [61]
• Taliban commander Mullah Qaseem: “Pakistan plays a significant role. First they support us by providing a place to hide which is really important. Secondly they provide us with weapons."[62]
• Taliban commander "Mullah Azizullah, said these [training] camps are run by the ISI or are closely linked to it. "They are all the ISI’s men,” he said. “They are the ones who run the training. First they train us about [sic] bombs; then they give us practical guidance. Their generals are everywhere. They are present during the training.""[63]
• Pakistani Chief of Army Staff, Ashfaq Kayani himself: "Admiral Mullen knows well which countries are in contact with the Haqqanis. Singling out Pakistan as the chief protagonist is neither fair nor productive."[64]

JCAla (talk) 13:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll like to start by pointing out non neutrality of the above editor since he even removed the valid POV tag from the article (which was left there by both parties) while the discussion was still on going. [65]

• Coming to the topic, the points you've given about Pakistan assisting Taliban before the war on terror are completely invalid because the topic of discussion is whether or not Pakistan's military is currently an ally to Taliban (so those should be disregarded - refer to my 2nd comment in this thread).
• The points you have given about Taliban leaders commenting on the issue, I seriously doubt the reliability of terrorists deciding the issue related to the encyclopedia (those should be considered as non reliable sources - because even though the publisher 'might' be reliable, the source they credit is not).
• About the Army chief's comment; have you even read it your self or are you intentionally quoting it out of context? Editors are free to review this citation where he means that Pakistan is not the only country in contact with Taliban/Haqani/etc pointing out that US also is in 'contact' with them and this certainly does not implicate an alliance.

Yes, the Taliban militants were trained by Pakistani officials for the soviet invasion etc, but they were being aided by US too, and now they are on war with them? Do I smell double standards? And did you see the article I quoted about Pakistan's own ~10 year war with with Taliban and their allies? And that so many dedicated article including War in North-West Pakistan, War on Terror & Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan mention, and properly detail along with sources, US and Pakistan fighting against Taliban and their allies? And did you notice that US (other than blaming Pakistan for these relations) also (still) calls Pakistan their ally[66] [67] [68] rather than Talibans'? The addition of Pakistan as an ally for Taliban (which should rather be added on the opposing side) is completely inconsistent with all the well sourced details of the given articles and makes wikipedia reflect inconsistent point of views (other than being non neutral) and is unencyclopedic. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I understand, this discussion is about the current support. I was just pointing out that as late as 2000 and even 2001 (before 9/11) Pakistan's military is recorded as being an active participant in the War in Afghanistan

(1996-2001), mastermind behind the Taliban military campaigns. That is just for the record for people to understand the depth of the involvement of Pakistan with the Taliban. It wasn't just arms and cash transfer (what is normally understood under the term "support").

Now, for today, I gave reliable sources which quoted a "senior official of the ISI", two mid-level Taliban commanders and Pak. Army Chief Kayani (whose statement is rather revealing considering that the Pakistan government is in official denial). This was only in addition to all the other reliable and academic Western sources The Last Angry Man already provided.

Look, you do not need to lecture me about the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, I am pretty familiar with the issue. If you look carefully, you can see, that I am one of the three editors who contributed most to the TTP article. So, glad, you think it is well-balanced. Now, that you have read the article, you must have noticed that there is indeed a huge difference between the TTP (Pakistani Taliban) the Pakistani army is fighting against and the Afghan Taliban (the Pakistani army is supporting). You seem to have gotten confused by the common name, although I think, you are pretty much aware of the difference. As Gilles Dorronsoro, a scholar of South Asia at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace said: "The fact that they have the same name causes all kinds of confusion."[69] As the Pakistani Army began offensives against the TTP (Pakistani Taliban), many unfamiliar with the region thought incorrectly that the assault was against the Afghan Taliban of Mullah Omar which was not the case.[70] Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Omar repeatedly asked the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan to stop attacks inside Pakistan. Afghan Taliban commander Haqqani also tried to make the TTP stop their attacks against the Pakistani state. An Afghan Taliban spokesman told The New York Times: "We don’t like to be involved with them, as we have rejected all affiliation with Pakistani Taliban fighters ... We have sympathy for them as Muslims, but beside that, there is nothing else between us."

We both know that Pakistan is playing a double game with the Taliban and NATO.

"And which side is Pakistan on? “That’s a foolish question,” says Anatol Lieven, a professor in the Department of War Studies at King’s College London. “Pakistan is on Pakistan’s side, just as America is on America’s.”

But in this double game, Pakistan sustains the Taliban. And it makes sure that Afghan Taliban leaders who seek greater independence from Pakistan get arrested (see Mullah Baradar) and are released only when they are back in line again, that shows the amount of control the ISI has over the Afghan Taliban.

JCAla (talk) 18:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Pointing out that you clarified yourself that "Pakistan is on the Pakistani side" you should have sided with adding Pakistan to a third column instead of adding it as a Taliban ally in the first place. With that being said, it still does not matter till what ever time Pakistan was in support of Taliban since that is not the topic and your statement was there to make assumptions as you put it in the context. I am very clear about the identities of Afghan and Pakistani Taliban. May be you missed to read that I said they were eachother's allies in all the mentioned articles (which you now say have been contributed by you - so it is as per your words, I can safely say). After that, it doesn't matter who Pakistan is supporting since the official status by both Pakistan and USA is alliance with each other (of which I have given references). So you have here both parties recognizing each other as ally hence completely removing the possibility of putting ISI in the infobox as an ally of Afghan Taliban (that too along with the Pakistani Taliban which they are fighting I see). After all that, I didn't object to mentioning that USA blames Pakistan of keeping contacts with Taliban while Pakistan denies (I guess you missed to read the talk page discussion since I already mentioned this there). No more references are needed to support my view. As I said to the other editor involved, lets wait for neutral input since we've all made our cases clear. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

How is JCala input not neutral? He has not commented on the talk page and did not edit the article over this issue until it was brought here. The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you missed this [71]. Also, does his reply not tell you that... --lTopGunl (talk) 22:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Most of what you write is irrelevant to the issue at hand. Also, you can't use unsourced things in wikipedia as a source for other wikipedia articles. Some things in the articles are disputed, but I don't want to open another discussion about that here. The following is the central issue:

Question: Does Pakistan give substantial support to the Afghan Taliban? Answer: Yes.

Question: Does Pakistan seriously move against the Afghan Taliban (Mullah Omar, Haqqani network or even the Hezb-e Islami Gulbuddin) in order to defeat them? Answer: No.

This qualifies Pakistan as being listed as an "ally" (for lack of a better term) of the Taliban. It is as simple as that. And if the ISI thinks it is justified to do what it does, why is it, that it is always in denial? Why not honestly state your case? Is it ashamed of its own policy? There is no reason to hide from a morally justified cause, is there?!

Pakistan is on Pakistan's side, so far we did agree. So what is Pakistan's side? This war and the underlying conflict did not start in 2001, not even in 1996, it started a very long time ago. Pakistan has always had a very clear policy concerning Afghanistan and that policy did not change just because NATO entered the scene in late 2001. Since 1994, the Taliban play an integral element in Pakistan's strategy and until this very day ISI perceives there is no viable alternative.

Besides, the Taliban article deals with the Taliban in a general manner, not just the current phase. Pakistan, not only today, but also in the past, has been an ally - even mastermind - of the Taliban. That alone, qualifies it to be mentioned as an ally.

The fact, that Pakistan denies any support to the Taliban, really holds no weight considering history. Even while thousands of Pakistani forces were fighting inside Afghanistan, even while the Pakistani military was planning the Taliban military campaigns from 1995-2001, Pakistan (Musharraf's temper is well-known) was outraged at any suggestion it would provide support to the Taliban. Just to recall history 1996-2001:

"The Pakistan government has repeatedly denied that it provides any military support to the Taliban ..." Human Rights Watch 2001

"When asked 'why Pakistan supports the Taliban', an [Pakistani] official replied, 'We don’t support but inter-act with the Taliban'." George Washington University 2001

All the while Pakistan was doing the following:

"Of all the foreign powers involved in efforts to sustain and manipulate the ongoing fighting [in Afghanistan], Pakistan is distinguished both by the sweep of its objectives and the scale of its efforts, which include soliciting funding for the Taliban, bankrolling Taliban operations, providing diplomatic support as the Taliban's virtual emissaries abroad, arranging training for Taliban fighters, recruiting skilled and unskilled manpower to serve in Taliban armies, planning and directing offensives, providing and facilitating shipments of ammunition and fuel, and ... directly providing combat support. ... as many as thirty trucks a day were crossing the Pakistan border; ... some of these convoys were carrying artillery shells, tank rounds, and rocket-propelled grenades. ... Pakistani landmines have been found in Afghanistan; they include both antipersonnel and antivehicle mines. Pakistan's army and intelligence services, principally the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI), contribute to making the Taliban a highly effective military force. ... senior Pakistani military and intelligence officers help plan and execute major military operations. ... Pakistani aircraft assisted with troop rotations of Taliban forces during combat operations ... The extent of this support has attracted widespread international criticism. In November 2000 the U.N. secretary-general implicitly accused Pakistan of providing such support. ... The démarche listed features of the [2000] assault on Taloqan that suggested the Taliban had received outside assistance in planning and carrying out the attack. These features were uncharacteristic of the Taliban's known capabilities, including the length of the preparatory artillery fire ... On several occasions between 1995 and 1999, the Taliban's military skills improved abruptly on the eve of particularly pivotal battles, and in one case, declined just as abruptly after a credible threat of intervention was made by an outside power. During its offensives in 1995 against Herat and in 1996 against Kabul, for example, the Taliban suffered heavy losses after mounting attacks against veteran government forces [of Ahmad Shah Massoud]. ... the rout was such that some analysts predicted that the Taliban phenomenon had run its course. ... Initial defeats were followed by a period of quiet; then Taliban troops mounted new attacks, displaying capabilities that had been conspicuously lacking before. ... maneuvers that were more characteristic of a professional army-specifically, of professional officers and noncommissioned officers trained in the practice of mobile warfare-than of Afghan mujahidin. ... in August 1998, the Taliban forces that were advancing eastward from the city against [anti-Taliban] resistance [forces] ... suddenly faltered and lost their unusual combat proficiency. At the time, the disappearance of Iranian officials had provoked a major crisis with Iran and a substantial Iranian military force (ultimately close to 250,000 men) was massing on the Afghan/Iranian border. The Iranian government explicitly blamed Pakistan for the incident (Pakistan had given assurances for the diplomats' safety) and threatened military intervention if the diplomats were not produced. The [following] sudden decline in Taliban military effectiveness, ... was caused by the withdrawal of Pakistani military advisers as part of an effort by Pakistan to prevent the crisis [with Iran] from getting out of control." Human Rights Watch 2001

Now for today.

• "The Haqqani network [Taliban] ... acts as a veritable arm of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Agency." - U.S. Admiral Mike Mullen [72]

(Mullen was said to be close to the Pakistani army's chief of staff, Gen Ashfaq Kayani. Indeed, Adm Mullen is thought to have made more visits to Pakistan than any other senior US official or chief of staff in recent times.)

• "In Afghanistan we saw an insurgency that was not only getting passive support from the Pakistani army and the Pakistani intelligence service, the ISI, but getting active support." - Bruce Riedel, Brookings Institution

• "Two years ago, Jalaluddin Haqqani [leader of most devastating Taliban faction "Haqqani network"] ... was called a "Pakistani asset" by a senior official of the Inter-Services Intelligence, the nation's powerful spy agency, as a way of explaining why the Pakistani Army did not move against him." New York Times 2008

• "Commanders of the Taliban told the BBC that they and thousands of other members of their groups were trained and armed by Pakistan’s military intelligence and security service." International Business Times 2011

• "Taliban sources say Pakistan uses catch-and-release tactics to keep insurgent leaders in line. All told, the ISI has picked up some 300 Taliban commanders and officials, the sources say. Before being freed, the detainees are subjected to indoctrination sessions to remind them that they owe their freedom and their absolute loyalty to Pakistan, no matter what. As one example, the sources mention Abdul Qayum Zakir, who spent five years at Guantánamo and is now the group’s top military commander. They say the Pakistanis detained him and about a dozen other Taliban commanders and shadow governors earlier this year, soon after having picked up the insurgency’s No. 2, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, only to set them free several days later after making sure their priorities meshed with Pakistan’s." Newsweek 2010

The Last Angry Man has provided further academic sources (including from the Stanford Press which I don't think I need to repeat).

In case anyone wonders why Pakistan should support the Taliban. The following could provide some clues:

1. Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts

2. Dispute over territory

"Dubbing Durand line as a line of hatred Afghan President Hamid Karzai has said he does not accept this line as it has raised a wall between the two brothers [Afghanistan's Pashtuns and Pakistan's Pashtuns]." [73]

"Afghanistan and Balochistan should form a legal team to challenge the illegal occupation of Afghan territories and Balochistan by Pakistan in the International Court of Justice. Once the Durand Line Agreement is declared illegal, it will result in the return of Pakistan-occupied territories back to Afghanistan. Also, Balochistan will be declared a country that was forcibly invaded through use of force by the Pakistanis ... After Pakistan vacates territories belonging to Afghanistan and Balochistan, a new boarder should be demarked amicably to determine Baloch dominated areas to become the new Balochistan, and Pashtun dominated areas to be merged into Afghanistan. ... “Pakistan is a completely superfluous and artificially created spot on the world map that has become a breeding ground for extremism, and trouble that would be best done away with.”" [74]

Pakistan needs the Taliban as an "Islamic" counterforce to Pashtun nationalist ambitions which would effectively cut Pakistan in half. The Taliban's interpretation of and focus on Islam (rather than nationalism) is meant to be a binding force between Pakistan and Afghanistan. The non-Pashtun ethnicities of Afghanistan are perceived to be too close to India. That is why Pakistan insists on Pashtun's ruling Afghanistan, but these Pashtuns need to be the Taliban not nationalists following i. e. the way of Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan.

3. There are certain dreams surrounding Islamic prophecies, and black banners from Khorasan. JCAla (talk) 20:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

First of all, we don't post whole news citings to the thread, that's just flooding (You should replace those with just the links of their origin). We can all go and read from the links you give. And there's no use of using this notice board if the involved editors are the only one posting long replies (which would discourage neutral input). Coming to the topic, you have just repeated what you said in your previous post. But as I said, all you have written here either is not related to the topic at hand and rather stuff that some one would post to a forum or citings on which you further base your assumptions on. There are some issues with all what you said:

• You say (and agree) Pakistan is on Pakistani side which calls for a third column for Pakistan to be listed in as per your own words since they are playing a 'double game' not being a partner (ally) to either US or Taliban (which I did not endorse, but pointed out).
• Discussion of past relations with Taliban is not the issue here which you are repeatedly bringing up.
• What I wrote was not irrelevant, I did not use the wiki articles as 'citations' (since I already gave the citations along with them). I used them to show consensus from those articles about the alliances. Another point here is that if one wikipedia article shows Pakistan as Talibans' ally and another shows them on opposing side, that would be an unacceptable inconsistency.
• Most of your citations are pointing out the contacts of Pakistan with Haqani/Taliban etc, which US itself also has for intelligence purposes and not support purposes (as the Pakistani Army chief pointed out) and rest of the citations are simply saying that Pakistan either has been supporting Taliban in the past or assume that, since Pakistan has links with them, they are allies.
• Even if what you say is completely believed for sake of argument, Pakistan still would not be listed as an ally of Taliban. The reason being, whatever relations Pakistan has with Taliban or US, Pakistan and US call each other allies on the war on terror.[75] [76] [77] We follow the official status per WP:MOS.

So your case here is completely inconsistent and being based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Also, I think I've made my side pretty clear and so have you two. Repeating the same would be of no use and we should wait for neutral input (if at all some one reads the already lengthy thread). --lTopGunl (talk) 10:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• "Pakistan's side" includes the interest in continuing support to the Afghan Taliban, which makes them an "ally" for lack of a better term.
• Discussions of past relations put the current official Pakistani denial into a perspective.
• You are again confusing the TTP with the Afghan Taliban.
• The citations explicitly point out a support role not a contact role.
• Well, the official position of the man who was United States Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff until October 2011, Mike Mullen, is that "the Haqqani network [Taliban's most destructive element] ... acts as a veritable arm of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Agency."[78]

But, ok, let's wait for other people to provide their opinion. JCAla (talk) 10:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Can we get a response here??????? --lTopGunl (talk) 06:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Having looked at the sources above it is quite clear that the ISI have and still continue to support the Taliban. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, that is not the issue of discussion, the issue is the official status which is accepted by both USA and Pakistan as being allies. Where as the editors above are adding ISI as an ally to Taliban in the infobox. The secondary issue is that ISI's alleged support is not being attributed to the sources and Pakistan's refutation is not being neutrally added to it. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I would respectfully disagree with you, it is the issue being discussed. Did the ISI aid and abet the Taliban? Yes they did, and yes they continue to do so. The ISI are from the sources presented allied to the Taliban. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The fact that both countries call each other allies is itself enough to put ISI on the opponent side of Taliban, now whether it's secretly supporting Taliban or not is an issue to be discussed in the body of the article. Again, yes, the issue is being discussed by the editor, but I've told him as well (you should review the talk page discussion and my edits that got reverted) that the inclusion of this is not my dispute here as far as it's neutrally conveyed on both the allegation and refutation side. The infobox is. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with both The Last Angry Man and Darkness Shines. And as I mentioned before, the United States Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff until October 2011, Mike Mullen, officially called the Haqqani network (Taliban's most destructive element) the "veritable arm of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Agency".[79] That renders irrelevant your, TopGun, argumentation concerning "official" positions. JCAla (talk) 16:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Your point is invalid by this reference, since Pakistan and USA still consider each other as allies after this statement (and rather before and during this accusation the alliance was not broken). Your reference is time stamped "22 September 2011". I'll give you newer still calling it an alliance: [80] [81] [82], and one old: [83]. The WP:BURDEN is still on you. Give a citation in which either Pakistan, USA or even a third party says that Pakistan-US alliance has been broken. Other wise putting Pakistan on the Taliban side is your POV and WP:OR. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

First of all, your "sources" are not "newer". Second, do you even read your own sources? Besides that in your sources the term "alliance" is not being used by any officials, the following is written in your sources:

• "Last month, senior American officials accused Pakistan's spy agency of assisting the Haqqani network in attacks on Western targets in Afghanistan, including a strike on the US embassy in Kabul. They were the most serious allegations yet of Pakistani duplicity in the 10-year war in Afghanistan and sent already strained ties between Islamabad and Washington plunging further."[84]

• And from the CFR link, which is from 2010 not 2011: "Strategic dialogue meetings between senior Pakistani and U.S. officials concluded Friday with plans to cooperate on a range of issues including agriculture, electricity, and health. The meetings came amid growing tensions in the U.S.-Pakistan relationship. ... And the Obama administration is frustrated with what it sees as Pakistan's unwillingness to go after the Haqqani network and the Afghan Taliban--the terrorist groups considered most dangerous to the U.S. war effort in Afghanistan. ... To gain Pakistan's cooperation against militant groups it continues to support, some experts call for a stronger stand. The Cable, a Foreign Policy blog, reports that U.S. officials are "taking a markedly tougher tone with the Pakistanis than before.""[85]

Now, there seems to be a confusion on your part what the term "allies" means. JCAla (talk) 20:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

If you missed to check the time stamps. They are new. For your info (since your mind is set on finding what you like and not what is being referred):

• [86] "The latest strikes come as Marc Grossman, the US special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, arrived in the Pakistani capital of Islamabad to hold talks with Pakistani leaders to strengthen the two countries' fragile alliance."
• "An unhappy alliance."
• "The Strained U.S.-Pakistan Alliance."
• "Zardari emphasises restraint to avoid straining Pak-US alliance."

You can find more if you look. Stop repeatedly stating that US (and whoever else) alleges Pakistan of 'continuing to support militants', I have read that once. What you've failed to prove is that there is no alliance between Pak and US instead you claim the opposite. I've given you citations for my claim. You are misleading. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

All your quotes, except maybe the Zardari one (which doesn't really matter given all the Pakistani official denial), are NOT, and I am repeating this, are NOT from officials, but terms used by some Western journalists in the past and one Pakistani journalist in the present. The most recent official position of the US government, the Indian government, the government of Iran, the Russian government, the European governments is: Pakistan keeps supporting the Afghan Taliban. Afghan Taliban commanders have admitted this. Thus, Pakistan can be listed as an ally of the Taliban on the wikipedia article.

Maybe you fail to understand one thing. We are talking about the infobox on the Afghan Taliban article. The US and Pakistan may work together on some issues concerning Pakistan itself i. e. economy, health and supporting elements in the Pakistani army to keep control of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal in order to keep some sort of stability. Here the common interest is relative stability in Pakistan considering the nuclear arsenal.

When it comes to Afghanistan, however, Pakistan and the US followed the same policy up until early 2001, then the US started to change sides, with the Bush administration finalizing a new American approach to the War in Afghanistan (1996-2001) in August 2001, just before 9/9 and 9/11. Since then, Pakistan is certainly no ally of the US (and people have provided you with very reliable sources for this including this being the current official position of the US and many other countries) when it comes to the Afghan Taliban. NATO did not start a war in 2001, it entered into one in which Pakistan and the Afghan Taliban already formed a firm alliance. And even today, Pakistan perceives there to be no alternative for its support to the Afghan Taliban. And today, Pakistan is supporting the Afghan Taliban to kill Americans in Afghanistan. The reasons for this support have been mentioned above. This makes Pakistan an ally of the Afghan Taliban (when it comes to the Afghan Taliban). JCAla (talk) 09:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

To start with you got the statement of one official atleast (and the neutral journalists). Now you state that Zardari's stand doesn't matter given whatsoever is your WP:OR, Whatever his position in politics is, his statements are on the account of the office he holds. Here is another denial and calling US an ally by the Pakistani foreign minister as well [87], We have more than enough citations for US officially and otherwise calling Pakistan its ally. I do know we are talking about the infobox issue first, and I'm the one who has clarified it repeatedly. And that is the issue, infobox contains official status. And you are wrong in interpreting that. Allegations and strained relationship doesn't mean that an alliance is broken. USA has not conveyed to Pakistan that the alliance is no more, and the burden of that is on you. You have failed to give a proof of that. PS. learn to indent your replies its hard to spot who you are replying in the discussion other wise. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Btw, this doesn't seem to be making much progress, we should list it in an RFC. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Look, you are restating your POV again and again, while this discussion doesn't even make sense. First, wikipedia is about facts, it's not about mirroring government positions or in some cases propaganda. Second, the term "alliance" is certainly not being applied to the issue of the Afghan Taliban. It has been established by the academia, the statements of major government and military officials from different countries in the world, by statements of Taliban commanders and a few ISI officials themselves, that Pakistan supports the Afghan Taliban versus NATO and the government of Afghanistan. Thus, Pakistan is an ally of the Afghan Taliban. Three editors have agreed (one, you, is opposed). Unless someone else wants to join this discussion, this issue has been solved by majority vote. JCAla (talk) 09:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

One, read WP:VOTE. Wikipedia is not voting or majoritarianism. You make your case by discussion. And the third editor specifically listed his argument as a "comment" and not a "support" for your case. I've given you enough citations from both parties. This is not my POV, rather the official status of the alliance. Two, you just did the same, making your claims repeatedly right now. We should probably go to a higher form of resolution like RFC citing this and the talk page discussion. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

It was a comment supporting the inclusion of the ISI as an ally of the Taliban. Please do not misrepresent what I have written. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit the bolded text to that then. A comment is usually used for a neutral input. Also, I've replied to that as well. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

It's important to represent the situation fairly here. If the Pakistani government has denied the claim, then it's their word against another's. Per WP:WEIGHT, you need to represent all claims fairly, so having Pakistan there without caveat is showing only one side of the story. It's also important to note that you're showing them not just as being involved with each other, but as allies. One link provided above shows that the ISI does not consider the Taliban an ally, so does the Taliban consider its relations with the ISI as an alliance? This is the kind of information I would expect to see in the sources attached to such statements. At the moment, in the infobox, the sources given are self-published and neither mentions an alliance. The references given in the lead are from more reliable sources, but still jump around the subject. So the primary concern I'm seeing is a sourcing one. Unless the sources provided state outright that this is a military alliance in conjunction with the war in Afghanistan, then labelling it as such is original research. So at the moment, I would suggest removing Pakistan from the infobox and, given the controversial nature of the subject, strictly sticking to the sources when it comes to the body of the article. Nightw 07:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Nightw, I'd like to know if you are familiar with the topic? Then, maybe you missed some of the reliable links given above. The Afghan Taliban are often referred to as an "asset" of Pakistan.

• New York Times: "Two years ago, Jalaluddin Haqqani [leader of most devastating Taliban faction "Haqqani network"] ... was called a "Pakistani asset" by a senior official of the Inter-Services Intelligence, the nation's powerful spy agency, as a way of explaining why the Pakistani Army did not move against him." [88]

• International Business Times: "Commanders of the Taliban told the BBC that they and thousands of other members of their groups were trained and armed by Pakistan’s military intelligence and security service." [89]

• BBC: "Taliban commander Mullah Qaseem: 'Pakistan plays a significant role. First they support us by providing a place to hide which is really important. Secondly they provide us with weapons.'"[90]

• BBC: "Taliban commander Mullah Azizullah, said these [training] camps are run by the ISI or are closely linked to it. 'They are all the ISI’s men,' he said. 'They are the ones who run the training. First they train us about [sic] bombs; then they give us practical guidance. Their generals are everywhere. They are present during the training.'"[91]

• BBC: "... documentary series Secret Pakistan has spoken to a number of middle-ranking - and still active - Taliban commanders who provide detailed evidence of how the Pakistan ISI has rebuilt, trained and supported the Taliban throughout its war on the US in Afghanistan."[92]

• BBC: "Evidence of Pakistan's support for the Taliban is also plain to see at the border where insurgents are allowed to cross at will, or even helped to evade US patrols."[93]

• BBC: One Haqqani network commander "wanted peace talks. He said it was vital Pakistan intelligence knew nothing of the meeting. He said not to disclose it because Pakistan does not want peace with Afghanistan and even now they are training new Taliban units. He was also scared that the Pakistanis will arrest him because he lives in Pakistan and he said it would be easy for them to arrest him."[94]

JCAla (talk) 09:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I've commented purely on the sources in the article, as that is what the reader sees and I'm assuming it's where the dispute lies. The links above look interesting, but they don't address the issue. An article describing Pakistan–Taliban relations might be a better place to put these to use. But to sum up all those sources under one extraordinary label that isn't used by any of them is obviously pushing into the territory of original research, or synthesis. The allegations of cooperation between these two has been denied by one side (I'm not sure about the other), so therefore it becomes necessary to attribute the allegations within the text and supplement that with any competing claims. By not doing so, you are editorialising or picking a side, which is not what we do—rather, we explain the sides, fairly and without bias. A simple example of impartial writing would be "Several journalists and government officials allege that the Pakistani army provides support for the Taliban," providing examples in references, "...a claim the Pakistan government has denied." I'm not trying to disagree with what you're saying, but I am pointing out some obvious policy violations here. Nightw 12:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I have to disagree with you. The links above address the issue perfectly. One of the definitions of the term "ally" is the following: "One in helpful association with another."[95] The MacMilland Dictionary's definition for "ally" is: "Someone who is ready to help you, especially against someone else who is causing problems for you."[96] Under these definitions Pakistan qualifies as an ally of the Afghan Taliban. The above reliable sources clearly outline a "helpful association". That is neither POV nor bias nor original research. It is what sources considered reliable by wikipedia policy say. Also, you can push WP:WEIGHT only so far. Offical policy statements do not hold as much weight as multiple witness testimonies (even by Taliban commanders themselves), and further evidence for Pakistan's support to the Taliban cited in all the sources provided above. Consider, even Pakistani officials have been cited by reliable sources such as the New York Times as - unofficially - confirming Pakistani's "helpful association" with the Afghan Taliban. You also don't put tags into holocaust articles just because there are people, including state actors in Iran, who deny the holocaust. WP:WEIGHT also depends on what evidence which side has to support their claims. JCAla (talk) 13:59, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

JCAla, what you have just shown is a textbook example of synthesis. You have brought multiple sources together to reach a single conclusion, when in reality none of the sources shown present such a conclusion by themselves. You appear to want your sources to say something that they don't. We can't interpret evidence either. Again, you seem to be overlooking the label you're applying—descriptions of "support", "helpful association", etcetera (whatever the quantity), does not equal the terminology that you've chosen to use. When contentious, value-laden labels ... are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. From what you've shown me, "ally" is not used at all by reliable sources, so it should be removed; softer labels appear more widely, so these should be applied with attribution as I said before. As it states quite clearly in WP:WEIGHT, viewpoints are subject to notability. Iran's policy on the holocaust is no more notable than Jewish policy on the Assyrian genocide; Pakistan's viewpoint on its own relationship with another government, however, is obviously notable. You cannot present a situation impartially unless you attribute claims and allow all significant counterclaims. Nightw 13:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I think Nightw has given an adequate explanation of WP:WEIGHT & WP:NPOV. Simple allegations don't belong in infobox. Even when in body, refutations have to be there when available. How can you present a neutral POV when you are writing a whole section in the article about Pakistan's so called 'support' to Taliban and at the end of the section you just refute with a single sentence that Pakistan denies it? And in addition to that, with both USA and Pakistan on an official status of alliance, which now is surely at its last stage (and I'm starting to rethink about my argument of putting Pakistan on the alliance side of USA, so is the government of Pakistan), you can simply not add it as an ally to the opposite side. You are pressing hard for WP:TRUTH here. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Three editors have laid out rather clearly and backed this up with reliable sources that Pakistan is in a "helpful association" with the Afghan Taliban. JCAla (talk) 09:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

That is why I've gone to the next dispute resolution level. 3-2 doesn't seem to be much of difference anyway along with the fact that it's the points you make that matters. An RFC will get wider public attention and neutral views. The discussion is expected to take time. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

comment, Nightw is absolutely right. this is a clear example of wp:synth.-- mustihussain  18:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

How is it synth to say the ISI are allied to the Taliban when all sources say this? The Last Angry Man (talk) 19:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I've tagged Talk:Taliban for RFC and transcluded this section there. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Lewontin's fallacy

Trolling by banned user Mikemikev. This IP range has now been blocked for a month.

"Human genetic diversity: Lewontin's fallacy" (scientific paper) is about an argument made by Richard Lewontin that the fact that there is more genetic variation within races than between them invalidates the concept of race. This argument has been discredited in two ways. By eminent British geneticist AWF Edwards who argued that summing genetic variation on a locus by locus basis ignores correlations in the data. By Long (2010) who found more genetic variation within certain species than between them. In this case chimpanzees and humans. Maunus has removed this second dispositive point from the article absurdly claiming it is not relevant to Lewontin's fallacy.[97] The bias Maunus has displayed is transparent. I imagine he especially doesn't like this point because it directly contradicts an attempted "face saving" quote Maunus has added from ideologically aligned Jonathan Marks. In this Marks claims that races need to be "principally homogeneous" to have validity. The Long quote proves that even species are not "principally homogeneous". The Kaplan and Marks quotes also shift the goalposts and defend the position that the variation that exists does not structure into races, which is an entirely separate question (ie. truly irrelevant), and one which is currently unresolved. I find it absurd that such ideology based dissimulation is considered relevant, while simple truth is excised because editors do not like it. If you want Wikipedia to be a place where editors "big up" their ideological heroes, regardless of their integrity and competence, Maunus is your man. If you want Wikipedia to offer the truth, I suggest he be sanctioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.116.166.166 (talk) 16:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• This is a sockpuppet of Mikemikev (talk · contribs). If you want wikipedia to be a place where Stormfront.org, Neo-nazis and Antisemites can disseminate their ideology unhindered Mikemikev is your man. Also note that he misrepresents Long (2009) as suggesting that the concept of race is supported by genetic analysis when in fact he says the opposite. Also not that Long doesn't mention Edwards or his paper - the topic of the article that Mike was trying to insert the material into.. Also note that he has a long history of nasty personal attacks both on and off wiki on editors he classifies as communists or jews.[98]·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Why have we got an article on one scientific paper? Is it much more notable than most papers? Itsmejudith (talk) 17:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

No. It hardly gets cited at all, except by a fringe pushing a POV. It is in Wikipedia because (a) Mikemikev and the like wish it to be, and (b) far too many uninvolved people don't have a clue how to determine the notability of scientific articles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

To be fair it does get some attention - but only because Lewontin's argument (whoich we don't have an article for) does. There is a fairly unanimous consensus in Anthropology that Edwards argument is trivially true but that it has no relevance for the question of race - because race does not simply mean, and has never meant, "genetically distinct population". ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's merge into Race (classification of humans), with mentions in Lewontin's and Edwards' bios. We don't even have a category for scientific papers. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Its better merged into Race and genetics which has a section on the debate already.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome to try, though given the result of the recent AfD, [99] you'll have to put up with resistance from sockpuppets, and from people who seem not to understand what the debate is about, but want the article kept anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Nationality Misconception

There is a misconception on wikipedia regarding the nationality of certain notable Irish figures. The term Anglo-Irish is being bandied instead of Irish as a nationality. Many of the figures involved are Irish, but come from the Anglo-Irish social class, it is not a nationality, and there is a lot of inconsistency regarding its use, an example is Jonathan Swift an Irish man but for some reason is disregarded by a minute section of editors who refuse to acknowledge that he is Irish and Anglo-Irish (but only in the respect that he comes from that social class in the article), and then other articles like Oscar Wilde who is Irish but of Anglo-Irish culture, he is renowned internationally as Irish (not Anglo-Irish because it is a class not a nationality) I don't understand it, a tiny segment of editors are trying to ignore the fact are coming up with all this pseudo-social/historical claptrap to make it difficult for observers for whatever reason, I am being accused of breaching Wiki:POV, which IMO I am not, please comment. Sheodred (talk) 20:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

are we talking about planters? And are we talking about Ireland or Northern Ireland, and in what period? Some context would help. I probably am not the person to decide this as I have only a smidgen of knowledge but my family history as told to me makes a distinction between Irish and planters. But also, you are saying "nationality". Are we making a distinction from ethnicity? To me, nationality is citizenship.Elinruby (talk) 03:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

No.."planters" are completely different, and for the record the majority of people in Ireland, north and south,and of heritage all over the world, of whatever background, make no such distinctions. Thanks for your input though. Sheodred (talk) 09:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

A quick click around does seem to show there is in fact a large difference; sorry to increase the noise level. I'll let your questionable assertion about majorities go -- I don't really know about, care about, or want to research opinions on that topic.

I'm mildly interested in this topic though, enough to keep an eye on it, and would like to repeat my suggestion that you provide some context and a more focused question. Your post makes it clear that you think this is a class and given the history of Ireland, perhaps you are right. But where is the discussion you refer to taking place? In the Oscar Wilde and Jonathan Swift articles? Elinruby (talk) 02:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure no problem, the main discussion is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland#Anglo_Irish, but there is also a small one on the talk pages for CS Lewis in the second last section. Sheodred (talk) 12:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Berlin Conference (1884)

Recent edits by a user here and at Henry Morton Stanley have sought to minimize critical views of colonialism, adding content extolling European intervention, per article talk page [100]. None of this is sourced, and additional attention from those knowledgeable in history will be appreciated. 99.12.242.97 (talk) 15:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Huawei

• Huawei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In brief: the company was linked to the Taliban, but denies it.

Editor Bouteloua (talk · contribs) acted in accord with best COI practice, and placed an edit-request on the talk page. However, I did not thing it presented the information in a neutral way.

The editor has now adjusted the suggestion, and asked me to re-assess it [101].

Because of the somewhat controversial nature, I'd be grateful if others could take a look - or preferably process the edit-request.

It's Talk:Huawei#Suggesting an addition

Thanks,  Chzz  ►  22:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Information re: Ballistic Optimizing Shooting System

Hello! I'm not sure as to whom I should address this. I hope the right person reads this. In your fine article on Browning Arms, you mention many of the fine inventions and patents which were originated by John Browning and the susequent Browning Arms Co. What you missed was the Ballistic Optimizing Shooting System, better known as the B.O.S.S. system. It would be good to know who invented this simple, yet unique and helpful system. I understand that it is also patented by Browning Arms - only they make it. It would be good to include that either as a sepparate article, or as part of the Browning Arms article. Thank you. Vladimir Derugin ovgd@sbcglobal.net — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.101.69 (talk) 04:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)