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

Riley Schillaci

Riley Schillaci (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I nominated this article for speedy deletion [1] due to the fact that Rschilla (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) (WP:SPA?), who appears to be the subject of the article, created this article as a promotional tool and has maintained ownership, even making legal threats (diff) in response to non-promotional edits made to the page. Apparently, Goodvac (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) disagreed that the article was non-neutral and contested the speedy (though s/he did nothing to address the apparent COI or the lack of references in the article, nor the apparent lack of notability. I started to remove the most blatant unsourced and non-neutral material, but then there was literally nothing left to stand. Goodvac calls my assertions baseless, so I thought I'd see what the folks here at NPOV/N think. Looking back into the article's history, I have no doubt others will see the same promotional, COI and ownership problems I see. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 15:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth — clearly not a candidate for speedy, nor for PROD, nor would it end in deletion at AfD. Adequate sourcing showing. Pretty much run of the mill cleanup needed. Take it to the talk page and work it out, would be my advice. Carrite (talk) 02:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Carrite, I would tend to agree with you, based upon what the article has looked like since 3 September, but I suspect you didn't look at this version. I would consider the matter closed at this point, because as the article went through AfD, many improvements were made to tone and referencing, producing a much more encyclopedic and less promotional article. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 00:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Watchtower Bible School of Gilead

I feel that User:Jeffro77 may not be willing to see that his edit here, which reverted my edit here, is POV. His argument is that my edit is wordy, but I think that it's better to err on the side of wordiness than to keep that statement POV. I need some feedback on this from an outside source. I might even be willing to seek some middle ground to help me find a way to make that statement less wordy, because I do admit that my edit there was on the wordy side. Thanks. Lighthead ^þ 04:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Is this a historical page? Why is nobody responding to anyone? Lighthead ^þ 19:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that nobody has responded because it seems a rather minor issue, possibly best discussed on the article talk page rather than here. Personally, since we provide a link to Organizational structure of Jehovah's Witnesses#Ministerial servants, I can see no reason to refer to deacons at all. As our article makes clear, the role of a deacon varies greatly between denominations, so the analogy tells the readers little anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The reason I didn't bring it up there is because I sense that Jeffro77, the ruler of that wikiproject for lack of a better term, is not willing to reason around that. I brought it up there as you suggested, so let's see what he says. Thanks. Lighthead ^þ 21:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The matter is trivial, as has been indicated at the article's Talk page. It is self-evident from the existing wording and link that deacon is a commonly used term, and that JWs use a different term. Further clarification seems unnecessary. No other editors have objected to the current wording, and nothing has prevented other editors from commenting.

The tedious claim about being "the ruler of that wikiproject" needs no further comment other than that Lighthead may need to review WP:AGF and WP:NPA.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

In response to AndyTheGrump's suggestion, I think there is some benefit in indicating the corresponding commonly used term, but I agree that it may not be essential. In any case, it doesn't warrant further elaboration as has been suggested. It's quite disappointing that Lighthead came here before even attempting discussion at the article's Talk page, which seems a little like canvassing.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

1)... thing that I do agree with you about is that it is an interesting factoid, but that it's not exactly all that important to include the information regarding deacons. As regards my comment of ruler, while I do feel that you dominate all aspects of that Wikiproject (there is no way I'm not going to accept that he doesn't), it probably wasn't the nicest thing to say about you, and it especially wasn't the right place. And so I essentially retract that comment. The only reason I said that, though, is because that was the reason that I brought up this issue here. I feel like it would have been pointless and going through the motions, and my view of the matter would have been shot down there no matter what. Do you deny that? That was my point about him being the so-called ruler. And that's why 2) I believe that I wasn't canvassing because I'm not the type of person that goes through the motions and wastes time. I don't believe in ritual for the sake of ritual, which I think that Wikipedia tends to veer to way too much of the time. And by the way, would I be canvassing if I accept your viewpoint on that edit as I do now after you explained it on that article's talk page? It doesn't seem so does it. You shouldn't be so quick to accuse people of things, Jeffro, unless you're absolutely sure about it, much less be so quick on the draw to cite guidelines (and yes, they are guidelines and not canon and/or policies), when you think that somebody is overstepping their boundaries. Lighthead ^þ 06:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, why would I be canvassing if I said in my second to last statement that I would bring it up on that talk page to see what you would say? I do whatever I do, and whatever I feel like because I personally know that I'm not canvassing and will never do anything sneaky. There will always be evidence to the contrary. Lighthead ^þ 07:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

1) That's a pretty messed up retraction, but I suppose it will have to do.

2) It's not clear why you immediately came to this noticeboard before attempting to discuss anything at all at article Talk. Nor is it clear why you're continuing to challenge the matter here. This leaves the impression that you're seeking a wider audience for your complaint rather than actually seeking resolution.

3) Breathe. You still haven't clearly outlined what you consider the issue to be. You have stated, without any actual discussion that saying JWs have a different term for deacons somehow inappropriately conveys some POV. But you haven't really indicated why you think it's a problem, so it's not really clear what kind of response you're expecting here. The article in question parenthetically states that a particular position of authority in a religious organisation has a different common name used by other groups. The point is of interest from the perspective of the group's organisational structure, but it is a fairly mundane point that does not require special elaboration. If you disagree, you should indicate why. Ideally, you should do this at the article's Talk page. Once you've stated your opinion, if there is not agreement, you could raise a third opinion request, or an WP:RFC.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest I didn't know the proper protocol of leaving the comment at the article's talk page. This is the first time I have left a comment on this noticeboard, or perhaps any noticeboard. (I may have left a comment at Reliable Sources a long time ago, because that page is on my watchlist.) But if I wasn't purposely canvassing, then I don't know what the problem is. Why would I suggest to leave a comment on the article's talk page, after leaving one here, if I were canvassing? Quite simply, you're not taking your own advice and assuming good faith. About the edit, I don't know why you can't understand that I'm done with it. You've explained your point, and it was a good explanation. This is the third time I've said that in different words. As regards the retraction, my point about the retraction is that I shouldn't have said it in those words (and I admit, in the words of the last edit to this page, as well), but I think that you do leave your personality on each of those articles. Those articles are heavy on criticism against JW's. It's not NPOV to have so many articles that comprise a Wikiproject be so strong in reiterating a crticism. And just because they're sourced, doesn't necessarily mean that they're true. This statement on the main article, Jehovah's Witnesses for example: Not only is their disfellowshipping announced from the platform, they are also condemned as ‘mentally diseased’ or ‘apostates’... A disfellowshipping is announced from the platform, but the reason for disfellowshipping is never known unless that person were to tell you, themselves; or if there were crosstalk (which can happen anywhere). I know all this from personal experience as a Jehovah's Witnesses. An elder can get his elder privileges stripped if he were to leak why that person was disfellowshipped. What do you have to say about misrepresenting those articles in such a way? I take that last statement back. I can see how an outsider would see that as a derogatory statement. I personally don't. But I think that the general tone is harsher than on other criticism pages. And I personally feel that criticism pages in general are POV. Lighthead ^þ 00:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

You claimed that I am supposedly the 'owner' of the page, and subsequently suggested that I am supposedly 'responsible' in some way for the content there. Neither of those things is true. Most of my edits relate to copyediting and refactoring existing information.

The top of this noticeboard states quite clearly, "Before you post to this page, you should already have tried to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page." If you are not familiar with the purpose or protocol for a particular noticeboard, perhaps you should read what the page actually says.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

When did I say owner and responsible? I don't remember saying that, or even believing that. Where did I say that? I just glanced at what I said and I don't see it. I'll take a look again. I said ruler, but I admit that that was a rude comment that I shouldn't have said. And I also admit that I didn't read that at the top of this page. I just shot through with my comment on here; which I shouldn't have done, I admit. But the reason I did it is because I didn't read that, not because I had some hidden agenda. Lighthead ^þ 23:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

You claimed that I am some kind of 'ruler' of the article (well, not just the article, but supposedly an entire WikiProject), which is meaningless if you didn't intend some kind of ownership and responsibility. The distinction you're making is just semantics. You still haven't articulated what you consider to be the actual POV issue. If you still consider there to be a problem, you should do so at the article's Talk page.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I actually don't have an issue anymore. I wrongly assumed by looking at one edit, w/o looking at the linked article (my fault as well), that you were making all or at least most of those articles POV. The linked article, that is, on the Criticism page. I have to admit, I let my emotions rule my head. And to be perfectly honest, I have no way to know one way or the other whether you are being POV or not on the original item mentioned because I don't have access to those books. And as my life is supremely busy, I don't have the time to hunt them down. But I'm gonna take your advice, and assume good faith, and assume that you're not misquoting that book. Besides, I'm 100% sure that there's somebody out there that's tried to prove your point wrong, looked at the books, and realized that it is properly referenced and not misquoted. That was the reason that I called you a ruler, which I never should have done in a million years. I said that because I stupidly assumed, based on wrong information, that you were doing that with most if not all the articles. I realized it was stupid when I wrote it, but I went ahead and wrote it because I was angry. I'm sorry. I'm better than that. And like I said, I have no issue anymore. And next time I will bring it up on the article's talk page. I'm sorry for acting like a bull in a china shop. I've realized from this experience that religion can be a very sensitive topic, and I fell into that trap. Lighthead ^þ 23:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, though I don't really follow your explanation. The edit in question doesn't have anything to do with a quote, and doesn't make reference to a Criticism page. The text in question links the word deacon to the deacon article. If you're referring to some other edit on some other page, I can't even be sure that it was one of my edits you were originally concerned about.

I would suggest next time taking a few deep breaths and then re-reading what has been written (or reverted) before responding. Then if you still think there's a problem, start a new section on the article's Talk page.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:10, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, my bad. Actually the edit in question, is the one that I struck out in this section. I figured you knew what I was talking about this whole time. I was over the deacon edit at that point. I probably jumped over to a whole different topic at that time. It's one of the first criticisms mentioned on the main Jehovah's Witnesses article. The one that says that the organization accused those disfellowshipped as being mentally diseased and apostates in the 2010 WT. Actually the article of The Guardian that links to that reference is in the Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses article. But BlackCab clarified for me that you guys didn't want to link to that article in the main JW article for fear of overlinking. So in the criticism section for that same statement in the main article, you only let stand two references for books that I guess you could say argue against the Witnesses. I can't think of a better way to put it. But anyway, I think you should reread my comments at this section with this new understanding. It might make more sense to you what I was talking about. I actually mentioned that criticism edit on your talk page as well. You might want to review there, too. Yeah, I actually will take it easy and try to breathe more, and not be so paranoid. And especially not make myself look like a fool! I think I had this vision of you that was totally blown out of proportion. I think I need to have a more realistic view of people. Thanks. I think it also has to do with not editing on Wikipedia as much for as long as I've been here; in other words my lack of experience here, as I mentioned previous. But yeah, I will try to relax and not see demons hiding in the closet, next time. :) Lighthead ^þ 01:04, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

The other ('criticism') thing had already been struck out before I ever saw it, so there wasn't really much reason for me to make the connection. BlackCab's exaplanation should indeed be sufficient. I'm not aware that there was a particular preference as to which of those references was kept, but just to limit it to only a couple of references rather than every available reference. It would have been much clearer if you had raised your concerns at Talk:Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses (which is on my WatchList though my participation is not required) in the first instance. It can be very confusing when others have to make guesses about tangents, especially when they have other things going on in 'real life'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I realize that that can be confusing. As to Talk:Criticism, there where a lot of things that I did wrong regarding this whole issue that I brought up here. But yeah, it actually is worth reminding to not bring anything up here, unless. Lighthead ^þ 05:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

In fact it would have been better if I would have researched that link rather than wildly assuming what that edit was about. And yeah, I actually did strike it out right after I made that comment about criticism. So I can see how that was doubly confusing. Lighthead ^þ 05:29, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Michael Porter

This article reads like a cross between a fanzine and a vanity puff-piece; particularly in sentences like "In 2000, Michael Porter was appointed a Harvard University Professor, the highest professional recognition that can be awarded to a Harvard faculty member." My intrinsic respect for "Harvard Professors" forbids me to speculate that the whole article may be an elaborate practical joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.198.220 (talk) 21:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Whatever POV or puffery issues this article may have, Michael Porter is probably the most highly respected professor at any business school in the world. The article is not a practical joke. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The article is too resume-like, a common problem in academic biographies. He's a very well known economist and this biography doesn't do a good job of telling us why. The best way to rectify that would be to put in some information about his arguments in The Competitive Advantage of Nations and elsewhere, and to refer to positive and negative reviews of his works. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Goldcorp

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

Article is subject of long term efforts by COI accounts to use it as a press release, with occasional counter-attempts to add negative content, not always adequately sourced. I've copy edited for neutrality, and though I think it's in a good place now, don't expect that to last long. Further eyes and adding this to watchlists would be appreciated. Thanks, 76.248.149.47 (talk) 15:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Y I toned down some of the unsourced puffery in the intro, and I think it's okay now. —Cupco 01:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Use of the word "Journalist"

The issue is the use of the word "Journalist" to describe the subject of the article "Nick Christensen (journalist)." The living subject of this biography is a public relations staffer for the Metro regional government in the Portland, Oregon, metropolitan area.

While it's common for journalists to leave their profession and become publicists or media relations persons for government agencies, it's misleading to wikipedia readers for them to refer to themselves as a "journalist" after having done so.

For just one example, see the online job search page http://www.simplyhired.com, which clearly distinguishes "In-House Writer" from "Journalist." For another, in the wikipedia entry for Jay Carney, Mr. Carney is referred to as having previously been a journalist but currently as White House Press Secretary. This is consistent with wikipedia's treatment of other people working in press relations on behalf of political entities.

To my knowledge, there is no other example of a government public relations person being presented in Wikipedia or anywhere else as a "journalist."

I have twice attempted to use broader, more accurate language ("public relations staffer") and another editor --perhaps the subject himself, or an associate --immediately reverts.

This may seem an academic or petty issue, but there is an important role served in society by journalists. A person charged with creating a favorable public perception of their employer is the very opposite of a journalist. Peezy1001 (talk) 04:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC) I am not an experienced editor but have made contributions over the years where I saw an opportunity to improve Wikipedia. I believe that Wikipedia should be a reliable source of objective information, not a venue for counter-factual spin. I would like the wikipedia community to address the meaning of "Journalism" and whether a person paid by a government agency can qualify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peezy1001 (talk • contribs) 03:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

How do reliable sources describe this guy? (eg, do recent news stories call him 'journalist/reporter' or 'spokesman' or similar?). They're going to be the best guide to how he should be referred to. Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

By the way, using the rather negative term of 'PR flack' in relation to this person as you're insisting on [2] is unacceptable. Nick-D (talk) 10:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. You can identify someone as "a spokesperson" or "press secretary" or "publicist" or some such, but 'flack' is both too slangy and too connotative. A "journalist" should be a third-party source; "staff writer" or "in-house writer" can describe someone who works within an organization or body on either a paid or volunteer basis. In terms of identifying someone's career, it seems to me that the career as a whole should be considered, on the grounds that Nick-D outlined. In an infobox, people may have more than one occupation: there's nothing wrong with 'journalist, press secretary'. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

108.28.53.169

Could someone with more energy and patience for it please take a look at Special:Contributions/108.28.53.169? He seems to primarily do NPOV edits. Thanks. —Kerfuffler 22:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I sampled a handful of the most recent edits and didn't see anything even vaguely troubling. Got specific diffs? —Cupco 01:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Censorship in Islamic societies

More eyes on this article would be appreciated; it is being used as a coatrack for various incidents of non-censorship and censorship unrelated to Islam by users who refuse to attempt to gain consensus. I'm arguing that relevance is a necessary baseline for inclusion in the article, but making Muslims look bad appears to trump this fairly self-evident necessity. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Presently at AfD, some of the concerns have been addressed. —Cupco 01:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Disco Demolition Night

Please see the RfC regarding racism and homophobia. Thanks. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 00:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Use of scare quotes in article title

A user added scare quotes to the bolded article title of orgastic potency. This was done to emphasize that the article is about a fringe topic. However, I don't see the relevance nor the propriety in using this extreme level of emphasis to underscore such a point. To me adding scare quotes to the article title seems much over the top in efforts to denigrate the subject, rather than to present it in representative context with respect to its scientific and otherwise standing as well as notability. I attempted to undo the adding of scare quotes, but this was promptly reverted by another user. I'm seeking advise from this noticeboard on the correct application of WP policies and guidelines to this conflict. __meco (talk) 08:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

It's kinda academic...the entire article needs to be deleted - it violates (at least) WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE and WP:MEDRS. SteveBaker (talk) 13:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Rochester Police Department

Rochester Police Department (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I just reverted a substantial amount of blanking [3] at this article it seemed too extensive of modification to do with no explanation. However, the IP may a point in that ~2/3's of the article is related to specific criticisms and incidents. I am bringing it here for broader discussion to see if there is consensus that the article needs to be rewritten for neutrality. VQuakr (talk) 00:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The balance of the article has been extensively discussed. See the sections entitled "Tension between police force and activist groups" and "Response from another editor" on Talk:Rochester Police Department. The section in question is Rochester Police Department#Alleged misconduct which as a topic is necessary for complete coverage—it just needs to be less one-sided. The rest of the article is relatively mundane. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 00:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality of treatment of the awards of the Iron Cross and Karageorge Star to Pavle Djurisic

On the talk page of Pavle Djurisic the neutrality of the treatment of two awards made to the article subject is disputed. There is a separate issue which is not being discussed here which relates to the reliability of one of the sources used for the award of the Iron Cross. I am just flagging that so that involved editors can focus on the NPOV aspect.

Djurisic was awarded the Order of the Star of Karađorđe, a high award of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, by the Yugoslav government in exile. The award is sourced but the degree of the award and date of award are not. The award is currently mentioned in the infobox and in the aftermath section (it was put there as it is not known when it was awarded).

Djurisic was also awarded the Iron Cross 2nd Class, an iconic but fairly lowly award of Nazi Germany, by the German commander in Montenegro in October 1944. The award and the date of award are sourced. The award is mentioned in the lead, infobox and in the chronologically appropriate section of the article. It is illustrated by a copy of the entitlement document and a image of a newspaper in which it was announced.

The rationale behind the current mentions of both awards in the article is as follows-

1. The Order of the Star of Karađorđe was a Yugoslav award which was awarded to a number of prominent Chetnik leaders, it is unknown how many were awarded during the war and or in what degrees. It is unknown what degree of the award was bestowed on Djurisic or when. There are no images available of the entitlement document or any announcement of its award.

2. The Iron Cross 2nd Class was an award of Nazi Germany (4.5 million were awarded during WW2), but Djurisic was the only known Chetnik recipient of the award and the only Chetnik known to have received any German award. He was also a notable Chetnik collaborator with both the Italians and then the Germans. The award is also particularly notable for that reason. The class and date of the award are known. There are images available of the entitlement document and the announcement in a local paper.

This is a Featured Article which I assisted to get to that class. As a result I try to maintain a stewardship role in relation to the information included and consider I have dealt with the awards in a neutral way, taking into account the uniqueness of the award of the Iron Cross. My request is for a consensus here on whether the current treatment of the two awards provides a NPOV and if not, I ask for suggestions on how that would be achieved. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

What is the rationale behind the perceived lack of NPOV? Both awards are mentioned and there isn't a dispute about the events themselves so what is the focus of the NPOV dispute?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 07:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, I suppose that the Star is not mentioned in the lead and there are two (conjoined) images regarding the Iron Cross. Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

So, an issue of balance and I suppose a perception that the relative level of the awards within their own awards systems is not being taken into account? Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

ISO 3166-1

From the article lead:

"ISO 3166-1 is part of the ISO 3166 standard published by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), and defines codes for the names of countries, dependent territories, and special areas of geographical interest."

The article contains a table that shows some of the elements of each entity in the standard, including the name and numeric and alpha codes. Each row also includes a flag that is not part of the standard, but is there in our article solely as a means of identification and decoration.

There are currently 4 entities for which some editors object to showing a flag, the discussion of which can be found here. Recently, someone re-added the Taiwan flag and I added the other three, along with an explanation clarifying the non-political nature of the standard and the flags being shown. This prompted a revert, but no further discussion, where clearly some is needed.

(My reason for bringing attention to it here is that I believe, by not showing specific flags, we are making a political statement about the legitimacy of those entities, which is not a NPOV. It should be all or none, and it looks better with all.)

—[AlanM1(talk)]— 05:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Forgot to add a link to the discussion, which is at Talk:ISO 3166-1#flags (a reversion of an IP edit to Taiwan made me look into it). Opinions needed please. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

New RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 14:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Eurabia

Eurabia, an article covering the idea that Muslims are overtaking Europe, has been compared to several anti-semitic conspiracy theories, among them the Zionist Occupied Government and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Two sources making such a comparison are as follows:

• Simon Kuper (September 9, 2011). "The end of Eurabia". Financial Times. Very popular political ideas are usually ones that can be explained over a beer in a bar, or at worst in a pamphlet. Marxism had the 23-page Communist manifesto; anti-Semitism had the rollicking forgery Protocols of the Elders of Zion (Ye'or's book reads like the Protocols badly rewritten about Muslims)
• Carr, Matt (2006), Race & Class, 48 (1), Stripped of its Islamic content, the broad contours of Ye'or's preposterous thesis recall the anti-Semitic conspiracy theories of the first half of the twentieth century and contemporary notions of the 'Zionist Occupation Government' prevalent in far-right circles in the US. {{citation}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

The article, and its lead, had included that the theory has been compared to these two anti-semitic conspiracy theories. That has been removed from the lead as "fringe". Does the inclusion of the peer-reviewed article in Race & Class or the article in the Financial Times qualify as "fringe"? nableezy - 17:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I think your wording [4] might need tweaking a little, but I can't see any reason why inclusion of this fairly fundamental criticism of what is in itself firmly a 'fringe' theory in the lede should in itself be problematic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:59, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

agree with andy.-- altetendekrabbe  18:06, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The articles are fine but cherry picking quotes are problematic. Comparisons are problematic in general. They assume you know two subjects. The comparisons there don’t shed light because they don’t specify where the analogies hold and where they don’t. When they are removed from the article, they leave the reader with nothing but a crude Reductio ad Hitlerum argument. It would be better to explain the authors criticisms directly rather than by such comparisons. Jason from nyc (talk) 18:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, but what? Cherry picking quotes? You mean reading sources and providing quotes from that directly back the content in question? nableezy - 18:59, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

No, I mean taking quotes out of context to the point of absurdity. Eurabia conspiracy theory claims that there is a conspiracy between European governments and Arab governments. 19th century anti-Zionist conspiracies don't involve a conspiracy between European governments and Jewish governments. Israel didn't exist! If the analogy holds we need to know in which sense the authors (who are indeed worth quoting) see the analogy. If we know that we don't need the analogy. Jason from nyc (talk) 19:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Taking Jason's point into account, a solution would be to use both these sources but not to editorialise about them. Perhaps a section entitled Comparisons with other ideologies or Comparisons with other conspiracy theories. Then just "Simon Kuper in the FT said..." and "Matt Carr in Race and Class said...". Get that right and then consider whether to include in the lead. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

That's a sound approach. I afraid it would require original research as the secondary sources are limited in this regard. I could be wrong; I'll let others correct me if that's the case. Jason from nyc (talk) 00:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

"19th century anti-Zionist conspiracies" (Jason from nyc) The "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" and "Zionist Occupation Government" are 20th century antisemite conspiracy theories. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The Zionist Occupation Government page currently begin by "Zionist Occupation Government or Zionist Occupied Government (abbreviated as ZOG) is an antisemitic conspiracy theory which holds that Jews secretly control a given country, while the formal government is a puppet regime." Bat Ye'or eurabian thesis is barely that Muslims/Arabs secretly ("The public ignores this strategy", "Europeans live within Eurabia’s constraints, few are really conscious of them on a daily basis, beyond a somewhat confused awareness.") control Europe, while the formal governments and the EU are puppet regimes. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The very first sentence reads: "Eurabia represents a geo-political reality envisaged in 1973 through a system of informal alliances between, on the one hand, the nine countries of the European Community (EC)which, enlarged, became the European Union (EU) in 1992 and on the other hand, the Mediterranean Arab countries." There was no Jewish nations in 1903 when "Protocols" were written or during the 1920s when it was widely read. Your point is that there are similarities (Jews/Muslims in secret pulling the strings) and my point is that there are differences. My only point is that comparisons work to some degree and fail otherwise. Unless this is made clear, one is painting with too broad a brush leaving the reader wondering how far to push the comparison. Jason from nyc (talk) 00:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

These throw-away comments have no place in the lead where they would be given undue weight. What you can do is moving the stuff to a subsection related to Littmann's theory because these comments have actually been made in reference to her 'conspiracy theory', not at all to the totality of the Eurabia theory. Your point, however, shows the need to separate Littmann's political Eurabia 'conspiracy theory' more clearly from the demographic/assimilationist aspects of Eurabia as expounded by other thinkers. Littmann has no monopoly on the term and neither do her critics have. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:07, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that is right. Jason from nyc (talk) 00:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

4 3 other sources are comparing Eurabia with anti-semitic conspiracy theories and are currently mentionned in the Wikipedia article:

• Marján and Sapir
• Arun Kundnani
• David Aaronovitch
• Johann Hari

(follow the link for the exact quotations and references). Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

gunpowderma has an anti-muslim pov and is being disruptive on several islam related pages. we don't editors who are whitewashing conspiracy theories.-- altetendekrabbe  00:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Social Programs in the U.S.--Food Stamps and a Conservative POV

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

I recently reviewed the article above and came across the Food Stamp section and discovered that someone had included their own POV from The Heritage Foundation where they worked.

I checked all references and discovered the use of Conservative ezines/websites/newspapers which supposedly referenced the USDA in certain areas of usgae of taxpayer money. I found that the articles had re-written the way the USDA actually provides fisal information, that information regarding 'fraud' was a specific money amount 'investigated' for fraud, in 5 states only and not actual fraud cases that had been prosecuted and found guilty.

The use of the phrase "Conservative commentators have argued..." shows a beginning clearly referencing a non-neutral POV, and as such, I removed all information that refered to this one-sided POv.

Someone then revised that edit to include the POV again and changed one referenced article to The Wall Street Journal, which was an editorial that must be paid for in order to review. This is not what I consider a reference that can be used in a Wiki article.

I have re-revised-- to remove the POV again. If I am incorrect about the POV, please advise. I am sure we have been reading a Conservative POV which was one-sided and I belIeve I am correct about the revision.

FYI--I cannot locate the name of the individual who removed my first revision and I dont know if its my laptop but I seem to be missing what I entered into the 'talk' section. BTW the individual who removed my edit, never discussed anything with me on the talk section.

Please advise--Thanks Brattysoul (talk) 04:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:RSOPINION, editorials are generally not reliable for anything beyond the editor's views. As such, they are generally ok as sources for articles about the editor, but not other articles unless the editorial has gained significant coverage itself. aprock (talk) 05:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I must be thick--how does what you've stated apply to a wiki article that has been weeding out POVs and the POV stated in the artcle regarding the food programs-particularly the food stamp program-has only ONE side stated and has links that are 1-not available 2-are only from one-sided media that contains unsupported "facts" or worse, with a spin from a conservative pov.

Wiki rules state an article must have a neutral pov, and that is not the case with this part of the article and must be removed and NOT replaced while it contains someone elses POV that is not an encylopediac entry. I have shown how not only is it a one-sided conservative POV from a conservative wesite, but that references are not usable.

The blog of the Heritage Foundation with one article does not contain actual facts from the USDA. What has been claimed as a source from the USDA doesnt exist in the way it has been used. THAT is the problem. I actually checked the USDA. What the Heritage Foundation article called 'investigated fraud' does not exist on the USDA in the way that the article claims. THAT is what I stated. REPEATEDLY. As long as the use of unsupported facts are contained in an artcle, or a link in an article cannot be accessed the one-sided POV cannot be used.

I am concerned that people may be misunderstanding the policy. Our sources are allowed to state a POV. What this policy says is that we (as Wikipedia editors and article writers) must be neutral in how we describe what those POV sources say. If conservative commentators have said something, it is not necessarily POV for us to note that they have said it (indeed, it can be POV for us to ignore this fact). The key is HOW we mention it... we should present POV opinions as being opinion, and not present them as being accepted fact. An opinion can be based on inaccurate information, but it is an opinion nevertheless. Blueboar (talk) 14:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

If conservative commentators have said something, it is not necessarily POV for us to note that they have said it Per WP:RSOPINION opinions are generally not reliable for anything but the author's views. Adding a view just because someone published an op-ed somewhere is an example of misusing WP:PRIMARY sources, and WP:UNDUE. If the weight of that editors view is established through secondary sources, then it might merit inclusion. aprock (talk) 17:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Fact sheet of India

Talk:India#Fact sheet merger proposal should be of some interest to the regulars of this board. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Corporate involvement in article - ReachOut Healthcare America

Hi! Is it okay if I list articles in which I suspect companies may be trying to whitewash their pages? I noticed some edits at ReachOut Healthcare America which included OR rebuttals of sourced content from articles about the company. There is a legal case involved, so it may get contentious Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 04:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• Please watch the edits by 66.234.240.133 in the article - It seems like a company editor based on the language inserted into the article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ReachOut_Healthcare_America&action=history WhisperToMe (talk) 22:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
• At User_talk:66.234.240.133#On_your_edits I am critiquing his edits. They seem to be the same as the edits from the previous username. There are some tweaks I would like to make to the content that I wrote before his edits, but in general it seems like most of his/her edits are flawed/company POV edits. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Al-Ahbash

Wanted! Few Neutral Wikipedia editors who will help with a version of Al-Ahbash page which presents the information written by the Al-Ahbash as well as its opponents objectively under the light of pertinent academic sources and Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines

Please, bear in mind that the subject of the Al-Ahbash article is extremely controversial.

Thank you and Good luck. McKhan (talk)

• Note: The article is currently protected (by me) after large amounts of edit-warring between multiple editors. A quick perusal of User:McKhan's edits will show that he has done pretty much nothing else but edit-war on this article. So yes, neutral editors are required, although I am unconvinced that either side is likely to agree with each other on this issue. Black Kite (talk) 16:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia and its admins never cease to amaze me. So much so for NEUTRAL, THOROUGH and FAIR admin-ship that an admin is polluting the water from the get-go when an editor is making a serious attempt to have some un-involved editors involved into the matter. I still hope that some un-involved editors come along and help in due course. McKhan (talk)

No, that's called informing people of the facts of the matter, which are easily confirmed by looking at your contributions. Neutral editors are of course welcome at that article, as I said - I was merely pointing out that you aren't one, as indeed most of the other people involved in the edit war aren't. Black Kite (talk) 16:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

FYI: I am NOT the author of ANY of the versions posted on that page. How did you arrive at that page? You still haven't answered that. Have you? McKhan (talk)

My talk page is on her watchlist. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Correct. Since Darkness Shines' talkpage has been attacked on numerous occasions by a banned editor (whom I have blocked a number of socks of), I always look into it when other editors post anything attacking them, in case they are another sockpuppet of that user (which was not the case on this occasion). Black Kite (talk) 17:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Here comes yet another non-neutral and involved editor and the author of current version of that page. I knew it that it had to do something with you. (There still remain plenty of unanswered questions. For example: Why would she protect the page arbitrarily when there has been no request made to do so on the pertinent Wikipedia noticeboard? Did you request her to do that behind-the-scenes by e-mailing her? Did she notice that I haven't touched that page for several weeks before jumping the gun and accusing me of edit-warring? Did she pay attention to the fact that I have had very long and intensive discussions with the other involved editors? Did she notice that you have written the current version of that page arbitrarily and without seeking consensus and since that version is up on that page you have been quite vehemently reverting it back to your version should someone (i.e. Sakimonk) dare to contribute to that article? Did she take a note of the fact that you only posted on my talk page about "edit-warring" and yet you did not post anything at all whatsoever on the other involved editors?) Since you have arrived, I would strongly recommend to refrain from rehashing the same old accusations over and over again and focus upon the content should you decide to go any further. By taking Magog_the_Ogre's advice, I am making a very serious attempt here to have some NEUTRAL, KNOWLEDGEABLE and UN-INVOLVED editors involved. McKhan (talk)

The two actions available to me to prevent further disruption were (a) protecting the article, or (b) blocking you. I would have thought that you'd have been glad that I took the first option. Black Kite (talk) 22:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not qualified to evaluate User:McKhan's edits—I know nothing about this organization. However, I do have several observations to make here. First of all, the claim that McKhan has been edit warring is not a neutral claim given that it is being advanced in favor of another editor who has been doing the same thing. It seems clear that User:Darkness Shines has not been participating in consensus-building on this article, and that McKhan has, and that to the extent that there is a consensus, the consensus favors the McKhan version. At the same time, the back-and-forth accusations on the talk page reflect poorly on all editors. I wish I could just whack you all with the shame stick and get you to stop calling each other names and start cooperating, but I suppose that's impossible. Be that as it may, the admin action here was inappropriate and non-neutral. Darkness should stop edit warring and do concise edits that are justified by references and debated on the talk page. McKhan should do the same. It doesn't matter who starts, but any editor who does a mass revert of this article again should be permanently banned from editing it. And the admin who does that should not be User:Black Kite, who has admitted to being non-neutral. I would argue that Black Kite's actions here are grounds for censure. Abhayakara (talk) 18:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me? McKhan has for seven years edit warred using socks to keep that article at a stub. I got there from the 3RR notice board and rewrote the article in user space due to the edit warring of McKhan and his sockpuppets. Perhaps you should look into the histor yof the article a little more before flinging accusations around? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

In fact here it is, 6 September 2005 McKhan's first edit to this article. And here is it just before I got there 2 April 2012 seven years that article was kept as a stub by MCKhan and his socks. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I warned you to focus upon the content and to refrain from rehashing the same accusations over and over again on this noticeboard as I am making a very serious attempt to have some NEUTRAL, KNOWLEDGEABLE and UN-INVOLVED editors involved as per the advice of Magog_the_Ogre. Since you didn't refrain, thus, I would like to let you know that I am pretty sick and tired of your "crap insults", to borrow your own words, and constant bullying me around. Furthermore, to borrow your own words again, you have done a very "piss poor" job by "re-writing" that article through cherry-picking the academic sources and then indulging into edit-warring with the other involved editors by reverting it back to your own version again and again using the clout of "no consensus" and yet you sought no consensus before making the massive changes to that article. FYI: I did NOT keep that page as a "stub". I have NEVER been the author of ANY of the versions posted on that page. That page has been under constant attack by the proponents of the Al-Ahbash to convert it into an advertisement for their cause. With reference to this edit summary of yours, going forward, your talk is also on my watch-list. Should you like to help with the Al-Ahbash page without converting this noticeboard into a battle-ground (i.e. Darkness Shines vs. McKhan), then you are more than welcome to do so by focusing upon the content otherwise let the other un-involved editors come along and help. McKhan (talk)

Bullshit, I had never heard of this group until it came up on the 3rr notice board. I have not cherry picked sources nor edit warred. You however have, for seven years, because you are a SPA. The diffs speak for themselves, you with your socks kept that article at a stub for seven bloody years. You cannot deny the facts, anyone can go look at that articles history and see for themselves. Do not make accusations against me without proof, where have I cherry picked sources? Your ongoing quest for the truth is unbelievable. Your hatred of this group obvious to all, you should have been banned when caught socking, you should have been banned after the attacks you made on myself, you should be banned for being a SPA. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I know that you have tried several venues to get me banned from Wikipedia but the good news is that there are still some considerate and understanding admins exist on Wikipedia who can see through the matters. In response to you comment "Your hatred of this group obvious to all", all I have to say that I hold no "hated" towards that group (Personal attack removed) Having said that, I would like to reiterate, "By taking Magog_the_Ogre's advice, I am making a very serious attempt here to have some NEUTRAL, KNOWLEDGEABLE and UN-INVOLVED editors involved...Should you like to help with the Al-Ahbash page without converting this noticeboard into a battle-ground (i.e. Darkness Shines vs. McKhan), then you are more than welcome to do so by focusing upon the content (not McKhan) otherwise let the other un-involved editors come along and help." McKhan (talk)

I beg your pardon? In what way am I non-neutral here? The fact that I have previously blocked socks of a banned editor is utterly irrelevant. Explain yourself. Black Kite (talk) 20:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

It may be tough to fix this article, because the only people who seem to have any knowledge also have very strong opinions. One option is to put on full protection for a period of time, and only let changes in using {{editprotect}} for edits that win consensus on the talk page. Another option is to decide that the article is under WP:ARBPIA (it does have a reference work that mentions 'Palestinians' and 'jihad') in which case admins would have more options for article restrictions (such as 1RR) to try to get things going in the right direction. EdJohnston (talk) 20:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I have already protected it. Clearly, judging from the above hysteria, in the Wrong Version, but that's fairly normal. Black Kite (talk) 20:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• User:Darkness Shines, if you are sincere about wanting to make the article more neutral, you need do nothing more than start editing it in the way I suggested: make your edits brief, back them with sources, and discuss differences on the talk page. Without engaging in ad hominem accusations. If User:McKhan responds with ad hominem attacks, you win, and McKhan gets banned, because it becomes obvious who is the NPOV editor. Right now, it's not obvious. Obviously, the same advice applies to McKhan.

User:Black Kite, your lack of neutrality in this dispute is evidenced by the fact that you have a watch on User:Darkness Shines' talk page, which indicates that you have a protective interest toward Darkness Shines, and that when you followed up on what you found on that talk page, your action favored Darkness Shines over McKhan. Either separately would have been perfectly reasonable; the two together indicate bias. Everyone has bias—it's nothing to be ashamed of. But as an administrator, you are obliged to be extremely careful not to allow your bias to affect your administrative actions; doing so can cause a lot of harm to Wikipedia.

User:McKhan, please don't take what I am saying here as an indication that I agree with you. Your rhetoric here is largely ad hominem, and while your indignation is understandable, it is not justified. Please stop accusing people of having thoughts you cannot know. Don't say "you aren't neutral." Don't say "I can't believe people are behaving so badly." These are arguments ad homimen: arguments that attack the person with whom you are debating, rather than attacking what they have said. If what they have said is wrong, explain why. Give reasons that are relevant to Wikipedia. For instance, if you think an editor is exhibiting NPOV with respect to your article, show why that editor's edits are wrong by pointing out problems with the sources that they are using, or by showing that they are cherry picking sources, giving undue weight to sources that say one thing over equally reliable sources that say another. Do not attempt to remove opposing viewpoints from the article if they are sustained by significant reliable sources; instead, give your side of the story using reliable sources of your own. Abhayakara (talk) 21:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

This article is now neutral which is why the article has not been vandalized for several months by ip users. Mckhan and his sock puppets guarded an inaccurate version for almost a decade and since he would not let me edit, i had to use several wiki venues to put this article under spotlight. Editing an infobox is considered POV to mckhan based on discussion. Abdullah al-Harari (leader of ahbash) has the same issue, it has been kept a stub for years because of Mckhan and his socks so its quite obvious he may have a personal vendetta against this group and its leader. The current article has reliable sources so i dont see how its not neutral and mckhan must participate in discussion under brd without going off topic and raving about other things Baboon43 (talk) 21:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• Right then, McKhan, what it the article is not neutral in your opinion? Keep it brief please. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

@Abhayakara i believe you have things twisted, if an admin comes along and protects a page it does not mean that they are taking sides..as clearly seen in the edit history it wasnt just mckhan and darkness shines that were reverting so protection would be necessary to stop edit warring..i also suggest new editors to look at the history of the page and discussion on talk pages instead of just joining discussion blindly. Baboon43 (talk) 22:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Since I see some progress here, thus, as a first step (using the step-by-step approach), I have proposed Executive Summary on the Ahbash Talk page. Please, feel welcome to comment and be NEUTRAL and FAIR as this is an extremely controversial topic. Thank you all, specially, for those who have Cool-Calm-and-Neutral heads on their shoulders. McKhan (talk)

• Asserting that an article is neutral doesn't make it neutral. If McKhan has engaged in sockpuppetry, accuse them of sockpuppetry in an appropriate venue, not here. If what you say is accurate (which I am neither disputing nor affirming) then I can understand your frustration, but you aren't handling it well. If McKhan really is protecting the article as you say, and this isn't a legitimate dispute, then all you have to do is stop edit warring the entire article and stick to making small edits that neutral editors can easily evaluate on their own merits. If McKhan continues to revert these edits, then it will be easy to make the case that these editsreverts are POV. Abhayakara (talk) 02:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Methodology / Ground-rules (Proposed)

Given that the topic is extremely controversial, the following Methodology / Ground-rules I would like to propose assuming that only independent, peer-reviewed academic and verifiable sources will be used:

• The article should present

• a). What Al-Ahbash has to say about them
• b). What the independent, peer-reviewed academic and verifiable sources have to say about the Al-Ahbash and last but not the least
• c). What the opponents of Al-Ahbash have to say about them.

• It is extremely crucial that the NEUTRAL and UN-INVOLVED editors keep an eye on the edits made by the editors and intervene as soon as they find a tangible cause for intervention. Please, make sure to be NEUTRAL, FAIR and JUST as it is an extremely controversial topic.
• The ultimate goal should be to have NPOV compliant version of the Al-Ahbash page.

That would be wonderful if there are more NEUTRAL and UN-INVOLVED editors involved into this process. Thank you. McKhan (talk)

You posted the same exact comment on the article's talk page, it would perhaps be better to post it to one location and then direct the conversation to the one page, the article's talk page for instance. - SudoGhost 03:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The Talk Page hasn't worked so far. That's why I brought this matter to this noticeboard as per Magog_the_Ogre's advice. I would like to make sure that the methodology / ground rules and other matters have been agreed upon before moving back to the Talk Page. And most importantly, I think (but I could be wrong) that this noticeboard might be able to facilitate the help of some NEUTRAL and UN-INVOLVED editors whose involvement in the process is absolutely paramount at this juncture. Thank you. McKhan (talk)

• User:McKhan, my experience with trying to get editorial help is that in general, you won't get much, because nobody cares about the article enough to really grok the situation. The fact that you have an editor who disagrees strongly with your position may seem like a curse, but it isn't—the two of you could collaborate to produce something better and more fair than either of you would produce separately. So don't just hang around waiting for a rescue that will never come. Rise to the occasion. Be the change that you want to see in the world. Abhayakara (talk) 06:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
• McKhan, what in the article is in your view not neutral. If you do not tell us then it cannot be fixed. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Edinburgh Academy

An IP removed material at Edinburgh Academy[5] stating that "In an August 2012 analysis of Scottish Independent Schools by the percentage of 'A' grades awarded for the 'Higher Grade' examination, the Academy came second bottom of independent schools in Edinburgh with 34% of passes at A grade." I replaced it and it was then removed with an edit summary saying that " across to me as negative POV - especially when the quoted source is an article saying how well Scottish independent schools have done. And why pick out this particular statistic from no doubt many others which are presumably available?". I can see the point, but this school did particularly badly and we commonly do include exam results in school article. What do others think? Dougweller (talk) 18:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Ideally there would be a common approach to presenting the exam results across all Scottish schools. That's what we have to do on WikiProject Universities. Otherwise schools will cherry pick the results that look best for them, or in this case someone's cherry picking the worst results for that school, possibly as sour grapes or perhaps from rivalry. But I'm not up to speed on how results are usually presented in Scotland. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

It may be good to put it on Wikidata (when it is active), so that the info can easily be copied to other languages WhisperToMe (talk) 21:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Censorship for Politicians ?

I have noticed certain articles about politicians getting the Royal Treatment:"King can do no wrong". All "criticism sections" on these politicians have been censored by reverting.

a partial list of these Articles:

• Sonia Gandhi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Indira Gandhi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Jawaharlal Nehru (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Pranab Mukherjee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

do we allow one-sided articles on Wikipedia ? don't these articles violate WP:NPOV ?

I personally have not argued with any of the editors, but reading the Articles' talk pages and their archives, I don't think it would be of any use.--Ne0 (talk) 09:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Criticism sections are not a good idea, instead all points of view should be built into the article as it goes along. What the articles you've listed seem to share is a lack of detail about the political positions of the subjects. It would be good to add sections on Views or Political stance, or similar. The articles on Nehru and Indira Gandhi should make more use of academic historical research. Have a look at Featured articles on politicians to see how they handle neutrality (assuming we do have some FA on politicians). Itsmejudith (talk),

I'm with Judith on this (I think this is the second time today I used that exact phrase). If there is relevent criticism of something a politician has done, it should be incorporated alongside the text describing the event so criticized, not isolated by itself in its own section. Thus, you could say something like "John Politician enacted sweeping bureaucratic reforms and reorganized the apparatus of state. Jane Socialcritic and others have criticized this move as ultimately promoting cronyism by John Politician, putting his own friends and supporters in key positions" That would be the appropriate way to handle it. Segregating criticism into its own section give WP:UNDUE weight to it. We rarely create entire sections for "praise", and yet for some reason there is a real push to integrate entire isolated sections of "criticism" which are divorced from the text. Also, the criticism should be widespread and commonly expressed, not a fringe viewpoint, per WP:UNDUE also. Not every critic's opinion bears mentioning, and not all criticism merits mentioning in articles. Only that which is so prevalent in the mainstream, respected scholarship that Wikipedia would be remiss not to include it. --Jayron32 17:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The articles I am talking about do have separate sections for praise/honors/Commemoration, but none for criticism/controversy, which is why I called them one-sided/POV. So the advice, as I understand it, is to integrate both praise and criticism back into the article ? --Ne0 (talk) 07:37, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

UK wealth tax proposal

Resolved

 – No, not noteworthy enough yet per response on article talk page. —Cupco 10:37, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding "Lib Dem conference: Clegg promises to push for wealth tax," 23 September 2012, BBC and "A 20% wealth tax on the mega rich would raise up to £800bn," 25 September 2012, New Statesman, would someone with insight into the workings of the UK coalition government please say whether this is noteworthy enough to include as a proposal in Wealth tax yet? I realize that this is more of a subject matter question on the workings of the UK coalition government than a NPOV policy question, but I asked at WP:RDH and they sent me here. —Cupco 07:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Third Party Reliable Sources for 'Criticism' Purposes

Hi,

I am wondering what type of sources qualify for third-party reliable sources when it comes to criticism of a figure. For example in Criticism of Muhammad, the opinion of 20th century Christian missionaries are allowed in the article even though one might think of the two faiths as competitors. My question then is whether I can use a pro-intelligent design's opinion for criticism of a pro-Darwinism. To be specific, take for example Steve Fuller who is a professor of sociology and happens to be a fan of intelligent design. In the book "Religion and the new atheism: A critical appraisal" published by Brill he writes the following about Richard Dawkins on page 65:

"In the notorious but revealing final scene in Ben Stein's pro-intelligent design film, Expelled (2008), Dawkins is caught musing that in light of the complex logic on display in the genetic code, it is entirely possible that it was seeded by an alien life-form. While hardly a confession of faith, Dawkins' admission touch-kicks the question of life's origins into a zone where the theologians and physicists trying to peer into the mind of God rub shoulders with earthbound biologists and seekers for extraterrestrial life. Implicit in Dawkins' admission is a reluctance to accept the standard Darwinian line that life boot-strapped its way out of the primordial soup"

I would like to know if the sole fact that Steve Fuller is a pro-ID and has voluntarilly interviewed in the documentory Expelled, makes his criticism unreliable. Thank you.--24.94.18.234 (talk) 14:33, 26 September 2012 (UTC)