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

Lindsey Graham

Please note Talk:Lindsey Graham#Neutrality dispute--August 2, 2013, relating to how to summarize opinions of Graham's tenure in Congress. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done Users on the page seem to be satisfied with a solution implemented. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Concerned Women for America

At Concerned Women for America, I've made an attempt to address a longstanding advert tag by removing copious amounts of material sourced only to CWFA's self-published promotional material. User:Intermittentgardener has repeatedly reverted while steadfastly refusing to explain any problems that he or she found with my edits. Talkpage discussion can be found here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I would like to note that I have only been reverting the wholesale deletion of content. While Wikipedia does discourage the use of primary sources, that should not be an excuse to delete anything and everything without discretion or judgement. Also, I have engaged on the talk page. Roscelese refuses to talk any specifics about the content; She just wants to delete. Finally, if you look at her user page and talk page you will see that she clearly has a POV that she is pushing and routinely engages in conflict with editors she perceives as conservative. Intermittentgardener (talk) 17:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

You're shifting the burden. If you find anything and can back it up with reliable independent secondary sources, discuss on talk and get consensus to include. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:02, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Isn't the burden of proof rightfully on someone who wants to delete longstanding text that constitutes the vast majority of an article?Intermittentgardener (talk) 18:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Most definitely not. The burden rests solely on those adding or restoring material. The size of the deletiion and whether it was longstanding or not has no bearing on this, and is not a justification for restoring that can be defended by our policies and guidelines. The article in question was jam packed with material based on unduly self-serving self-discription and blatant self-promotion. That this much arrant BS evaded detection and deletion for so long does not indicate that it conforms to our policies. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

While the sourcing is far from ideal, I don't see the content as "arrant BS." While not artfully written, everything in the article seems like an accurate summation of Concerned Women for America's views and activities. Regardless of what you think about them, what they said is what they said and what they did is what they did. Also, you should not that lots of content with good secondary sources was removed indiscriminately.Intermittentgardener (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Such as? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to have some self-description of CWA's aims, but that self-description should be brief. The majority of the article needs to reflect independent, reliable sources rather than the organization's website content. MastCell ^Talk 19:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Self-description with advocacy groups such as this is a huge problem as it is often designed to misrepresent the actual aims and activities of the organization. Ideally, we should rely totally on reliable independent secondary sources, with primary sources used sparingly to illustrate and supplement what those sources have to say, at most. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with MastCell that some self description is needed. As long as its worded correctly and people know that its what the group says its trying to do, in their voice, not ours, that's important for the article and actually necessary. --Malerooster (talk) 19:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no policy basis for providing the group with a free soapbox. See the unduly serving section of WP:SPS. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

CWA is notably mainly because of its views and influence. Stating what their views are and what they do to influence politics is not a "soapbox." Intermittentgardener (talk) 17:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Then you should be able to attest that notability, those views, and that influence using reliable secondary sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is also not the personal sandbox of editors who spend most of their time removing material that opposes their POV. Imagine the uproar if an editor spent their entire day deleting the pages of liberal organizations on Wikipedia that have similar content. That sword cuts both ways. A much better path is to have an open discourse with the other editors of the article rather than making unilateral edits and wholesale changes without seeking consensus, which is a violation of WP:CON and WP:CIV. If an editor of an article has neutral content that accomplishes the same goals then they should work to improve the article by providing that content, but if their purpose is to simply delete material because they have a personal issue with the organization then that would be an example of POV editing. Lordvolton (talk) 05:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Your argument about generalities fails to convince me.

Getting specific, I agree with MastCell that a little bit of self-definition is okay for CWA. A very little bit. I agree with Dominus Vobisdu that the burden is on Intermittentgardener to find support for the inclusion of text, no matter how long that text has been in the article. I applaud the aim of Roscelese to clean the article up to the point that the advert tag can be removed. Binksternet (talk) 01:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Tiger vs Lion article

Hi

This article seems to be very biased toward the tiger without evidence or in fact much zoological context. Numerous contributors on the talk page are either dismissed without thorough discussion or just ignored entirely if they do not share the pro-tiger bias.

In particular

1 - The page states that tigers usually kill lions when they meet in captivity, without citation, then lists several examples of this happening with citations. In reality there is no thorough study done comparing which animal kills the other more often and therefore no conclusive information about his, and the article should say so. Also there are many individual examples of either animal killing the other, and this should also be stated clearly with examples, if any, of both tiger and lions being dominant.

2- The page supplies 4 "expert opinions" favouring the tiger, none of which are actual zoologist, and a neutral fifth expert opinion. Once again, there are random and spurious, merely giving a false impression that most experts would favour the tiger. There are expert opinions that favour the lion, including an actual zoologist, but none are included, requests to have them included are simply denied.

3 - There is no discussion of the relative adaptations of the two cats, and the fcat that the male lion in particular has evolved in a climate of high conflict between each other and with other predators. This seems incredible since the size and the relative adaptations of the two animals are the only two relevant factors in comparing the animals. To leave in comment on size (assumedly because the tiger is bigger so this favours the tiger) while leaving out comment on the adaptations (assumedly because the lion has evolved in an environment where it fights more often and therefore will naturally be better adapted for fighting) is clearly another form of bias.

I would like to inform the editor of the offending page about this complaint as it says i should, but i don't know how to and can't seee the link here. Please advise as to how i can do this.

Thanks

NickPriceNZ (talk) 12:08, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

I encourage you to take your concerns to Talk:Tiger versus lion and also to be bold and make changes to the article as you see fit. Talk with the community there and improve the article in collaboration with others. I am marking this as resolved and also posting instructions to your userpage - feel free to raise the issue again if you need more. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Gospel of the Ebionites

Folks. We are having a problem converging on a solution and need some outside input. The specific section under discussion is Gospel of the Ebionites#Relationship to other texts. You can link to the talk page discussion section through the tag. The sentence at issue is in the second paragraph and reads as follows:

Its relationship to a hypothetical original Hebrew Gospel of Matthew remains a subject of scholarly debate.

The specific issue is the source that follows it:

refn

— Petersen 1992, p. 262 – "A dissenting position, however, is that of Boismard, who detects two traditions in Epiphanius' quotations from the gospel used by the Ebionites. One is a later, more developed tradition, which is probably a Greek language original; the second is a much more primitive tradition and has a strong imprint of a Semitic language. It is this latter tradition which Boismard equates with the Hebrew (i.e. pre-Greek) recension of Matthew - the document described by Epiphanius." For further details, see Boismard 1966, pp. 321–52.

The NPOV question concerns how to weight the quotation in this note. Should it be (1) summarized in the main text, (2) left as a note, as it is currently, or (3) reduced to a citation? We have tried WP:DRN and two WP:3Os, but we are seemingly at an impasse. Can you weigh in here (no pun intended)? Thanks. Ignocrates (talk) 23:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Btw, the other party to the disagreement, User:John Carter, has been informed. Ignocrates (talk) 23:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I would go with option 1. The information quoted in full in maintext provides an important balance. The other 2 options both minimise the argument to the general reader, who may not be able to properly explore cites. It is a fascinating mainstream argument which deserves to be in mainspace in its own right. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 00:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that it is not a "mainstream argument", other than in the Anchor Bible Dictionary. Look for a prominent mention of this work in the main text of a reliable secondary source in this field in the last 20 years and you will still be looking. I did a thorough search, and I couldn't find any (btw, there are 40 reliable sources in the article). That is the problem I have with this note going "maintext". Ignocrates (talk) 00:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Well keep as is for the moment. It may well reflect an issue with a POV re mainstream sources in the past 20 years, rather than the Boismard theory in itself. I will have a look too. Got me interested now. Let us keep as is at the moment, pending any possible future "discoveries" in S/S material that may be hiding out there. Irondome (talk) 00:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I have found Boismard cited explicitly in 3 works apart from the one you mention. Google scholar. Just search under Boismard gospel of the Ebionites. They seem to be discussing his idea in some depth, and one does not seem complementary, but he is cited all right. This excludes the Anchor reference. That would seem to strengthen the argument for mainspace inclusion. The contexts of the cites will have to be explored however. Irondome (talk) 01:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Ignocrates, you make a number of remarkable unsupported statements once again. Nishidani has already indicated that the source is included in a number of relevant sources, as per the talk page. You also seem to indicate that, somehow, simply because you haven't been able to find it, that it has, somehow, fallen out of favor, despite your also apparently finding nothing which indicates explicitly that it has fallen out of favor. I believe most people would find that conclusion, apparently based on no evidence, problematic. Also, I believe that this link rather clearly refutes your allegation that the source has not been substantially discussed in the last twenty years. Finally, you seem to rather seriously overlook the fact, already mentioned on the article talk page, that the 2005 Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, which is, from what I've seen, one of the more highly regarded reference works of recent years, in an admittedly very short article of only one paragraph, includes Boismard in its bibliography of only six sources, and also the Anchor Bible Dictionary as a source. I believe the facts which have been presented on the article talk page disagree with your assertion that it has received little attention in the past twenty years, and I believe honestly they are sufficient to indicate that the material shuld be discussed, probably in roughly the same weight and poisitioning as per the ABD. John Carter (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't have time to investigate this properly, but I'll make a brief comment. It sounds to me like it belongs in the main text, though perhaps very briefly. On the other hand, where is the source for the sentence "Its relationship to a hypothetical original Hebrew Gospel of Matthew remains a subject of scholarly debate."? The present tense "remains" implies that still in 2013 there is debate on the subject, but all I see mentioned is a reference in a 1992 article to a theory proposed in 1966. Something more recent is required before "remains a subject of scholarly debate" is acceptable. If that can't be found, it should be reworded as a reference to a theory proposed in 1966. Zero^talk 02:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I originally had this worded "remains a speculation", i.e. the debate is over, but John Carter thought that was too under-weighed so I changed it. Ignocrates (talk) 04:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The counter-view is in the very next note (they are paired) as follows:

refn

— Gregory 2008, p. 55; Gregory provides a counter-point to Boismard's view: – "The reasons for believing that Matthew was composed in Greek are so compelling that the quest for a Hebrew original is best regarded as a dead end, no matter how romantic its pursuit might seem."

Gregory's quotation represents the majority view. Ignocrates (talk) 03:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

So you have found more recent citations. I am slightly puzzled here. You said you had found none. I assume you have checked my tip. Even if Boismard is criticised, his additions in recent works deserves to have his view briefly outlined in mainspace. Also it solidifies the argument that his theory is still current and engaging scholars at this time. Cheers Irondome (talk) 03:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if I confused you. Gregory is criticizing the conjecture of a Hebrew Gospel of Matthew in general terms and doesn't explicitly cite Boismard. He is basically saying that all such models are junk. This isn't new; I already had it in the article. Ignocrates (talk) 04:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I like the your middle ground approach, which is to keep this as an endnote, but I think the first option could also work. To me there are two main considerations: first, positions should be represented relative to their importance and prominence within that scholarly community. So if Boismard's is a dissenting opinion, as the note states, then it shouldn't be given too much weight next to mainstream views. If it is desirable to have a sizeable section discussing the debate around the relationship to the Gospel of Matthew, then by all means you can explain the different positions, including Boismard's. But if you were to hash out every academic debate in detail, you risk sacrificing readability for lay readers. Do you catch my meaning? TheBlueCanoe 02:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The three works I have found citing Boismard are all recent. One from 2008. Please see my above posting, and if anyone has time, (I dont for the next few days) please go to google scholar using the search term I quoted above. We might be able to profitably expand this. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 03:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I rechecked Google Scholar with "Boismard" & "Gospel of the Ebionites" as the search terms. I see Andrew Gregory's 2005 paper (same Gregory as 2008 above). He is discussing Boismard's proto-Luke model, which is off-topic here. I have Verheyden's (2003) book chapter in front of me. There is a brief mention in a footnote on p.192 of a Greek phrase similar to Acts which Boismard regarded as an interpolation. However, there is nothing about a Hebrew Matthew as an underlying source. I don't see the 2008 publication. Ignocrates (talk) 03:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

No. Try "Boismard and the gospel of the ebionites" all one phrase. I think it chucks up some additional material. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 03:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I tried it with Google Books and pulled up Gilles Quispel's 2008 book Gnostica, Judaica, Catholica: Collected Essays of Gilles Quispel. He mentions Boismard in a footnote in the context of a putative proto-Luke source. Ignocrates (talk) 04:11, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

On a personal note, I have never been to this noticeboard before. I am delighted to see that all of you conduct yourselves in such a professional and scholarly manner. I like it! Ignocrates (talk) 03:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

As it should always be, unless we are doing something badly wrong :) Cheers! Irondome (talk) 03:57, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

This whole thing seems to be a misunderstanding. The line in the article that has the note says: "Its relationship to a hypothetical original Hebrew Gospel of Matthew remains a subject of scholarly debate" then it has the note we're talking about, and also a note with a quote of Gregory 2008 that reads: "The reasons for believing that Matthew was composed in Greek are so compelling that the quest for a Hebrew original is best regarded as a dead end, no matter how romantic its pursuit might seem", saying that this is a counterpoint to Boismard's view. Of course Gregory doesn't mention Boismard at all, nor should he. And why is that? Because Gregory is rightly talking about why the canonical Gospel of Matthew cannot be thought of as a translation of a hypothetical Hebrew gospel, but Boismard is just talking about a hypothetical Hebrew gospel and not saying that this is the original of the canonical Gospel of Matthew. This is the same mistake we have been continually seeing on discussion pages here lately: Thinking that authors are referring to a Hebrew Vorlage of the canonical Gospel of Matthew when really they are just referring to a Hebrew/Aramaic text that is ascribed to Matthew (really, the mistake is just that dumb: one word "Matthew" occurs twice, so people are thinking that one text "Gospel of Matthew" is being referred to twice.) What Boismard is saying on this point is not hugely different from Edwards at "The Gospel of the Ebionites and the Gospel of Luke", New Testament Studies 48 (2002), p. 570. It is a minority view of course (see Gregory, "Prior or Posterior? The Gospel of the Ebionites and the Gospel of Luke", New Testament Studies 53 (2005), pp. 344–346), but it is not the fringe view that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew (and then the Gospel of the Ebionites is based on this original). The line should be rewritten to avoid confusion: "Some scholars have claimed that it is possible that the Gospel of the Ebionites is partly or wholly sourced to a hypothetical gospel written in Hebrew or Aramaic, but this is a minority view." And then cite Petersen 1992, Edwards 2002, and Gregory 2005, but not Gregory 2008. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 05:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I like your idea. However, if you read the quotation from ABD, Peterson is talking about a primitive tradition which "Boismard equates with the Hebrew (i.e. pre-Greek) recension of Matthew". How is that different from "the fringe view that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew (and then the Gospel of the Ebionites is based on this original)"? Possibly, I am misunderstanding because I have not read (can't read) Boismard's original article in French. Please clarify further if you have read the Boismard article. Thanks. Ignocrates (talk) 12:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

It is a strange phrase, since "recension" usually refers to a revision or at least critical edition of a work rather than the original. Incidentally, Boismard's article would not be hard to obtain (just ask). I can't read French either, but plenty of people around here can. Zero^talk 13:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, will someone please track down Boismard's original article in French and verify that Petersen correctly summarized the content? I'm concerned because Petersen didn't do that with the Justin Martyr content in the same encyclopedic article. Petersen states that Justin used a gospel harmony and cites Arthur Bellinzoni (incorrectly) as a reference. Bellinzoni concludes in his book that Justin obtained his harmonistic materials from a primitive Christian catechism. Petersen then provides a summary conclusion about Justin's gospel harmony which is his own OR but could be easily misunderstood as a summary of Bellinzoni's work. Thanks. Meanwhile, I will track down the Edwards (2002) and Gregory (2005) NTS papers. Ignocrates (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

So Boismard says: "Si ce renseignement d'Épiphane est exact, Ébion. 2 pourrait representer une forme plus ou moins remaniée, de l'évangile primitif de Matthieu, lequel correspondrait donc au texte que nous avons appele Y (Éb. 2)" (p. 351) She just quoted Ephihanius' description of Ebionites. I think this is quite like what Petersen says: Yes, you could read it as referring to the canonical Gospel of Matthew; but I think this would be just wrong (and maybe Petersen was wrong too, I don't know, but it doesn't really matter). What makes me so sure? Look at what Boismard is saying: "If Epiphanius' information is correct", then maybe this discernible text Y of Ebionites really is of a Hebrew gospel. But what are Epiphanius' claims? He says: The Ebionites have this gospel, and they call it "according to Matthew", but it's really just this corrupt text. So Epiphanius is clearly distinguishing the Ebionites' "Matthew" gospel, from the Canonical Gospel of Matthew. And Boismard's argument is to say that Epiphanius could be right here. Well, then clearly texte Y, which is part of what Epiphanius is quoting, (despite being called "l'évangile primitif de Matthieu") is not the Canonical Gospel of Matthew.

My interpretation of Boismard here is backed also by Jaap van Amersfoort, Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 60(1-4), 2008, pp. 85-104 (which is online), who says "That the Gospel of the Ebionites may contain an older tradition than the Canonical Gospels is defended, for instance, by M.-E. Boismard, who claimed to have discovered dependence on one of the source texts of St Mark's Gospel, namely Hebrew Matthew (Text Y)". What this is saying is clear: "Hebrew Matthew"/"Text Y" (which is Amersfoort's reference to Boismard's "l'évangile primitif de Matthieu"/"texte Y") is older than the Canonical Gospels. Well clearly then "l'évangile primitif de Matthieu" is not referring to the canonical Gospel of Matthew. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 20:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, that would seem to knock out Gregory (2008) as a source for a counter-balancing view. Do you know of a better source to balance out Boismard? Or should we just state his conjecture is a minority view and leave it at that? Ignocrates (talk) 22:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I have reworded the disputed section of the article and added Boismard's conjecture to the main text. I think that covers it. Thank you guys. Ignocrates (talk) 02:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, I've blown in too late to add anything useful here. Just as a sidenote, I've never been happy with the description of an antecedent 'Hebrew' gospel, unless we take that formulkation as equivalent to 'Gospel addressed to the Hebrews'. After all, Aramaic was used more extensively even among the religious of Palestine: Hebrew had dwindled to textual converse on the Tanakh; the Greek Gospels overwhelmingly conserve Aramaic words in their ostensible reportage; a large part of reconstructive criticism of a Quelle-text assumes traditions were in the Aramic vernacular; Hebraisti probably means in 'Aramaic' and last not least, a Greek audience or diaspora didn't make the distinction, as far as we know. But, then, we just follow secondary source usage. Well done, Ignocrates.Nishidani (talk) 12:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Just wanted to echo Ignocrates's compliment of this noticeboard. I visit quite a few dispute resolution pages and I'm impressed that such knowledgeable editors responded in such a timely way to this request for clarification, even looking for additional sources to help clarify the situation. You all really provide a valuable resource for users to come with their questions! NewJerseyLiz ^{Let's Talk} 19:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

That is very kind of you. I am sure all that took part in the chat appreciate your sentiments. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 23:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Politically Incorrect (blog)

Politically Incorrect (blog) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). There's a long running debate here as to whether Template:Islamophobia belongs on this article. My view is that it is clearly relevant to the article and thus belongs on it. The counter view seems to be that this template labels the PI blog and is simply wrong as we can't call the blog Islamaphobic. I'd like some independent comments on this issue. Dougweller (talk) 15:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

"Islomphobic" does not appear to be an unfair discription of the English language version of the blog, at least. According to the article, it sells merchandise with the slogan "Islamophobic and proud of it". I'm sure there must be more the counter-argument than you are suggesting, but "part of a series" infoboxes always label things. It's sort of what they are for. Formerip (talk) 16:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd say it's a fair call. The German press labels the blog as Islamophobic[1], and as Formerip rightly notes, the blog itself sells merchandise with that very label[2]. Yintan  23:27, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The first and foremost question is this: what provisions do the guidelines make about the adding of templates? I would like to have a clear reference from Dougweller (or anybody else) on what basis the template should be added, so that we can start to have a meaningful discussion guided by criterias. Sentiment and gut-feeling alone, I am sorry, is simply not enough when it comes to such controversial and loaded 'scare templates' such as Islamophobia or Antisemitism.

Because the situation is there is in fact no general agreement in reliable sources as how to classify the blog. I tried to make this clear as it can be in the article. The opinions are divided and in no small part fall along political lines (see the article for sources): while the clear majority of liberal and left-wing media does indeed label the blog as "Islamophobic", some conservative outlets like the Gatestone Institute, FrontPage Magazine and American Thinker regard it as right-conservative website which exercises its freedom of speech against the demands of political correctness. And while the Bavarian branch of the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution does observe the Munich office, and only the Munich office, for Islamophobia, the other 15 Bundesland branches do not observe it. Most importantly, the national bureau in Berlin has repeatedly classified PI as - quote - "Islam critical" and not islamophobic. Since Islamophobia is a different subject in Wikipedia than criticism of Islam, it follows that we cannot use its template for articles which fall outside its scope.

As for the argument that the founder's words "Phobia is fear, and I'm afraid of Islam" are to be understood as evidence for the blog's Islamophobia, this does not stand up to scrutiny for two reasons. First, Wikipedia generally does not view self-classifications as authoritative or binding, but makes a point of relying on reliable, third-party sources. The founder himself, however, is first-party, not third-party. Secondly, the 'Islamophobia' the founder speaks of is clearly a different beast than the negatively-loaded Islamophobia as defined in the WP article. He makes it clear he means really fear of Islam, whereas the WP article defines the subject quite differently as (irrational) animosity, antipathy or hostility towards Islam. This is obviously not the same thing and we can't throw these things indiscriminately together.

Thus, there is no clear consensus either way. Adding the Islamophobia template against the substantial amount of dissenting reliable sources would be too much into POV lands and negative labelling. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I find the above argument compelling. Irondome (talk) 21:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I equally find this explanation convincing. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 21:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• Keep the template per Dougweller, FormerIP and Yintan. Furthermore, there are authors who have described the hate and vitriol hosted by PI against Islam. The 2009 Routledge book Muslims in the West after 9/11: Religion, Politics and Law (ISBN 9780203863961), edited by Jocelyne Cesari of the Harvard Divinity School, includes a chapter written by German historian Yasemin Shooman and German scholar of Islam Riem Spielhaus titled "The concept of the Muslim enemy in the public discourse". Shooman and Spielhaus use the PI blog as a case study on pages 206–221. They describe PI as "one of the most vibrant Islam-hostile blogs in the German language", one that forwards a deceitful "conspiracy fantasy" of European invasion by Islamization, a blog that polarizes the issue of Islam in Europe to foment hatred and incite action to counter the perceived threat. The authors point to the PI forums as a particularly hateful venting of Islamophobia "under the cover of anonymity" (page 218). See also the chapter written by German social scientist Alexander Häusler in the book From the Far Right to the Mainstream: Islamophobia in Party Politics and the Media (Campus Verlag, 2012, ISBN 9783593396484), the chapter titled "The PRO-Movement: A New Motor of Anti-Islamic Right-Wing Populism within the Extreme Right in Germany". On page 39, Häusler describes the PI blog as host to "Islamophobic alarmists" and racist comments against Muslims. Further, there is the assertion by German religious scholar Martin Rötting that the PI blog is host to islamfeindlichen (Islamophobic) statements: Religion in Bewegung: Dialog-Typen und Prozess im interreligiösen Lernen, volume 9 of Interreligiöse Begegnungen, LIT Verlag Münster, 2011, ISBN 9783643114655, page 52 (in German). Binksternet (talk) 22:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  • If anybody here is concerned about bringing better references to the article, the three books I linked above are good choices, and not yet utilized. Binksternet (talk) 01:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Are we talking about Islam or politically aggressive Islamism here? There lies the rub. The sources above do not in any sense make that distinction clear. "Zionists" are routinely villified by anti-semites (with many Islamic activists amongst them) whom are given a free pass in much of the western liberal press, most notably in the UK The Guardian, which has the dubious honour for a left-leaning paper to have its own readers often vile anti-semetic comments monitored via an on-line website, CIFWatch. I see great hypocracy here on the part of some liberal intellectuals. It would not be good if it spread to WP. Irondome (talk) 23:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

We're not talking about any particular type of Islam. We're just talking about a website. It is self-avowedly Islamophobic and is described by reliable sources as such. It's English language front page includes "a 20–page indictment of Islam". There's no ambiguity about this case. Formerip (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

So what is it actually "indicting"? Islam or violent or repressive Islamism, to Gays, women, Hindus, Christians or Jews? Can you provide a link so that uninvolved editors can see for themselves? I find it odd that there is no WP article outlining CIF Watch and its history by the way. Irondome (talk) 23:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

If you haven't looked at the website, go and do so. If you have and still see fit to defend it, hang your head in shame. Formerip (talk) 23:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Apologise now for your unpleasant and unfounded POV assumptions which I find personally deeply offensive. And provide the link. Irondome (talk) 23:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

It depends what you want me to apologise for. If you're actually familiar with the site and wish to defend it, then I find that disturbing. If I've somehow misunderstood, sorry.

I'm not interested in engaging in a discussion about what types of criticism of Muslims are and are not OK. That's not relevant here. The website describes itself as Islamophobic, is described in the same way by reliable sources and has content which, clearly and consistently, is Islamophobic. That's all there is to it.

What link are you asking me for? Formerip (talk) 00:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I have never seen the site before. I never heard of it before. I merely became involved on this board out of curiousity. You appear to be confusing my genuine questions with some kind of POV. Check my edit history. I have never been involved in any discussions or controversies regarding this general subject. I was attempting to explore the alternatives, balance. Based on my real world experiences with the media in the UK, I prefer to discuss these things without a POV and agenda pre-ordained. I was merely asking you for a link to this list of issues with Islam, or Islamism, so that others may see it, and inform other editors. Irondome (talk) 00:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Irondome, your claim to be an uninvolved neutral commentator dissolved as soon as you posted assertions about "great hypocracy here on the part of some liberal intellectuals" - without bothering to look at the website in question. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Nothing "dissolved", nor do I claim anything which is untrue. You would dispute the reality of this hypocracy in some sections of the Western media, regarding "anti Zionism" and classic anti-semtic tropes? I am not referring to this website, but in the round. It could be a vile racist sewer, but I expect a link to examine it. I expect a link to be here. Especially by the co-sponsors of a WP change. So can you apologise for that unfounded and offensive assertion? I will be waiting for it. Irondome (talk) 00:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I have nothing to apologise for - you made the assertions without looking at the evidence. Still, for the benefit of someone evidently incapable of clicking on the Wikilink to the article in question, and then to the clearly labelled link in the infobox, see here: [3]. Note that not only do they chose to post such filth as a section telling us that "Every female Turk is to bear three children for her Führer. This demand by the highest chief of all Turks – also those living among us – was reported yesterday by FOCUS, and we find ourselves catapulted back to the worst chapter in German history", but that they also chose to engage in a clear racist attack on Oprah Winfrey, for no obvious reason beyond the fact that they evidently don't like black women to be successful. Nothing to do with a 'criticism of Islam'. Nothing to do with Islam at all. Bigotry, plain and simple... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I really think you do mate. I see no neo-nazi stuff. I see vitriolic attacks on nazism, harking back to Germanys "dark past". I see a case of anti-Christian arson. I see material highlighting the disgusting prevalence of anti-semitism in the Islamic world which is largely ignored in the mainstream media. I even see admittance of the close WW2 links between the nazis and nationalistic Islam. Oprah and her handbag? I was expecting stormfront. Ive seen far worse and more hate-filled stuff in the Guardian or the Indie when Israel builds a public toilet in East Jerusalem. What I do see is a huge attack of POV faux-outrage by a few eds. I have not yet found this 20 points thing. If I find it genuinely offensive, then I will comment. So far I see some inconvieient truths, its perception being reinforced by the Islamic leaderships' failiure to address and rationally discourse in any widespraed and meaningful way beyond local initiatives. And a multi-millionaire attemptuing to get some publicity out of an arguably racist but deeply trivial incident over a £15,000 handbag. That materialism is what I found the more disturbing, wheter the consumer be black, white or battleship grey. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 01:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm no 'mate' of yours. Still, thanks for proving the point - your claim to neutrality was bogus from the start... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Im certainly no mate of yours either. But you merely proved how an antagonistic and aggressive POV can push genuinely neutral people off the fence. Now I am vaguely amused by the bloody rag. Your initial assumptions on POV were staggering. And still deeply offensive to me. Your patronising guesses at my extremely sophisticated view of this hugely nuanced and sensitive issue did the damage. Its not the WP policy and definitions here. Its your inability to see the total argument. You just cannot seem to grasp independence of thought untainted by bigotry, of the type you have clearly displayed, in an ideological sense. You could not discuss, but resorted to kneejerk phrases and actually offensive phrases and assumptions, both of you. Nice one! Not. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 01:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• Undecided Irondome (talk) 03:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC) Awiting a more coherent and less preordained discussion with no personal attacks. Shameful.(talk) 03:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• It appears to me as if you !voted without addressing the Islamophobia identified by de:Yasemin Shooman, de:Riem Spielhaus, de:Alexander Häusler (Sozialwissenschaftler) and de:Martin Rötting. Would you care to discuss this aspect? Binksternet (talk) 03:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Some, if not most of these authors are actually known left-wing extremists. Häusler, for one, published regularly in Antifa publications like Lotta which are themselves observed by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution. He is therefore useless as a WP:neutral source.

Besides, the fact that far-left and liberal media are highly critical of the blog, has been included in the WP article right from the start and is no point of contention. But the point is conservative media and the Federal Office share a different opinion. So why do think WP should sweep them under the carpet and hand over the entire floor to the others by including the template? I would say this is WP:undue weight and a violation of WP:NPOV. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

These are respected scholars, not pawns for you to dismiss because of the way you perceive their position on a left–right continuum. Wikipedia does not require its reliable sources to be free from bias. And you have not addressed the text from Häusler—you simply tried to demean him and so remove him as a source. I hold that his text is still reliable for use in the article about the PI blog. Binksternet (talk) 14:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Alexander Häusler is not a reliable source. Agree with Gun Powder Ma's classification of such authors. Häusler recently had to sign a cease and desist due to a book of his, in which he slandered the political party Citizens in Rage as 'racist' based on improper quoting [4].Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 20:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I would be happy to have a rational and bamlanced discussion using those well-respected intellectuals (especially personally Shooman) with SOMEBODY yes. Thats what I came here for. This thread is getting bloody long. New section? Suggestions? I would like to discuss the original quotes in context and any countervailing arguments. I would invite all. Just very peeved at the moment by this trainwreck of what could be a fantastic discourse if some just dropped the PC and personal attacks by wildly inaccurate POV assumptions. I won handsomely by the way :) Cheers! Irondome (talk) 03:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Before the discussion deviates even further from the original subject, I would like to repeat my initial question: on what basis in the WP guidelines do those who want to add the template act? Please cite the relevant guideline which says that a template can be added even when there clearly exists no consensus in reliable sources. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I read where you said there was "no consensus" in reliable sources about use of the term, but you didn't provide any evidence as to a dispute about the use of the term. It being not the only adjective used to describe the site is not enough. Formerip (talk) 15:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I thought it was self-evident that I am summarizing the overall state of affairs as outlined in Politically Incorrect (blog). The Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution refers to the blog as "Islam critical". Being critical of Islam is clearly a far cry from being phobic of Islam. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:OR. No more convincing than the umpteen times you've said this before. There is no evidence that the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution were ever asked whether they considered the blog Islamophobic - and there is certainly no evidence that they would concur with your attempts to redefine words to mean whatever you want them to mean. We cite sources for what they say, we don't cite them for not saying something... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

There doesn't have to be consensus for it to be a related article. What I observe is that having failed to have the blog article removed from the template in June, you are now trying to have the template removed from the blog article here. There will never be consensus on a lot of political articles that deal with issues at the extreme - that's the nature of such articles on the right or left. And " The blog's internet shop sells items with the slogan "Islamophobic and proud of it".[2] Herre says his Islamophobia is without shame: "Phobia is fear, and I'm afraid of Islam.""Dougweller (talk) 14:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, you still fail to provide an answer, but keep on asserting things. We have reliable sources not supporting the view that PI is "islamophobic". We have also users disagreeing with this view in this discussion and we have users who have long disagreed with it at the article (1, 2).

Additionally, there is not even a consensus about the existence of the Template:Islamophobia as such. Many users believed this tag to be not WP:neutral and rather POVish. In fact just as many voted for delete in the last deletion request. The only reason why it was kept eventually was purely procedural (namely the in dubio pro re principle applied in case of a tie in the vote). So there is no real consensus nowhere, not in reliable sources concernning PI, not in the community about the NPOV of the template, and not about labelling PI with the template. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

We have reliable sources not supporting the view that PI is "islamophobic" - sure, but that is a trivial fact. On the electrodynamics of moving bodies is a reliable source that does not support the view that there was a Roman Empire, or that Kennedy was president. What you have failed to show is a reliable source that actually disagrees with the classification. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• Since this is not a BLP and we need not consider the selfidentification of the blog as a requirement for tagging the categorization is a navigational help and should be added in so much as it is likely that people will find the articles in the template to be useful reading. Given that several academic sources discuss the website in relation to islamophobia it does not seem unreasonable to have the template in the article.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so the blog self-identifies as islamophobic, we have several reliable sources saying it is slamophobic and the only objection is that not all sources say it is islamophobic. Why is this even up for debate? // Liftarn (talk)

The template itself is a bad idea (WP:LABEL) to begin with. Remove it. Athenean (talk) 21:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Karrimor DYK currently on Main Page

A DYK for a company, currently on Main page, has ... that British manufacturer Karrimor's formidable reputation for ground-breaking outdoor pursuit equipment was a direct result of its location in Lancashire, and a CEO who was an avid climber and trekker? - I queried the use of formidable at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Prep_1 before the article ended up on the Main Page, and "formidable" was removed from the hook - I now see it is not only reinstated, but has gone live... this hardly seems NPOV and is actively promoting a company. Probably all a bit late now, since it must have been on Main Page for a good number of hours... Simon Burchell (talk) 10:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

That is disgraceful—Wikipedia's main page trumpeting the fact that a particular brand has a "formidable reputation for ground-breaking [products]"! The article Karrimor has a handy picture of the brand's running shoe, and more self-congratulatory twaddle in the lead. If that is DYK, would someone please bring back Gibraltarpedia. The fact that someone can point to a bunch of excited commentary supporting the hyperbole (see User talk:Alex Shih#DYK edit) is no excuse for Wikipedia to parrot the stuff. Johnuniq (talk) 11:09, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Wow. I had to check, so apologies for my lack of good faith. Is there no policy against this??? Formerip (talk) 00:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, for starters how about WP:NOTADVERTISING and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and the Second Pillar. This should never have gotten as far as the Main Page. Simon Burchell (talk) 07:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I think we need to look at who did this, and remove them from the ability to participate in this sort of thing going forward.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

DYK is a problem at times - for instance, I've seen it used to promote fringe ideas. It does appear that whoever let this go through shouldn't be working at DYK anymore. Dougweller (talk) 12:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Response almost a week later

WP:AGF is a good idea. Here's another DYK.

Did you know... that when this was discussed at DYK prep area (before entering DYK queue or main page)... or at Jimmy's talk page... or forum shopped at NPOV noticeboard... or anywhere else it got discussed, whether at the time before main page (when it could have easily been looked at) until today a week later at WP:AN, not one person bothered to notify those being discussed, the hook's author, or checked if the hook might actually be an accurate neutral representation of the sources of this closed over 9 years ago company?

Well, to be fair, two people did. Both were DYK reviewers. Both confirmed the hook as good to go on this specific point.

This does suggest a possible discussion about review of main page content that is NPOV/V/NOR accurately worded in a surprising tone, but the bad faith and lack of notice in this issue is staggeringly large. The matter would never have been an issue either, if those involved had done the right thing and notified or discussed. This has been here a week, unnotified. It's usual people are told if they or their work is being discussed. Since they didn't, it's unsurprising that the hook, and the 2 reviewers who concurred with the hook, went ahead.

Alternatively, it might have been easier to resolve before Main Page or any other place, if someone had bothered to notify or discuss, so their concerns could have been addressed. I would have readily put it on hold myself, unasked, if I'd been made aware of the concern.

Discussion has since been moved to W:AN (Link). FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• I notified User:Alex Shih immediately after making my above comment, at 11:10, 17 August 2013 diff. The notification was less than four hours after FT2's second post in that section. Good faith is totally irrelevant—the question concerns NPOV, not the intentions of an editor. I know this is at WP:AN, but this section needs the clarification that there was a notification. My intention was to have the advert removed from the main page (and not that anyone be sanctioned), so I felt that notifying the person who inserted the DYK was appropriate. Johnuniq (talk) 01:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

RFC on international LGBT rights

Editors are invited to participate at Talk:LGBT rights under international law#Duplicated text on countries' obligations under international law, a Request for Comments concerning material on countries' obligations under international law to protect LGBT rights. One of the main issues for discussion is whether the material in question is written from a neutral point of view. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

2002 Gujarat riots

There seems to be NPOV problem in 2002 Gujarat violence. I find the whole article to have departed from NPOV, with Books beings used wherever it suits the POV and Newspaper articles to be used wherever it suits the POV. For example, the opening paragraph of the article states that The attack on 27 February 2002 on a train, thought by most to have been carried out by Muslims, and which caused the deaths of 58 people . But the sources mentioned there did mention that it was direct attack by Muslims. So, after my edit got reverted twice[5], I took it to the Talk page[6]. There, I produced various sources that directly says carried out by Muslims, rather than thought to be carried out by Muslims. However, on the talk page, I could find fellow editors rejecting all the sources I gave. Not alone this example, the whole article seemed to be have done with non-NPOV and looks like a provocative article, rather than informative one. Please discuss on the NPOV status of the article and give your valuable suggestions! - Vatsan34 (talk) 16:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Some editors on the page in question are bent on claiming that sources from 2002 and 2005 refute a court finding from 2011 cited in multiple reliable sources. Furthermore, there have been a number of sources used in the article that do not actually say what people are claiming they do, as well as multiple unreliable sources used.Pectore^talk 00:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I had notified the concerned editors on their talk pages, on the same day I had brought the article to this NPOV discussion. But, it has been two weeks since this topic was started and no replies from them. Does it concretes my opinion that the article lacks NPOV and the editors are biased? - Vatsan34 (talk) 15:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

No, it means the editors who are involved are waiting for uninvolved editors to comment. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:55, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

It also means that the editors are tired of facing and refuting the same arguments over and over.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it should be me who should be tired of things that are happening. Being called a BJP brainwashed, sockpuppet, etc, I should be the one tired here, not the way around. Wikipedians should not be tired of arguments, especially when they are pushing away the POV from neutral zone. - Vatsan34 (talk) 16:52, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

You have been involved in this less than a month, I have been called a lot worse than that during the three months I've edited India related topics. And I've heard your tired arguments over and over. There is nothing neutral about trying to make the page look as if Muslims caused the violence when the large majority of the literature considers it a planned pogrom on Muslims by Hindus, and another large part of the literature throws doubt on the claims that "a Muslim Mob" set the Sabarmati express on fire, and another large body of literature documents the Gujarat high courts pro-Hindu bias and failure to conduct thorough unbiased investigations. There is no basis for considering the official Gujarati account neutral or objective, and for the article to be neutral it must include both the view of the Gujarati courts and BJP pundits as well as the many many dissenting sources.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now

Currently has as paragraph 2 of the lead:

ACORN's voter registration drives, which it has conducted since the 1980s, has been frequently mischaracterized by supporters of Republican candidates "voter fraud". ACORN received significant negative publicity in the wake of the 2009 production and publication of videos, which were later found to be partially falsified and selectively edited,[9] by two conservative activists, James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles.

The source given is from ACORN: "Scott Harshbarger and Amy Crafts (2009-12-07). An Independent Governance Assessment of ACORN: The Path To Meaningful Reform" which does not actually make the claims as stated and this query is presented here to determine if this material properly follows WP:NPOV. Collect (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Both of those sentences are summary WP:LEDE sentences, which are covered in more detail (and with more references) in the body of the article. The first sentence is a summary of this fuller text in the body of the article:

• Throughout the election season, supporters of Republican candidates portrayed ACORN's submission of invalid voter registration applications as widespread vote fraud. In October 2008, the campaign for Republican presidential candidate John McCain released a Web-based advertisement claiming ACORN was responsible for "massive voter fraud," a point that Sen. McCain repeated in the final presidential debate. Factcheck.org called this claim "breathtakingly inaccurate," but acknowledged that ACORN had problems with phony registrations. [...] A poll released in November 2009 by the Public Policy Polling organization found that 52% of Republican Party members it surveyed, and 26% of respondents overall, believed in a conspiracy theory that ACORN "stole" the election for Barack Obama.

It is indeed supported by this cited source in the body of the article, which states:

McCain has gone after the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. And we've gone after him, for an ad accusing the group of "massive voter fraud" and for saying in the final presidential debate that ACORN is "now on the verge of maybe perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history in this country, maybe destroying the fabric of democracy." Both claims are breathtakingly inaccurate. There's a huge difference between voter fraud and voter registration fraud.

And this this cited source, which states:

Losing NY-23 candidate Doug Hoffman became the latest in an increasingly long line of conservative politicians to blame his problems on ACORN yesterday despite the complete lack of evidence the organization played any role in his defeat. [...] Belief in the ACORN conspiracy theory is even higher among GOP partisans than the birther one, which only 42% of Republicans expressed agreement with on our national survey in September. [...] The constant harping on ACORN by Republican politicians may sound nutso in some circles, but it certainly has hurt the organization's image...

So the first summary sentence about Republican charges of "voter fraud" is fully supported by sources found in the relevant location in the body of the article. On to the second summary sentence, which summarizes this text in the body of the article:

• The ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy started in September 2009 when conservative activists Hannah Giles and James O'Keefe publicized selectively edited hidden camera recordings [...] the former Massachusetts Attorney General, after an independent internal investigation of ACORN, found the videos that had been released appeared to have been edited, "in some cases substantially" [...] the District Attorney's office for Brooklyn determined that the videos were "heavily edited" and "many of the seemingly crime-encouraging answers were taken out of context so as to appear more sinister" [...] an investigation by the California Attorney General found the videos from Los Angeles, San Diego and San Bernardino to be "heavily edited"...

It is indeed supported by this cited source, which states:

[The video] was deemed by the Brooklyn District Attorney's office to be a "heavily edited" splice job, after a five-and-a-half-month probe. Sources told the Post that "many of the seemingly crime-encouraging answers were taken out of context so as to appear more sinister." No charges will be filed.

And by this cited source, which states:

O’Keefe stated he was out to make a point and to damage ACORN and therefore did not act as a journalist objectively reporting a story. The video releases were heavily edited to feature only the worst or most inappropriate statements of the various ACORN employees and to omit some of the most salient statements by O’Keefe and Giles.

And by this cited source in the body of the article, which states:

“The evidence illustrates,” Brown said, “that things are not always as partisan zealots portray them through highly selective editing of reality. Sometimes a fuller truth is found on the cutting room floor.” The original storm of publicity created by O’Keefe’s videotapes was instrumental in ACORN’s subsequent denunciation in Congress, a sudden tourniquet on its funding, and the organization’s eventual collapse.

And by this cited source, which states:

The videos that have been released appear to have been edited, in some cases substantially, including the insertion of a substitute voiceover for significant portions of Mr. O’Keefe’s and Ms.Giles’s comments, which makes it difficult to determine the questions to which ACORN employees are responding.

So the second summary sentence about the selectively and partially falsified videos is fully supported by sources found in the relevant location in the body of the article. You'll find more cited sources here:

Main article: ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy

The summary text in the lead, when reviewed against the fuller text and source citations in the body of the article, is NPOV compliant and correctly reflects what the cited sources convey. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Read WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH. You take multiple sources, link the claims into a compound claim not made by the sources, and include claims not actually and precisely supported by the sources. I know this is nitpicking, but is official policy. What you might end up with is:

ACORN has run voter drives since the 1980s. These drives have been criticized as being subject to voter fraud. ACORN also received criticism for statements made on videos by some of its employees regarding advice given about illegal activities not connected to the voter drives. An ACORN independent report faulted ACORN for insufficient training for its employees, and recommended that it cease certain activities. ACORN asserted that the videos were misleading.

Is about the most you can hope for from the refs you had provided. The claims that two specific living persons in some way committed a fraud against ACORN is required to have strong sourcing per WP:BLP and likely is of no great weight here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• Read WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH. You take multiple sources, link the claims into a compound claim not made by the sources, and include claims not actually and precisely supported by the sources.

Wildly incorrect, Collect. What you call a "compound claim" is actually an accurate WP:LEDE summary of content more thoroughly conveyed in the body of the article. Summary statements summarize. The two points conveyed are, specifically 1) Republicans have frequently mischarged ACORNs voter drives with "voter fraud", and 2) that ACORN received negative publicity from videos that were later discovered to be selectively edited with intent to deceive.

• The claims that two specific living persons in some way committed a fraud against ACORN...

...isn't claimed here. The specific charge is that two individuals produced controversy-generating videos that were later found to be heavily edited to present material out of context and create a misleading impression of activities. That information is well-sourced, far beyond what is required by WP:BLP. You'll find more information at the main article linked above, as well as several instances of this same argument being discussed on both article Talk pages. Xenophrenic (talk) 14:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Amazing! which were later found to be partially falsified and selectively edited,[9] by two conservative activists, James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles. makes no allegations of wrongdoing by specific living persons? And the videos were not about the "voter drive" but specifically about material which is not mentioned in the lead at all -- to wit promotion or condoning of illegal activities. Cheers -- now clean the article up - it has so many overreaching claims as to be risible. And this board is about "neutral point of view" which, I suggest, is heavily violated through the entire article. Collect (talk) 14:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• ...makes no allegations of wrongdoing by specific living persons?

Nobody said that, Collect. As noted above, and in reliable sources, those living persons produced videos selectively edited to convey a false narrative -- and I'm sure many people would consider that wrongdoing. If you wish to argue that the facts conveyed by our Wikipedia articles about these two individuals and their videos are not sufficiently sourced to meet WP:BLP requirements, then you should raise your concerns at the appropriate venue: WP:BLPN.

• ...And the videos were not about the "voter drive"...

What an odd thing to say. Nobody said that, Collect. No one has ever claimed that the videos produced by O'Keefe and Giles had anything to do with voter drives. Please do not muddy the discussion.

• now clean the article up - it has so many overreaching claims

Alright. Please list them, one at a time, and let's see if we can fix the problems you perceive. Simply claiming that you see NPOV violated "through the entire article" couldn't be more vague and uninformative. Xenophrenic (talk) 15:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the problems others see, I would note that the last three identified sources above are WP:PRIMARY sources. Two from the AG's office and the third the report of a law firm working for ACORN. That would seem to make this original research. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

A couple of those are indeed primary sources. Use of primary sources, which is allowed, does not equate to "original research", so the reasoning behind your jump from use of primary sources to "that would seem to make this original research" eludes me. Could you please clarify what prompted that conclusion? Also, please note that the above primary sources are not the only sources existing in support of the facts. Perhaps if you reviewed the main article with its additional cites, as suggested above, and reviewed the associated Talk page discussions on this oft-repeated debate, you would find the additional information helpful. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

And what's with the using a dem polling firm's press release as a RS? I'd suggest that probably isn't NPOV in this case. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Not a press release, but a report on the organization's blog, and it is indeed being cited as a Reliable Source for its own statements, which are clearly attributed to it in our article. That is textbook policy-compliant NPOV use of such a source. I've mentioned it in the discussion above only for information purposes. That Republicans have consistantly advanced a "voter fraud" meme, specifically against ACORN, and against similar voter registration drives in general, has been studied and documented. It has long been a politicized but frequently cited issue, so the renewed questioning here seems curious. We could add specific academic case studies involving false accusations against ACORN of voter fraud. Or quote scholarly books when they discuss ACORN and coverage of: "well-documented efforts by Republican Party officials to use allegations of voter fraud" against it. Or extensive related studies. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

ACORN's voter registration drives, which it has conducted since the 1980s, has been frequently mischaracterized by supporters of Republican candidates "voter fraud". ACORN received significant negative publicity in the wake of the 2009 production and publication of videos, which were later found to be partially falsified and selectively edited,[9] by two conservative activists, James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles.

Shows a seque between the two claims which is not present in any sources. In fact, the two issues are entirely disparate. In addition the "frequently mischaracterized" is a statement not found in the sources -- which do not make that particular claim. And the mentioning of two living persons by name intrinsically requires that we obey WP:BLP even if an editor feels that saying someone "falsified" something is not "wrongdoing." Cheers - but that sort of claim beggars belief. Collect (talk) 23:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Add the word "additionally" at the beginning of the second sentence to create distance and remove the word "frequently" from the first sentence if it is not supported by sources.

It seems very unlikely, though, that there is a substantive BLP breach here. We have an article ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy. Mentioning the same allegations in another article is not likely to raise any new BLP concerns. Formerip (talk) 23:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Good points, FormerIP.

@Collect: There is no seque (nor even a segue) between the two sentences. Also, no editors have indicated that falsifying something is not wrongdoing, so are you speaking for yourself? What an odd thing to say. Please do not muddy the discussion, Collect. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Séralini affair

Page: Séralini affair (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There is an ongoing dispute on this page regarding the biased nature of the original article. The original article seems to have a specific negative angle with edits of this angle constantly being removed. With many reasons being used for deletions - many of which may be considered false.

The Talk section is particularly interesting with many points of view being shared but not many being taken into account.

A balanced article is all that is required. I personally have given up editing and reverting - and have taken to the 'talk' page to reach consensus before further edits. Hog1983 (talk) 08:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

a) Scientific support for Seralini:

Reason for editing text will be to make it more balanced and saying that the Seralini study was both ‘supported’ and ‘criticized’ by scientists – I want consensus on this before edits are made: http://aspta.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/NK603-20may2013.pdf - Brazilian scientists supporting Seralini in official letter to Brazilian food regulatory body http://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2012/11/14/science-et-conscience_1790174_3232.html 140 scientists supporting Seralini’s study http://independentsciencenews.org/health/seralini-and-science-nk603-rat-study-roundup/ Open letter to support Seralini from worldwide scientists

b) Text in article: ‘Other long term studies, which were publicly funded, have uncovered some health issues.’ This is unbalanced as is shown on this directory of studies showing harm caused by GMOs: www.gmoevidence.com. I would like to remove this text. Group opinion please – not just editors of this page

‘Séralini had required that journalists sign a confidentiality agreement’ this was a method of study release that has been done by others – it was both supported and criticized in the press: www.gmoseralini.org.

c) All text about method of release being ‘only criticized’ should be removed if this is an unbiased article

d) The Sprauge-Dawley rat is used by Monsanto and all bio-tech industry in their experiments – so all reference to this as a problem should be removed: http://gmoseralini.org/criticism-sprague-dawley-rats-get-tumours-when-food-intake-is-unrestricted/

e)All references to media coverage should be balanced : there should not be a tone of only negative media coverage as the majority of media coverage was positive – please refer to directory of media coverage here: http://gmoseralini.org/category/media-coverage/

f) The argument that the new EFSA protocol does not mention the Seralini study is ridiculous – as it is 95% based on the protocol of the Seralini study – Just read both protocols to see: this is an article about this connection: http://gmoseralini.org/seralini-validated-by-new-efsa-guidelines-on-long-term-gmo-experiments/

g) GMOSeralini.org is not a Self-Published Source as quoted on this talk for reason for deletion of this source: http://gmoseralini.org/about-us/ - ‘Professor Gilles-Eric Séralini, his colleagues, and the organizations with which they are affiliated have no connection with the owners or editors of this website and bear no responsibility for its content.’ ‘The GMOSeralini website is owned and maintained by a group of concerned citizens and scientists.’ ‘This site has independent expert editors.’Hog1983 (talk) 08:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• Long story short, the editor has been using unreliable advocacy sources, and is attempting original research by claiming a new EFSA report (which does not mention Seralini) supports Seralini. The editor has just come off a block for edit warring, and is mis-templating editors in discussions, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Long story shorter, the editor above has been blocking all attempts to edit a biased article for many months by many different editors. I have stated quite clearly on 'talk' page that I do not want to use advocacy sources and only mainstream media sources - but they and all other sources which are not pro-GM / pro-Monsanto are deleted or iognored on 'talk' alongside all edits (Has the original article ever been changed despite the many edit attempts by many expert editors? I got banned for reverting more than 3 times which was a mistake on my part but it does not change the fact that the article is biased and goes against Wikipedia's 2nd Pillar.Hog1983 (talk) 11:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Ivan Massow

In the Ivan Massow article, User:Welsh-marches has recently added material which is always critical of the article subject, and seems to me to be worded in such a way so as to emphasize the negative. I am not disagreeing that some of this information should be added to the article, my concern is the way it is being presented. I have tried to word the information in a way which seems to me to be more neutral, though Welsh-marches doesn't see it that way. I do not have sufficient knowledge of the subject (financial services) to feel confident of discussing details on the talk page, so have come here. The particular wording which I seek comment on at the moment is in this edit.
For background, please note the discussion with a COI editor which took place here (and all sections beneath it) in 2012, in which myself and other editors, arrayed against a previous employee of Massow (User:Lisa Thorne), were trying (and ultimately succeeding) to prevent the article being too positive about it's subject. In my view Welsh-marches may possibly have a conflict of interest the other way; their editing history is primarily in the subject of financial services, and on 11th July 2012 they made a number of edits to this article which, in the main, tended to emphasize negative information about the article subject (e.g. see this edit). If I've brought this to the wrong noticeboard, can someone advise a better one (COIN?). Thanks. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 00:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

No conflict of interest since I am not in any way connected with Massow. I believe all my edits are well supported by the facts and referenced using reliable sources, often based on interviews given by Massow himself. I believe that PaleCloudedWhite is at risk of censoring the article in the name of neutrality. The facts are the facts and tell their own story. Massow is an interesting figure and his story deserves to be told in full, particularly as he has not been shy in talking to the media about his life. Welsh-marches (talk) 00:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but the 'story' which the facts tell depends on which facts are placed in the article, and how they are presented. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 02:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I have access to the same internet that you do. Everything that I have added has been based on published sources. I am sorry if you feel that this portrays Massow in a negative way. By all means expand the article to include any facts that you feel have been missed. I do object, however, to censorship of the article disguised as attempts at neutrality or balance. The way to balance things is to include additional facts, not to remove those already there, particularly when they are closely based on reliable sources, including interviews and other sources provided by Massow. You are correct that my interests are in financial services and Massow does not appear to have been very successful there so the facts might seem to tell a negative story. You could expand the section on Jake and on charity work if you feel that would present a more balanced view. Welsh-marches (talk) 10:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I am glad you have clarified your position. I shall be interested to hear whether other editors here consider it appropriate for an editor to state that they are only interested in editing the article from a particular perspective. As you state, you have access to the same internet as I do - you are also able to include additional facts and expand sections. Perhaps your disinclination to do so suggests that you are less interested in the overall quality of the article (and thus Wikipedia's aims) than inserting particular "facts" which you are keen to include. Considering you admit that your interests are in the same field in which the article subject operates, perhaps this is indeed a case for WP:COIN. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 13:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Nice try, but it doesn't really work like that and I think you know it. This is a collaborative process and everyone adds what they feel they can usefully add. I have some knowledge about financial services so I add that part, you may have other expertise. I have not stated I will only add content in that area and the edits that I have made there and in other articles are on a range of topics. I think you know that nobody is obliged to do anything here. I notice that you don't really argue that the information that I have added is wrong, presumably because you know that it is well supported by the sources. I am sure that between us and in conjunction with others we can create a good article that fully reflects the story of this interesting and complex individual. Good luck with your work. Welsh-marches (talk) 13:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

My concern with the information you wish to add is threefold: first, that it is a very particular and recent aspect of the article subject's history, and hence I think is unsuitable as per WP:BALASPS; second, it is not worded in a neutral way; and third, I have a general concern that you have a conflict of interest with regards to this article. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I have replied to these things above and don't propose to explain it all again, apart from to say that just because we don't agree does not mean that I have a COI anymore than you do. Can you stop throwing accusations around please and threatening to report things to various places as you have here for instance. Your behaviour could be misconstrued as a form of user harassment over what is nothing more than a content disagreement. The COI Noticeboard specifically says that "COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content." For the avoidance of doubt, I have had no dealings of any kind whatsoever with Ivan Massow or any of his firms ever. Please direct your energies to something more constructive. Thanks. Welsh-marches (talk) 22:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Putting my COI question to one side, it is nevertheless imperative that additions to this article conform to Wikipedia's policy on neutrality. This is particularly important in this biography of a living person. See WP:BLP. Your previous assertion that it is acceptable to add 'negative' content with the view that 'positive' content can be added later or by someone else, is incorrect. The 'Balance' section of WP:BLP states "The idea expressed in WP:Eventualism – that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape – does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times." (The italics are mine.) PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

That really wasn't what I meant at all. Welsh-marches (talk) 13:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Rujm el-Hiri: in 'Israeli-administered' or 'Israeli-occupied' Golan?

Requested remedy: We request independent evaluation of this issue. If it is decided that 'administered' (or some other term) is a preferable non-partisan term over the more prejudicial word 'occupied' then we request that this replacement be used (and protected) to describe 'Golan' in the "Rujm el-Hiri" article.

The article may be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rujm_el-Hiri The article's talk page may be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rujm_el-Hiri Though the issue of 'occupied' and related language is discussed in various places on this talk page, the most current discussion (between Nableezy, Zero0000, and myself) is in the section titled: "Partisan Politics does not belong here: WP:POV and WP:OR"

Summary: The article's topic is a 5,000 year old archeological site which has nothing to do with the modern Arab-Israeli conflict (since the site was constructed before 'Israel' or "Arabs' even existed :-). A group of editors, e.g.: Nableezy, Zero0000, Tiamut, Supreme Deliciousness, have insisted on using the phrase 'Israeli-occupied' with a link to the Wikipedia article on the political history of 'Israeli-occupied territories' to modify 'Golan' in the Rujm el-Hiri article. Some editors find the term 'occupied' to be violation of NPOV in this context, since the Israeli government considers the area to be a part of its own country, and (as the map displayed within the article shows) it may be better described as 'disputed' territory. This NPOV issue has become the focus of a small edit-war. I recently did a quick 'google' search and found others who had similar conflicts with these editors (and others who have a reputation of working with them as a concerted group on anti-Zionist issues) over the same prejudicial use of the word 'occupied' and found that some other editors in the past have proposed that 'administered' would be a more neutral alternative to the more politically-loaded term 'occupied.' The use of 'administered' was rejected by Nableezy, et al, who reinserted the 'occupied' language and link, just as Zero0000 had done the previous day.

............

The diffs of the two edits may be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rujm_el-Hiri&diff=569666323&oldid=569660529

The (edited for compactness) text of these diffs:

Rujm el-Hiri: Difference between revisions ...

Revision as of 01:53, 22 August 2013 (edit) 143.232.129.69 (talk) [Note from Ronreisman: '143.232.129.69' is listed because I forgot to sign-in before making the edit] (Changed 'Israeli-occupied' to more neutral phrase 'Israeli-administered' in an effort to minimize biased language -- see talk page)

Rujm el-Hiri (Arabic: رجم الهري, Rujm al-Hīrī; Template:Lang-he-n Gilgal Refā'īm) is an ancient megalithic monument, consisting of concentric circles of stone with a tumulus at center. It is located in Israeli-administered Golan Heights ....

UNDONE: Latest revision as of 02:47, 22 August 2013 (edit) (undo) (thank) Nableezy (talk | contribs) (Undid revision 569660529 by 143.232.129.69 (talk restore accurate terminology)

Rujm el-Hiri (Arabic: رجم الهري, Rujm al-Hīrī; Template:Lang-he-n Gilgal Refā'īm) is an ancient megalithic monument, consisting of concentric circles of stone with a tumulus at center. It is located in the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights ...

............

This insertion of 'occupied' has occurred in other parts of the article and stimulated editor controversy in the past. For instance:

Revision as of 12:39, 26 November 2011 Biosketch (Rmv "recently" commentary not in any of the sources.) ... The site was cataloged during an Israeli archaeological survey carried out in 1967-1968, after the Six-Day War....

Revision as of 18:37, 26 November 2011 Tiamut (talk | contribs) (→‎History and purpose: missing detail about occupation of syrian territory)

The site was cataloged during an Israeli archaeological survey carried out in 1967-1968, after Israel occupied Syria's Golan Heights during the Six-Day War.

.............

Link to the current Talk:Rujm_el-Hiri#Partisan_Politics_does_not_belong_here:_WP:POV_and_WP:OR section. (copied text replaced by link) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronreisman (talk • contribs)

To me, the term "administered" implies consent on the part of the governed; and we don't need to debate census data in light of the thumb of Israel and its military on the scales of Golan's demographics because.....

(A) "Occupied" is consistent with UN views of the matter and

strike out by original author, explanation for strikeout is in later commment in the tree down below (B) Neither term belongs in an article about an archeological site, unless it is related to RS-based disputes over the integrity of the science being performed.

Out of curiosity, are the news reports that Israel will pay students to defend it online involved in this dispute?

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 06:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Sadly, no one is paying me anything for my time spent on Wikipedia. My opinions, actions, and words are solely my own responsibility. If, OTOH, *you* would like to send me a check to help support my wife & kids .... well drop me a line, maybe we can work something out :-)Ronreisman (talk) 00:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Three points (a) WP:TLDR; (b) the Golan Heights is no exception to any other territory occupied by Israel in 1967. It is accepted that it and the West Bank, and East Jerusalem, is technically, in law, 'occupied', as even the Israeli Supreme Court admits; (c)kerfluflfle is spelt 'kerfuffle', and 'fussing' to get things said neutrally and correctly, without POV finessing to push a national euphemism into texts, is part of our remit as editors. Nishidani (talk) 10:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

To clarify the issue, it is entirely about the phrase "Israeli-occupied Golan Heights" used to indicate the location of this archaeological site. None of the other political issues mentioned above are relevant since nobody is proposing to mention them in the article. The reason "Golan Heights" by itself is insufficient is that only a portion of them was occupied by Israel in 1967 and so it does not properly identify the site. The reason "Israeli-administered" is undesirable is that "administered" is an adjective invented by Israel to euphemise the fact of occupation (which would contradict Israeli's denial that the Geneva Convention applies, etc). The phrase "Israeli-occupied" is far and away the most common description in English and is the overwhelming opinion of the nations on Earth (few political issues are voted on repeatedly with such near-unanimity at the UN). The UN always calls it the "Occupied Syrian Golan", but I don't propose using that. Though it is much less common, I could live with the phrase "Israeli-controlled" as an alternative to "Israeli-occupied". Zero^talk 13:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that 'Israeli-controlled' is a neutral alternative.Ronreisman (talk) 00:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Though 'controlled' does not imply either 'settlement' or 'production' which is a good part of what takes place under the control. It's best to go with the term in most general use internationally,'Israeli-occupied', if only to remind Ms Rudoren of the New York Times, and their bureau chief in Jerusalem, when she or others visits the Golan, that it is not a part of Israel in international law, something their fact-checkers are beginning to ignore.Nishidani (talk) 14:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• Agree with Zero000, say "occupied"; Zero's reasoning is strong enough that it persuaded me to change my mind, specifically the part when Zero said that "The reason "Golan Heights" by itself is insufficient is that only a portion of them was occupied by Israel in 1967 ...". To help educate others on the same fact background that tripped me up, I would make it explicit saying the site "is located in that portion of the Golan Heights that has been occupied by Israel since the 1967 Arab-Israeli War".NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

First of all, it would be extremely helpful if the talk page section was linked instead of copied and pasted. It was insanely difficult for me to make sense of the text. Also, could the original poster please clarify what is being requested? Thanks! Leujohn ^{(talk, stalk me?)} 18:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm the 'original poster' and the 'request' is to reach a respectful consensus regarding a 'neutral' alternative to the partisan use of 'occupied' -- and accompanying link to a controversial political-territorial topic -- inserted into an article where none of these political issues are mentioned (eg 'Rujm el-Hiri' is an archeology topic). I agree with Zero000 that 'controlled' (*without* political article link) is an acceptable alternative. Do we have consensus? Ronreisman (talk) 00:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I should add that I only suggested "Israeli-controlled" because I agree with the general principle that archaeological articles should avoid modern politics where possible. There are very few other Golan-related articles where "Israeli-controlled" is appropriate. Zero^talk 00:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

In my view, it would create a silly WP:EGG to write this as "[[Israeli-controlled|Israeli-occupied territories]] portion of the [[Golan Heights]]". Resolution of this should be through what the RSs with the greatest amount of weight say. And I don't know of any greater-weight RSs than Israeli courts and the UN, where "occupied" has been at least acknowledged in one and is common usage at the other. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:31, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

"Occupied" is the correct and neutral word. Anything else is misleading. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 03:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree. As an outsider with no personal stake in the P–I issue, I find the phrase "Israeli-occupied portion of the Golan Heights" entirely neutral and helpful. I can understand that "occupied" may strike some as a political assessment, but I suggest they are reading more into the text than what it says. Johnuniq (talk) 03:52, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe the best solution would be to simply state "the Golan Heights" without further description. Any interested reader should click on the wikilink. However, "controlled" seems acceptable if a description must be included. Leujohn ^{(talk, stalk me?)} 17:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

That's like saying Machu Picchu is in South America, instead of specifying that it is in Peru. The Golan Heights is neither a nation nor under one-nation control/occupation/whatever. We don't say SS Edmund Fitzgerald sank in Lake Superior, we specify that it was in "Canadian waters". Likewise, this site is not just randomly on some unclaimed bit of geology. It is on a specific part, a region that in geopolitical RSs with greatest weight is called "Israeli-occupied". There is such a thing as false neutrality, when we make these calls from the seat of our pants instead of comparing the way different RS speak of them. To paraphrase the little old lady in the classic Wendy's commercial, "Where's the RS?"NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Leujohn: I agree with Zero000 and NewsAndEventsGuy(strikeout added by NewsAndEventsGuy because this falsely characterizes my position) that we need to specify Israeli-Golan, vs Syrian-Golan. The location is relevant; the recent political and military history, however, is not relevant. For instance, Syrian-Golan could be further subdivided into the different polities who currently militarily control and occupy it. In fact, territory very near Rujm el Hiri has been recently disputed between the Syrian government, several rebel groups, and the UN). The nature of the Syrian-Golan occupation, however, is irrelevant to this article's topic. Inserting them where they don't belong is a violation of SYNTH and OR. This issue is not about ethnic over-sensitivity. It's about allowing compromise the Neutrality principle with controversial partisan political rhetoric. Topic ledes should only contain language and links that are mentioned in the article. I agree with Zero000 that 'controlled' is preferable to the disputed term 'occupied.' Ronreisman (talk) 20:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not controversial partisan political rhetoric to describe any of the Israeli occupied territories as Israeli occupied. It's not prejudicial either. It's editors doing what they are absolutely required by policy to do whether they like it or not. It maximizes policy compliance. It's the most neutral and functional solution. No one is to blame. It's just what happens when you take the sources and apply Wikipedia's decision procedures to them. This issue has needlessly caused disruption to hundreds of articles for years. Editors just need to have the humility to switch off their personal views, simply follow the rules and everything will be as it is meant to be. Sean.hoyland - talk 21:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Sean.hoyland's observation that 'This issue has needlessly caused disruption to hundreds of articles for years' is a clear indication of the controversial and political nature of this issue. This is partially because Golan's status is both complex and disputed; e.g.: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14724842. A significant minority object to 'occupied' as the exclusively acceptable term because this masks real and relevant differences of opinion. The 'Wikipedia decision procedures' do *not* automatically dictate imposition of the dominant majority opinions at the expense of minority rights. The suppression of minority rights in this context is not compatible with Wikipedia's emphasis on consensus and etiquette. Of course, these concerns take a back seat to the larger issue: don't compromise the quality of an article by importing extraneous issues that don't pertain to the topic. That's why political language and links in the lede of a non-political topic should, as a general rule, be considered a violation of Wikipedia Neutrality Point of View. Ronreisman (talk) 22:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Ron, when you review RSs beware of reading in what you want to hear. That's called Confirmation bias. Try going to the BBC RS link you cited, and read the whole thing, i.e., click on the tab that says "status", and you'll find the BBC describes the place as "Israeli-occupiedcontrolled". (Correction by original author NAEG, sorry... kid distracted me)NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

You mean BBC Facts tab = "Status: Israeli-occupied" and Overview map = Occupied by Israel (1967). There is really nothing controversial at all, not even slightly, about referring to the Israeli occupied Golan Heights as Israeli occupied. Of course, the BBC's reliability on these issues is always challenged. One of my favorites from an editor is that the "BBC has an Arabic station. The Brits create Jordan, so of course their national station is not reliable." Sean.hoyland - talk 12:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

It isn't "a clear indication of the controversial and political nature of this issue". It is a clear indication of the powerful effects of ethno-nationalist imprinting on human beings. It takes a long time to do that. Wikipedia can only ask people to do their very best to follow the rules here and if they aren't able to do they should walk away or be helped to walk away. The Golan's status is not "complex and disputed" on this question. There are no "minority rights" here, there's just the sources and our policies/guidelines. It would be entirely inconsistent with policy to put "is Great" after the word "God", or "Saves" after "Jesus" or "is just a theory" after "Evolution" just because a significant minority of Wikipedia contributors have learned to prefer it that way. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

@RonReisman, your comment at 20:55 today falsely characterizes my position because I explicitly oppose saying "Israeli-Golan" for the reason that this phrasing would be an NPOV violation departing from the RSs of greatest weight. I have modified your comment by striking out my name. Please do not ascribe false positions to me. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy: my apologies for any misunderstandings that may have offended you. To be clear: I was explaining to Leujohn that I was *agreeing* with others who point out that we should not just leave 'Golan' without some adjectival language that distinguishes whether it's on the Israeli or Syrian side. I did not mean to imply that you agreed with the specific language we should use (since you favor status-quo 'occupied'), just that you did agree that unlabeled 'Golan' is not sufficient. No offense intended. Also: my other response to your question about whether I was a paid Israeli student was my attempt to make a friendly joke; we do *not* seriously expect you to send me a check. I'm just trying to reach consensus by incremental agreements (whenever possible :-) until we reach a final settlement.Ronreisman (talk) 23:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no "Israeli side" of Golan, there is a free part of Syrian Golan and then there is an Israeli-occupied part of Syrian Golan. Rujm el Hiri is in the Israeli-occupied part of the Syrian Golan, so that is what we will use.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

@Ron, no harm done, thanks for apology and clarification of your intent.

@Supreme Deliciousness, no your opinion about the facts (even if right) is not why we should use that expression. Rather, we should use that expression because that is the way it is described in the RSs of greatest weight. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Asaram Bapu

Please have a look at Talk:Asaram_Bapu#Removed_sections, which is most probably going to become an edit war now. Tito☸Dutta 17:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

No it won't become an edit war because anyone who repeatedly restores the BLP-fails will be blocked, although we will have to go through the usual rigmarole of WP:AGF and explaining everything ten times first. I explained the basics at WP:Administrators' noticeboard#Asaram Bapu and WP:BLP, which you have seen, per your comment to User:Bbb23 diff. Johnuniq (talk) 07:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• You have not understood. Tito☸Dutta 08:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• It would be more helpful to identify something I said that you think is incorrect, then briefly explain why. It is extremely common to find prominent people that are accused of various bad things, but Wikipedia is not the place to seek justice. If the subject of an article has been convicted of some crime, then that should be recorded in a due manner, but stuff like this is off-the-scale in terms of its unsuitability (someone claimed they saw sexual exploitation; a report alleged the subject had failed lie detection tests although "no direct evidence" was found; and more). Repeatedly editing that POV into a WP:BLP will lead to blocks. Johnuniq (talk) 10:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• FYI, chances are I'll leave and unwatchlist all these Asaram Bapu articles very soon. I am asking for help everywhere (India noticeboard, editors' talk page, this noticeboard, not getting any co-operation anywhere).
  Your assessment of Bbb23's edit and full protection at WP:AN was incorrect, allow me to explain— there were 3 or 4 reverts in the article. Of those 3 or 4 reverts, one revert was reversion of Bbb's edit (more clearly, his edit was reverted). And, when an admin's edit was challenged and reverted, he can not fully protect his own version. I did not have much energy left at this moment, so I posted at Bbb's talk page only (if you see it, see Soham's reply too). But, I don't have any problem with his protection, so, you can re-assess his protection at WP:AN, or leave it as it is, do whatever you wish, that is not the main issue.
  And, I was not talking about edit warring between Bbb and me. Both of us have been editing here for a long time and know how to deal with such situation. I was talking about that other editor User:Pee and a bunch of other editors (User:Naveen etc, there might be few socks too). Might be unintended, but IMO, this article has become a scandalizing and defaming article. Political gaming or CoI/paid edits might be involved here too (these are not new for WikiProject India articles). I have already confessed, I don't have much knowledge on this person, so, for last two-three days I was attempting to draw attention of experienced Wikipedians and WikiProject India editors towards this article, so that they can do some study and comment/help. I request you to see this post which I posted at a WP:India editor's talk page. This will make clear, I hope, what I have been trying to do so far. --Tito☸Dutta 11:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• If you want to challenge Bbb23's administrative actions, the place to do so is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Asaram Bapu and WP:BLP where Bbb23 provided an explanation. It is unclear what you want. This is the NPOV noticeboard, so presumably you think something in the article is not neutral. What? Your report pointed to a section on a talk page where Bbb23 explained why three sections had been removed. Are you wanting to restore the material that Bbb23 removed? Are you wanting to remove more material? What action do you propose? Johnuniq (talk) 11:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• My "post" above and my "no post" at WP:AN shows I am neither worried nor annoyed with Bbb's reversion. You have told, I pointed towards Bbb's section at article's talk page. If you read my or Ugog Nizdast's reply in the same section (please read), you'll get details. In more clear words, there are two groups of editors in this article

1. the first group who are writing all controversies with every possible details and removing those portions which talk about subject's positive works.
2. the second group of editors are apparently followers of the subject and deleting all controversies.

So, NPoV might be badly disputed here Tito☸Dutta 12:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• Please see Redtigerxyz's post at Talk:Asaram_Bapu#Removed_sections, which is very helpful, IMO. --Tito☸Dutta 12:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Johnuniq (talk · contribs). Perhaps there is a problem with the article, but this does not seem to be the place to raise it. Leujohn ^{(talk, stalk me?)} 17:15, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Genetically modified food controversies

Genetically modified food controversies. IMHO this article is not NPOV according to its title. There is material in the article that is not controversial that should be removed as promotional 'fluff' for one side of the controversy. There is notable RS material that should be added that isn't. When either are done then the edits are reverted without adequate discussion using what appears to be WP:GANG and WP:OWN. I could provide diffs but I will let the regulars here judge by looking at the article, history, and talk pages.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Requesting feedback

Requesting feedback on scope at Talk:Gospel of the Hebrews#Scope of this article. Thanks. Ignocrates (talk) 16:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Kim Cascone

This article does not cite a single reliable news source, and appears to be a vanity article written by Mr. Casscone himself. There's plenty of biographical information to be found, with absolutely no verifiability, and the article seems to conflict with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Should be a candidate for deletion, if these issues cannot be addressed, and Mr. Cascone's Silent Records page also has zero citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.16.3.12 (talk) 23:18, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Animal shelter

This article seems to be very judgemental of "kill-shelters" and uses a lot of emotive language like "less grim." I don't feel qualified to write a more balanced article and wouldn't know where to begin. There is no mention of the fact that kill shelters usually have a policy of not turning away any animals. No-kill shelters have limited intakes, the overflow go to kill shelters. 105.224.143.112 (talk) 09:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the 'less grim' statement as in any case it was unsourced (or rather the source didn't back this and failed WP:RS. I'm not sure there are other problems other than the fact it doesn't mention intake differences. That should be added if you can source it. Dougweller (talk) 19:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

It's looking better now. Would be very helpful to get more content covering other parts of the world, especially the Global South. bobrayner (talk) 20:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Violence against Muslims template

I found Template:Violence against Muslims which links

• Anti-Muslim violence in India
• Persecution of Muslims
• Persecution of Muslims by the Meccans
• Persecution of Muslims in Burma

Don't these all violate WP:NPOV? As they look like all just lists of conflicts between Muslims and other religious groups. Look like Wikipedia:Coatrack articles. Would having articles Persecution of religious group xyz then listing all conflicts they've been in be neutral?--Loomspicker (talk) 22:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

There a several templates of the form "Violence against X" and there are many categories of the form "Persecution of Y". What you won't find are templates of the form "Violence by X" or "Persecution by Y". In general, victim groupings are tolerated but perpetrator groupings are usually not. Although we do have categories of "Persecution by Y." That's the pattern. Jason from nyc (talk) 00:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Question about editorial standards in projects:policy:coi name space

I started editing the Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest policy page recently. I noticed systemic bias towards Public Relations editing. As I edit, I have faced reversions simply because they disagree, and they have not entertained consensus building discussion on talk. Since PR firms have the ability to recruit more editors and simply outnumber disagreeable opinions, the argumentation process of consensus building is important to ensure we're not gravitating towards vote counts.

So, some issues I am seeing on the Wikipedia policy page on COI is that oped pieces that give tailored advise to those editing in Corporate Communications/Public Relations capacity from and written in a way that resonates with them. Referencing to its PR trade organizations like PRSA and Further Readings material that tailor to "edit for consideration" / vested interest group are also quite questionable.

Can I get some input on this?Cantaloupe2 (talk) 13:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I took a brief look at the discussion in the talk page, and I think your efforts relating to section 5 of the talk page seem reasonable. Of course, be careful not to start an edit war. I think you should have left the "Further Readings" section alone though, as the existence of the links doesn't seem to harm the overall neutrality of the article (at least in my opinion). I'll look into the page with further detail tomorrow and make a more detailed reply. Leujohn ^{(talk, stalk me?)} 18:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)