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

Andrei Fursov quote at Lyndon LaRouche

LaRouche-related disputes are often messy. LaRouche's group seems to be in perpetual combat with other activist groups on both the left and the right. LaRouche typically accuses his opponents of being fascist or proto-fascist. Some of his nominally leftist opponents in turn call him fascist or proto-fascist, while his nominally rightist opponents call him socialist or communist. There have been edit wars in the past over whether to include these accusations and how much weight to give them. I think that the most reliable characterization of LaRouche comes from a recent article in the New York Times, which describes him as a "controversial activist" whose "views defy simple categorization."

The present dispute, which shows no signs of progress on the talk page (Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche#Fursov redux), is over the section entitled Allegations of fascism, anti-Semitism, and racism, and specifically over whether to include this rebuttal quote. My view is that the commentator is notable, and his view should be included under NPOV. It may also help mitigate any BLP problems associated with this section. Input from uninvolved editors would be helpful, since the involved editors appear to be deadlocked. Joe Bodacious (talk) 13:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Certainly the LaRouche biography is a BLP, with the subject being 91 years old. However, there are hundreds of reliable sources which call the man "controversial" in passing, as does the recent Texas Tribune article republished by NYT. Many other sources describe LaRouche in more detail, describing what things he does that are considered fascist.

The Fursov quote under discussion here is WP:UNDUE emphasis on Fursov's opinion about Western "intellectuals who have called LaRouche a fascist" who he says should not be called intellectuals. This comment fails to rebut any particular statement about LaRouche; it is simply a put-down of other intellectuals, stated in irritation by Fursov. We don't need this quote at all in the LaRouche biography. It would be much better to have some kind of description of why Western intellectuals have called LaRouche a fascist, then possibly a real rebuttal from someone saying why he is not a fascist. Binksternet (talk) 17:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

For those of you who don't know Binksternet, he is one of the involved editors in the dispute, as am I. Input from uninvolved editors would be helpful, since the involved editors appear to be deadlocked. Joe Bodacious (talk) 20:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not more involved than you, Joe; your first interaction with the LaRouche biography was in April 2012, while my first interaction was April 2013. Binksternet (talk) 00:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The question of who does and who doesn't deserve to be called an intellectual is a red herring, whereas Fursov's opinion that "the charge [of fascism] has no basis in any real scientific analysis of politics", is directly relevant to the question of LaRouche's alleged fascism and may merit inclusion. Writegeist (talk) 18:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The fact that Andrey Fursov has given a speech to the LaRouche-controlled Schiller Institute indicates to me that Fursov may not be a neutral, disinterested party. Accordingly, I oppose use of the quote. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

None of the commentators quoted in the section are neutral, disinterested parties. NPOV doesn't mean the commentators are neutral; it means the article includes all significant viewpoints. Joe Bodacious (talk) 04:19, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

See WP:NPOV#Bias_in_sources. Joe Bodacious (talk) 00:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I can see Writegeist's point. I think that including the portion about the scientific basis, without the slam on the "intellectuals", might be a suitable compromise. Joe Bodacious (talk) 18:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Is there any objection to that solution? Joe Bodacious (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is still WP:UNDUE. Fursov is of course very wrong about whether there is scientific basis for calling LaRouche a fascist. Dennis King talks about the issue in 1989's Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism. Helen Gilbert talks about the issue in 2003's Lyndon LaRouche: Fascism Restyled for the New Millennium. Dennis Tourish and Tim Wohlforth write about the issue in On the Edge: Political Cults Right and Left, acknowledging King's book and noting the ADL's assessment that LaRouche's National Caucus of Labor Committees (NCLC) is the "closest thing to an American fascist party that we've got." Historian Stanley G. Payne writes in A History of Fascism, 1914–1945 that LaRouche's "NCLC has only some, not most, of the characteristics of a fascist movement." In Fascism: Post-war fascisms, edited by Roger Griffin and Matthew Feldman, a chapter is included by Chip Berlet and Matthew N. Lyons: "New Faces for White Nationalism: Reframing Supremacist Narratives". Berlet and Lyons write about LaRouche's fascist tendencies throughout the chapter, labeling LaRouche explicitly as a "neofascist". So you can see that there is truly a scholarly interest in the issue of fascism with regard to LaRouche, with varying degrees concluded. Fursov's empty assertion is hopelessly ineffective. Binksternet (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

For the record, Stanley Payne is a highly respected historian. The others that you cite are simply opposing activists with no scientific credentials. King and Berlet have been criticized in reliable sources for being extremists and conspiracy theorists, and all of Helen Gilbert's writings are self-published by her organization, the Freedom Socialist Party, which is fringier than LaRouche's group. Joe Bodacious (talk) 13:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

For the record, Chip Berlet and Matthew N. Lyons have been published in a scholarly book edited by Roger D. Griffin (Professor of Modern History at Oxford Brookes University, and editor of the Routledge quarterly, Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions) and Matthew Feldman (Lecturer in 20th Century History at the University of Northampton and editor of the Routledge quarterly, Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions). The writing of Berlet and Lyons is thereby lifted up to become highly reliable. Dennis Tourish serves as Reader in Communication Management at the University of Aberdeen, Scotland, and Tim Wohlforth is a socialist journalist. Tourish and Wohlforth used the imprint M.E. Sharpe which is an academic publisher. Dennis King and Chip Berlet are acknowledged as the top two of the world's leading experts on LaRouche. If we compare Fursov to this crew Fursov will come out looking foolish for his empty denial of fascism. Binksternet (talk) 15:16, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Our opinions about who's right and who's wrong, and the effectiveness or otherwise of reliably sourced assertions, are not criteria for inclusion or exclusion. They are irrelevant. Our task is neutral coverage of the opinions—in this instance, opinions from opposing points of view re. the alleged fascism etc. Writegeist (talk) 18:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

This seems to be the crux of the matter. Binksternet, do you have a response? Joe Bodacious (talk) 14:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

If the general wish expressed here is to help Fursov look the fool by stating his empty assertion in contradiction to Berlet, Lyons, Tourish, Wohlforth, King and others, then let's do it. We can tell the reader that Fursov said "the charge [of fascism] has no basis in any real scientific analysis of politics" yet observers A, B and C have found fascist elements x, y, and z within LaRouche's initiatives and organizations. Binksternet (talk) 15:39, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I would be fine with citing Payne, who does have scientific credentials. King, Berlet et al. are simply political activists who have been published in books, no different than LaRouche in that regard. Joe Bodacious (talk) 01:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

This is a discussion about Fursov, but you cannot succeed in shutting out King who is very widely cited on LaRouche, and Berlet whose writings have been approved by respected academics Griffin and Feldman. These guys are not simply political activists—that's a gross misstatement. As I've pointed out to you elsewhere, the Wiesenthal Center considers King and Berlet the top LaRouche experts, joined by the newer expert, enraged mother Erica Duggan, to comprise the top three experts on the LaRouche movment. Binksternet (talk) 06:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Here is the new text I propose to add to the article: In response to King, historian Stanley G. Payne of the University of Wisconsin wrote in 1996 that the National Caucus of Labor Committees, a LaRouche-affiliated group, had "only some, not most, of the characteristics of a fascist movement", while another historian, Andrei Fursov of the Moscow Institute for the Humanities, said that the charge has no basis in any real scientific analysis of politics. Joe Bodacious (talk) 22:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

As mentioned above, Andrei Fursov has spoken at Larouche's Schiller Institute, where he was described as "Historian, Institute of Scientific Information on Social Sciences of the Russian Academy of Sciences Izborsk Club, Russia." The Izborsk club was deliberately founded on Larouche's 90th birthday. In the speech Fursov says," The environmentalist movement of the ’60s was organized by the Rockefeller Foundation, and it was paving the way for future deindustrialization....The de-population project [which would reduce world population to 2 billion] is financed by the same structures which financed the ecology movement, etc." These are Larouchian views not shared by the mainstream.

Obviously his comments are those of a supporter and have no weight. Whatever background Fursov may have, he was not presenting his views in an academic publication. There is no point mentioning him.

TFD (talk) 01:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't help but notice that your comment follows directly upon the heels of this one, but no matter. Fursov is a credentialed expert, and his comment was published in a reliable source. The objection that you raise is not based on any Wikipedia policy that I am aware of. His point of view clearly differs from yours, but your point of view is also represented in the section under discussion, FWIW. Joe Bodacious (talk) 02:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

It is not a good idea to use part of a footnote written 20 years ago and you have it out of context. After saying that no neo-fascist group has transformed itself into an organization that could compete for votes, Payne says in a footnote that Larouche's group has come closest. He then refers readers to King's Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism. So basically he is agreeing with King, whom ironically you reject as a source. King says that Larouche failed to transform his movement into a fascist movement (Ch. 20) That does not mean that he was not a fascist, merely that he was able to achieve "some, not most, of the characteristics of a fascist movement." One of those characteristics was the support of ""leading strata of capitalists and governmental agencies" (LaRouche's words).

PS - what are Fursov's credentials and how does that make him an expert?

TFD (talk) 02:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Here is a translated version of Fursov's bio in the Russian Wikipedia. Waalkes (talk) 21:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Once again, the text I propose to add to the article: In response to King, historian Stanley G. Payne of the University of Wisconsin wrote in 1996 that the National Caucus of Labor Committees, a LaRouche-affiliated group, had "only some, not most, of the characteristics of a fascist movement", while another historian, Andrei Fursov of the Moscow Institute for the Humanities, said that the charge has no basis in any real scientific analysis of politics. Are there any policy-based objections to this text? Joe Bodacious (talk) 02:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS says that "consensus can be assumed if editors stop responding to talk page discussions." Joe Bodacious (talk) 05:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

References

Agree with TFD above. The quote has no place in the article. WP:CONSENSUS has some of the stupidest writing on any Wikipedia policy page, and also is probably the most invoked and abused of Wikipedia's policies. You shouldn't be able to bore people into submission.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, I am asking whether there is a policy-based objection. Whether Fursov is politically a supporter, or an opponent like those writers he is refuting, is irrelevant under WP:NPOV#Bias_in_sources. Joe Bodacious (talk) 06:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Living people, and territories that don't exist any more

If a territory recently ceased to exist and/or a city recently changed its name, what name should we use in an article that discusses events before & after? My understanding of best practice was that we show the contemporary name and then, if there's a big difference or if it needs to be clarified, we parenthetically give the current name. Or something along those lines. However, this edit to Arsim Abazi's place of birth suggests otherwise. That article has two sources; one says he was born in Uroševac (ie. the placename at the time he was born), and one says he was born in Ferizaj (the placename now). bobrayner (talk) 20:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Do we have evidence that the place-name changed in English language sources? Formerip (talk) 20:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Hence our article on the town was moved, following an RM. bobrayner (talk) 20:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm. That's evidence that Wikipedia editors supported a pagemove. But it looks to me like a town that is known by a Serbian name if you are Serbian and an Albanian name if you are Albanian. Your question seems to imply that to call the town by the Albanian name back then or by the Serbian name now would be flat-out wrong. I don't know that this is not correct, but I'm querying that premise. Formerip (talk) 21:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Each case may be different, but generally I would use the name used in most reliable sources about the subject since the name change. Based on the lack of sources for this subject, I would say the article lacks notability and should be deleted, with would eliminate the problem. This appears to be a Balkans/Eastern European ethnic dispute and I imagine only people interested in that will participate to any extent and whichever side has the most supporters will determine which term to use - probably choosing the non-Serbian name. TFD (talk) 21:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Gentleman, please, the article belongs to WP:FOOTBALL and by its standards passes notability as the player in question has played for a national team, thus passes notability.

Now, regarding the dispute issue, there has been a long standing consensus at WP:FOOTBALL to add in the infobox a simple formula of city+country (at TIME OF BIRTH). It is just for the infobox purpose, and then in the article body one may go into further detail regarding what intermediate administrative units the place he was born belongs to, and what is called and what country belongs today. But in infobox we use a historically accurate place of birth without many complications. That is why I reverted Bobrainer and I invite him to check many other footballers biographies for plyers from former Yugoslavia and he will clearly see what the consensus is. All players from Serbia, Croatia, SLovenia, Bosnia, Kosovo, etc. have Yugoslavia as county of birth before 1992, without any discrimination. FkpCascais (talk) 21:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:NFOOTBALL says, "The notability of these is accepted as they would have received significant coverage as outlined above in the general notability criteria." If there has been "significant coverage", it would be more productive to use them to expand the article. What do recent articles call his place of birth? TFD (talk) 22:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:FOOTBALL does not own the article.

To answer TFD: The sources currently in the article give both versions of the placename. Recent newscoverage almost exclusively uses the new placename. Non-news coverage of obscure footballers is rarely good, but the new placename seems to be preferred there too (example). I think that showing only the old name of his birthplace, or only the new name, would be equally flawed on WP:NPOV grounds; a better compromise would be to show both, and that was the status quo until FkpCascais arrived. bobrayner (talk) 22:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The issue here is that there is an agreement to use the correct place name at time of birth in the infobox (meaning, name and country at time of birth), and not to use the (present day X-nia) formula in infobox, but in body of the article.

PS. Bob, don´t missinform. The status quo everywhere for footballers in the one as in Nemanja Vidić. Do you see Serbia mentioned in the infobox as his place of birth? No. Do you see brackets saying what the country nowadays is? No. So don´t make up new rules apliying them for obscure players such as one you found here. I am only apliying the agreement reached and whitespread for all footballers of former countries. FkpCascais (talk) 22:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

If there really is a guideline somewhere that says we should only use outdated placenames and not current ones, I would love to see it; since that guideline needs to be improved. Can you provide a link, please? bobrayner (talk) 00:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it is pretty obvious George Washington was born in British America and not the United States, and as you can see that same article doesn´t have the current name of the country in the infobox within parenthesis. It is birthplace we are talking about for God´s sake.

WP:MOSBIO doesn´t say anything regarding the infobox. However from my years long participation at WP, I rememeber quite a lot of discussions regarding this, and besides few nationalist POV-pushers, the vast majority of editors agreed in all of them to use the correct name of place and country at time of birth (with no further info), so honestly I doubt you will change that, but you are free to try. FkpCascais (talk) 00:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

If there really is a guideline somewhere that says we should only use outdated placenames and not current ones, I would love to see it; since that guideline needs to be improved. Can you provide a link, please? Why do you insist that other editors must back down, and follow a rule which supports your preferred style, if you can't even link to the rule? It looks like you just made it up. bobrayner (talk) 08:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Of course we use the historical names, that is WP:COMMONSENSE. Roman citizens were born Rome, not Italy, and would have visited Londinium, not London. If you want guidelines, I suggest you read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Proper names#Place names (which states that "many place names have a historical context that should be preserved" before going on to give examples) and WP:MODERNPLACENAME (which states that "Older names should be used in appropriate historical contexts [...] former names are used when referring to appropriate historical periods." GiantSnowman 11:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with the views above that it is appropriate for the name/country at the time to be used when describing someone's birthplace in the infobox, and this does generally seem to be what happens (this is not restricted to football articles, but also appears to be applied for politicians, except for Estonian ones where a group of nationalist editors has been able to continue to conspire to edit war any mention of the Soviet Union out of the articles). An expanded version of the situation, e.g. "Person A was born in B in C (now X in Y)" is appropriate to be added to the prose of the article, but we should not be cluttering infoboxes with this information. See, for example, Anastassia Michaeli. Number 57 15:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
• I agree with GiantSnowman. This has long been the approach taken on infoboxes (a more detailed explanation can be used in the body of the article). Jogurney (talk) 21:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Seems that what Bobrainer was calling a status quo, which he accused me of having changed in his comment above from _{22:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)}, is quite the opposite situation. Bobrayner seems to be a productive editor in numerous fields troughout wp however, when the subject is Kosovo, he does his best to promote Kosovo as an independent nation, and, as seen by his edit summary at that article (diff), seems that infoboxes of footballers were his latest ground of promoting the cause. I don´t oppose at all to add the fact that the town has a new name and belongs to Kosovo, however that addition should be done in the proper place, the article body.

Just a few days ago I had a very similar issue with another editor, also regading the display of birthplace in footballers infoboxes. I will like to ask the community about this. Please see User_talk:Joy#Mention_federal_republic and User_talk:FkpCascais#Re:_Mention_federal_republic. There has been a consensus for players born in former Yugoslavia to add only city+country, however this user has added the intermediate administrative unit (SR Croatia) to duzens of players. Personally I wouldn´t oppose if the consensus is changed, however it implies all players from former Yugoslavia, and then all will be affected. Also, the response how the constituent republics of Yugoslavia were "countries" is very strange at least (Joy claimed that in previous discussions already ad it is a problematic approach to the matter), and also how players were young and the country of birth didn´t meant much to them is even stranger argument. FkpCascais (talk) 21:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

As an utterly uninvolved editor who ran across this accidentally from the previous thread (and as someone born in London, England who always flinches at "London, UK"), let me offer a suggestion that probably has no chance of adoption.

¶ Almost all of those Balkan footballers were born in one of the six constituent Republics (Serbia, Croatia, Montenegro, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Slovenia & Macedonia) of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia or in an equivalent part of the Kingdom of Jugoslavia; some of those born in Serbia came from one of the two autonomous regions within Serbia (the Vojvodina and Kosovo-Metohija). [The quirky exceptions would be Axis-era babies born in a transitory non-Yugoslav entity like the State of Croatia or the Slovenian province of Greater Germany, something notable in itself.] Similarly an Estonian footballer born between (say) 1944 and 1990 would have come from the Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic, one of the 15 constituent republics of the USSR. So it's hardly inaccurate or anachronistic to give a birthplace as "Tallinn, Estonian S.S.R.", "Belgrade, Serbia, Yugoslavia" or "Zagreb, Croatia (Yugoslavia)", just as I was born in London, England (UK), and thousands of Canadians hail from London, Ontario, Canada (not "London, Canada").

¶ But, as I say, I'm sure that (between nationalists, Yugoslav & Soviet loyalists, and MOS/Infobox purist-prescriptivists) this is a fairly neutral approach that hasn't a prayer.—— Shakescene (talk) 11:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Courtesy Notification

The opinions (either way) of NPOV/N experts would be appreciated here : Talk:DynCorp#Neutrality_disputed_2

Courtesy notification. Thanks Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Should Wikipedia state that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is Caliph?

At the moment our article claims categorically that al-Baghdad is Caliph, with some editors also using the title in the body of the article. The title is disputed even among Sunni Muslims, with at least one t Sunni Muslim scholar, Yusef al-Qaradawi quoted as stating “We look forward to the coming, as soon as possible, of the caliphate, But the declaration issued by the Islamic State is void under sharia and has dangerous consequences for the Sunnis in Iraq and for the revolt in Syria,” He said the declaration, and the nomination of al-Baghdadi as caliph, by a group “known for its atrocities and radical views” fail to meet strict conditions dictated by sharia law. The title of caliph, he said, can “only be given by the entire Muslim nation”, not by a single group." and The Grand Imam of Al-Azhar, regarded by many to be the leading authority on Sunni Islamic thought, “believes that all those who are today speaking of an Islamic State are terrorists,” his representative, Sheikh Abbas Shuman, told AFP earlier this week"[3] Given this I believe that Wikipedia stating that he is Caliph is a violation of WP:NPOV. Dougweller (talk) 10:18, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Doug. At one point, the infobox was even claiming the World War I era Caliph was his predecessor, which was going way too far. In my opinion, it's perfectly ok to indicate he has declared that the area that is under his control is a caliphate, and that he asserts he is a caliph, but we need to take care how we phrase this. Incidentally, I don't think this problem is due to editors supporting his side in the conflict; it's just a problem of how present the facts. PhilKnight (talk) 10:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree. The claim that he is Caliph is one (notable) POV, but not an undisputed fact - there is significant opposition to that claim. There may simply be a misunderstanding here, in that the universal aspect of the term "caliph" as single head of the Ummah is not widely understood, but word is rather considered a quaint name for a ruler, like "president" or "king". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Also agree. His claim is already being rejected even by "extremist" Islamists, and will continue to be. Throughout much of Islamic history there were two or more Caliph claimants, I believe the record was five for a while. Johnbod (talk) 13:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

PhilKnight, Johnbod, Stephen Schulz Thanks, but although we agree, the article still proclaims him caliph. I've tagged the article as pov and will start a new section to discuss rewording. Dougweller (talk) 08:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

The relevance of neutrality is that we should not call him a caliph unless there is consensus in reliable sources. Incidentally, mainstream sources often refer to a leader by a title which suggests divine authority. TFD (talk) 21:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Can we call him a soi-disant Caliph? Now Look What You've Done (talk) 15:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Just remember Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant when making changes, and tune accordingly. Can't have a Caliphate article referring to its Caliph, but not vice versa. I don't support or oppose recognizing the state, just want the articles to support and recognize each other. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:08, July 9, 2014 (UTC)

Cleveland child abuse scandal

From a cursory scan, I'm not sure this is written from a NPOV, but would like a second opinion, The talk page is worse. :( ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

NPOV notice on Gary Webb: Was he "vindicated"?

A Wikipedia editor started an NPOV inquiry into whether Gary Webb was "vindicated"? Talk:Gary_Webb#Vindicated.3F - The editor argues that the CIA internal report in the 1990s did not vindicate him. The article currently states that Webb was vindicated after the editor of the Los Angeles Times stated that the newspaper's attack on him was faulty and after something another newspaper published in the 2000s (I'll have to look)

This is an important topic so I encourage Wikipedians to give this their attention WhisperToMe (talk) 09:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

An article in Esquire quotes Jess Katz as saying, "Webb was vindicated by a 1998 CIA Inspector General report...."[4] I see no reason why we cannot mention what Katz said, but before we state as a fact that Webb was vindicated we would need to show that that is the consensus among observers in reliable sources. Even if Webb's allegations turned out to be true, it does not necessarily mean that he has been vindicated. It would depend on whether he followed proper journalistic standards. TFD (talk) 21:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Philip Morris donation to The Independent Institute

Carlstak is persistent in adding the line "The Institute received $5,000 in funding from Philip Morris in 1995." at The Independent Institute#Funding. TII is now a $2.4 million think tank and the source of this info re the donation is a thank you letter written by TII's president. Vidmastb had removed an earlier version ("The Institute has received funding from Philip Morris.") because of a bad link. SPECIFICO fixed the link and restored it here. I removed the line here with an edit summary re the small size (UNDUE) of the donation and primary source referencing. Carlstak reverted. I revised the sentence and tagged it as UNDUE here. I then opened a talk page thread on the UNDUE issue at Talk:The Independent Institute#Funding from Philip Morris. Specifico has agreed that the line is undue. MastCell does not disagree, but has provided references from secondary sources. Following their comments, I removed the line. Carlstak reverted, saying "use talk" even though the thread had been opened. I reverted, pointing out the thread & support for removal. Carlstak has revered again, without an edit summary. Carlstak has not participated in this thread, although he was involved in earlier discussions last year. I submit that Carlstak is POV-warring for this trivial bit of information. – S. Rich (talk) 23:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Ernesto Kreplak

This is a short and simple case. Ernesto Kreplak is a man from Argentina, involved in two political scandals, and the article says so. But some users (User:Tiopappo and some IPs) try several times to remove this information from the article, and leave just a whitewashed version that merely mentions some small pet projects he has. Note that the content being removed is the only content that cites references which are not involved with Kreplak; in fact they are the only references with a proper format (the other content may be found at the external links). As for the references I used, I consider that Clarín and La Nación are reliable: Clarín is a member of the Global Editors Network, and La Nación is Argentina's newspaper of record. I tried to discuss it at Talk:Ernesto Kreplak#Campagnoli, but to no avail: the request to discuss the problem has been ignored, and the removals of content continued. Cambalachero (talk) 03:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I have notified all the involved users about this thread, both those who removed the portion of the article and those who restored it or discussed about it. I hope that I did the correct thing. Cambalachero (talk) 03:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

All I made was a grammar and usage edit, so I guess this isn't something I have to worry too much about? I don't think I have anything to offer, so I'm moving along. Baconfry (talk) 05:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)