Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

Editors can post questions here about whether article content is compliant with the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy, and editors interested in neutrality issues will give their opinion. If you are satisfied with a response, please tag your thread at the top with {{resolved}}.

For general questions about the NPOV policy, please go to the Neutral Point of View talk page.

Guidance on how to make articles conform to Wikipedia's neutrality policy can be found on pages listed in Category:Wikipedia neutral point of view, primarily the policy pages Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ. For a list of articles that have been marked as potentially containing a NPOV problem, see Category:NPOV disputes

If your question is about whether material constitutes original research, please use the No original research noticeboard. For review of whether a source is reliable, go to the Reliable sources noticeboard.

See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Neutrality and Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias whether these would be better venues for the issues you're trying to address.

Click here to post a new topic or discussion. NOTE: This noticeboard is intended for advice concerning specific NPOV issues. Please be concise. Post what is wrong with what content where, what you think it should say, and why. This board is intended for NPOV inquiries of a simple nature. For complex issues, please consider an article RFC or mediation. Be sure to provide evidence--links to sources, passages, etc.

Mark Kimmitt

Resolved

 – Mediation in progress. Arakunem^Talk 19:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

This page badly needs new eyes on it. It has devolved into a simple "undo" war between two different descriptions of an event, both of which are factually true. The question is over the proper characterization of what happened. The two versions are below. I wrote the first one, and another author (whom I suspect to be a sock puppet for the subject) repeatedly deleted it, finally replacing it with the second version (which I believe to be a sanitized version). Both of us agree that both versions are factually true, but clearly the two versions portray the results of the investigation in a different light. We have been unable to resolve the issue through discussion. Would someone please be willing to read the two page summary of the report cited on the page (you have to skip through some letters first on the .pdf file) and help us to resolve the dispute? I'd be so grateful. The two versions are below:

Version 1

Kimmitt's nomination for Assistant Secretary of State was delayed because of two investigations into anonymous letters sent to the Foreign Relations Committee.[9] [10] [11] Upon receipt of each letter, Sen. Joseph Biden requested that the Inspector General of the Department of Defense (IG) investigate the allegations.[9] [10]

The IG concluded after the first investigation that "BG Kimmitt's leadership style was occasionally inconsistent with the standards expected for senior Government leaders" and that "cognizant management officials should continue to monitor his leadership style."[7] "[W]itnesses described him as a demanding, confrontalional manager, occasionally displaying anger that demeaned subordinates and caused them to minimize their interaction with him. Some witnesses further indicated that BG Kimmitt resorted to threats of job loss or career harm as a 'motivational' tactic and made demeaning comments when criticizing individual work products." [7] "[T]estimony indicated that morale In BG Kimmitt's organization was negatively affected by BG Kimmitt's leadership style, combined with the heavy workload and long hours. Finally, we found that BG Kimmitt's leadership style discouraged subordinates from free and open communication with him.... While some witnesses, to include his supervisors and several detractors, viewed BG Kimmitt as 'effective,' we also found credible witnesses who told us that they obtained other employment to escape the unpleasant work environment." [7]

At Kimmitt's request, the IG also "obtained testimonial evidence that tended to mitigate the adverse impact of BG Kimmitt's leadership lapses. In that regard several witnesses, primarily BG Kimmitt's superiors, emphasized that BG Kimmitt brings superb qualifications and intellect to his position; that he has strengthened the overall performance of his office; and that he operates in a stressful, demanding environment, which could trigger confrontation."[7]

The Department of Defense Inspector General's office, in a separate letter to the committee, also disclosed "a substantiated allegation that Mr. Kimmitt . . . failed to properly safeguard information, in violation of Army regulations," but it did not elaborate.[9] [7] The exact nature of this violation has not been disclosed.

Version 2

Kimmitt's nomination for Assistant Secretary of State was delayed because of two investigations into anonymous letters sent to the Foreign Relations Committee. Upon receipt of each letter, Sen. Joseph Biden requested that the Inspector General of the Department of Defense (IG) investigate the allegations. The IG concluded after the first investigation that "BG Kimmitt's leadership style was occasionally inconsistent with applicable standards", that "several witnesses...emphasized...that he has strengthened the overall performance of his office", and that "cognizant management officials should continue to monitor his leadership style." The IG reported at the conclusion of the second investigation that the allegation was not substantiated and warranted no further investigation, and that the complaint provided no details that would convey creditability to the allegations.[7]

• This dispute is being mediated here. Arakunem^Talk 19:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Edward Jones Investments

Resolved

 – per below. Arakunem^Talk 18:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The listing has been hijacked by someone inside the company. First they eliminated any controversial history from the company, now a week later they are back writing up a press release. Don't want to get into an edit war with insider, but hoping someone here knows how to control this behaviour.

Yes, the IP in question is definitely an insider (though their last edits were over a month ago). So we have some COI problems as well as the POV ones. Looking at the history I think reverting the inappropriate deletes was proper, and the IP doesn't seem to have tried to re-add them. I don't think an edit war is brewing here based on the number of edits in the last month. I'll watchlist it and see what develops. I'll also leave a COI and POV note on their page just to make sure they know what the policies are. Arakunem^Talk 18:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

StopLoss

Resolved

 – Sorted itself out in the time since report filed Arakunem^Talk 19:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The last section of the Stop Loss article about topics in the media is biased. It needs to be edited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.183.100.9 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 20 Mar 2008

6 months later (Hey, I just started watching this noticeboard!) the Media section looks ok. Arakunem^Talk 19:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

2008 Kosovo Declaration of Independence

Resolved

 – per below Arakunem^Talk 20:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone has used the "Political background" section to post his own views about the Serbia/Kosovo conflict. It is blatantly not NPOV and must be removed - but I'm not well-researched enough on the topic to know what to replace it with. This abuse has not been noted on the Talk page.

The offending section begins with: "Lets not forget the real reason why Kosovo is now independent" and ends with: "As evidenced by the recognition of Kosovo by top world powers such as the US, UK, France, Germany and Canada, its not hard to see why this region deserved its full independence and recognition." It includes various typographical errors in addition to the non-NPOV content. The section was authored by user:SmartPolitics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.166.10.216 (talk • contribs) 04:32, 20 Mar 2008

The section has been edited to a much more neutral tone since this report was filed. Arakunem^Talk 20:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Anniston Eastern Bypass

Resolved

 – Deleted via prod Arakunem^Talk 19:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The brief article on the Anniston Eastern Bypass in northeastern Alabama seems to be presented from a particular point of view, condemming alleged "land-grabs" and demonizing the local newspaper.

Not a big issue, neccesarilly, just one I found today.

Whitefish Mountain Resort edits own page to suit

Why are we subject to biased editors?Akamina (talk) 15:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC) The posts for this resort are constantly reverted because issues which the corporation does not want revealed are called "vandalism".

Please make your concerns known at Talk:Whitefish Mountain Resort. There is a whiff of controversy about that article, but there is also some criticism of the resort already in the article. Good quality sources for any remaining problems are needed. I have been following the discussions there, but the charges of COI editing don't appear justified. EdJohnston (talk) 21:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"Controversy"?

Resolved

 – Per below Arakunem^Talk 19:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I want to include McCain's "I don't disagree" [with the draft] statement to Cultural_and_political_image_of_John_McCain#Controversial_remarks. When I did so, it was reverted on the grounds that it was not a "controversy". I can't find anything in the policies that specifically defines how to determine if something is controversial. Am I overlooking a relevant policy? Do we need an objective source to call it a controversy? Wouldn't they then lose their objectivity by doing so? Can't even biased sources at least determine if something is controversial? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 20:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The editor who removed the comment gave a further and in my opinion, better, explanation as to why the comment was not a "controversy." Though, interestingly, we did establish that editors could determine when something was a controversy or not, as none of the other sources included the word "controversy" or any of its derivatives. I suppose that falls under the category of WP:COMMON. I consider this matter resolved. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 07:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yamashita's gold

In the Yamashita's gold article, an editor makes dubious claims that several court documents lend credence to their opinion of events. The wording is twisted and skewed, at best, to advance the editor’s point of view. There are no independent third-party sources that support these opinions.

The section is a mish-mash of legal piffle, and the talk-page is a battlefield of redundancy

Yamashita's_gold#Related_legal_action

Talk:Yamashita's_gold#Removing_False_References

Talk:Yamashita's_gold#False_References.2C_Dubious_Statements_and_Personal_Opinions_in_Article

Any help in this matter would be greatly appreciated. The edit warring has to stop, and somebody other than me needs to tell the IP editor they need to cite the proper references to support their opinion(s).

It is hard to have a discussion with an editor who states on the talk page: “I have a law degree and over 15 years of solid experience analyzing judicial opinions. I also have spoken to one of the lawyers tangentially related to the case. I know what I am talking about.”

I posted this over @ the OR noticboard as well: Wikipedia:No_original_research/noticeboard#Yamashita.27s_gold Jim (talk) 23:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

___________

The section in dispute concerns a lawsuit. The best source as to what transpired in the lawsuit are the official statements of the Court -- the official history of the lawsuit. The statements of the Court are clear (to anyone who can read) and are consistent with the contemporaneous news reports (which are also reliable sources). JimBob has some vested interest in the theory that Yamashita's Gold is an urban legend and resists any material that debunks his pet theory. The sources are irrefutable that Roxas prevailed on his claim against Marcos for converting the treasure. 67.120.59.46 (talk) 20:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

This is mistaken. Court documents are regarded as a primary source and should not be relied on as a source for WP. We are looking instead for good secondary sources. An example would be the coverage of the court case in serious newspapers and broadcast media. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Lack of any information concerning Governor Palin's purported lack of knoledge or experience in foreign policy

The entry on Governor Palin lacks any information on an important matter of public record, the stated concerns of many critics that she lacks substantive knowledge and/or experience in foreign relations (or, more properly, international relations). I fail to understand why a documented reference to this issue might be considered partisan, especially since the article includes an entire section about another controversy, her dismissal of the Alaska Public Safety Commissioner. I have no objection to locking the entry. I am only concerned that the entry on Governor Palin conform to the same standards as comparable Wikipedia entries on political figures by providing fair and comprehensive information regarding substantive public controversies. For example, the entry on Presiendt George W. Bush includes information on several public controversies related to his perceived abilities and his political stances. To be clear, I am not suggesting the entry on Governor Palin be opened up so as to provide a comprehensive listing of accusations against her or her family, no matter how incredible. However, I do believe the entry ought to be expanded to include information about a matter of considerable consequence. How does the exclusion of substantial, well-documented information about a public controversy serve the public interest or enhance the credibility of this forum?

Well, first of all, Wikipedia is not a forum. But if you think the above should be in the article, the first place to go is the Talk page for the article. Propose what you think should go in there, and discuss with the other editors. If a consensus is reached, it can be added to the article. Arakunem^Talk 20:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

"Taiwanese passport" on the "Republic of China Passport" article

Please provide assistance on this issue. An user has made the common name of the "Republic of China Passport" "Taiwanese passport" bold, which in my view is an act to assert a point of view that can be highly offensive.

"Republic of China passport" is commonly referred to as "Taiwanese passport" but it is believed by pro-Chinese reunification supporters that this common name is unacceptable and it should not have been mentioned at all. This common name is not supported by law, and calling Taiwan as a country is highly offensive to these supporters.

Pro-Taiwan independence supporters believes that the Republic of China is a country called Taiwan. This position is not supported by the current government (but supported by the previous government) and is never supported by law. The law calls the document "The Republic of China passport". As the Republic of China is not recognised in most English speaking countries, the common name "Taiwan" is used. Therefore, the Republic of China passport is commonly referred to as "Taiwanese Passport".

I believe a neutral view is that the common name "Taiwanese passport" should be mentioned, but it should not be made bold, for the reasons below:-

1. Taiwan as a name of a country is highly offensive to a section of the relevant population, bolding of the name acts as provocation. It complies with their political view to ignore the common name altogether. 2. Taiwan as a name of a country is supported by a section of the relevant population, mentioning it satisfies their view, and it is not a provocation to these supporters if the name is not made in bold. It complies with their political view to make the common name known as prominently as possible. 3. Taiwanese passport is a common name so it should be mentioned and the English readers are aware. There is no likelihood that a Chinese reader would not be aware of the "Republic of China" including Chinese readers outside Taiwan or mainland China. 4. Taiwanese passport is not a legal nor the current official name. The official name used by the previous government was Republic of China (Taiwan) passport (this is still not "Taiwanese passport"). The previous government went further and said when they added "(Taiwan)" they didn't intend to change the name, they did it to facilitate travel as some passport control officials would make the mistake into treating the ROC passport as a People's Republic of China passport. 5. Common names of other countries such as the "United Kingdom" are made bold for easy reading. But since "Taiwan" as a name of a country is highly controversial, I don't think the UK case can be applied here, as the United Kingdom as a common name for a country is not subject to controversy.

Thank you for providing a view on this.--pyl (talk) 17:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The Chinese reunification debate has been a fertile source of contenders for wp:lame, and this one is the best that I've seen so far. Jonathon Swift would have loved it. Looie496 (talk) 18:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

As the opposing party to this, I agree. References provided (initially blanked by the reporter), and others, support usage and inclusion of Taiwanese passport as a secondary, though common, rendition, in the lead for the ROC passport article (note lower case p in passport, not as above). Bosonic dressing (talk) 19:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe the issue in question are the bold fonts, not the fact it was mentioned. And it is not about whether China should be reunified. As I said above, the style in question is considered to be provocative and offensive to a significant section of the society in question.--pyl (talk) 04:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The issue goes beyond that, since you also first removed the online links which supported this (from many sides of the spectrum), and then proceeded to debate ad nauseum the merits -- this signifies that you have a point to prove, and perhaps this extends to similar articles.

As I have explained in your talk page. The footnotes you cited are not neutral because they are from sources who don't recognise "the Republic of China".

• "Taipei times" is run by pro-independence group. The country is called "Taiwan" as far as they are concerned.
• "China.org.cn" is from mainland China. Again "Republic of China" is not recognised.
• "BBC News" directly or indirectly expresses the viewpoint of the British government. It would also go as far as saying "Republic of China" is the official name, but it still calls the country as "Taiwan"
• "ISECO" is the Israel office in Taipei. Israel does not recognise the "Republic of China".

I don't have a view to prove, and I am not trying to be "right". I already accepted the "Taiwan" is a common name for the "Republic of China". I objected to the footnotes because they were from biased sources, given the reasons above.--pyl (talk) 11:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

This line of reasoning is a red herring: you extend bias ad infinitum. Shall I assume you and your edits are biased since (per your user page) you are of Taiwanese ancestry, et al.? Anyhow, provision of these online references -- which is really all that Wikipedia requires -- satisfies a burden of proof which you have yet to dissuade, and which you attempted to mollify through removal, and then tortuous discourse. As well, the online selections were a fairly random sample. Arguably, given the preponderance of online references indicating the commonality of this moniker, e.g., and since most of the world (English-speaking or otherwise) doesn't recognize the ROC as a de jure sovereign state, your insistence on de-bolding has the effect of placing undue weight on a certain viewpoint to the detriment of others. The current lead of the article is equitable, rendition and all. Bosonic dressing (talk) 01:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• I just gave the reasons why the footnotes are biased then you just ignored completely it and then use dramatic language to cover that fact and said that "satisfies a burden of proof". I think Wikipedia has a policy of not using footnotes from biased sources.
• Then you cited Taiwanese ancestry against me and said then I must be biased. I think that's a very simplest conclusion: "Indian people must all like curry". I think being someone of Taiwanese ancestry puts me in the position to know what is considered very offensive and highly provocative to a significant sector of society in question.--pyl (talk) 06:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
• Since most in the world don't recognise the ROC, then I guess with that reasoning we should all remove all ROC related articles and make them Taiwan related articles. I cited Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Republic of China, Taiwan, and variations thereof and showed you that Wikipedia's established policy doesn't follow your reasoning because it is trying to be neutral and equitable. All governments have their points of view. At the moment, they support the view of the PRC because the PRC gives them the most benefit, and accordingly, it is in the interest of these governments not to recognise the "Republic of China". Wikipedia recognises that and that's why Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Republic of China, Taiwan, and variations thereof is made so we must say "Republic of China" when we are talking about the country, not "Taiwan".--pyl (talk) 06:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

As well, you indicate this style is "provocative and offensive": to whom, and can you provide any modicum of evidence to support this? Bolding is a usual practice for alternate forms in article leads. Discussion is good; shoving your opinion down our throats without real cause is not. Bosonic dressing (talk) 04:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It is offensive and provocative to people who are Chinese reunification supporters. http://www.kmt.org.tw/, http://www.huanghuagang.org/, http://www.uocn.org/bbs/. Please don't use "usual practice" as a reason that Wikipedia doesn't need to be sensitive about the feelings of a significant section of the society in question. If you read the article on the "Political Status of Taiwan" you will note that according to a latest poll up to 18% of the people in Taiwan still believe in reunification. I believe the fundamental reason for a NPOV policy is because Wikipedia is trying to be sensitive to all viewpoints. I have also explained this on your talk page.

Please don't overlook the sensitivities of the issues here because it is "common practice" or because "Taiwan" as a common name for the "Republic of China" is the norm in the English speaking countries, as most English speaking countries don't officially recognise the country as "Republic of China".

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Republic of China, Taiwan, and variations thereof says when we are talking about the country, we use "Republic of China" and the place, we use "Taiwan" and when "Republic of China" is mentioned the first time we should make sure that the reader is aware that the article is about a country commonly known as "Taiwan". The article is question "Republic of China passport" already points that fact out. There is no need to make the fonts bold so it gets an emphasis. The article is called "Republic of China passport" because that's the name of the identity document the article is about.

Given the political sensitivities in this issue, one probable interpretation of bold fonts is, despite the so-called official name of the "Republic of China", the country is really called "Taiwan". This is one of the reasons why the style in question can be considered as provocative and highly offensive.

As I have repeated numerous times, this has never been about whether China should be reunified. It is about being sensitive to the feelings of a significant section of the society in question. The bold fonts in question are considered to be provocative and offensive to these people and the style shouldn't be used.--pyl (talk) 11:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

There's an old adage of not being able to please everyone all the time. I cannot attest to what a minority may or may not consider offensive, since no clear evidence points this out. Regardless, feelings are a non-starter: your insinuation that bolding text is offensive is no more or less so than blanking references and constructing a case based on what may be supposition, with the aim of obfuscating the issue. Also, the guidelines you point to are disputed.

As well, in your riposte above, you indicate the authority of 'Republic of China passport': you will note that the bulk of passport articles are preceded by the appropriate demonym, regardless of the official name (e.g., Canadian passport, Swiss passport, etc.); there are exceptions (e.g., United States passport). Can you explain why this shouldn't apply to this topic? There's probably a very good case (e.g., counts below) to support moving this article to that moniker: after all, 'Chinese passport' redirects to the passport article for the PRC, not to a fork in the road (i.e., disambiguation). Bosonic dressing (talk) 01:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Here you ignored my reasons again. It is because calling a country "United States" is not controversial but "Taiwan" can be. "Chinese passport" is redirected to the PRC passport because the PRC is commonly known as China. There is nothing wrong with it. I don't think there is anything wrong with "Taiwanese passport" is directed to the ROC passport either. That's not disputed. It is the emphasis of "Taiwanese passport" that is.
• I gave reasons above why the footnotes were initially removed. They are from biased sources and I gave reasons to each of your footnotes to say why they are biased. But as I said above, you just completely ignored my reasons without responding to them.
• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Republic of China, Taiwan, and variations thereof is a generally accepted policy. This is a complex issue and it is not possible to have 100% agreement. But you will note that almost all articles on this subject follow this policy. If you wish to depart from this policy when you edit articles on this subject, then these articles are likely to get into controversies. I think the bolding style departs from the spirits of this policy as it is trying to emphasise something that can be considered to be offensive.--pyl (talk) 06:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a note atop that sectional guideline (not policy) that disputes it. Bosonic dressing (talk) 07:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it should stay bold for two reasons. First, Taiwanese passport redirects to the article, and people coming via the redirect will be less confused if they can immediately spot the phrase they were looking for. Second, Google shows that Taiwanese passport is more widely used than Republic of China passport, so people are most likely to come to the article by that route. (Note: Taiwanese passport, as a phrase, gets 3470 Google hits. Republic of China passport, as a phrase, gets 4300, but over 1500 of these derive from People's Republic of China passport.) Looie496 (talk) 17:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• A lot of Taiwan related articles are redirected to ROC articles because Taiwan is the common name for the ROC. But you will note that a great majority of these ROC articles don't have "Taiwan" in bold. The reason is doing so can be considered offensive and highly provocative to a significant section of society in question. Most editors who edit on articles of this subject are aware of the sensitivities in this issue.
• The Google argument has also been discussed in the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Republic of China, Taiwan, and variations thereof. Google is in the business of making money, it is not in the business of telling people what's right or wrong or sensitive. Google gives results which it thinks are popular so it makes money. Google blocks certain results in mainland China is an example. Google has a point of view to make: a view that's profitable to them and to their shareholders so Google is not a neutral source.
• Further, the article mentions the fact that the ROC passport is commonly known as "Taiwanese passport" in the article. So there is no likelihood of confusion. If you make the "Taiwanese passport" in normal style then you will note that readers are not going to get confused because the wording in the article is quite clear.--pyl (talk) 06:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

There is clear evidence above to point out that a significant section of the society in question would consider the bolding style offensive. As I have told you, I was not being personal or patronising when I told you that you should research more into this issue before editing. This is a complex issue, and it would be best if you do not edit on this subject if you are not aware of the complex political, legal and sometimes highly emotional background that gave rise to this issue. There is also the language issue involved if you do not read Chinese. I would not edit topics relating to Israel and Palestine issues because of this reason. I don't know enough about the background and language to do that. A "common practice" for me the outsider may not be an acceptable thing to them.

Of course you're being patronizing. I am quite familiar with the situation. And, no, I will not refrain from editing said articles because you wish it. Nor will I baldly accept your presentations as fact. Further perjorative commentary will be ignored. Bosonic dressing (talk) 07:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't being personal when I initially removed the footnotes you cited either. I gave you the reasons. They are from biased sources. Let me repeat my reasons here for your easy reference:-

• "Taipei times" is run by pro-independence group. The country is called "Taiwan" as far as they are concerned.
• "China.org.cn" is from mainland China. Again "Republic of China" is not recognised.
• "BBC News" directly or indirectly expresses the viewpoint of the British government. It would also go as far as saying "Republic of China" is the official name, but it still calls the country "Taiwan"
• "ISECO" is the Israel office in Taipei. Israel does not recognise the "Republic of China".

I think Wikipedia has a policy of not using footnotes from biased sources.

As I said this issue is about a practice that can be considered to be highly offensive and provocative to a significant section of the society in question. But so far, I don't seen anyone arguing against this main issue. The arguments above mostly just ignores it then say I am biased. I don't think arguments overlooking the sensitivities are persuasive.

I added further clarification at the top of the article to clarify that this article as follows:-

The "Republic of China passport" is commonly known as "Taiwanese passport" since the 1970s.

Not to be confused with People's Republic of China passport.

This is similar to the well-established practice as applied in the "Republic of China" article. I believe this totally eliminates any likelihood of confusion. Now can we remove the bolding style of "Taiwanese passport"?--pyl (talk) 06:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Repeating your assertions does not necessarily make them so. All of your comments have been considered and not ignored, so refrain from being so judgmental. Anyhow, given that myself and another editor in the least support bolding, that will stand for now. I'll await other commentary before coming back to this.

As well, I have revised the hatnote you added to the article, since it was redundant with content in the lead (e.g., dates). I have also added a reciprocal one to the PRC passport page. Thanks. Bosonic dressing (talk) 07:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Please don't change the hatnote that way. As I told you many times, the Republic of China was commonly known as China before the 1970s. This article is about the passport for the whole time, not just about the time when it was issued in Taiwan. You really should accept my advice and learn more about the political status of Taiwan--pyl (talk) 07:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a source for your assertion RE dates. The hatnote is completely in line with others, and doesn't need to repeat the date already in the introduction.

And, you need to partake in discussions with respect and not condescend. I'll comment from here-on-in when appropriate. Bosonic dressing (talk) 07:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Reading "Republic of China" article would tell you why the ROC is commonly known as Taiwan after the 1970s, but it was known as "China" before then (foreign recognition).

If you think I was being condescending, I apologise. I didn't mean it that way. It is just the act of changing Republic of China to mean Taiwan absolutely was an obvious mistake if one is aware of the political status of Taiwan. As I said "Republic of China" was commonly known as "China" before the 1970's.--pyl (talk) 07:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Your commentary and actions throughout have been more or less condescending and questionable, which is part of the problem.

As well, I'm aware of the distinction, but the function of a hatnote is to simply clarify the topic matter, not to launch into a microhistory of the political situation. This does not need to be iterated every single time. Regardless, I still believe the current hatnote is sufficient sine it harks of the passport image below. If you can suggest alternate, simple wording within the current hatnote, I'd be receptive to that. Bosonic dressing (talk) 07:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Please again accept my apology if you think that I was being condenscending. That wasn't my intention.

Why don't we just go back and qualify it in the hatnote and leave the "Taiwanese passport" unbold then we won't have a problem:-

• You will then address my concerns that bolding is offensive and provocative to a sigificant section of the society in question;
• Your concern that readers will be confused this article into thinking that it is a PRC article will also be addressed;
• We will not have any over-generalising comments and this is good for an encyclopaedia; and
• And this style will be the same as the "Republic of China" article, which has been done like that for a long time and that implies consensus.--pyl (talk) 08:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Even the way it is, if you remove the boldness of "Taiwanese passport", there is no likelihood of confusion by readers as the hatnote already makes it clear that the article is not about the PRC.--pyl (talk) 08:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology. However, I see nothing as yet to justify removing the bold. I look forward to other user comments. Bosonic dressing (talk) 17:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Bosonic dressing. The purpose of bolding is to match an alternate article title with a redirect or other index or search term, and Wikipedia policy is to include terms which are in wide use among English speakers, which "Taiwanese Passport" unquestionably is. No endorsement of the validity or appropriateness of the usage is implied. It is also inappropriate on pyl's part to assume that non-Chinese editors are not familiar with the situation, including issues which are much more subtle such as the difference between "Zhonghua Taipei" and "Zhongguo Taipei" in the Chinese Taipei article. --MCB (talk) 21:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not disputing that "Taiwanese passport" is the common term for the English speakers. I think by that reasoning since "Republic of China" is usually confused by English speakers to mean "People's Republic of China", Wikipedia should call all "Republic of China" articles "Taiwan" articles. Taiwan is the term which are in wide use among English speakers. In the context of political sensitivities, what is common practice does not make it the right practice.

You will note that a great majority of "Republic of China" related articles don't have their Taiwanese common name in bold. I believe that's a common practice. "Chinese Taipei" article doesn't have Taiwan in bold (but Republic of China is). "Politics of the Republic of China" doesn't. "President of the Republic of China" doesn't. "Constitution of the Republic of China" doesn't etc.

Any possible reader confusion is addressed by the hatnote which clarifies that the article isn't about the PRC.

You said:-

"No endorsement of the validity or appropriateness of the usage is implied."

The arguments that I am putting forward is it is implied. I am glad that the issue of "Zhonghua Taipei" and "Zhongguo Taipei" is raised here, as this illustrates the core issue here. "Zhongguo Taipei" is considered by a significant section of the society in question to be highly offensive and provocative. That's why even the PRC government changed all its official publications to "Zhonghua Taipei". This is essentially the argument I am putting forward here: "Zhongguo Taipei" implies that Taiwan is part of the PRC, since a great majority of the countries in the world consider the PRC "China" ("Zhongguo"). Having "Taiwanese passport" in bold implies that despite the so-called official name of "Republic of China", the country really is called "Taiwan".--pyl (talk) 04:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is to use the common usage. We do not attempt to determine the "right" usage, which, as you note, is a political issue. Using boldface will find favour with one faction and offend another; failing to use boldface will find favour with a different faction and offend another. Therefore, Wikipedia simply adopts the most common and recognizable usage by English speakers, without attempting to navigate "political sensitivities" where it is impossible to please everyone. Please remember that though you and I are lawyers, Wikipedia is written for laymen and is less concerned with legal exactitude and official nomenclature than reflecting widespread usage and understanding of names and terms.

(By the way, I brought up the discussion of "Zhonghua Taipei" vs. "Zhongguo Taipei" simply as an example, in the article Chinese Taipei, of the fact that non-Chinese editors are aware of issues regarding the status of Taiwan and PRC/Taiwan relations.) Cheers, MCB (talk) 06:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. You said:-

"Wikipedia is written for laymen and is less concerned with legal exactitude and official nomenclature than reflecting widespread usage and understanding of names and terms."

I can accept this reasoning.

If I look at the article from the point of view from an English speaker (not knowing anything about Taiwan and its political status), I would not get the impression that "despite the so-called official name of the Republic of China, the country is really called Taiwan". The common name of "Taiwan" will just be revalidated in this case.

That construction is only possible by someone who is aware of the issues. I accept that the great majority of people reading the English version of Wikipedia would not be in that position.

Perhaps this debate is only much more relevant in the Chinese version of Wikipedia--pyl (talk) 09:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Acid throwing

Please see the talk page, most recently DGG has raised POV issues. The article seems to express one point of view about acid throwing (the article is actually not about the throwing of acid; it is about the throwing of acid in mostly Muslim countries as a crime against women) witout clearly identifying the point of view, and without providing a clear account of other points of view. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

It looks as though the discussion was positive and that a consensus has been reached (breaking out sections specific to other countries/regions where applicable). Arakunem^Talk 19:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

"September 11 attacks" article proven to be POV by reliable source.

(1) The overt POV of the September 11 attacks article is a serious and continuous dispute at Wikipedia.

(2) On 9/10/08, "World Public Opinion", a very reliable source, published the results of its comprehensive poll (16,000 in 17 countries) on the question of who perpetuated 9/11: http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/535.php?nid=&id=&pnt=535&lb=

(3) 54% of the people surveyed globally doubt that "al-Qaeda" committed 9/11.

(4) This result proves that the September 11 attacks article violates NPOV. MichiganMilitia (talk) 13:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

This arguement seems to hinge on the fact that 54% of the people "doubt" that al-Qaeda was behind the attacks of 9/11. The problem with that statement is that the source only says that 29% believe a group other than al-Qaeda was behind the attacks. MichiganMilitia would have us believe that the 25% that say they "don't know" also do not believe that al-Qaeda was behind the attacks. The source does not support that contention. Nowhere in the source does it lump the people that "don't know" who did it with those said that someone other than al-Qaeda did it. This appears to be an original synthesis of the data by MichiganMilitia to support the position that the article is not nuetral. While this is probably a good source to add a statement somewhere in Wikipedia about the worldwide public uncertainty of who perpetrated the attacks, it does not prove that the article is not nuetral. Jons63 (talk) 15:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

MM has been blocked as an agenda/sock puppet account. Doug Weller (talk) 16:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I've moved the following here, from Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view. If it belongs anywhere, it belongs here or on the talk page for this project page ... Kenosis (talk) 18:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC):

• Wow, a "brand-new editor" who has waded straight into a policy debate in order to support a fringe POV on the 9/11 articles - that's really unusual! I suppose this is one of the Usual Suspects, blocked until he owns up to which. Guy (Help!) 14:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

No way Guy. Look at those references, they really support his POV. And of course, the very neutral user name adds to my AGF'ing this posting. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Guy, assume good faith. This is just some poor deluded sock soul. . dave souza, talk 15:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I'd probably say the "Don't know" and the like shows ignorance, not necessarily buying into a conspiracy. I'm sure if you asked a worldwide poll of who did the 1995 Sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway you'd get a lot more "I don't know"s, but that doesn't mean that there's any real doubt that Aum Shinrikyo did it, just that people, put on the spot, can't remember their name. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Are ordinary people's opinions on subjects they know nothing about relevant? Eg, if you did a survey of Americans, you'd probably find a large proportion of them believe baseball was invented by Abner J. Doubleday in 1839, as stated in American mythology. Does Wikipedia have to treat that as a serious POV, or can it simply point to the mention of the game in the writings of Jane Austen, who died in 1817, & dismiss the views of ordinary people as ignorant rubbish? Peter jackson (talk) 15:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

"most historians" vs "there are" or "some historians"

The article leads for Quirinius and Census of Quirinius contained a sentence written with the phrase most historians and most modern historians that I and other editors are concerned with (see discussion pages). I'd just like some feedback here because I'd like to address the underlying issues of making sure articles use neutral language and that legitimate differences of scholarship and referencing, as I read the guidelines. should preclude using language that is almost wholly subjective in that there is simply no way in this case to accurately quantify this particular opinion using WP:RS. In this particular case shouldn't some or there are or similar language be used to better effect? Awotter (talk) 22:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

You've only made a minimal effort so far to work this out by discussion. It would be much better for people who know the literature to work out the most accurate phrasing than for people here to try to resolve an issue they don't know anything about. (Note though that in many cases "there are" or "some historians" are frowned on as weasel words.)Looie496 (talk) 01:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, I only became involved because of the article on Quirinius, there is substantially more discussion (and effort) by other editors taking place over an extended period of time at Census of Quirinius, so there is more dialogue going on than just mine. As to weasel words, as I understand the guidelines, they should be substantiated or not used. There are references that substantiate the changed wording, "some" or "there are" should satisfy both the guidelines for NPOV and weasel words in this case.Awotter (talk) 02:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I have now restored this to a neutral position (as suggested, 'some historians' is clearly weaselly language, and is in any case wrong), by attributing the statement to a notable scholar on the subject.--Rbreen (talk) 19:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

ORISSA VIOLENCE

The Page is being edited repeatedly to give it a pro-missionary slant. That the National Minority Commission has only members belonging to the minority communities is very relevant as its reports are being quoted at great length to substantiate the anti-Hindu slant. But the fact of NMC membership is being deleted repeatedly without discussion. A church fact-finding committee is being described as National Integration Council committee though the related link itself says otherwise.

The Page is without neutrality of view. The Page is best deleted as it is mere pro-Christian propaganda.

Jobxavier (talk) 05:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Three IDs are being used to slant-edit, presumably by the same editor. The Ids are Gabrielthursday,Recordfreenow and Lihaas.

Jobxavier (talk) 07:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The page Orissa communal violence won't be deleted as this is a notable set of events. The Christian version of the events does seem to be much more prominently represented than any alternative view. The article could do with some more pairs of eyes. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not know User:Recordfreenow or User:Lihaas, and am certainly not the same individual. This kind of unfounded accusation is bedevilling the dispute between User:Jobxavier and myself. I've outlined some problems with Jobxavier's edits on the relevant Talk page. I would appreciate "more pairs of eyes" as User:Itsmejudith suggests. Gabrielthursday (talk) 12:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I also did not see any likelihood of sock puppetry here. Jobxavier, you would need to take such an accusation to the appropriate forum. I agree with Gabrielthursday that HRW is (in principle at least) a reliable source, and that it would be a WP:BLP violation to make any nebulous connection between these events and any prominent individual without a very good source. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Please search 'India'and 'Hindu' in HRW. The anti-India, anti-Hindu and pro-American Baptist POV might be evident.Jobxavier (talk) 03:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's not how we judge the quality of sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The Page is under Mediation. However, several POV edits have been made during the past 72 hours.

Jobxavier (talk) 19:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The Bachelors

This article The Bachelors has been continually edited by User talk:Contributer67, and one of the links he has added 3 times (which is why I have obeyed the 3-revert rule and not reverted a third time) is [1] which is obviously from The Bachelors camp, whereas a contradictory claim is made by John Stokes at [2] which means the veracity of the claim by Contributor67 cannot be ascertained.

Further more, another contributor, Con Cluskey, who is obviously one of the members of The Bachelors, denies the claim that John Stokes lost the court case denies the accuracy on his talk page User talk:Con Cluskey says there was no court case in Altrincham, which is a complete denial of the claims made by Contributor67.

A reference for the article is given as “Kilmainham & Inchicore Local Dictionary of Biography” I have been unable to confirm the existence nor the contents of this dictionary. Perhaps another Wikipedian can search to see if I have missed something.

Contributor67 has also added to the article the words, “As of 2008, only Con and Dec - the Bachelors are still touring” which again is not true – see the webpage [3]

Can somebody please separate the chaff from the wheat and ensure that it is properly and correctly referenced? --Richhoncho (talk) 19:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

REPLY Contributer67 (talk) 14:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)]

Firstly it has to be said the Mr. Richard Wilcox [Richhoncho] appears to have made it his life ambition to injure Dec Cluskey in any way possible. Ref. his vitriolic and foul languaged comments on various music newsgroups [RMMS etc.]. His maniacal attacks are there for all to see.

He has now turned his attentions to Wikipedia. His contributions to Wikipedia pages can be either thought to be exemplary or verging on manic. He has in the past said that he will desist from editting The Bachelors page. He still does. I believe the term for this is vandalism.

I find it hard to understand the first paragraph of Mr Wilcox above. I have read Con Cluskey's talk page and find it perfectly clear and plain. To the best of my knowledge there was no court case in Altringham. There was, however, a court hearing with the result as Con Cluskey's talk page. The case was never heard due to timing irreguarities in filing documents.

As regards “Kilmainham & Inchicore Local Dictionary of Biography” I am looking at the book now as I type. It is among the racks and racks of historical Bachelors memorabilia which I treasure.

As regards : ~~“As of 2008, only Con and Dec - the Bachelors are still touring” which again is not true~~ there are no tour dates listed on Mr. Stokes webpages. There are two show presentations, both in contempt of the High court of England. I do not feel that this constitutes touring, in the accepted sense. I have tried many times to acquire information on forthcoming tours but as the gentleman is clearly in a precarious situation legally no details are forthcoming. No tour details are posted anywhere and Email enquiries are never answered. Con and Dec The Bachelors are actively touring and the dates are available at www.myspace.com/thebachelorsconanddec . They post details each month of their activities on their website. www.thebachelors.co.uk

As the No. 4 in line expert on all things Bachelors I can assure any reader that all references are checked and correct and all information is precise to the best of my knowledge, having researched the subject to death.

However the page is constantly vandalised to support the claim that Mr Stokes is somehow allowed to use the name Bachelors. The legal documents he signed in his High court action against messrs Con and Dec Cluskey are easily available and in fact are merely a click away http://www.thebachelors.co.uk/johnstokesthetruth.htm . He is most certainly forbidden by law to use the name Bachelors in any way at all.

The page as is, without the constant vandalism, represents the most accurate referenced information about The Bachelors from inception to the present day.

Please help stop this constant vandalism. It is upsetting to all Bachelors fans.

Thank you. I apologise for not being a Wikipedia expert and not being familiar with notation etc.

Contributer67 (talk) 14:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)]

The first thing that jumps out at me is that both sides are using "competing" web sites of The Bachelors as sources (www.thebachelors.co.uk and www.the-bachelors.com). I question the reliability of both pages as sources here, as they seem to be Primary Sources as defined here. The Con & Dec site, and the John Stokes reply on the other site, both have their own POV issues. Are there any external, unrelated, and most importantly verifiable third-party sources related to this disagreement? Such 3rd party sources will hold the most weight when it comes to inclusion on Wikipedia. Arakunem^Talk 15:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Reply (Contributer67 (talk) 14:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC))

As a contributor only interested in the correct and legally accurate history it has to be said that the john Stokes reply mentioned above was not a reply. The statement on his website is considered to be legally innaccurate and in fact laden with untruths. This fact is verified legally [outside this forum].

The Con and Dec page JohnStokesTheTruth has only recently to my knowledge been uploaded. As a Bachelors expert I can confirm that this page is accurate and all detail on there can be verified from the multitudinous sources available. As an interested party in all things Bachelors I would feel that this page was presented as a rebuttal to the clearly untrue statements on John Stokes' site.

As regards third party sources, surely there can be no better third party source than the High Court Documents signed by John Stokes which are available at http://www.thebachelors.co.uk/johnstokesthetruth.htm. These documents are widely held by interested parties in British show Business. He is precluded by the High Court of England from using the name Bachelors or any colourabloe imitation. therefore it follows that he is in contempt of court in the way his site is titled. He is simply not allowed to use the name in law. It follows that the site is deemed to be illegal and that any links to the site are colluding in a contempt of court.

As Wikipedia is a trusted source I strive to ensure that the law is upheld in this instance and that no assistance is given to lawbreaking. I was recently sent the Wikipedia entry for The Bachelors by an emminent lawyer in London. He was astonished that a link to a patently obvious contempt of court page could be displayed on Wikipedia.

In supplying links to a rogue site Wikipedia does not do itself any favours. My only wish is for Wikipedia to display accurate verifiable and legally correct information and links. It is mainly the links on The Bachelors page that are the problem.

(Contributer67 (talk) 14:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC))

I concur with Arakunem. The two websites are hardly objective, but given the small scope and weight of this dispute to anyone but direct participants, I would doubt very much that there is independent, verifiable information to be had. This dispute is further aggravated by the words and actions of at least one of the participants, who claims continuously (on the article's Talk page, for instance) that his side is right, objective, and a bringer of 'evidential truth.' My personal beef in this is the very description of the two websites (or 'sources,' if that word can even be applied here)--I have attempted a NPOV edit, twice, which keeps being reverted by one of the participants in this dispute, someone with an axe to grind. This participant refers to my edits as 'vandalism'--I wouldn't mind a third editor, or an administrator, to judge that.

Perhaps the solution is to cut this article to a few paragraphs, and mention some of the basic facts of the divorce, but without too much detail. Drmies (talk) 16:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Reply (Contributer67 (talk) 14:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC))

>I would doubt very much that there is independent, verifiable information to be had<

There is a mountain of verifiable information.

There is no axe to grind only a wish for correct, accurate information. The many Bachelors fans world wide simply want correctness. In my experience the links to a legally unnacceptable site are distressing to many readers.

(Contributer67 (talk) 14:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC))

As I am being attacked by Contributor67 I would like to point out it was me who brought this to this noticeboard (and told Contributor67 on his talk page so he could have his say), it was me that added much, including references, to the article which has not been removed by Contributor67 which proves, hopefully an independence and integrity to facts. If all I was interested in was attacking the members of the Bachelors I could have quoted more fully from the Ian Whitcomb article (a link I added) - Furthermore I think my record of edits on many other articles will prove beyond reasonable doubt that I am not engaged in "vitriol" as claimed above. Let somebody who is non-partisan edit this article - which is why I was happy to bring the article to the attention of other editors. Like any other WP article I am all in favour verified Non-point of view facts --Richhoncho (talk) 19:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Reply (Contributer67 (talk) 14:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC))

No attack was intended only, the truth. Mr Wilcox stated that he would desist from editting the Bachelors entry. He still does. And additionally grabs any opportunity to malign Dec Cluskey.

The Ian Whitcomb article on The Bachelors is known to contain many innaccuracies. Attempts have been made to contact him to correct this matter but no reply has been received by anyone.

The article on the Wikipedia page is now accurate and fit for purpose. And the Bachelors community are grateful for the help from other interested parties. The problem is the continual undoing of the edit re. the links.

If the principal is accepted that Wikipedia should not promote sites which clearly tell untruths and are legally off track then my edits of the offending links should be accepted. There is no Point of View involved only the quest for honesty and truth. That would satisfy the many Bachelors fans and would provide the legal profession with an accurate and legally correct Wikipedia entry.

To support the argument that any link, no matter how illegal, should be given is to support the argument that links to paedophile sites should be given on children's entries for the sake of a complete picture.

Or links to burglars on Housing Companies entries?

I simply ask that the links to John Stokes site which is in contempt of court and is passing off as The Bachelors should be permanently removed.

(Contributer67 (talk) 14:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC))

One of the problems is that you insist on repeating that John Stokes is guilty of, and continues to be, contempt of court. The only confirmation of this claim is from your own website, and is disputed by John Stokes on his webpage. No independent, third party reference can be found for the claim either way. Whether your claims are correct or not the references to contempt of court should be removed immediately - see WP:BLP. Likening Stokes to burglars and paedophiles merely shows who is really venting their spleen. --Richhoncho (talk) 00:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, this is the problem that I mentioned above. Claims such as this need to be verifiable, from a source that is unrelated to the subject. Saying "Con and Dec say <x>, and for proof, see their site" or "John Stokes says <y> and for proof see HIS site" are not reliable sources for the purposes of the Wikipedia article. The standard for dealing with contentious claims like this, can be summarized as Verifiability, not Truth. Especially when dealing with a living person, ANY claim like this MUST be sourced from a Reliable Source, or it MUST be removed. In this case, Contributor67, the claim that Stokes is in contempt of court, can not be cited from the Con & Dec web site. Likewise, John Stokes' denial of this can not be sourced from HIS site. You've got to find 3rd party, unrelated sources in order to include either of those, or we HAVE to remove the claims under WP:BLP. Arakunem^Talk 23:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely agree, Arakunen. It should be also noted that Contributor67 is disputing the facts with himself - the bottom of his webpage says, "Please note that this is a historical site for reference only. This site does not purport to be a promotion of Dec Cluskey and Con Cluskey as 'The Bachelors'. Con and Dec [who recorded every Bachelors' Hit] are familiarly and legally known as Con and Dec The Bachelors." [4]. Copious comments are also on the article's talkpage --Richhoncho (talk) 07:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Political alliances of Peoples Temple

This article was created to appease Mosedschurte (talk · contribs) who was repeatedly inserting POV and, IMHO, WP:Fringe theorist supported content on Harvey Milk. The Milk article has since, and apparently inspired by this content, been subsequently fully researched and rewritten to what looks to be FA status with the same editor again edit-warring to re-insert the disputed content. In Political alliances of Peoples Temple every minute scrap of information all seemingly to discredit the politicians (I believe all are Democrats as well) which likely violates WP:POVFORK has been loosely compiled with little context of why they would be involved with Jim Jones who had enormous political influence through the community work of his church and the volunteers, and votes, he could direct. Each statement by itself is technically true but the synthesis infers that these politicians should be held in some way accountable for the cult's mass suicide/murder in Jonestown. The related articles on Jones and Peoples Temple have also been populated with identical and similar cherry-picked bits from the sources which would also seem to violate WP:RS and/or WP:OR. I've had little sway in reasoning with the two editors there, Mosedschurte and to a much lesser extent Wildhartlivie (talk · contribs). I would very much appreciate uninvolved editors to step in and see if there is a path to improving this article. Mosedschurte has shown, IMHO, resistance to following NPOV policies elsewhere and has yet to understand why this content is sourced and presented poorly presently. Any help appreciated as my input seems to be largely disregarded. -- Banjeboi 20:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. User notified of this thread.[5] -- Banjeboi 20:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: "WP:Fringe theorist supported content on Harvey Milk."

Just to begin with, this is a rather ridiculous charge and the sort of sniping I've tried to avoid. I've never posted a single "fringe" theory, or even just theory, on anything.

In fact, the events are rather non-controversial facts reported in numerous major newspaper articles (NY Times, San Fran Chronicle, LA Times, etc) and the most well respected books on the various topics at hand (e.g., Raven, Gone from the Promised Land, The Mayor of Castro Street, Willie Brown A Biography, Seductive Poison, etc.).

Re: "The Milk article has since, and apparently inspired by this content, been subsequently fully researched and rewritten to what looks to be FA status with the same editor again edit-warring to re-insert the disputed content. "

This is, again, inaccurate. One can see this simply examining the article's history.

The one sentence about Milk's support of the Peoples Temple during investigations was deleted during edits and then re-added. That was subsequently deleted, and then an even smaller 3 line sentence was simply added to the "Supervisor" section.

Re: "In Political alliances of Peoples Temple every minute scrap of information all seemingly to discredit the politicians (I believe all are Democrats as well) which likely violates which likely violates WP:POVFORK"

This is simply false.

In fact, the article goes further into explaining their motivations. Such as the large political pull of the Temple, that Harvey Milk was scared of the Temple, etc.

That they all "are Democrats" is simply a ridiculous charge. Jones (who was a socialist) almost entirely dealt with Democrats and independent socialist activists. Mosedschurte (talk) 20:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Mosedschurte has a solid track record of red herring misdirects and obfuscating policy concerns with verbosity. They are an an WP:SPA that edits only on articles involving Jim Jones and tries to inflate the connections to Jones on biographies. See George Moscone, Donald Freed, Willie Brown (politician) and Angela Davis, for some examples. They exhaust opposition with verbal gymnastics and voluminous posts all while avoiding the real problems of original research, synthesis and undue weight thus also violating NPOV. If something wasn't a significant part of one's life, it plainly doesn't belong in an encyclopedia bio about them and should be treated NPOV in other articles per WP:Fork and WP:UNDUE. I'm quite familiar with the material on Harvey Milk and the section on Milk is completely unbalanced and undue as if Milk was strongly aligned with Jones. Instead reliable sources have affirmed that Milk's only involvement was limited to routine work as a politician like speaking at a church and writing thank you notes. You wouldn't know it by reading the voluminous and cherry-picked minutia and extensive quotes. Based on the complete mischaracterizing of Milk's involvement I have no confidence the rest of the article is accurate and sources vetted to correctly portray their content. -- Banjeboi 20:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

While I don't necessarily agree with all of Mosedschurte's edits and choice of sources, the plain fact is that support for Jim Jones/Peoples Temple by these various politicians and public figures is an encyclopedic topic. Agreed, not everything a politician does is significant or encyclopedic -- supporting non-controversial legislation, for example, or cutting the ribbon on a new freeway overpass -- but support for, and involvement with, a figure like Jones and Peoples Temple was, at the time, the focus of widespread public and media attention, as shown by the sourcing in the article(s). (In Milk's case, it was clearly not limited to routine work, as the cited letter to President Carter shows.) Asserting that Peoples Temple "wasn't a significant part of [Milk's, et al.] life" is, given the historical record, an unsupported, conclusionary opinion. --MCB (talk) 21:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not calling for the article to be deleted but that it needs cleaning up and Mosedschurte seems either incapable or unwilling to do so. As for the Carter letter? It's a primary source: a letter allegedly written by Milk, that is hosted on a website that also appears to deal in conspiracy theories. As such, a primary source (presenting the danger of WP:OR) and also hosted on a website that would not be consider reliable, it is doubly inappropriate as a source. It's also mischaracterized as has been pointed out to Mosedschurte at least three times. I've come here after Harvey Milk was rewritten doing a rather exhaustive search on sources which has shown very little notable connection. There were significant connection to the mayor and Milk was a trusted ally but the rest is puffery and relies on cherry-picked statements out of context to give the Milk section, at least, undue weight. I have little confidence the rest of the article is NPOV and RS. -- Banjeboi 22:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. After further dealings with Mosedschurte who seems to have done the vast majority of work on this article I see no reason to believe that this article will be cleaned up for neutrality in any meaningful way. Further I concur with Itsmejudith's talkpage suggestion that instead merging the article might be the elegant solution thus preserving anything meaningful in the parent Peoples Temple article, which itself is full of NPOV problems, but is more likely to contain NPOV from spiraling too far out of control. -- Banjeboi 13:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I give up, I don't want to go through any of this anymore and I really don't want to see this article until it's completely rewritten. Good luck. -- Banjeboi 20:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and proposed the merge back into Peoples Temple. It would be good if everyone would contribute to the discussion on the article talk page. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort but this {{SPA}} seems to enjoy the process of arguing too much for my taste. My initial foray into this world of all Peoples Temple nonsense only concerned Milk and my concerns were spot on. Mosedschurte has introduced identical or similar content that was thrown off the Milk article into this one and Tim Reiterman's and similar sections inflating the prominence of this suicide cult onto at least four other biographies. I know it will all be eventually removed but it's doing nothing but adding stress for me to deal with them. They enjoy it, apparently, and I'm in no mood for endless circular arguments and a protracted effort to clean-up all their work. If an effort to quickly merge doesn't take hold I would suggest send it to AfD a hopelessly POV fork or coatrack concern. It has an added benefit of a set deadline and more formal structure. If you go that route I'll participate there. -- Banjeboi 22:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• Update The article has been redirected to the main article on the Peoples Temple - however Peoples Temple in San Francisco has largely taken its place with many if not most of the same issues intact. -- Banjeboi 18:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

James Hansen

The specific section with serious NPOV problems is "Trials for fossil fuel chiefs". Briefly, Hansen has called for putting fossil fuel company executives, including the CEOs of ExxonMobil and Peabody Coal, on trial for "high crimes against humanity and nature", on the grounds that these and other fossil-fuel companies had actively spread doubt and misinformation about global warming. I added a reply from a Peabody Coal spokesman, that if everyone who disagreed with Hansen were jailed, "the jails would be very, very big." , citing "Big Coal Fires Back Over James Hansen’s Criminal Complaint"

The ensuing discussions (and edit war) are documented at Talk:James Hansen#7.4 Trials for fossil fuel chiefs. Briefly, two editors strongly object to including the Peabody Coal reply, on grounds of WP:WEIGHT. Three editors support the addition (or something similar) on grounds of WP:NPOV. No consensus emerged, nor does one seem likely. Hence an outside review is requested.

Hansen is a controversial figure, and his WP biography has been very contentious in the past, so an overall review of the article's compliance with NPOV would also be helpful. Thank you, Pete Tillman (talk) 01:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Genre argument at Dubstep

Probably the best way to get a handle on this one is to look at the discussion regarding it. also that this is, i think, the third argument about it. --Kaini (talk) 01:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Shell To Sea

Shell To Sea

This page badly needs a neutral viewpoint added and seems to be chiefly edited by members of the campaign involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mustycrusty (talk • contribs)

I've spent a bit of time at it, think it's much better now! Thanks! Fin©™ 12:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Alert!--Phil Gramm

This article has some recent inappropriate additions.

Taken care of now. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Hovhannes Katchaznouni

The user Adoniscik and me were in a edit war. I warned him that he needs to put neutral sources for his controversial claims. He evades my ideas and reverted ALL my edits until now, puting his own article with non-neutral sources several times again and without any negotiation of neutrality. He claims that "his sources are right" when his claims are revisionistic and use sometimes denialist sources like happened years before in the Armenian Genocide article. (His claim is to promote a book that has been cited to support marginal arguments, such as the claim that Ottoman Armenians deserved their fate). Here are his reverts of my all edits [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. The same happens with his "friend" or sockpuppet Arsenic99 [11] [12] [13] [14]. Notice that I am NOT counting the before continuous edit war between us and the former continuous vandalizers [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]. My version of the article is more or less neutral and warns about that the authenticity of the book is not clear. --Vitilsky (talk) 16:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Leaving aside Vitilsky persistent personal attacks, I forward editors to the discussion at WP:AIN#Hovhannes Katchaznouni. In short, Vitilsky's interest in neutrality is a ruse. There is nothing controversial about the claims I have made and supported by a veritable wall of sources. It is downright amusing that he challenges me to provide neutral sources given the fact that he has yet to produce one. All he has is shoddy OR. If you read through the talk page, you will see that Vitilsky's position has flip flopped regularly. Initially he refused to admit even the possibility that the booklet could exist. He found that position difficult to stand behind so he revised his line to saying that the booklet is a forgery or something. Not a shred of support for that claim, and his canvassing isn't as successful as he'd hope. Isn't it telling that Armenian historians don't see anything controversial about the booklet? --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 19:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Leaving aside your strange paranoia and denial of your lies, I answer to your last question: No. PD: Which historians? --Vitilsky (talk) 18:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

That's precisely the question you are obliged to answer. Who debates its veracity? --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 04:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Fathers' rights movement

I am hoping for some pearls of wisdom from experienced editors about the Fathers' rights movement article, and in particular, how we can navigate some of the difficulties about writing from a NPOV about it, given that the sources that we have are mainly from two sources: articles, books, journal articles by academics in the field, such as [22], [23] [24] and books, articles etc by members of the fathers' rights movement, (and in fact largely one member of the FRM, Stephen Baskerville) such as this one [25] To wit....

1. If multiple academic sources suggest an analysis (for example of the composition of the movement) and this view is not contradicted by any reliable source, is specific attribution (to the academics) necessary or desirable? Is personal disagreement about the truth and/or bias of the sourced statements by WP editors enough to require attribution?
2. How does one cope with the academic and other mainstream sources saying one thing, and the movement itself saying another? This problem is exemplified in the lead paragraph: academic sources (and even some FRM sources) state that it is a "social movement", but some in the FRM itself would prefer it to be known as a "civil rights movement". This point is currently being argued in the lead. More globally, how much weight (if any) do we give to what to the mainstream academic view in the article?
3. How does NPOV work when one source (Baskerville, a father's right activist) is being used almost exclusively in sections, and yet this is being introduced by "Members of the fathers' rights movement state...."? This issue is particularly acute in these sections of the article. [26][27][28]

Thank you for your help and insight here.--Slp1 (talk) 23:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Stephen Baskerville is a leader of the fathers' rights movement. He is a former President of the American Coalition of Fathers and Children. In some cases, the attribution reads "members of the fathers' rights movement state...." In some cases, the attribution reads "members of the fathers' rights movement including Stephen Baskerville state...." In some case, the attribution reads "Stephen Baskerville, [a former President of the American Coalition of Fathers and Children] states.... In my opinion, the level of attribution should be based on the judgement of the editors and based on consensus.

The fathers' rights movement is a "rights movement" and it is also referred to as a social movement. It would be highly biased to only include the view of some scholars who have described it as a social movement. The current lead is not misleading in any way, and the statements are clearly supported by sources.

Reliance on "scholars" in this article, especially without attribution, is not NPOV because "scholars" are not necessarily neutral. Law professors have been cited as scholarly sources. Some sentences include no attribution, while others do. In my opinion, the need for attribution should be based on the judgement of the editors and based on consensus.

For example, the article was recently expanded to include the sentence "some fathers' rights activists...viewing feminism as an enemy." (Am I the only person who sees the term "enemy" as a strong word for scholars to use?) There are many different forms of feminism, and so the statement is misleading and relies on a prior phrase "original goals of feminism" to fill in missing detail.

The section is additionally misleading because members of the fathers' rights movement view those who oppose a rebuttable presumption of shared parenting as opponents, regardless of their views with respect to how specialized or equally capable men and women are as parents, and feminist organizations currently oppose the enactment of laws to create a rebuttable presumption of shared parenting.

Further, a source for this section clearly implies that these categories of fathers' rights activists are artificial constructs "for analysis purposes." The background and history section is being used to add artificial constructs of scholars. These artificial constructs are not necessary to the article and are unrelated to the background and history of the fathers' rights movement. Most of all, the section is unclear to readers. Michael H 34 (talk) 16:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

In these series of edits, I replaced three uses of the term argues or arguing. What is wrong with the use of the word state as in "members of the fathers' rights movement state..."? [29] Michael H 34 (talk) 16:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

Crossroads of Chiropractic - Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves

There is ongoing dispute over at Talk:Chiropractic#At_the_crossroads..., regarding the phrasing of "Chiropractic is viewed to be at the crossroads of mainstream and alternative medicine", or "Chiropractic crosses the boundaries of mainstream and alternative medicine:"

WP:ASF states that "There are many propositions that very clearly express values or opinions.", and that "When we discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion.".

This case very clearly expresses an opinion (how can it be a fact that a profession is at a crossroads?). However, other editors have stated that "It is an undisputed fact if no serious disagreement is presented."

The most recently proposed text phrases it as an opinion, yet does not attribute this opinion to anyone. Is this appropriate? If there is no dispute over an opinion (such as stealing is wrong), does it become an undisputed fact that does not need any attribution?

DigitalC (talk) 01:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems WP:ASF was taken out of context by the above comment. Please read the entire policy. Reliable sources agree with the proposed text at chiropractic talk. QuackGuru 06:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I have read the original policy, and for you to assume that I haven't is not assuming good faith. Nothing above takes WP:ASF out of context. - DigitalC (talk) 09:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Not completely clear as to what the issue is here, but I'll have a go. Explicitly noting that particular content is an opinion is helpful when there are significant differences of opinions; the scope of the content, its credibility, context, etc., becomes clearer. However, when there isn't as much differences, such a construction can have a deleterious effect. Taken to the logical extreme, such language actually becomes weaselly, having the effect of undermining the content which doesn't deserve undermining. E.g., "It is the opinion of astonomers that the earth is round." --that can certainly be sourced, but it's poor writing. So,... is there any significant contention about that statement? On the face of it, it appears reasonable, other than that "crossroads" is somewhat of an essaylike word. Is there an approximate synonym that would be true to the source(s) yet read better? Baccyak4H (Yak!) 13:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The discussion is continuing at chiropractic talk. See Talk:Chiropractic#At the crossroads. No evidence has been presented this is an opinion, Therefore, we shoud assert the text rather than add uneeded attribution to the article. There are more instances throughout the article where text is being attributed when there is "no serious dispute" to the well referenced text. QuackGuru 19:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at Chiropractic#Evidence basis. Here is an example of uneeded attribution: what is considered by many chiropractic researchers is not under any dispute. All the references are in agreement with the referenced text. Per WP:ASF, all the unecessary attribution throughout the article should be removed until evidence of a dispute is presented among reliable sources. QuackGuru 20:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, WP:ASF states "There are many propositions that very clearly express values or opinions.". This is one of those cases. It is not a "fact" that Chiropractic is at a crossroads, because this cannot be objectively measured, nor can it be falsified. DigitalC (talk) 09:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Population Connection

The article on the organization Population Connection is little more than an advertisement by the organization (it even tells readers at the end "You can learn more about Population Connection on the website...". It is desperately in need of cleaning up, because right now it is not NPOV. 76.173.189.236 (talk) 19:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Mark Kirk

The article uses a very deceptive selection of his congressional actions, and is misleading voters about one of the closest and most-funded Congressional races in 2008.

It boasts that he won an award from the League of Conservation Voters, portraying him as a pro-environment candidate. It neglects to mention that the same League of Conservation Voters also gave him a "F" grade last Congressional Session.

His position on Iraq is described solely as, "In May 2007 Kirk was the leader of a Republican delegation, of 11 congressmen, who explained to Bush his actions, in respect to Iraq, were hurting the Republican party." The article again neglects to mention the fact that Mark Kirk co-sponsored and was selected by Bush to help author the House Resolution to invade Iraq in 2003. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.93.94.125 (talk) 06:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage

A user claims that it is not a "claim" but scientific fact that children need to be reared by a mother and a father; this user also adds citations to articles that make these claims in general, with no specific reference to same-sex marriage in order to illustrate the argument against same sex marriage. I think this raises clear NOR and NPOV concerns. Edit dif and talk page and talk page. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Gibraltar

Hi,

Gibraltar tends to be a topic that stirs up a lot of heat. I've noticed a series of POV edits being added to Gibraltar articles:

Telephone numbers in Gibraltar, Gibraltar, History of Gibraltar

Sees to spilling out into WikiSource as it appears that one of the documents has been moved? See [30]

The comments on the user page, cause me some concern as they appear to indicate a desire to insert a Spanish POV see User:Ecemaml/Gibraltar. And the comments on Talk Pages seem to indicate that the temperature is rising again see Talk:History_of_Gibraltar and User talk:Asterion.

The topics are on my watchlist, I'd appreciate any advice on how to stop the dispute escalating between the parties. Justin talk 23:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Please, Justin, don't forget to show the diffs with alleged POV editing and explaining why, if the problem is apparently POV editing, you revert an edition on the grounds of being too technical. It seems other thing.

And for your information, Justin, from here:

“ Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. ”

Which is the problem with "a desire to insert a Spanish POV"? The NPOV orders to enter "fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources"? I intend to include the Spanish POV whenever it's not present, if relevant, or if distorted, with proper attributions (that is, I don't aim to present a POV as a fact, as currently happens in many articles) and sources. It seems as you wish to delete the Spanish POV and, you know, that's against the NPOV. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 23:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC) PS: and BTW, the only diff you quote (this), is related to this and this. I assume that I can name the articles in wikisource in the way I consider more accurate, can't I?

As I explained in my edit summary, your edits were adding too much technical detail on the teleophone article that made it difficult for the average reader to understand the article. That was all.

On the Gibraltar article, the opening lines took a great deal of effort to achieve a consensus, as I politely requested in my edit summary to avoid further conflict it would help if you were to discuss proposed changes on the talk page first.

On the history article, my concern was for the change of names to have POV implications, names have proven to be highly contentious in the past.

What I find most disappointing is that rather than take my suggestions, you appear to have edit warred to insist on your changes. Really as an admin on the Spanish wikipedia, you really should be setting an example rather than indulging in disruptive behaviour.

From my experience, when i hear someone talking about wishing to see "a POV represented" and quoting NPOV policy, it is precisely because they wish to promote a particular POV via wikipedia.

I would be delighted if my first impressions are incorrect and your intentions are to enhance the encyclopedia and indeed will happily redact this report. In the mean time I'd still appreciate some advice from experienced Wiki editors as to the best course of action. Justin talk 00:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

UNINDENT

Added a link to this page on each of the named articles above. Justin talk 00:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

As I've told you by three times, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. If you feel that a given paragraph is too technical, feel free to rewrite or ask for explanations. However, a full reversion of text that is not related to such a "too technical issue", with four different sources, two from the Spanish government and two from the UK document is called, in any wikipedia I've edited in, vandalism.

Well, I asked for a link to the consensus. Finally I found it (not thanks to your help) and curiously the position of the UK government is simply not considered. If you think it's not neutral, please, explain it in the talk page, explain why it's affected by the consensus and, anyway, move it to other place within the article, since it contains sourced and attributed information.

On the history article, you should analyze the whole of the history. The name was initially included by me (I hadn't uploaded the text to wikisource yet and eventually I decided to use a more accurate name, may I) and I can't see the POV implication in saying that the Spanish authorities surrender in 1704. If not Spanish, what were they?

What I find most disappointing is that rather than including any suggestion, you've simply dismissed several hours of work by simply reverting (easy, isn't it?) Being an admin in the Spanish wikipedia, I know this: "It does not entitle users to revert a page three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique". However, you're right. After you broke the 3RR with futile arguments in Telephone numbers in Gibraltar, I shouldn't have done the same. I'm autoblocking me here for one day.

I don't know which your experience is, but my experience here is quite old (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gibraltarian). Fairly showing a POV is not promoting a POV. And preventing a POV to be shown on the grounds that someone decides what a NPOV can easily led to MPOV.

Justin, you haven't provided the diffs on my alleged POV promoting. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 00:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Again for the record, see my 00:38 posting to your talk page. And as always with Wikipedia your contributions are not lost but can be retrieved from the history if necessary. Thank you for the clarification on the history article though, I'd been through the edit history and simply couldn't figure it out properly. I see now that you'd simply created a different article on WikiSource - it isn't always easy when things are posted across multiple projects to see how it was put together. And there is no need for the drama of a block, as I've just commented on your Talk Page I have no intention of reporting the 3RR violation; though a self-revert would be appropriate. Justin talk

It is not a case of a Spanish POV and another view, this is a simple case of an editor making something up. The Spanish refusal to implement the Gibraltar IDD code dates back to the restoration of telephones (1982?) and the matter was only resolved last year.

• User:Ecemaml has been trying to provoke an argument about Gibraltar.

• After reverting his personal POV that Nothing prevented Gibraltar from expanding its numbering plan which not even the Spanish Government share that I tried to start a discussion [31] which he asked for but he ignored and continued edit warring

• He refers to the 'banned user:gibraltarian' who he used to goad in this way who was equally as insistent in pushing his POV and like User:Ecemaml refused to discuss anything and was abusive. It is well known that that user is not myself although he accuses me of that

• Yes he is an admin on the Spanish wikipedia where he is used to getting his way by protecting articles which he has edited to enforce his erroneous POV [32] as it was HIS opinion that the Gibraltar airport was not part of Gibraltar !

• After a number of attempts to remove a reference to an agreement on my website, he [33] copied and pasted it to Wikisource to remove the link.

Sadly this seems to be a deliberate campaign to stir things up and provoke edit wars particularly including provocative statements of his opinion like unfortunately, Gibraltar is not Spain [34]

This behaviour does not help in creating an encyclopedia, and some of his comments and behaviour are very aggressive towards other editors, with threats like:

As long as you don't want to show the Spain's POV I'll go on, with my poor English, including it, whether you like it or not. And thank you by recognizing that you have something to do with Gibraltarian.[35]

I am not that user and do not even know his name. --Gibnews (talk) 01:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I would add that there was a long long /long/ discussion about these things, discussions I believe were pointed out to Ecemaml. Rather tha breaching 3RR and tossing around petty accusations of vandalism, Ecemaml might be advised to use the talk page to discuss the edits. 'Bold -> Revert -> Discuss'. Not 'Bold -> Revert -> Slam undo until the cows come home'. --Narson ~ Talk • 11:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely - whether the texts belong there or not, revert warring over them doesn't help. There is no reason not to use the talk pages. Pfainuk talk 15:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

histrionic personality disorder

the definition of this disorder should not be categorized by sex,there is no link to differences regarding gender associated with this disorder

example of text

In females Women with HPD are described as self-centered, self-indulgent, and intensely dependent on others. They are emotionally labile and cling to others in the context of immature relationships. As well, they over-identify with others; they project their own unrealistic, fantasized intentions onto people with whom they are involved. They are emotionally shallow to avoid distress and have difficulty understanding themselves or others in any depth. Selection of marital or sexual partners is often highly inappropriate. The majority of the time their partners will have symptoms of personality disorders, equal to, or far worse than their own. Women with HPD often tend to enter into abusive relationships with partners who increase the abuse as time wears on. Pathology increases with the level of intimacy in relationships, which is exactly the same for males. Women may show inappropriate and intense anger masking their internal battle between the quest for intimacy and avoiding pathology. Women with borderline tendencies often form entirely negative convictions towards the male gender and treat them like pawns as a defense mechanism concealing their own inadequacies. They may engage in self-mutilation and/or manipulative suicide threats as one aspect of general manipulative interpersonal behavior.[2] In males Males with HPD usually present problems of identity crisis, disturbed relationships, and lack of impulse control. They have antisocial tendencies and are inclined to exploit physical symptoms as a method of false control. These men are emotionally immature (although they tend to believe the exact opposite), dramatic (although many are adept at covering it up), and shallow (although they tend to believe their feelings are so deep that no other single person could ever understand). Men with HPD may dwell on their own emotions and create a false sense of reality, effectively convincing themselves of whatever they need to believe to feel comfortable in their relationships. HPD males with antisocial tendencies shift between periods of isolation and those of extreme social conquest (each shift can last a matter of days to periods lasting several years). They may require isolated retreats in order to obtain a comfortable level of understanding and acceptable functioning. HPD antisocial males are dependent upon no one in particular, but crave the dependence of others. Although males often have chameleon-like social skills (similar to HPD females), they tend to have trouble keeping lengthy friendships afloat as their paranoia (real and imagined) may eventually lead to a near complete and permanent disposal of all interpersonal relationships at a given time, effectively eliminating any emotional responsibility and accountability. They tend to genuinely search for intimacy (many believe in "the one") while remaining unable to regulate their perceived level of intimacy for any given interpersonal relationship, making it very difficult to build anything other than turbulent relations. Males with HPD may believe in the supernatural, such as fortune telling or telepathy, including the belief that there are many hidden messages and notions in public works that are specifically meant for them. When HPD antisocial males believe they are being manipulated, they may morph into sociopathic relations with their perceived enemies, yet remain overtly loyal to perceived friends. HPD men are oftentimes intensely driven by their quest to conquer life, despite having no real sense of direction or control, resulting in frequent changes of overly passionate interests. [2] Both men and women with HPD engage in disinhibited behavior, such as promiscuity and substance abuse.[3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icevixen17 (talk • contribs) 05:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Indo-Aryan loanwords in Tamil

I am developing this article and I use an authoritative and comprehensive published lexicon to cite the existence of borrowed words in Tamil language

Some people who dont accept the lexicon's authority (since it contradicts their POV) are threatening to delete my work and have extensively tagged my article with "citation necessary" tags. Kindly help. ­ Kris (talk) 18:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Henry Kissinger Biography

I question the overall neutrality of the Henry Kissinger biography and therefore its validity. It is of particular importance to present biographies of political figures as objectively as possible. Most of the article is biased, and in places it's unrestrained adulation. Earlier, in the introductory description, the word hero was used to describe him. It is not libelous to state facts about the man, and it's important to do so, since he is participating in a current presidential campaign as an advisor. Links to informative factual sources should not be censored, nor should other facts about him. Political figures, by the way, are not protected by the libel laws of private citizens, and the biographies of political figures shouldn't be written, or seem as if they're written, by the man's publicist.