Jump to content

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Stability Information East 2 (talk | contribs) at 07:07, 8 May 2010 (→Reverting to NPOV version of Ahmad Raza Khan). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome — ask about adherence to the neutral point of view in context!
    Shortcuts
    Before posting here, consult the neutral point of view policy page and the FAQ explainer. Also, make sure to discuss the disagreement at the article's talk page.

    Fringe theories often involve questions about neutral point of view. These should be discussed at the dedicated noticeboard.

    You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:NPOVN-notice}} to do so.

    Additional notes:
    Start a new discussion

    Hal Plotkin

    I need your help. I recently created this page after I learned a page with the same name had recently been removed as an "attack page." I tried to be as balanced and accurate in my short bio, including references from several third parties. But when I finished the edit a notice of possible violation of neutral point of view was placed at the top of this page. How can I arrange to have this notice removed from this page? Hplotkin (talk) 03:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Well, there's nothing much you can do about it given the correspondence between your user name and the name of the subject. I noticed that your edits seem to be positive (this sort of edit is productive) but the fact of COI remains, and so should the disclaimer. Since the article does not seem overly promotional (not much puffery, for instance) this won't raise too many eyebrows, but it is something that readers should be aware of, I think. Hope this helps. Now--can I ask a question too? Can we get rid of this stupid testing we're doing all over the place, and can we get a guideline that tells parents to stop whining and blaming the teacher and everything else if their kid makes a bad grade? Thanks! Drmies (talk) 03:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks. But as a newbe it appears my choice is between an attack bio (which was removed) and a bio that appears with a sort of "asterisk" as being suspect in some way, even though it is accurate. Would it have been smarter for me to have asked someone else, say a friend or relative, to create the bio -- with the same copy -- rather than to have openly done it myself? Thanks for your continued advice/forbearance...but under wikipedia practices, will this disclaimer always appear on my bio? Hplotkin (talk) 04:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • That the attack bio was removed is good, and editors will work to keep it that way. Asking someone else, yes, that might have been smarter, but it can also be perceived--if it comes out--as deceitful. See, we always suggest that one does not write about oneself, that's rule number one, and it's probably better to have nothing while waiting for someone else to write a decent one, as I'm sure you understand. Now, if plenty of other editors get to work on your article (once you become a tycoon, or the next presidential candidate) and your own edits are neglible in comparison, the tag becomes meaningless (and I agree it's an ugly tag, sure). But let's leave this thread open for a while; maybe others will weigh in with a different opinion; I'm only one of many editors here. One more question--can you get the prez to come visit the school where my wife works? Thanks: I appreciate it! Drmies (talk) 04:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, first I will answer your questions (and thank you for being so helpful, really). No, I can't get the President to visit your wife's school. But you might be able to. Have her send him an invitation. I understand he personally reads 10 letters a day from the public. Make a good case, and he may be able to respond. On tests and such, I promise to spend more time working on that problem once I no longer have to worry about Wikipedia containing either 1) an attack bio supposedly about me, or 2) an accurate, balanced, bio with an ugly tag, as you put it.

    But here is my question, which is perhaps technical: you mentioned that if my bio generates more editors, the ugly tag will not matter, as much. But does that mean that the "ugly tag" will always be on the top of that bio? (In which case, my inclination would be to just remove the bio entirely, wouldn't you?)...

    Again, it's a kind and patient soul whose willing to teach others. Believe me, I know. So thank you again for your patient help and guidance. Hplotkin (talk) 04:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Hal, what I mean is, as soon as you are only one of many contributors to the article there will be ample reason to remove the tag; sorry that I didn't make that clear. But again, I think the article isn't problematic (that is, you have done well), it's just a matter of disclosure, and if other editors feel that there is no need for the COI tag they are free to remove it--you probably shouldn't do that yourself. No, I wouldn't remove the bio if it were me (but mine would have a "speedy deletion" tag on it immediately!); still, you can ask for the article to be deleted if you like: see Template:Db-g7 (I've contributed a little bit, but I won't stand in the way). Oh, if you want the article to look better, upload a nice photograph (see "upload file" in the left navigation panel) and add an Template:Infobox officeholder. I'm not sure if I approve of the way you knotted your tie on your Facebook photo, but that's just me.

      Now, if you want to know something about the problems we've had (note that I removed wife and daughter) and are still working out on Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons should offer some insight into the issues related to what we abbreviate as BLPs. Allowing such biographies goes to the heart of what Wikipedia's strong and weak points are, and there are great opportunities there for abuse (as you noticed, to your and my dismay) and misinformation, besides what is called POV-pushing (WP:NPOV). So I hope you don't mind that I put the tag on there and won't remove it (I'm in English, but I still try to be morally consistent), and it's nothing personal (you seem a pretty balanced editor here), believe me. Good luck building a bridge to the 22nd century, and drop me a line if I can be of any assistance. In the meantime, I got a letter to write. ;) Drmies (talk) 04:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Narayan Dutt Tiwari

    In the introductory para the statement 'With his recent sex scandal whole nation is angry and burning like any thing', reflects a more personal point of view. The para on Sex Scandal again contains statements that are non-neutral. Requesting a check on this.

    Sign your comments with ~~~~ to add your name and a date. I think you posted this about a month ago.
    Your complaint about Narayan Dutt Tiwari seems to have been fixed. The problems you describe should be fixed; in the future WP:BeBold and fix them. Blue Rasberry 14:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Shakespeare authorship WP:ONEWAY violations

    First, if this is not the correct noticeboard, please direct me to it.

    I've been involved in disputes with Smatprt on more than one occasion because differences of opinion in editing the Shakespeare authorship question article. I have been educating myself on Wikipedia policies and I believe that his strategy of wedging references to the Shakespeare authorship question (particularly Oxfordism) into other articles violates WP:ONEWAY, in particular the first sentence, “Fringe theories should be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way (my emphasis).” The only sources that mention the Shakespeare authorship question in connection to these topics are questionable sources that promote the fringe theory that someone besides Shakespeare wrote the works attributed to him.

    I have been following the "what links here" on the SAQ page and deleting the mentions of the topic from articles about mainstream subjects into which he and other anti-Stratfordians have inserted them. He has been following my edits and reverting them. I've reverted a few of them back, which were promptly reverted by him. I don't want to get in a revert war and would appreciate the perspectives of some uninvolved editors. I asked three other editors who have acted as referees between us before, but their patience has worn thin and one of them directed us to follow dispute resolution.

    Here are the diffs to my edits:

    Here are the diffs of Smatprt’s reversions of my edits:

    Here are the discussions between us about this on on his talk page and on on my talk page.

    I would like to get this settled because it wastes both of our time. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I have already requested a third opinion on this issue here: [1]. One editor contacted previously by Tom has responded here [2]. Hopefully this advice will help us find our way. Note: I do disagree with the way this issue has been characterized in this report. I can go into further detail if requested, but I am hoping the request for a third opinion, combined with the opinion we just received from ScienceApologist will go a long ways towards settling this matter. Smatprt (talk) 18:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, all very well, but could you give your reply in the meantime to Tom's point, raised in his quotation from the wiki guidebook: “Fringe theories should be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way”.
    Oxfordianism has no status within mainstream scholarship, is fringe, and yet you are plastering articles with references to it without supplying independent, reliable sources that connect Oxfordian positions to the respective subjects.Nishidani (talk) 16:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Smatprt. Can you stick to one page, for one question, and answer the question asked of you. Two days have passed, and silence is all we get. Have you an intelligible answer or not? Nishidani (talk) 14:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Answered already. Independent sources (like Matus) have been supplied. See the Chronology article talk page.Smatprt (talk) 14:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Read the original question. You have not answered.Nishidani (talk) 18:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This has been discussed at considerable length in several places, and I don't suppose that a few more words will persuade Smatprt to change their attitude, but for what it's worth as I see it the issues are (1) Smatprt tries to present fringe views as though they were far more mainstream than they are (2) no matter how much discussion takes place Smatprt will not accept that consensus is against him/her (3) a lot of argument about side issues have to some extent obscured the fact that those are the essential issues. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The consensus that Smatprt most opposes is the academic consensus and the consensus of Wikipedia policies. He is very adept at using rhetorical tactics, such as continually trying to reframe the argument as a WP:RS problem (even though if the Oxford University Press published a fringe theory, it would still remain a fringe theory), a consensus problem (claiming that long-standing policy violations constitute consensus) or justifying his campaign to insert fringe material in terms of WP:NPOV and WP:POV instead of WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE.
    I don't know why anybody wanting to learn about the chronology of Shakespeare's plays or Martin Marprelate or Hamlet would expect information about Oxfordism or the fringe Shakespeare authorship question in those articles. It is like consulting the Christianity page and finding a mention of the Unification Church (Moonies) along with a link to the page—not only on the Christianity page, but in the article on Jesus or the Bible and every other related article.
    If every Shakespeare page is required to have an anti-Stratfordian mention and a link in the name of "balance," then there's no reason other fringe beliefs should be barred from inserting mentions in the main articles, which now is prohibited by WP:UNDUE, which states, "In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views, and the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. For example, the article on the Earth should not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority."
    In 3 years, in this day and age when the Internet permeates almost every literate household, anti-Stratfordians have been able to garner only 1738 signatures worldwide on their much-touted Declaration of Reasonable Doubt. The best guesses I've seen estimate that anti-Stratfordians number much less than the people who believe that aliens have visited the earth or those who believe the world was created in 6 days. All of these have their own Wikipedia pages, and they should, but they are prohibited from inserting their particular fringe belief in the main pages.
    I would like for someone to tell me one good reason why anti-Stratfordism should be an exception to Wikipedia policies. The only reason I've been able to figure out is that they are so annoyingly and unpleasantly persistent and so tiresome to deal with that most Wikipedia editors surrender in disgust and sheer fatigue. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ignoring the ad hominem attacks from Tom, I will respond by simply noting that accusations of breaking policy are incorrect. Independent sources have been provided, which is precisely what the related policy calls for. We can all "frame" the issue. From my standpoint, we have a POV warrior who is intent on deleting mentions of minority viewpoints. Period. "All shakespeare articles"? Come on. We have a handful of mentions in a small group of related articles. It has been blown way out of proportion with endless discussions by participants who will never agree. What is needed is a neutral arbitrator to hash these things out, as it has become more than apparent that the involved editors will never change their tactics.Smatprt (talk) 22:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "Users too often cite policies, like our policy against personal attacks and our policy against incivility, not to protect themselves from personal attacks, but to protect their edits from review." Tom Reedy (talk) 23:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    From my standpoint, we have a POV warrior who is intent on deleting mentions of minority viewpoints'.Smatprt

    This is not a minority viewpoint as wiki understands WP:RS. There is zero backing in Shakespearean academic studies for this fringe trash, and the only people who push it, bar one or two mediocre academics, are incompetent to write about the subject, since they have no training in the required disciplines. I don't know how much this needs repeating, but the whole subject is farcical, since, as the few scholars who have troubled themselves to look at the rubbish churned out by the Oxfordian promo-mill dismiss it as a system that privileges inference over evidence, and that has no footing in any document from the Elizabethan age. Any Shakespeare or Elizabethan page subject to contamination by fringe self-promoting conspiracy theorists should be purged as a matter of exercising editorial obligations to keep wikipedia respectable as a source of reliable information. Nishidani (talk) 11:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The British national Party

    Political tendency discussion I have had a little discussion as regards this whole article, it is in my opinion very POV and with multiple issues. I brought up for discussion this section on the talkpage, its content is supported by a couple of editors there, I removed this comment which is nothing more than a tabloid insult

    The Daily Mirror has described the party's MEPs as "vile prophets who preach a Nazi-style doctrine of racial hatred". reference...James Lyons and Tom Parry, "The truth about fascist National Front past of Britain's two new BNP members in Europe", Daily Mirror, 9 July 2009..

    it was very quickly replaced by an editor with the edit summary of reliable source making a valid political point.

    The daily mirror is a very tabloid paper, a valid political point? Its a name calling insult, the british daily mirror's political opinions are not of any notable value at all, it is just an insult, is this content of any value? Off2riorob (talk) 15:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The above editor has a track record of trying to remove negative statements on this (and other right wing articles). Most recently he attempted to remove the label fascist against clear citation evidence and the consensus of other editors. This is just another in that sequence, but attempting a different forum as he is getting no where on the talk page of the article itself. --Snowded TALK 15:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't personally opine about me like that, try to stay commenting on content. Off2riorob (talk) 16:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue isn't the opinion quote, it's the way the quote (and a number of others in the same paragraph) are used effectively to support the claim that the BNP are fascist. It needs instead a sentence or two summary saying that the BNP is widely seen and described in those terms - that's what those quotes evidence. Evidence as to BNP being fascist would be different in nature - factual, not opinion. Rd232 talk 16:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Summarising the quotes is fine, removing them without such summarisation is not. Patterns of editing on this subject are relevant by the way Off2rio, especially with a general election in the UK at the current time. --Snowded TALK 16:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I couldn't care less about this party or the general election, the quality and neutral way the content is expressed is all I am bothered about.The content I have brought here is a simple tabloid insult and should be removed and I removed it, you replaced it claiming it is a valid political point, hilarious. Off2riorob (talk) 16:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The proposed guideline Wikipedia:Quote#When_not_to_use_quotations makes a sensible point when it says "Where a quotation presents rhetorical language in place of more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias, it can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject, and should be avoided." Sean.hoyland - talk 16:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That supports summarisation (per above}. However there is a general problem on contentious articles such as the BLP one which has editors who a strongly against and for the subject. They nearly always end up with a lot of quotes as its difficult to get an agreed summary. --Snowded TALK 16:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    The Daily Mirror has described the party's MEPs as "vile prophets who preach a Nazi-style doctrine of racial hatred". reference...James Lyons and Tom Parry, "The truth about fascist National Front past of Britain's two new BNP members in Europe", Daily Mirror, 9 July 2009..

    I have removed it and it has been replaced. Is this content to be kept? Is the Daily Mirror's opinionated tabloid commentary to be considered as a reliable source making a valid political point can I quote this and insert the political opinions of the daily mirror at other locations? I don't think any neutral person would claim such a thing. Off2riorob (talk) 20:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know that that particular example must be kept, but the fact that so many other sources agree with the depiction certainly makes it prominent and notable. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Opinionated sources such a the Daily Mirror have described the party as "vile prophets who preach a Nazi-style doctrine of racial hatred". nice , real nice. Clearly there are multiple opinionated insults that can be added. Is this a joke? Is this noticeboard authoritative and reflective of policy? Off2riorob (talk) 21:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know why you're getting exercised over this one example. I read the article and it appears to me that every other person who is not a member and has opined on the party says pretty much the same thing. And reading the history and policies of the party, it appears that it's a clear-cut example of the duck test. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Overly opinionated source in a article that has had some serious POV(against) issues. It would be easier just to find alternative sources. It shouldn't be that hard to find another source discussing speeches with racist remarks or whatever else the quote is supposed to summarize if it is out there. Also, wikt:people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Cptnono (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Totally agree, the fact that this comment is even being supported just represents the POV issues the article has, the Daily Mirror s views on anything are so tabloid as to be not worthy of inclusion anywhere on the wiki about anything, Daily Mirror have a look at the wikipedia article about the publication, the duck test is not a reason to include worthless insults. Is the inclusion of such a worthless insult from a very tabloid paper whose political interpretations generally would not be considered to be at all authoritative compliant with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy? Is this comment representing the people fairly, proportionately and without bias? Is this comment possible to describe as being without bias?

    The Daily Mirror has described the party's MEPs as "vile prophets who preach a Nazi-style doctrine of racial hatred". I think that people think that by making a topic that they dislike reflect badly it is a good thing, but it is not, it weakens the whole wikipedia and diminishes our general respect as a neutral resource. Off2riorob (talk) 11:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The paragraph in question has quotes from the Daily Mirror, the Guardian, The Leaders of the Conservative and Liberal Parties and the Home Secretary. All of those quotes use the "fascist" word all have been judged reliable sources. In parallel with that the article suffers constant attacks from editors who want to sanitize the description of the BNP to make it something other than (as the reliable sources make clear) fascist and racist. Off2Riorob is one of the editors who has persistently attempted (without providing any reliable source) to argue that these words should not be used. S/he is now trying to use this forum on one isolated quotation having failed to get any agreement on the talk page (although s/he is supported by multiple one time IPs who keep deleting the fascist label). The section properly reports that the BNP deny the opinion of all major political parties and all the British media, however no reliable source supports that opinion --Snowded TALK 12:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't really like your personal comments but they are reflective of the kind of thing that is thrown accusingly at anyone who suggests the article is a little bit one sided. Here is the whole name calling commentary, this is the NPOV noticeboard and imo and the opinion of others the BNP article has some serious NPOV issues, imo if you gave some enemies of the BNP the article to write you would get what we have now, it is also reflective of the problem when there are any editors that feel the need to defend and include such worthless insults in the text as this Daily Mirror rubbish that I have brought here, imo this is not balanced reporting in line with policy at all....

    The Daily Mirror has described the party's MEPs as "vile prophets who preach a Nazi-style of racial hatred".[1] An editorial in The Guardian characterises the BNP as "a racist organisation with a fascist pedigree that rightfully belongs under a stone".[2] Liberal Democrats leader Nick Clegg has described the BNP as "a party of thugs, fascists".[3] Conservative Party leader David Cameron said of the BNP "If you vote for the BNP you are voting for a bunch of fascists... They dress up in a suit and knock on your door in a nice way but they are still Nazi thugs."[4] Home Secretary Alan Johnson, speaking on BBC's Question Time (15 October 2009) said, "These people believe in the things that the fascists believed in the second world war, they believe in what the National Front believe in. They believe in the purity of the Aryan race. It is a foul and despicable party and however they change their constitution they will remain foul and despicable."[5][6] Peter Hain describes the BNP as "a racist organisation with known fascist roots and values" and wrote about its "racist and fascist agenda".[7]

    • Here is what I would do with this content to help it be a bit more in line with policy, I would remove the daily mirror comment as they have no credibility whatsoever and I would remove the comment that starts ..in an op ed and then simply goes on to insult and accuse,then I would perhaps summarize the rest, job done, exactly the same point would be made without the excessive childish insults. Off2riorob (talk) 16:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Its a simple factual statement that you have been making a series of attempts, against consensus and against citation to remove the label "fascist" from the article. It is also a fact that the Mirror is considered a reliable source. A further fact of relevance to all readers is that all the mainstream political parties and media regard the BNO as fascist and racist and use the language quoted above. I'm sorry you regard making facts visible to editors without experience of the article itself as excessive, childish and insulting. I think you would be better responded to the calls made for evidence to support your views from a range of editors on the talk page of the article. --Snowded TALK 17:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I am looking for independant opinions about this content, neutral editors to simple comment on policy as regards this content, there are multiple editors including yourself at the article that have expressed a dislike of the BNP and there are multiple editors there that are also in the top ten of editors that are editing the anti fascist organisation, there is no point in discussing anything on the talkpage of the article, when removing such a simple awful comment that the daily mirror said this rubbish is resisted and replaced then there is no chace to improve the article, I have come here looking for neutral opinions. I am here to raise up the problem of neutrality on the article and to encourage neutral editors to comment. Off2riorob (talk) 17:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, there is a pretty solid set of experienced editors monitoring sites associated with the Far Right in the UK. Approaches that involve opinions rather than citation are getting short shift. --Snowded TALK 17:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be ok but those editors hold strong opinions against the BNP and that is basically resulting in a very opinionated article against the BNP and as I said, you may think this is good but it is actually bad for the wikipedia reputation and adding such worthless insults is not very educational is it. The article is in an awful, C class opinionated and yet this group of experienced british far right article watchers as you call them defend such rubbish insult content tooth and nail as if it just has to be kept in. Thanks to this hard working group of editors the article is a worthless opinionated low value, c class attack of no educational value at all, well done. Off2riorob (talk) 17:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    A number of editors have tried to remove material that portrays the BNP as far right or fascist. Unfortunately there is academic consensus for that description. TFD 18:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
    Previous comment from User:The_Four_Deuces
    I see you are also one of the top ten contributors to the Unite against fascism talkpage, would it be safe to say (without mentioning the elephant in the room) that you are one of group of editors the user snowed refers to when he says there is a pretty solid set of experienced editors monitoring sites associated with the Far Right in the UK.? Anyway, how does that issue relate to insisting and keeping this valueless insult from the respected daily mirror? The Daily Mirror has described the party's MEPs as "vile prophets who preach a Nazi-style doctrine of racial hatred". Off2riorob (talk) 18:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps (I include myself in this) all currently involved edds step away untill after the ellection, and allow some new blood to go over the article?Slatersteven (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for commenting Stephen, your editing on the article has been some of the most neutral and attempting to improve it that I have seen, and this comment is not about you. Improving the article has got nothing to do with the election, we can and should do it now..this is one of the misconceptions that POV editors have , that if they keep an article reflective of their POV it will affect the real world that is the biggest destructive misconception to the article and to the whole wikipedia, creating a poor biased article that reflects your own point of view does nothing apart from reducing the respect that neutral people have for our articles and reduces our reputation and actually defeats the original objective of demeaning the subject, all it actually does is demean the whole respect for wikipedia. Off2riorob (talk) 19:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    And the pattern continues. The article is currently based on reliable third party sources, both academic and in the main stream media. The quote you dislike is from a reliable source, and is matched by near identical comments from other mainstream media and politicians. You have failed to provide any reliable source to state that the BNP is not fascist and racist (despite many invitations to do so. Instead of using referenced material your response is to attack other editors (who have used sources) as biased and to make a series of bombastic comments about the impact on the Wikipedia as a whole. You have not shown any evidence of bias by other editors other than your own opinion. It is evident that you simply don't like the mainstream political and academic perspective on the BNP, and want that perspective removed before the General Election; fortunately the Wikipedia words from reliable sources not those opinions. --Snowded TALK 19:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll take that as a no then shall I?Slatersteven (talk) 19:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    User snowed, you are so wrong about me, I dislike the BNP and I dislike the other side just as much and I care less about the election, you project your bias and opinion on to me. I care about the wikipedia, and I see such POV editing as destructive and that is my reason for bringing this here. The political insults of the Daily Mirror is not respected or valued political opinion, it is simply a valueless simple name calling insult sorry but your insistence in keeping such awful valueless content in the article is incredulous, laughable.Off2riorob (talk) 20:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I presume that you too do not support the idea of a moritorium on those who have edited the article from doing so for say a month? It seems to me that if you are not willing to relquinish control there is a reason for that (to all parties).Slatersteven (talk) 20:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The most open and honest thing that user snowed has done and said is that you are a part of a group of anti fascist editors that monitors the right wing political articles in an attempt to keep you POV reflected through them.Off2riorob (talk) 20:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Off2rio, I have no idea about your political views or intent and I'm not interested. The Daily Mirror is a reliable source, the statements it makes are more or less identical to those of the leaders of the mainstream political parties. It is also supported by academic and other material. So far all that you have presented is the fact that you don't like it. We need more than that to take you seriously. --Snowded TALK 20:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Laughable, hey"! look at that elephant! Off2riorob (talk) 20:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that we need to ask for other edds to opinion on this. Its developed (as it usually does) into the various factions slinging accusations of POV pushing about. To my mind, however, the accusation that the BNP are fascist (or Nazi) is made made those who have avowed (and yes this includes the scholarly sources) opposition or hostility to the BNP or its policies. By the same token (apart from the BNP) there are no sources that contradict these accusations. Off2riorob objection seems to be that if the BNP are only seen through the prism of their opponents the British electorate will see through this (and thus will undermine those who oppose the BNP). Whilst I have some sympathy for this view (I have said on more then one occasion Dam the BNP for what they say, not what others say they say) Wikipedia does not work in that way. Wikipeida reflects what RS say, not what will not archive any perceived agenda pushing.Slatersteven (talk) 20:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Would it be too much to ask for the offended party to quote which Wikipedia policy has been violated? Tom Reedy (talk) 20:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This .. The Daily Mirror has described the party's MEPs as "vile prophets who preach a Nazi-style doctrine of racial hatred"is being insisted to be included when it is clearly a valueless insult from a publication that has no respect or value as a worthwhile commentator or neutral opinion as regards any political comments at all, such insistence to insert such a worthless insult from a low level tabloid source is reflective of the lack of NPOV and bias and such like balanced reporting. There are also BLP issues as the MEP's are living people and such a comment could likely not be supported in balanced citations so in that respect it is an extreme opinionated comment about living people even if they are not specifically named the names are known.Off2riorob (talk) 20:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Would it be too much to ask for the offended party to quote which Wikipedia policy has been violated? Tom Reedy (talk) 21:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you joking? The Daily Mirror has described the party's MEPs as "vile prophets who preach a Nazi-style doctrine of racial hatred" I challenge any editor to explain to me the value of this insult from source that is well known not to be a respected political opinion by anyone I have just commented, if you disagree then comment as much. WP:WEIGHT to a non notable comment, WP:BLP as it is basically unsupported derogatory insults about a living people and or not respected comment from a source that is not respected source for political commentary and opinion. Off2riorob (talk) 21:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    How about laying off all the "are you joking" comments? It's quite evident when I joke, so any time you feel the need to ask, you can rest assured the answer is in the negative.
    Since I couldn't find anything about notability in WP:WEIGHT, I'm presuming you're referring to this: "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." If that is so, going by some of your earlier comments it appears that you are challenging whether the Daily Mirror is WP:RS, in which case you need to take it to that noticeboard and ask for opinions.
    I would point out, however, that WP:WEIGHT does say "In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, it is appropriate to give the viewpoint more attention and space. However, such pages should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite content strictly from the perspective of the minority view." I'll leave the interpretation of that up to you.
    WP:BLP concerns biographies of living persons. This article is not a biography of a living person, so WP:BLP does not apply. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)][reply]
    I have to take issue with you over this. BLP also applies to pages that contain information about living persons, not just BPL's pages. So WP:BLP does mapply.Slatersteven (talk) 10:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That might be so; I'm no expert. I'm certainly willing to be schooled on this. Could you provide a link to the appropriate guideline? Tom Reedy (talk) 12:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    BLP applies to any article which mentions a living person. However (i) reliable secondary sources are OK (ii) US law applies in general and to political figures (iii) the reference, from a reliable third party source is to a group and does not name individuals (iv) none of the MEPs have taken any advantage of the UK's generous libel laws. --Snowded TALK 12:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Off2riorob and a few other editors have consistently challenged sources for the BNP and other subjects about the far right in the UK. However none of them have provided any alternative sources except for websites of the organizations themselves. These articles must reflect how these groups and individuals are perceived and we cannot use them to correct any perceived bias in academic writing or mainstream journalism. TFD 22:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
    The issue isn't really about sourcing for me. It's about how Wikipedia, an encyclopedia not a tabloid, reflects the source content so that the reader is presented with information about how the BNP and its members are perceived in a way that complies with mandatory policy. It's summed up in Off2riorob's statement "I think that people think that by making a topic that they dislike reflect badly it is a good thing, but it is not, it weakens the whole wikipedia and diminishes our general respect as a neutral resource." I couldn't agree with this more. It doesn't matter how odious the subject of the article is and how much venom filled commentary there has been in the press, this is an encyclopedia. We're meant to present information in a detached, neutral way at the summarized, meta-level rather than simply channel the venom out there. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    College of the Humanities (Carleton University)

    The College of the Humanities page reads in large parts like promotional materials for this particular school at Carleton University, and furthermore the editing history shows that it was mostly written by a professor (Gregory MacIsaac) at said school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Terrible tony (talk • contribs) 17:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    "Canadians growing up at the beginning of the twenty-first century stand at a particular place in the history of the West. We live in a time when the traditional theoretical basis for our culture has been subjected to radical criticism and plays an ever smaller part in public discourse." Yes, yes it does, at least some of it. Have you tried to strip out all the POV language? Tom Reedy (talk) 23:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Why does it have a separate article? It isn't even mentioned in the article about the university. I'd be tempted to turn it into a redirect and add a -- hm, weird, the article says it isn't actually about the 'College of the Humanities', but that "This article concerns the B.Hum program." So why do we have an article on this particular degree? Just redirect it. If you don't want to, I will unless someone has a good reason not to. Dougweller (talk) 12:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've done it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    hum.. that article is awful and it leads to a rat-maze of puff and advertising... some eyes for clean-up would be helpful. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved

    Saint Louis University Madrid Campus

    The article is much closer to a self-promotional pamphlet than an encyclopaedia article. I would have to quote the whole article to reveal the tone, but these are two examples (note especially the invitations to contact their admissions department).

    Officially recognized by the Ministry of Education and Culture of the Community of Madrid, the Madrid campus offers education of the highest quality at an affordable price. It works with a cloister of the best universities in Europe and the United States and has students from more than 65 different nations.

    Application Deadlines:

    For Spring Semester:

    October 15 (Non-EU students) December 15 (Spanish and EU students)

    For Summer I Session:

    March 30

    For Summer II Session:

    April 30

    For Fall Semester:

    April 30 (Non-EU students) August 1 (Spanish and EU students)

    Deadline extensions may be granted. Contact the Office of Admissions (admissions@madrid.slu.edu) for further details. Application requirements:

    Secondary school transcript and one of the following:

    SAT / ACT score report I.B. diploma University entrance exam (email admissions@madrid.slu.edu for more information)


    In fact, most of the article repeats word for word whole passages from the university's own webpage [3], and contains a great deal of irrelevant information, such as the whole listing of their academic trips and application deadlines. Swfwtwlf0909 (talk) 00:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Why don't you try to fix it before bringing it here? Tom Reedy (talk) 01:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Now check it out. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Platine War article

    I have also asked on RSN for input as to two references given in the Platine War article, but there do appear to be fundamental differences between editors on this article. It would be helpful to have input from uninvolved editors to go over the article for PoV. An editor has made recent edits here citing works by Pacho O'Donnell and Diego Abad de Santillán. The most troubling to me is the use of the former to justify a lowering of the number killed by the dictator Juan Manuel de Rosas from a figure of between 2,000 and 20,000 to "80". As this seems to be quite a radical departure from the sources I've read, I'm wondering whether this author/source is pushing a fringe view that needs to be included?

    The discussion on Talk:Platine War seems to be turning into Platine War II. • Astynax talk 03:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Belief and principles a shield for POV

    There is an interesting min POV dispute going on at Temple Mount and Eretz Yisrael Faithful Movement I think it could really use the input of some more editors.71.237.210.137 (talk) 00:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Its a clear promotional piece - needs more editors --Snowded TALK 11:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Che Guevara article

    Wikipedia’s article on Che Guevara, in my opinion, falls well short of Wikipedia's policy of having a neutral point of view. Writing is not just about words and facts, it’s also about how these words and facts can carefully constructed by excluded or manipulating information to convey a specific message. For example, in the entire article, there is little or no mention of opposing points of view that are supported by facts and first-hand accounts of atrocities committed by Guevara and the Cuban Revolution. For example, the Cuban Archive is a database that documents many first-hand accounts of these atrocities. That is further evidence outlined in numerous articles and books written by authors such as Humberto Fontova. The general tone of the article is positive and one can even argue that the words paint Guevara as a force of good by describing Guevara as “”…an Argentine Marxist revolutionary, physician, author, intellectual, guerrilla leader, diplomat, military theorist, and major figure of the Cuban Revolution. Since his death, his stylized visage has become a ubiquitous countercultural symbol and global insignia within popular culture.” The article continues documenting Guevara’s life in such a manner to portray him as a romantic, swashbuckling, Errol Flynn sort of character; a tireless fighter of the have-nots. Indeed, Wikipedia’s article stretches the limits of the phrase “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.”

    Not surprisingly, historical figures with opposing political views are not exactly described such a sprightly manner. Take for example Wikipedia’s own article on Luis Posada Carriles. This Wikipedia article begins be describing Posada as simply “a Cuban-born Venezuelan anti-communist militant.” The article then immediately continues to document Posada’s so-called “terrorist” activities which ultimately accounts for the vast majority of the content in the article. There are little or no inspiring anecdotes about Posada’s past, his experiences as a youth or the ornate language as was the case in the Guevara article. While many of the facts concerning Posada’s “terrorist” activities are largely accurate, it is how these two articles convey vastly different messages – Guevara as a romantic “freedom fighter” and Posada as simply a CIA-backed “terrorist”. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abarreras (talk • contribs) 05:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Che Guevara could do with a re-reading to check for neutrality. In the first sentence that you cite, I would take out a couple of the epithets (intellectual, military theorist). But most of the article does appear to be factual and well sourced. There is no reason at all why some more negative information about the subject should not be included, but you need good reliable sources for this. Fontova himself is not a suitable source, but some of the sources he uses could be suitable. There is a to-do list for the article, and you could add neutrality checking to that, and discuss your proposals on the talk page, as I see that there are a number of experienced editors actively contributing. It might be possible to get the article back to Featured Article status. The Carriles article is a separate issue. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: Abarreras, [1] Luis Posada Carriles would fall under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and has no relevance whatsoever to the article on Che Guevara. [2] Humberto Fontova, the WP:Fringe author of Exposing the Real Che Guevara and the Useful Idiots who Idolize Him, would not be a WP:Reliable source on the topic of Che (a matter which has been discussed previously on the articles TP). Fontova's barrage of hyperbole leads him to describe Guevara as an "assassin", "sadist", "bumbler", "fool", "whimpering-sniveling-blubbering coward" who is "revered by millions of imbeciles." Other invective descriptions that Fontova often lobs against Guevara is that he was "shallow", "boorish", "epically stupid", and "a fraud"; whom Fontova considers to be a "murdering swine", an "intellectual vacuum", and an "insufferable Argentine jackass" ref. Thus anyone using him as their starting position on evaluating Guevara's life and legacy (as you appear to be) will never be sufficiently pleased with a Wikipedia article that holds to the policies of WP:NPOV and WP:Neutral. [3] The Cuba Archive that you request for inclusion is already included as a reference in the article (#91) and the 216 "victims" that they attribute to Guevara (via Lago) is noted and utilized in arriving at the statement that "several hundred people were executed during this time." [4] It is interesting that you cite the "terrorist/freedom fighter" parable, because in fact the phrase "freedom fighter" never appears in the article, while the accusation that some deem Guevara to be a "fanatical terrorist" does (see legacy section). As for the rest of your WP:Forum complaints about Wikipedia in general, those are probably best dealt with on your personal blog, not here.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 19:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Chris Parry (Royal Navy officer)

    Hello,

    this article doesn't seem very neutral. It is likely written by the person itself. Poppy (talk) 13:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks. It's a typical CV-based biography. I made a few tweaks. Most is now factual, but feel free to take out anything else that is peacock writing. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The section on him leaving the Independent Schools Committee does not reflect the controversy in the reference cited. Martinvl (talk) 13:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Can Choice of Units of Measure affect a NPOV?

    Resolved
     – Not a NPOV Issue

    There has been an on-going discussion regarding which units of measure – imperial or metric - should be given precedence in the Falkland Islands set of articles. For the record the islands are claimed by both the United Kingdom and by Argentina, but are under de facto British control.

    I have recently asserted that choice of units of measure can reflect a POV, in the same way that language does and therefore that giving precedence to imperial units of measure as a matter of course in the Falkland Islands set of article falls foul of NPOV. My reasoning is that in most circumstance either metric or imperial units are acceptable in the United Kingdom but the Argentine only uses metric units. Furthermore, in spite of the Argentine occupation of 1982, the Falkland Islands Government uses metric units on all of its websites. Is the assertion regarding NPOV justified? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinvl (talk • contribs) 13:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Let's please try not to get bogged down with such things. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    NPOV? No forum shopping. Having failed to have metrication imposed at WP:MOSNUM, the editors involved chose to try and impose metrication on a series of articles. Having failed to achieve the desired consensus of metrication, they rejected a compromise suggestion of following the Times style guide in line with common usage as not metric enough and having derailed that consensus they're now trying to over turn the imperial first current consensus by wikilawyering it as "NPOV". Give me a break, some people have better things to do - like trying to write articles. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 18:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    If this series of articles concerns the Falkland Islands then I would expect it to follow Falkland Island conventions, whatever they might be.

    UK conventions (which despite a large number historical exceptions are often metric due to the adoption of the system in British schools) should probably have little or no influence on the usage in those articles, which are not part of the UK.

    If Islanders commonly use one or the other system, then I would expect the article to defer to that usage unless there is an overriding reason not to do so.

    I think the argument that metric is unacceptable because a certain geopolitical entity with a claim on the Islands uses metric is probably a red herring. If as somebody claims the Falkland Islands government uses mostly metric units in its own publications, then that would seem to be a fairly good refutation of the latter argument.

    We should really look to see what is commonly used by Islanders, and I couldn't predict what that might be. Tasty monster (=TS ) 18:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The working assumption is that the Falklands use the same units as the UK - that's due to their connection to the UK and for lack of evidence to the contrary. It is often said that the islanders are "more British than the British" (sources: [4][5][6]) and as such, one might reasonably infer that the islanders are more likely to use imperial units than the British are - but there are only about 3,000 islanders, and we have no sources that confirm this. The most recent position to reach consensus was based on MOSNUM as it stood at the time (it called for all-metric or all-imperial units on UK-related articles). We have had six or seven discussions on the subject over the last year, most of which were initiated by the same editor, and several of which have lasted for months. None have resulted in consensus for change.
    My proposal (to which Justin refers) was this. You will notice that it is metric-first in general; the exceptions listed are essentially those noted on WP:UNITS for UK-related articles. This in turn is based on The Times style guide referenced by the guideline, and is a good approximation at modern British usage. This is the proposal that was apparently not metric enough - though note that Martin no longer discusses the issue on talk. Having failed to get consensus for full metrication, he's now trying to force it on us. Pfainuk talk 20:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It would appear from local sources that the islands use the metric system. See [7], [8]. Penguin News, the local newspaper, reported the yearly catch in tonnes (April 16, 2010) [9] as did the Government website [10] and the Falkland Island Meat Company appears to be consistently metric [11] and [12]. A report on the generation of wind power was also in metric measures [13]. Any idea that Imperial weights and measures must be used is unsustainable. The only real question at issue is whether Pfainuk's proposal is satisfactory, or whether the editors as a whole prefer a more consistent use of the metric system. In practice, I think it means choosing between three options: Metric (except for historical measures), Metric except for historical measures and road distances, or Pfainuk's proposal. There is also the question of whether we decide by consensus, by majority vote, or whether it should follow this dot point from MOSNUM: "If editors cannot agree on the sequence of units, put the source value first and the converted value second. If the choice of units is arbitrary, use SI units as the main unit, with converted units in parentheses." [14] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Glass (talk • contribs) 03:16 20 April 2010 (UTC)
    My points in response would be that trying to use the sources point in WP:UNITS to overcome the spirit of the rule - that we use the most appropriate units in context - is gaming the system, particularly when you choose your sources based on the units used. But Michael has accepted my proposal. Fact is that the previous consensus remains until a new consensus is reached, and we have reached no such consensus - largely because Martin insists that we have to be more metric than even British usage is, refusing to compromise or even discuss the issue.
    But I don't want to again spend weeks going over this in a fourth forum. If editors want to see this discussion in all its gory detail then they can go to WP:FALKLAND and to the recent archives of WP:WQA. This is likely to be exactly the same. Pfainuk talk 06:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Why has this degenerated into yet another discussion on units? If there is a move toward metric units on wikipedia, the correct way to achieve that is to get a consensus at WP:MOSNUM not here, not at Talk:Falkland Islands or any one other dozens of other place it has been discussed. I am minded to initiate a user conduct WP:RFC as constantly raising this at multiple places is disruptive and wasting a huge amount of editors time. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 08:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I am also annoyed by Michael Glass continually bringing these things up at WP:MOSNUM, but here we seem to be close to the underlying problem, so I am not opposed to discussing things here once more.

    The general guidance for the UK may or may not be applicable to the Falkland Islands. Some islands that belong to one culture but lie close to another have special features in their weights and measures practices. What dominates? Trade and travel with nearby islands and the continent, which are all metric, or trade and travel with the UK? I guess a lot of the food will come from the continent (and be packaged metrically). On the other hand, there is no strong pressure to metricate road distances or things like body height, and the island with a population of 3,000 has a British military force of 500, who are no doubt bringing mainland UK preferences with them.

    There isn't much by way of Falkland Island newspapers. I found only one Falklands-related story there that used any measure at all, and it talked about "40ft articulated lorries". There is also this evidence that Falklanders use miles on their street signs (as I guess they are obliged to do by law, although there might be special local exceptions, or they might just ignore the law as unpractical; but it seems they are not doing this). Thus it seems to be clear that for road traffic purposes, the Falkland Islands use the UK system.

    On the other hand, I searched for certain terms on [15] and found the following:

    • Kilogramme/gramme:
      1. "There are some 720,000 sheep in the Islands producing 2.3 million kilograms of greasy wool." [16]
      2. "motor vehicle not exceeding 500 kilograms" / "motor vehicle exceeding 500 kilograms but not exceeding 3400 kilograms" / "motor vehicle exceeding 3400 kilograms". [17]
      3. "The current import duty rate is £167.23 per net kilogram." / "A 50 gram pouch of tobacco [...]" [18]
    • Pound/ounce:
      • Pound only used as a currency, ounce does not appear at all.
    • Kilometre/metre:
      1. "This subsidy is based on a rate per sheep per kilometre travelled" / [19]
      2. "$375,000 for every square kilometre of a production field" [20]
      3. "approximately one kilometre across the valley from the first three turbines" [21]
      4. "49 kilometres was constructed this season by enthusiastic teams of contractors and direct labour, despite relocation of one team from East to West Falkland." [22]
      5. 15 more examples using "metre"
    • Mile/yard:
      1. "Blind Dave, as he likes to be called, and his running partner Malcolm Carr, were accompanied on the 26.2 mile Mount Pleasant course by the respective winner and runner up of the 2008 Stanley Marathon, Simon Almond and Hugh Marsden." / two more marathon-related uses of "mile" [23]
      2. "last mile wireless broadband access" [24]
      3. "Where a Member's own car is used for such travel, the Member is entitled to claim an allowance of 40 pence per mile in lieu of reimbursement." [25]
      4. Other references were in nautical contexts, often explicitly in nautical miles.

    Two particularly interesting documents are the Road Traffic Bill 2008

    • "within a distance of four miles from any point on the boundary of Stanley" / "at a speed exceeding 25 miles per hour" and many more uses of "mile"
    • "within 100 yards of a crossing"
    • "a child [...] less than 135 centimetres in height"
    • "maximum design speed exceeding 25 kilometres per hour"
    • "maximum laden weight not exceeding 3.5 [metric] tonnes"
    • "windows [...] of not less than 770 square centimetres"
    • "if the distance [...] between such wheels [...] is not less than 460 millimetres"

    and the brochure Falkland Islands – ... sustaining a secure future:

    • Geographic distances given in rounded miles first, then more precise number of kilometres in parentheses.
    • Similarly for square miles / square kilometres.
    • Heights of locations in feet first, then metres in parentheses. Feet appear to be more precise.
    • Temperatures in Celsius first, Fahrenheit in parentheses.
    • In a mineral resources context, a nautical distance is given in kilometres only.

    Taking all this together, I think metric first for everything except road distances might be the most reasonable consistent choice for the islands. Hans Adler 09:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    We actually had a proposal pretty much along similar lines [26], rejected for not being "metric enough". We proposed it, had no objections...until it was started to be implemented. We have had a proposal to work through Falklands articles to bring them to a consistent standard and that has been stymied for months by editors who've simply hijacked it for their own agenda of metricating wikipedia. And again this is the NPOV noticeboard, not WP:MOSNUM a discussion is inappropriate here. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 11:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    First of all I would like to pay tribute to Hans Adler for all the work he has put into finding out what Falkland Islanders so. Secondly, I feel that "metric first for everything except road distances might be the most reasonable consistent choice for the islands" might be the position that is most likely to meet with general approval. I think the sticking points in [27] are in the following clauses:

    • Distance:
      • For distances onshore (including coastlines), use statute miles (yards, feet, inches) and convert to kilometres (metres, centimetres)
      • For distances offshore, use nautical miles and convert to both kilometres and statute miles
      • For distances that contain significant parts both on- and off-shore, use statute miles and convert to both kilometres and nautical miles

    If this was changed to something like this:

    • Distance:
      • For road distances use statute miles (yards, feet, inches) and convert to kilometres (metres, centimetres)
      • For other distances generally follow the sources.
      • For distances over water, provide nautical miles as well as statute miles and kilometres.

    I think it would answer most of the concerns that have been expressed. It would certainly be more flexible than a rule that forces a "miles first" rule. Remember that MOSNUM says:

    UK articles more often put metric units first, but imperial units may be put first in some contexts. These include:
    Miles for distances, miles per hour for road speeds and miles per imperial gallon for fuel economy

    MOSNUM does not say:

    UK articles more often put metric units first, but imperial units must be put first in some contexts. These include:
    Miles for distances, miles per hour for road speeds and miles per imperial gallon for fuel economy

    I don't claim that this is the last word on the topic, but I hope that this suggestion will help us towards a decision that will be generally acceptable. Michael Glass (talk) 12:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    NOTE: This noticeboard is intended for advice concerning specific NPOV issues. Please be concise.

    Which part of the above don't people understand?

    Pls take note. This is not the forum for yet more tendentious debate on units. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 12:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree. Though I will in passing note my objection to Michael's proposal above, as per arguments on the talk page and at WP:FALKLAND. Those arguments should stay there. Pfainuk talk 16:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As usual, I can't actually agree with what Michael Glass wants, but I won't go into the details because we are obviously not welcome here with this discussion. Hans Adler 20:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    "Assyrianization"

    The article Assyrianization is correctly mentioning the assimilation by people in ancient Assyria. But user:ܥܝܪܐܩ is adding the pro-Chaldean/pro-Aramean argument that todays day Assyrians (or Syriac Christians) were "assyrianized". Non of the so called sources are stating this. This word is only used when it comes to describe the assimilation in Assyria. This is strong POV. User:ܥܝܪܐܩ is no longer discussing properly in the article's talk page, he's talking about other things and going off-topic. I've now report it because this is strong POV which shouldn't be on Wikipedia. My version 1. Shmayo (talk) 14:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    There is a book published by Oxford University Press cited for the idea that Assyrianization can refer to the recent phenomenon. That would seem to be a a reliable source, but it must be reflected correctly. If it does use "Assyrianization" in this way, then the idea stays. If it doesn't then another reliable source needs to be used, or the idea must go. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Please read the page which is used as source [28]. I can't understand what that has to do with a so called "assyrianization on Syriac Christians". I think that the "RAF's levies" that book is talking about is the Iraq Levies. Now if they were deliberating an assyrianization of the levies (which means increase the number of Assyrians in the levies?), what has that do do with what's written in the article? The truth is that this is just POV used by a part of a people that have a big naming dispute. Also it should be noted that the person who started this article wrote this to the creator of the article "Assyrian Fascism" (an article which of course was deleted): "If Assyrian Fascism is deleted, don't worry, the same ground can be covered in the Assyrianization article.". Shmayo (talk) 16:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    As previously stated there has been creations of some very biased and in some cases even discriminating articles as "Assyrian Fascism" which was deleted shortly after though, and there is a ongoing war against Assyrian related articles on Wikipedia.

    When it comes to the Assyrianization article it is correct to academically say that there was a Assyrianization of the people in ancient Assyria. However there has been no Assyrianization of Syriac Christians and there are no academical works supporting this theory. I've asked the user supporting this article two times to provide works that support this theory, yet none works are provided. --Yohanun (talk) 16:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I think you're correct and the book just does use the word in passing to mean an increased number of Assyrians in the Iraq Levies. So it is not a relevant source for the article. Since the article is a short stub, perhaps it should be merged with another? Itsmejudith (talk) 16:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Please note the other four references regarding this, and the talk page. User:Shmayo is just adamantly dismissing everything as POV. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 18:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Did you read the all the other comments here? Itsmejudith clearly said what's I've been saying, the source doesn't say anything about it. And only that is the one from Oxford University. Even if the other are not reliable, it's the same with them, just read the talk page. And why did you comment now? When I posted this the only thing you did was calling me and Yohanun sockpuppets (removed). Now when I reverted to the old version (per this discussion) you're joining here (and reverting back). Well of course I'm saying it's POV, otherwise I wouldn't have posted it here. Shmayo (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I read what's here yes. Itsmejudith agreed with you about one source, so I have added a verification tag to that source. It is just an opinion though, just as Tisqupnaia2010's opinion; which was in agreement with mine. It doesn't qualify you to do a revert and erase everything as you did. Your English is broken today and your comment doesn't read very well. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 20:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    No, read what Itsmejudith said again "...That would seem to be a a reliable source, but it must be reflected correctly. If it does use "Assyrianization" in this way, then the idea stays. If it doesn't then another reliable source needs to be used, or the idea must go". She clearly said that the source from Oxford University Press is the only reliable one, and if it's not reflecting what's written there, the idea must go. So why are you reverting back? Join the discussion earlier next time please (and stay on-topic then). I'm sorry for my English. Shmayo (talk) 20:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    No that is not what she said there Shmayo. I'd discussed this already with you at length on the talk page. What more do I need say. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 23:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    If you read her comment, how can you not understand that she is saying that that source is the reliable one? Shmayo (talk) 15:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    To reiterate what I saidt, the OUP source is reliable. But it does not support the idea that Assyrianization is a present-day phenomenon. The other reliable source cited is Encyclopedia Iranica. It doesn't carry an article "Assyrianization" but its article Assyrians in Iran appears to be a very careful picking apart of the ethonym "Assyrian" applying to present-day Christians in Iran and their diaspora mainly in the USA. This is another potential good source for Wikipedia, but I can't agree that it supports the current sentence in the article, either. It would be better used in Assyrianism. Remember, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. We do not have to cover every term that is occasionally used. And since the OUP book and the Encyclopedia Iranica use "Assyrianization" in different ways, we don't have a basis to describe any recognised present-day process of "Assyrianization". And references to George Habash. Is that indeed the Palestinian political figure? Not RS for anything but his own outlook. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Moon landing

    Are articles in the simple english wikipedia under the same rules as articles in the regular WP in terms of NPOV? Thanks Becritical (talk) 19:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This might answer your question [29]. ClovisPt (talk) 00:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, thanks, it looks like the NPOV concepts are basically the same. Thus, I'll have followup about an article... but I can't get to it till tomorrow it's late here now. Becritical (talk) 02:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Moon hoax

    If NPOV is the same in the simple english wikipedia, do we not need to do something about this theory? Here is the article on WP. Looks to me that someone has been using the SEW to spread their POV. Becritical (talk) 15:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The regular Wikipedia entry for the moon hoax theory looks to be pretty straight-up neutral. The Simple English version has NPOV problems. Shouldn't it be a simple summery of the main Wikipedia article? Tom Reedy (talk) 12:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I was told it doesn't have to be simple, but rather it has to be written simply. One can have all the information. Editors needed.... Becritical (talk) 16:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with you that statements such as this

    In 2004, President George Bush gave not eight but sixteen years for a manned return to the Moon, even though the technologies for it should have already been developed forty years earlier.

    are easy to find on the simple Wikipedia article and not in the Wikipedia article for moon landing conspiracies. I also agree with you that that statements of this sort are not NPOV and need to be corrected. WP:Be Bold in changing these things; work with editors there on discussion boards, and please return here for help if anyone gives you trouble about the changes you are making. Blue Rasberry 17:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you. As for that sentence, there is nothing wrong with it as it is describing their views ("Moon conspiracy theorists say"). Otherwise there would be a problem though. Becritical (talk) 15:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Then you need to word it as such and pay attention to the construction of the statement. "Moon conspiracy theorists say that in 2004, President George Bush gave not eight but 16 years for a manned return to the Moon, even though the technologies for it should have already been developed 40 years earlier." still has problems, even though it appears to be adequately attributed (and every statement needs to be attributed to diminish the temptation for those who would take out of

    context). But "Moon conspiracy theorists say that even though the technologies for it should have already been developed 40 years earlier, in 2004 President George Bush gave not eight but 16 years for a manned return to the Moon." is more NPOV. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, I was unclear but that is what I meant. Blue Rasberry 17:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I simply don't believe in coddling the reader to such an extent in the name of NPOV. Rather, I believe in trusting the reader to understand the text written, and if the proper elements of attribution exist and the structure is in fact clear, I don't try to NPOV it further. In an article written in an NPOV manner generally, it does not matter in the general impression. If a reader has a certain belief, we are not bound to argue them out of it. I'm sure there must be some difference between the two sentences, but properly understood they mean the same. Personally, I don't see the difference between the, so perhaps you could explain? I see that the second is better written, but not that it is more NPOV. Becritical (talk) 14:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's something you'll have to take up on Simple Wikipedia. If you dislike "coddling the reader," I'd say Simple isn't the place for you to edit, though. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how using precise diction is "coddling the reader". The structure of the sentence is certainly important in conveying a POV or NPOV. If you don't think so, I suggest you read Pratkanis and Aronson or Bernays. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Deadliest Warrior (Historical inaccuracies section)

    This section of the article discusses the various factual inaccuracies of the show, which do seem to appear. However, none of the content in this section has been collected from a resource discussing the show's inaccuracy. The section was written by an editor who has assembled various resources to support their own opinion of the show, despite that not being the original intention of those resources; WP:SYNTHESIS.

    I'd like to help clean up this article, especially since it seems as though there's going to be a lot of contributors to it (as a new season is starting tonight), and it has a number of problems. Other editors don't seem to understand the problem with this particular section though, as they continue to add to its content despite the cleanup tags. Discussing the problem on the talk page also isn't going very well, as the only other editor discussing the issue doesn't seem to get the concept behind WP:NPOV. More time could just be required for more people to weight in though.

    Due to a lack of any reliable third party sources providing criticism on the show's historical inaccuracy, I don't know what kind of solution could be found other than removing the section. It would be helpful if someone else could take a look, weigh in, or provide an idea for a solution. -Hooliganb (talk) 00:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ryerson University

    I was wondering if this section of the article "Ryerson University" is written in a neutral point of view.

    Ryerson University is a public research university located in downtown Toronto, Canada. Its urban campus surrounds Yonge and Dundas Square, with the majority of its buildings in the blocks northeast of the square in Toronto's Garden District. The university offers many specialized programs which are unique in Canada across its five faculties, including the largest undergraduate business program in Canada by enrolment.

    In addition to offering full-time and part-time undergraduate and graduate programs leading to Bachelor's, Master's and Doctoral degrees, the university also offers part time degrees, distance education and certificates through its The G. Raymond Chang School of Continuing Education, which has annual enrollment of over 65,400 students.[4]Nonetheless, their entering class average is extremely low compared to other universities. In 2009, for Business and Commerce, Ryerson University had an entrance average of 79.9%[5], whereas the University of Toronto St. George, the University of Toronto Scarborough, and York University had entrance averages of 88.5%, 88.1%, and 86.9%, respectively[6][7].

    Esousa constantly deletes the part regarding entering class averages even though it is valid information. However, he/she is willing to include information, such as "the university offers many specialized programs which are unique in Canada across its five faculties", which is a subjective interpretation of "specialized" without references.

    Also, in the following passage:

    Ryerson is known for its programs that emphasize applicable skills. As a result, the university has established a reputation for producing graduates who are career-ready in their related fields, such as child and youth care, fashion, photography, engineering, business administration and nursing[24]. The part-time study option offered in many of Ryerson's graduate programs, such as the MBA and the M.A. in Public Policy and Administration, have made the school a choice for professionals working in business and government in the Greater Toronto Area; however, many world renowned institutions, such as the University of Toronto and McGill University have a strong status in the United States and abroad[25]. In 2009, the university ranked second in Ontario for first-choice applications from graduating high school students receiving 11 percent of Ontario's total 84,300 admission requests.[20][26]

    Esousa repeatedly removes "many world renowned institutions, such as the University of Toronto and McGill University have a strong status in the United States and abroad[25]," yet keeps subjective information such as "Ryerson is known for its programs that emphasize applicable skills," "producing graduates who are career-ready in their related fields," and "The part-time study option offered in many of Ryerson's graduate programs, such as the MBA and the M.A. in Public Policy and Administration, have made the school a choice for professionals working in business and government in the Greater Toronto Area." This information, unreferenced and biased, remains in the article, but the objective and sourced information that I have included is being removed.

    What can be done about the lack of neutral point of view in the article? Objectivity is Essential (talk) 01:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    If you feel that the edits are in violation of objectivity, you may cite it as being in violation of WP:NPOV and subsequently submit an OTRS ticket to have the article protected or semi-protected. Best regards, -- Alvincura (talk) 06:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I will alert WP:WikiProject Universities about this. The article is in general need of improvement. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think there is anything here. The statements that have been removed are largely original research (primarily synthesis) and clearly cherry-picked to paint this institution in a negative light. Further, the article's Talk page is the proper venue for this discussion.
    Finally, as a procedural note, please note that the editor who made the original complaint has been blocked as a sockpuppet of another editor involved with the article in question. --ElKevbo (talk) 21:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, thanks. Anyway, the article could still be improved a bit. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course; every article could "still be improved a bit." :)
    However, I am suspicious of the brand new editor who has suddenly popped up to begin making edits, including removing the material in question above. I am certainly not making any accusations but any time a brand new editor pops up and immediately begins competent edits to a controversial article my spider senses tingle. --ElKevbo (talk) 21:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The article definitely has problems and needs to be rewritten. Racepacket (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor Ivananderson (talk · contribs) has been making a series of obviously slanted modifications to various articles concerning The Fellowship (Christian organization). For some reason, I have Douglas Coe on my watchlist which is why I noticed but he's been causing problems for a while now. SeeUser talk:Ivananderson, Talk:Abraham Vereide, etc. This diff is also typical. Pichpich (talk) 18:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Those edits aren't just slanted; they amount to little more than proselytizing. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Interlace

    1. Interlace

    2. (first sentence)

    Interlace is a technique of improving the picture quality of a video signal without consuming extra bandwidth.

    3. (the problem perceived) (video)Interlace is a technique used on video material at creation, transport, display time etc... It has upsides and downsides. Saying it is "improving the picture quality" when there are many examples of worsening (a lot) of the picture quality is not a neutral POV.

    4. There was discussion in the talks, but at parts it reaches fanatic levels and not much was accomplished.

    --Xerces8 (talk) 15:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I posted a response here. Please post {{resolved}} at the top of this section if my response sufficiently addresses your concern. Blue Rasberry 17:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    NPOV review requested

    I am currently working on a new draft of Shakespeare authorship question, a problematic article about a minority view, and would appreciate input from some uninvolved editors with specific areas of expertise (like NPOV). Here is the latest draft that I am requesting comments on: [[30]]. Can some of you give me input on any NPOV issues that jump out at you? Please leave comments here or on my talk page. Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 21:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Other reviewers can speak for themselves, but this is a long article with 130 citations and to me total review is beyond the scope of this board. If you have questions about specific parts I would be happy to review those; you must know better than anyone what might be controversial.
    Just at a glance, I see that this version emphasizes that questioning the authorship of works traditionally attributed to Shakespeare is a minority view; beyond that, this view is well sourced for what it is. It passes the crazy test in that it is not readily apparent as totally crazy POV content.
    If you are satisfied with a response, please tag this thread at the top with {{resolved}}; otherwise, ask for more input. Blue Rasberry 23:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well it's good to know it (at least) passes the crazy test, and that the minority view status is clear. That's helpful.
    I am still hoping some additional regular editors here provide some input, as well. Brief or extended, every little bit helps!Smatprt (talk) 21:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Chris Cohan

    I come across this article several days ago. An ip was adding several negative statements on this stub. Although they are adequately sourced and did not violate BLP, I am not sure if that violates NPOV. Can someone take a look, thanks—Chris!c/t 22:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It is not apparent to me that things there were adequately sourced, so I added some tags asking for clarification.
    I also cannot say whether this is NPOV, because no one seems to be objecting to the negative content. If everyone agrees that negative content is merited and the content is sourced, it is still NPOV. But if the content is portrayed as being negative and some sources see the same data as positive, then this article is not doing well for NPOV.
    If you are satisfied with a response, please tag this thread at the top with {{resolved}}. Blue Rasberry 23:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If you looked at the history, you will notice the dispute in which several editors think the articles was not neutral. I don't really have a problem with this, just wanting to make sure everything is ok according to our policy.—Chris!c/t 23:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    The "negative" statements added were intended to provide neutrality and were sourced appropriately before someone edited the page to change the language. If those edits were intended to get the references deleted then that is simply disappointing and disingenuous.


    I believe there are vested interests abusively editing this page in order to strictly portray Chris Cohan in a positive manner. Chris Cohan's efficacy in the pending sale of his NBA team is partially dependent on his public image, and therefore the rabid censoring of his wikipedia page constitutes a conflict of interest as well as a violation of wikipedia's neutrality policy.

    See "just wait until he gets fired" comment from Zagalejo in the edits. Implying that once Chris Cohan is not involved with the NBA Zagalejo will not protect his image. Note that he simply deletes rather than attempting to make constructive edits.

    This is called astroturfing. It is illegal to manipulate the public perceptions via anonymous means for the purposes of making money. I hope that Wikipedia will not be complicit with this behavior. -Nuck

    Accusing editors like Zagalejo for not making "constructive edits" is not helping the situation. Please focus on content not editors.—Chris!c/t 00:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Well then you had better watch your boy because what he is doing could be in the gray area of legality, and could potentially compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Whether he makes constructive edits is just one aspect of my grievance. I'm saying he is the problem. That is all I'm saying. -Nuck

    What legality? Are you trying to make a legal threat? That is absolutely unacceptable. If you don't stop such behavior, I will have to report you.—Chris!c/t 00:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Please, no more here.
    Nuck, sign your comments with ~~~~. Everyone, take this to the talk page. This board is not the place for this kind of discussion. If you want to get review for specific edits, then post the WP:diff here. You will get a response about whether a statement is NPOV, but no help in actually fixing it. If you want help and do not know how to get it for yourself then ask me and I can send you elsewhere. If there is a real vandal that anyone wants to report, tell it to an admin. Blue Rasberry 00:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    Ok, Continued there. No threat to wikipedia whatsoever, other than the threat Zagalejo's behavior represents to wikipedia's integrity. I apologize for giving you that impression. My hope is that wikipedia will stop the questionable PR behaviors of its users.


    I'm saying that Zagalejo's involvement in the Chris Cohan page constitutes astroturfing, which COULD be illegal depending on how it is being done. I've not passed any personal or legal judgment on Wikipedia at all. My hope is that they will not allow Zagalejo's behavior and I am attempting to pursue the correct avenues by posting on the notice boards. I'll stop posting here now, as it appears most of the issue has been resolved on the page. Thanks for the time and consideration.

    67.180.72.59 (talk) 00:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The problem I see is that the edits in question are not adequately or reliably sourced. Blogs are always problematic, even when hosted by reliable newspapers and written by experts, especially when they use obviously inflammatory language. Negative commentary is not verboten on WP, but all content must meet WP guidelines and policies. Make sure every statement is attributed to a reliable source and that it follows that source in context. If the sources are reliable and the statements meet the criteria of notability and prominence (the bit about the stolen car, for instance, is too trivial for encyclopedia coverage), then trying to keep them out would be a violation of WP:NPOV. I suggest you review WP:RS and WP:BLP before descending into an edit war. But if you've got all your bases covered, edit boldly and justify your edits on the talk page. If that doesn't work, then diligently follow the procedure for dispute resolution and don't skip any steps. Above all, don't expect instant resolution. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks Tom. The editor was being heavy handed in his edits (simply deleting rather than altering language) and made poor choice of his words to suggest a possible implication of COI. My suspicion is based on precedent of astroturfing practiced by Warriors PR staff in several venues (and subsequently getting caught). I think the edit war is over and some resolution has been met in that the page is neither strictly positive or negative now. With Cohan's history, a page censored to be purely positive display of his public image would be unrepresentative of his track record and would indirectly affect his efficacy in the sale of his team. Here's a link to one of MANY incidents where Warriors PR attempted to influence the public discourse anonymously: [[31]]

    Media Matters for America article

    For those not already involved in the question at the Media Matters for America article and Talk, please evaluate the following for neutral point of view:

    Hillary Clinton, who credits herself with helping to create Media Matters ("institutions that I helped to start and support like Media Matters"), advised Brock on creating the group,"quietly nurtured" it, and encouraged her campaign contributors to give millions of dollars to the organization. Kelly Craighead, one of Clinton's closest friends and a senior aide to her when she was First Lady, "advised Media Matters 'on all aspects' of its launch" and then steered at least $6 million to them as a top adviser at Democracy Alliance.

    The sources are as follows:

    • Gerth, Jeff (2008-04-07). Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton. Back Bay Books. ISBN 978-0316017435.
    • Thrush, Glenn (2006-09-07). "Switching allegiances". Newsday. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
    • Lambro, Donald (2007-12-03). "'Nonpartisan' groups help Hillary's bid; Tax exemption raises queries". The Washington Times. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)

    I can provide excerpts from the sources if needed.--Drrll (talk) 17:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    There may be some "false light" problems with some of the sources, and there certainly is such a problem with the above wording. Simply state that Hillary Clinton was a supporter, cheerleader, mentor and fundraiser for the organization from its inception. Tasty monster (=TS ) 18:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see any citations or source page numbers so a reader could readily check the sources. I'd especially like to see a quote from Clinton telling her supporters to donate millions of dollars. I suggest a thorough reading of WP:CITE. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither the book nor the articles are fully accessible online through a simple link. The book is partly viewable through Amazon; the full text of the articles are only available through library-type databases. I've provided related excerpts from the sources below.--Drrll (talk) 23:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Drrll, please provide those excerpts from the source material, along with page numbers. Thanks! Rapier (talk) 21:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Source excerpts

    • "Her Way" book:
    "Although it was independent, Media Matters had among its earliest supporters and advisers long-standing allies of Hillary and the Democratic Party. One of them, Kelly Craighead, who planned Hillary's trips for eight years when she was First Lady, advised Media Matters 'on all aspects' of its launch...Hillary, though not a close friend of Brock's, advised him and 'quietly nurtured' his nonprofit empire." (p. 268)
    "One of Hillary's closest friends, Susie Tompkings Buell, held a fund-raiser for Brock's cause, and almost half of the Susie Tompkins Buell Foundation's grants in 2004 and 2005 went to Media Matters...Form 990 Annual Reports of the Susie Tompkins Buell Foundation for 2004 and 2005 show grants of $300,000 out of total grants of $636,000." (footnotes)
    • Newsday article "Switching allegiances":
    "...she's [Clinton] quietly nurtured his $8.5-million-a-year nonprofit empire...Clinton's extended family of contributors, consultants and friends has played a pivotal role in helping Media Matters grow...she [Clinton] advised Brock on creating the group...Kelly Craighead, one of the Clinton's closest friends, served as one of Brock's top advisers during Media Matters' formation in 2004...now serves as a top adviser to the Democracy Alliance...steered more than $6 million to Brock's group in the past two years...Brock is close to Bill Clinton's former chief of staff John Podesta...made room for Media Matters in the center's offices before Brock found permanent digs..."
    • The Washington Times article "'Non-partisan' groups help Hillary's bid":
    Mrs. Clinton claims credit for helping create these groups when she was preparing to run for president by encouraging her campaign contributors to pour tens of millions of dollars into their activities...In a campaign appearance before the Yearly Kos convention of liberal bloggers, she said the political left had "certainly suffered over the last years from a real imbalance in the political world in our country. But we are righting that balance - or 'lefting' that balancing - not sure which, and we are certainly better prepared and more focused on taking our arguments and making them effective and disseminating them widely and really putting together a network in the blogosphere in a lot of the new progressive infrastructure - institutions that I helped to start and support like Media Matters and Center for American Progress," she said...Mrs. Clinton, who became friendly with its founder, David Brock, a former critic, urged him to establish the rapid-response political Web site (www.mediamatters.org) and helped him obtain the money to pay its bills.
    --Drrll (talk) 23:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether the sources are on the Internet is immaterial; you need to follow proper citation form so others can easily find the reference. See WP:CITE.
    I'm having trouble grasping the context of the Her Way ref or its relevance to the article. The WT ref is garbled and the first sentence makes no sense. How can someone "claim credit" by encouraging contributors? And nowhere do I see a quote from Clinton specifically telling her contributors to donate millions of dollars. Unless there's a quotation of her saying "please contribute millions of dollars" or something to that effect, I don't see how it can be included without the in-text attribution, "The Washington Times claims that . . . " Tom Reedy (talk) 01:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The Her Way book provides some of the information as to Hillary Clinton's role in the beginnings of Media Matters(advised and "quietly nurtured") and her close friend Kelly Craighead's role (advised "on all aspects" of its launch). I fixed the WT quotes. As the WT is a reliable source, I don't see why such an attribution is required--it is not an opinion piece.--Drrll (talk) 14:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Because the WT sentence as constructed is nonsensical. I can see where she urged her supporters to contribute, and they then donated millions of dollars, but unless there's a direct quote saying so I doubt seriously she specifically urged her supporters to contribute millions of dollars. And it appears to me you're taking the information out of context. The WT article credits her with helping to raise tens of millions into "these groups", not just Media Matters. Your use of it in the article claims the money went only to Media Matters.
    Also, just out of curiosity, why is this such a big deal? MM is a liberal institution; it's funded by liberals; Clinton is a liberal; she has helped raise money for MM. Duh! Tom Reedy (talk) 14:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I am guessing the reason this is a "big deal" is that according to some people of a certain political point of view, being labeled with the badge "Hillary" is considered to be a smear, or to be a form of criticism. Note that the sentence Drrll is discussing is (was[32]) included in the "Criticism" section of the MMfA article, as if it is understood that being associated with Hillary Clinton was a form of criticism. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    SB, since it is natural that Clinton, a liberal, would help raise money for liberal MMfA, why is it such a "big deal" to have it included? You have no evidence that I or anyone else consider "being labeled with the badge 'Hillary'" "a smear". As Badmintonhist said, she was perfectly within her rights to be involved with MMfA. Don't misrepresent that I added the sentence you referenced into the Criticism section--that sentence was written by Badmintonhist and placed there by him/her. I placed the wording above into a History section.--Drrll (talk) 22:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I recommend also reading SaltyBoatr's comments about Drrll's (mis)interpretation of the source material. There has been an extensive conversation on the MMFA talk page in which all of the problems with the sourcing have been detailed. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Blaxthos, like SB, you misrepresent as fact that I put the current sentence about Hillary Clinton into the Criticism section, when it was Badmintonhist who wrote the current sentence (not that there's anything wrong with it) and placed it into the Criticism section. The "problems" with the sourcing are that Jeff Gerth had the temerity to do tough investigative reporting about the Clintons (imagine that, a journalist who dares to challenge a Democratic President!), that Newsday, a liberal newspaper, somehow has an "obvious agenda" against a liberal organization like MMfA (what???), and that The Washington Times is one of those evil conservative newspapers. Take the sources to the RSN and see if they are deemed reliable.--Drrll (talk) 22:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't mean to get off on side issues here, but it seems that you can't even make your case that your edits aren't informed my a conservative POV without spouting conservative opinions about press coverage and conservative digs at the Democratic party ("'Democrat' Presdient"). Croctotheface (talk) 22:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate that Drrll corrected the "Democrat President" bit, but my point remains unchanged. Croctotheface (talk) 22:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Croc, I wasn't making the case that my edits aren't informed by a conservative POV (the proposed text speaks for itself). The "Democrat" thing was unintentional and I don't see how that's a dig anyway.--Drrll (talk) 22:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Aren't we arguing about whether your version or the version advocated by editors who disagree with you is more neutral? If you are acknowledging that your text is written from a conservative POV, doesn't that mean we're done here? Croctotheface (talk) 23:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, we are simply arguing about whether the proposed text above is neutral. I have yet to see a version advocated by editors who disagree. I'm not acknowledging that my text is written from a conservative POV (why would I come to this noticeboard anyway)--I was just saying that I was not engaged in that argument at the time.--Drrll (talk) 23:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (FYI, there's an entire article on the "Democrat" thing) AV3000 (talk) 05:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    AV, thanks for the link to that informative article.--Drrll (talk) 09:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep it: Given the fact that these sources show that Secretary Clinton herself stated she was intrumental in assisting in the creation of Media Matters ("...institutions that I helped to start and support like Media Matters and Center for American Progress,") is notable and verifiable, please make a valid case for exclusion, because according to WikiPolicy, I don't see any reason other than you don't like it, and that isn't a valid reason. Rapier (talk) 00:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm pretty sure we've listed multiple policies that make a case for exclusion. Please see the previous comments regarding weight (three poor sources), verification, the challenges to the improper interpretation of the Clinton comment, and the WP:ADVOCACY and POV challenges to why you seem to think it's relevant at all (much less to protract hundreds of KB of discussion ad infinitum). //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The only reason for whitewashing a valid part of the history of MMfA is that those on the left don't want it pointed out. Croc and Blaxthos can argue POV all they want, but since they both have a strong POV themselves, their complaint holds little weight. I would suggest they attempt to present this information in a neutral manner, rather than attack Drrll as a partisan editor when there is absolutely no one invovled that can make a legitimate claim of objectivty. Additionally, per the talk page, part of the initial reasoning given for not including is the supposed partisanship of the authors of the sourcing, which is ironic since MMfA is used as a partisan source in numerous articles withing WP already. Which says to me that it is fine for MMfA to be a stong partisan source for others, but anything resembling a partisan source is not OK for use within the MMfA article, and it is not even clear that these sources are all that partisan. Weight concerns are easily addressed. Hillary Clinton is a former First Lady, and the current Secretary of State. Her involvement in a nationally known non-profit organization is clearly notable. Her own words have stated her connection to MMfA, and this is not debatable. Arzel (talk) 05:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There are several issues with your comment here, but I'm going to focus on just one. You seem to be misunderstanding WP:Weight. That Clinton is an important figure in general does not mean that we should include text that overstates her importance in this context. All the versions written make it appear that Clinton was the single most important person to the organization. If Clinton gives a speech at, say, Harvard University, do we need to spend several sentences of the Harvard article discussing that speech because Clinton is an important figure? Croctotheface (talk) 07:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I understand weight. You seem to be implying that I want a huge section devoted to Clinton. The notable aspect here is that a notable person claimed involvement in the history of MMfA. As for your Harvard reference, it would depend upon the context of the speech. DYK that A June 3, 2008 article in The New York Times discussed the move by women's colleges in the United States to promote their schools in the Middle East. The article noted that in doing so, the schools promote the work of graduates of women's colleges such as Hillary Rodham Clinton? It says so right in the Wellesley College article. If a single article is relevant history for a College that has over 100 years history largely because of it's notable alumni, like Hillary Clinton, then she is clearly notable within MMfA history, which has a far shorter time frame. Arzel (talk) 14:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Try close to four hundred years of history. The comparison of Hillary's weight relative to Harvard and her weight relative to Media Matters is absurd. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Rapier, do you have any comment on the neutrality of the actual text that's been proposed for the article? Croctotheface (talk) 08:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops. I was under the impression that Rapier/SeanNovack was a disinterested editor here. In fact, he expressed this same opinion more than a week ago on the article talk page. Croctotheface (talk) 11:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I thought you people wanted some outside opinions from disinterested editors about whether a statement complied with WP:NPOV, but I see you merely wanted another place to squabble. Pardon my intrusion; carry on. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    That was the idea. Everything changed once SaltyBoatr directed everyone over here on the MMfA Talk page.--Drrll (talk) 05:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Tom, I understand your frustration, but unfortunately, these kinds of issues do lend themselves to squabbling, and if the response of other editors is to ignore the issue on those grounds, then all there will ever be is squabbling. Croctotheface (talk) 03:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If they want outside opinions they need to state the problem and then back off. Most of what I've read here is just talk-page jockeying about motives, and if they want to do that, fine, but don't expect editors to be eager to dive into the middle of that many axes flying around. The idea that uninvolved editors need all the "background explaining" in order to understand a topic is just an excuse to jockey for position so the "right" opinion will be rendered. If the editors are interested in giving an opinion, they'll find all the information they need without any "help" from the opponents. Just MHO. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Tom. You are absolutely correct. Those of us that have been in the middle of this for some time need to step away for a couple days and chill out. Rapier (talk) 04:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The first source listed above (the book by Gerth and Van Natta) is neither primary nor reliable secondary. See Gene Lyons' book "Fools for Scandal: How the Media Invented Whitewater" in which Gerth and Van Natta are the main antagonists, discussed in-depth at PBS:Frontline (excerpted from Harper's) -- starting with Gerth's pieces for the NYT which were "not particularly fair or balanced stories that combine a prosecutorial bias and the art of tactical omission.." PrBeacon (talk) 01:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    baraminology

    I have tried to eliminate what I perceive to be POV by changing " Like all of creation science, baraminology is pseudoscience and biological facts and evidence shows that all life has common ancestry" to "Like all of creation science, baraminology is considered pseudoscience by the scientific establishment and biological facts and evidence is commonly taken to show that all life has common ancestry" by consensus on the talk page, but none developed for or against.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 04:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Category:Terrorism templates

    I have an issue with some of the above templates on BLP/NPOV grounds, and have initiated discussion on two of them. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 22:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC: Should the NPOV policy contain two sections devoted to pseudoscience and religion?

    Please see this section of Wikipedia talk:NPOV. The NPOV policy currently contains two sections on specific topics: a 534-word section on pseudoscience and a 267-word section on religion. These sections were removed last month as being too specific after an RfC was posted on April 3. [33] The pseudoscience section was moved to WP:FRINGE, [34] and the religion section removed entirely. The sections have now been restored by others on the grounds that consensus was not established, or has changed. Fresh eyes would therefore be appreciated here on talk to decide whether to restore or remove the sections. SlimVirgin talk contribs 00:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    East Africa

    There is currently a disagreement on neutrality that is hindering improvement to the East Africa page. It centres around whether or not to mention an unrecognised state within the outline of this geographic region's composition.

    The bulleted part (see top) of this outline is based on the United Nations geoscheme for Africa, which is a geographical grouping of countries for statistical purposes. Because the UN does not recognise the existence of Somaliland as a separate state of its own, its name will not be mentioned in this source. No editor is proposing tampering with this definition, which is strictly a reflection of the source. The second part of the outline (see directly underneath) defines the region in a purely geographic sense, and uses multiple sources. Inclusion of the red text is disputed on the grounds that it doesn't belong on a list of countries:

    East Africa is often used to specifically refer to the area now comprising the countries of Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda, and (in a wider sense) also Rwanda, Burundi, Somalia (including the breakaway republic of Somaliland), Djibouti, Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Sudan. [citations omitted]

    Inclusion was proposed initially because neutral policy would normally dictate that all sides to a dispute be represented. Sovereignty over Somaliland is a prominent dispute in current affairs. It is listed in the List of states with limited recognition and List of sovereign states.

    Sources used will also need to be checked for neutrality.

    No discussion has taken place on the talk page because an identical (and rather lengthy) argument surrounding the inclusion of the same name on a template took place here and concluded here, and involved the same editors. Night w (talk) 05:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The point of the sentence is to let readers know the area that is commonly defined as East Africa. It does its job whether Somaliland is mentioned or not. NPOV is met with the disputed clause either in or out. It isn't worth warring about. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you say the same for any of the other names in the list? How is NPOV met if one state is exluded? Somaliland is quite obviously part of East Africa, many don't consider it to be part of Somalia–which is the de facto situation regardless of opinion–, and many others do... So what would be the best way to present both of those views? Analogous situations would be the article on the Caucasus: Abkhazia, South Ossetia and the NKR are listed in parentheses; and the Balkans: Kosovo is listed separately with a qualifying attachment on its international status. Night w (talk) 13:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly, when referring to actual countries (as is done in the East Africa article), the term East Africa is rarely if ever understood to include the Somaliland region of Somalia since Somaliland is, of course, not recognized by anyone as a country of its own. It is internationally recognized as a part of Somalia (albeit, one that's trying to secede). This includes the United Nations, whose geoscheme serves as the basis for this and all of the other Wikipedia geographical articles on the various regions in Africa (North Africa, West Africa, Central Africa, Southern Africa, East Africa), as indicated in the article's introduction. Contrary to what has been indicated above, there is also no dispute whatsoever about Somaliland's status as a part of Somalia -- the international community as a whole (every country & international organization, including the UN, the African Union, the European Union, and the Arab League) recognizes it and has only ever recognized it as a part of Somalia. As Tony Blair himself explains it:

    "The Government does not recognize Somaliland as an independent state, neither does the rest of the international community. The UK has signed up to a common EU position and to many UN Security Council Presidential Statements, which refer to the territorial integrity and unity of Somalia."

    The reason why Somaliland is even featured on those Wikipedia articles linked to above is because it was specifically added to them by Wikipedia users, including some involved this very edit conflict on the East Africa article -- not because Somaliland enjoys any recognition at all as a country of its own. The fact remains that the real dispute is over whether Somaliland ought to be recognized as a country of its own, not over whether it already is a country of its own. Regarding the latter, there is, again, no dispute to speak of; regarding the former, Wikipedia is no place for exploring such decidedly POV political questions (that is, not without breaching WP:NOTADVOCATE). Middayexpress (talk) 21:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The above by Midday clears up any confusion as to what the definition of East Africa is in mainstream literature, several wikipedia lists or templates where the inclusion of Somaliland is systematically pushed from a biased perspective through sheer weight of numbers(which is wrongfully portrayed as being 'concensus') does not equal 'a new mainstream definition' that is used by 'neutral sources' --Scoobycentric (talk) 14:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by Outback the koala

    I agree with everything stated above by Night w regarding the circumstances in this case. I would direct commenting editors to the List of states with limited recognition page for some background in this area of International Politics and very strongly encourage a reading of the prev. discussion here and here as noted above also. The treatment of disputes from an objective perceptive is key for any encyclopedia. I strongly believe we should not take sides in international disputes. Treating states with limited recognition as equal to one another is therefore very important. Those who take sides in these conflicts should really try to check their POV at the door when they come to improve the project; in this case, that has not happened. Wikipedians are people, and people can be very nationalistic sometimes leading them to become very combative in their editing. Taking sides in international disputes on wikipedia is rarely productive.

    In regards to pages that have to do with this state I have had been told/called so many things and quoted so many WP policies guidelines (though often incorrectly). Some times I am spreading propaganda, sometimes I am the 'separatists' themselves, sometimes I am soap-boxing, sometimes when I use sources provided by others arguing - those sources are no longer valid, sometimes I am an advocate, and on and on. I really want this issue settled, because there are many pages across the project that need to be rendered neutral. Hopefully in this discussion, excessively long repetitive comments will not rule the day. I do not want to find consensus on a subject, only to move on to another page and have the same edits challenged by the same few editors.

    Be wary, this discussion is NOT about Somaliland's international status. No one disputes the fact that no state recognizes it currently. No one disputes the fact that no international organization recognizes it currently. Somaliland exists as a de facto state only, and is defined as such by outside observers. The best article on the subject that I have found is here: http://yalejournal.org/article/de-facto-statehood-strange-case-somaliland[35]

    As far as edits of mine above are concerned as quoted by Midday; the first is me adding a redirect on the list of sovereign states page. I do not understand how that is relevant. The second confirms only that I am involved with this dispute. I did not add Somaliland to Wikipedia, it was on those lists long before I came along. Please do not break up my comment. To all editors here, feel free to talk to me on my talk page. Thanks. Outback the koala (talk) 02:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Other comments

    To Middayexpress:

    • As was stated in my nomination above, the UN geoscheme serves as the basis for the political definition in the introduction, which is not being disputed here. The geoscheme does not dictate the remainder of the article (rightly so, as it is not a neutral source), nor does it serve as the basis for the geographic definition, which also includes Sudan and Egypt (as are listed). Please familiarise yourself with the article.
    • There quite obviously is a dispute about Somaliland's status (attempting to ignore it solves nothing), and you've just provided two references verifying the prominence of the dispute in international politics and media. Diplomatic recognition isn't being disputed here; the political opinions of governments and organisations—which don't have an impact on the reality of the situation—are represented by the name being displayed in parentheses, with the qualifying word "including". Please familiarise yourself with WP:ASSERT.
    • Somaliland was added, along with other unrecognised states, to the List of sovereign states in this revision from 2004, not by Outback.

    I sympathise with Outback's frustration over this. I always try to assume good faith when disagreeing with editors, but on rare occasions you come across certain users who will persist again and again, no matter how many instances occur in which they're forced to concede to policy and consensus. In this case, there are editors involved who are incredibly knowledgable on the subject, and have the potential to make great improvements to the site, but their ability to make unbiased, encyclopædic edits is thwarted by a conflict of interest with their subject. Night w (talk) 06:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    To Outbackkoala
    • There is not a single neutral source that you can find that includes Somaliland as a seperate distinct country part of East Africa, the only sources you have provided are heavily biased articles supporting/promoting Somaliland's bid for recognition. This in itself does not constitute evidence that Somaliland is included under the geographic term; East Africa or that we at wikipedia have to change the mainstream definition for a fringe one. On the other hand there is not a single pro-Somali government source or Unionist literature being used in the article to highlight the fact that 'Somalia is one of the countries falling under the geographic term East Africa', no the article was build on mainstream neutral sources, hence why from a encylopediac persepective neither me or Middayexpress are taking a side in any dispute, because we are simply upholding wikipedia's rules of accuracy.
    To Nightw
    • I think it's prudent that i highlight to the board your disingenuous behaviour on the East Africa article when you added multiple times inaccurate sources that under no circumstance can interpreted as supporting an inclusion of Somaliland under the geographic term; East Africa. Instead you have used these non-applicable sources as a casus belli to revert me. The most prominent ones being ofcourse the 19th century sources by Richard Francis Burton and E. Arnold, which are actually - if you have read the literature - referring to what is currently known as Greater Somalia = Somaliland, as that is what the country of the Somali people was known as in the 19th century. I fail to see how using these two particular sources lends weight to your argument that the self-declared entity and international recognised region of Somalia known as Somaliland is included under the geographic term East Africa? While you rightfully say that it's good practice to show good faith to another wikipedian, the next examples of sources you added rendered any such good faith towards you on my part moot, and your credibility questioned. You used two articles entitled 14 Italians move on British Somaliland and WWII 50 years on, neither of which referred to the current unrecognised entity but were discussing abolished historic states, therefore you were blatantly synthesizing a new definition of East Africa with sources that are neither discussing nor supporting your POV. --Scoobycentric (talk) 14:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding Outback's (the other editor involved in this dispute) rather absurd assertion above that he is somehow "neutral" in this affair, I think it is important for readers to realize that he openly admits on his own user page on a template he himself added that "this user recognizes the independence of Somaliland". That's hardly "neutral". This political position also puts him directly at odds with the Somali government, the UN, the African Union, the Arab League, the European Union, and every single country in the world i.e. the entire international community. Although he perhaps may not have added Somaliland to that particular article above -- which, by the way, doesn't negate the fact that the only reason why Somaliland is even featured on those Wikipedia articles listed above is because it was specifically added to them by Wikipedia users, not because the region enjoys any recognition at all as a country of its own -- Outback does, in fact, regularly add Somaliland to all sorts of pages listing actual countries (e.g. 1). The East Africa page is just the latest in a larger pattern.
    • Regarding Night's equally preposterous contention that the U.N. geoscheme is somehow "not neutral", please contrast that with Scoobycentric's comments above on just what exactly is the former's idea of "proper" sourcing. Also note that, contrary to what has been noted above, the U.N. geoscheme does indeed serve as the basis for every single geographical Wikipedia article on the various regions in Africa; this includes the East Africa article in question (see the intros to the North Africa, West Africa, Central Africa, Southern Africa and East Africa pages). The U.N. geoscheme is not merely there to serve as the basis for the "political" definition of East Africa; as clearly indicated on the geoscheme's own page, it identifies the "Geographical region and composition of each region". This is why Egypt & Sudan are even included in the East Africa article in the first place i.e. because, while they are indeed usually classified as a part of North Africa, there are certain mainstream geographical definitions of the East Africa region which include them. That and the fact that Egypt and Sudan are still cited by the U.N. geoscheme as actual countries in Africa, unlike the Somaliland region of Somalia. Lastly, there is no dispute at all that Somaliland is a part of Somalia -- the international community as a whole only recognizes it as such (see my quote & links above). The only people that don't with any kind of political clout are the secessionists themselves, and that a "dispute" does not make (nor, incidentally, does linking to random editable Wikipedia articles). Middayexpress (talk) 22:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I know you all are busy arguing points irrelevant to this notice board, but would someone care to explain how the sentence, "East Africa is often used to specifically refer to the area now comprising the countries of Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda, and (in a wider sense) also Rwanda, Burundi, Somalia (including the breakaway republic of Somaliland), Djibouti, Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Sudan" violates WP:NPOV. I don't see where that is a declaration of diplomatic recognition, which is what you seem to be arguing here. I'm probably wrong, but I thought the question concerned the boundaries of a geographic area. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. That statement violates WP:NPOV because, as Scoobycentric has pointed out, 1) The Somaliland region is not recognized as a "republic" or "country" of its own by the international community; it is only recognized as a part of Somalia (see my quote & links above); 2) the countries that constitute the East Africa region are based on the official definition of the region supplied by the U.N. geoscheme, which likewise does not recognize any entity called Somaliland -- it only acknowledges Somalia; and 3) the "sources" presented to support the position in that statement above do not at all indicate that the term East Africa is often used to refer to a whole slew of countries including Somaliland. The latter is, of course, original research, and is therefore by definition not NPOV but quite clearly POV. Middayexpress (talk) 22:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    1) The part of the article the sentence occupies is not the UN list, but the secondary definition: "East Africa is often used to specifically refer to the area now comprising the countries of . . ."

    2) The second ref given states "Somaliland located in the north part of Somalia in East Africa is a small country . . ."

    3) I am constantly amazed at Wikipedeans failure to find and use up-to-date sources. A simple search on Amazon and using the "Search inside this book" feature turned up Understanding Somalia and Somaliland: Culture, History and Society (2008), which refers to Somaliland as a republic while discussing its lack of diplomatic recognition, and even uses the term "breakaway republic" on p. 121.

    3) This article concerns a geographical designation, not a political demarcation. In geography, the term "country" is used to designate a geographical region. The geographical region in question is generally designated by the name "Somaliland," whether it is or isn't an independent nation.

    4) The sentence doesn't say Somaliland is a sovereign nation, so any objections based on that reason do not apply. In fact, it states that Somaliland is part of Somolia with the status of a "breakaway republic", which appears to be a correct description. Somaliland appears to engage in informal diplomatic activities; it has been autonomous since 1991 with no effort on the part of Somalia to force it back into the state of Somalia that I have been able to discover; it has its own army; and the people don't pay taxes to Somalia. But it's not recognised by other countries, so its status is a kind of twilight zone of sovereignty. It's not a matter of urgency to other countries because it is small and poor.

    5) The purpose of Wikipedia is to convey information to as many people as possible. Some of those people, obviously, consider Somaliland to be an independent, sovereign nation. Others don't, so it is a matter of dispute. Most people don't care and haven't thought about it. The purpose of the sentence is to convey what geographical regions are included in the term "East Africa." Those who consider Somaliland an independent nation would wonder why it wasn't on the list if it were left off; those who don't consider it an independent nation would note that it is designated as part of Somalia.

    The sentence as quoted would satisfy everyone except those who are active partisans on either side. Wikipedia is not written to settle scores, succor either side in a dispute, or declare which side is correct; Wikipedia is written to convey correct information to the largest number of people. By doing so in no way does it portray a slanted point of view by using the language in the sentence, in my opinion.

    To recap, the sentence does not state Somaliland is an independent nation; Somaliland is the term used to describe the geographical area in question as evidenced by the ref in 2) above, and the article is about the definition of a geographical area. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    That pretty much sums up the situation. Everything has been said, and I'm not getting into yet another repetitive argument over this same subject. Just to make sure this is clear: the second definition in the article (i.e. that which is different to the U.N. definition, and also includes Egypt and Sudan) is what is being discussed here. Once again, nobody is arguing about the lack of political recognition; it does not make a difference when looking at the situation from a purely objective perspective (one of the cornerstones of (neutral editing). Night w (talk) 05:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The part of the article the sentence occupies is not the UN list, but the secondary definition: "East Africa is often used to specifically refer to the area now comprising the countries of . . ."

    The entire article is based on the U.N. geoscheme, not just the intro. This is why every single Wikipedia geographical page on every single region in Africa (that is, North Africa, Southern Africa, West Africa and East Africa) lists only countries that are actually recognized as such by the UN. The latter of course doesn't include any entity called "Somaliland" -- the only territory on any of those geographical articles that isn't recognized as a nation of its own. Middayexpress (talk) 05:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine. In that case, to be consistent, why not delete this sentence: "East Africa is often used to specifically refer to the area now comprising the countries of Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda, and (in a wider sense) also Rwanda, Burundi, Somalia, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Sudan." Tom Reedy (talk) 08:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Because, as explained several times before, all of those are alternate groupings of countries that comprise East Africa based on mainstream definitions. The one constant & common factor is that these countries and every other country listed in every single Wikipedia geographical page on all regions in Africa are all recognized as such by the U.N. geoscheme on which all of those articles are primarily based (btw, what's with the bold text?). Middayexpress (talk) 04:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The United Nations is a political forum of governments. It is not an impartial organisation absent of any agenda. If it were the case that the African region articles are exclusively based around the UN definitions, that would be a major cause for concern for neutrality.
    1. We never restrict a subject that is so open to interpretation to a single source.
    2. The UN, as an inherently opinionated source, will not be regarded as a reliable source for plain geographical information. This is not an article on the UN subregion (which, might I add, is a grouping of states for statistical purposes). This is an article on (quote) "the easterly region of the African continent, variably defined by geography or geopolitics".
    Do not persist in insisting that the entire article is restricted to one definition, as that clearly is not the case. Night w (talk) 15:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Like it or not, every single Wikipedia geographical page on every single region in Africa is indeed based on the U.N. geoscheme. They state as much in their intros; even the maps on the articles are based on the U.N. subregions. You argue that "we never restrict a subject that is so open to interpretation to a single source". The problem with this is that the articles are not exclusively based on the U.N. geoscheme and never have been. They are primarily based on the U.N. geoscheme since the latter is a reliable source that outlines all of the continent's regions and their constituent nations. This is why other mainstream, non-fringe definitions of just what countries typically constitute the East Africa region are indeed also included. You now argue (but have not proven) that the U.N. is an "inherently opinionated source" and that its geoscheme is used "for statistical purposes", thus making it unreliable "for plain geographical information". First of all, WP:RS does not insist that all sources be completely devoid of opinions. This, of course, is unrealistic since everyone has an opinion ("we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves"). All WP:RS insists is that "articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" -- no mention of geographical data that may or may not be destined for statistical use not being allowed. Unless you are now arguing that the U.N. does not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, you have no cause for complaint here either. Middayexpress (talk) 04:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, primarily based?? Then why do you keep bringing that into this debate; as we've been stating, that definition is not being discussed here. This is about (repeating) "the second definition in the article". Is that clear to you now? Can we cease talking about the United Nations? Night w (talk) 05:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Simmer down; no need to have an aneurysm. Yes, the East Africa article is primarily based on the U.N. geoscheme. This should have been obvious from the article's introduction and the other mainstream definitions and the map that are already in place there. I keep bringing it up simply to highlight the fact that the Somaliland region of Somalia is not included on any mainstream definitions of just what countries constitute East Africa -- it isn't even recognized as a country to begin with. Middayexpress (talk) 06:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The second ref given states "Somaliland located in the north part of Somalia in East Africa is a small country . . ."

    Exactly. That source states that Somalia is in East Africa and that Somaliland is located in the northern part of it. Nowhere does it state that "East Africa is often used to specifically refer to the area now comprising the countries of..." including Somaliland. That, again, is original research. Middayexpress (talk) 05:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The sense is better expressed with commas or parentheses: "Somaliland (located in the north part of Somalia in East Africa) is a small country . . ." Tom Reedy (talk) 08:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Parentheses maintain that Somaliland is included in the definition via Somalia, and the source provided could not be more reflective of that. Night w (talk) 15:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The source doesn't use parentheses for that passage, nor would there presence have changed the fact that it clearly indicates that Somaliland is located in northern Somalia, and that it is Somalia that is, in turn, situated in East Africa. It is original research to then conclude that "Somaliland is included in the definition via Somalia". Middayexpress (talk) 04:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not when we're leaving it open to opinion. I wasn't referring to the source when I talked about parentheses, I was talking about the inclusion of Somaliland within parentheses in this article: Somalia (including the breakaway republic of Somaliland). Night w (talk) 05:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes no difference since that passage still refers to Somaliland as being located in northern Somalia, and Somalia in turn as being located in East Africa. Middayexpress (talk) 06:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I am constantly amazed at Wikipedeans failure to find and use up-to-date sources. A simple search on Amazon and using the "Search inside this book" feature turned up Understanding Somalia and Somaliland: Culture, History and Society (2008), which refers to Somaliland as a republic while discussing its lack of diplomatic recognition, and even uses the term "breakaway republic" on p. 121.

    Yes, there are indeed some "sources" that refer to Somaliland as a "breakaway republic". However, these are all invariably from people with no political authority to speak of. In many cases, though not always, these authors are also closely affiliated with the secessionist movement itself (such as Matt Bryden, Iqbal Jhazbhay, etc.). The latter unfortunately includes the author of that book you quote from above, the otherwise venerable I.M. Lewis. Its assertions are, therefore, hardly neutral. The fact remains that whether or not a territory actually constitutes a country of its own is not determined by individual authors, but by actual law. If it were, every random mention on every random article of the term "country" or "nation" or some variation thereof in reference to any micronation or secessionist region would be enough to automatically qualify said micronation or secessionist region then and there as a "country" or "nation" of its own. This is, of course, preposterous. Furthermore, for Somaliland to constitute a country of its own, it first needs to break free of the ties that legally bind it to the rest of Somalia in the first place. I am of course referring to the Act of Union which united the former colonial territories of Italian Somaliland and British Somaliland in the 1960's to form the Somali Republic. The secessionists argue that there were, in fact, two Acts of Union and that the government of the former Trust Territory in southern Somalia signed neither, thus rendering the Union null and void. The problem with this argument is that just a few short years after Somalia gained its independence and the former colonial territories unified, an Italian legal expert by the name of Paulo Contini (who served as United Nation’s legal adviser to Somalia at the time) wrote an entire book painstakingly documenting the process. And Contini makes it clear therein that both of these early Acts of Union were repealed shortly afterwards, and a new Act of Union applicable to the whole of the Somali territory was drawn up & applied retroactively:

    "Thus when the union was formed, its precise legal effects had not been laid down in any instrument having binding force in both parts of the State. As explained below, the matter was clarified seven months later by the adoption of a new Act of Union with retroactive effect from July 1, 1960 for the whole territory of the Republic ...To dispel any uncertainties, it was thought desirable, as a first step, to enact a law applicable to the whole territory of the Republic, defining the legal effects of the union with as much precision as possible. This was done on January 31, 1961, six months after unification, when the National Assembly adopted by acclamation a new Act of Union, which repealed the Union of Somaliland and Somalia Law, and which was made retroactive as from July 1, 1960."

    This final Act of Union was never repealed and, in fact, cannot be without the approval of a four-fifths majority of all Somali voters, something which the separatists obviously have not obtained or even sought to obtain ([36]):

    "One component of the structural defects of this vigorous campaign for "Somaliland" administration within the geographical confines of Hargeisa and its vicinities is the infringement of the Act of Union, a fundamental error emanating from an arbitrary means of dissolving the union of Somalia."

    Middayexpress (talk) 05:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Didn't read much of that. It's just more irrelevant jibberish. It doesn't make a difference whether the secession was legal or not— nobody here is arguing that. All that matters is that it has seceded—legally or no. And since some consider it a separate state, and Wikipedia policy is to write from an objective perspective, it must be included in the list for reasons that have already been mentioned. The legal perspective is represented by its being displayed on a level that is unequal to the remainder: Burundi, Somalia (including the breakaway republic of Somaliland), Djibouti... Night w (talk) 15:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's ok since that comment wasn't addressed to you to begin with. Unfortunately, it is also impossible to dismiss the Act of Union which unites the former colonial territories of Italian Somaliland and British Somaliland as mere "irrelevant jibberish" since secession itself is "the act of withdrawing from an organization, union, or especially a political entity." One can't very well withdraw from a union one is legally bound to. Also, to state that some consider Somaliland a separate state is a gross understatement since the world at large does not recognize Somaliland's independence. The view that Somaliland is a country of its own is thus one held by a tiny minority. And per WP:UNDUE (a sub-policy of WP:NPOV), tiny minority views need not be included at all ("Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute"). WP:ASSERT is also a sub-policy of WP:NPOV, and it likewise only applies to mainstream views and views held by significant minorities, not to tiny-minority views. Further, WP:ASSERT is clear that one must quantify the extent of support for an existing view; it is not enough to just claim a significant minority believe it:

    "It is not sufficient to discuss an opinion as fact merely by stating "some people believe...", a practice referred to as "mass attribution".[8] A reliable source supporting a statement that a group holds an opinion must accurately describe how large this group is."

    Middayexpress (talk) 04:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    An objective observation is not an "opinion". Quoting from the same piece:

    An observation (objective) expresses a fact. An interpretation (subjective) expresses an opinion. A fact can be asserted without simon-says inline-text phrasing. An opinion must be attributed to so-and-so said.

    Because this fact may be disputed in legal contexts, it is being displayed in a way that equally represents both sides of the dispute. Regardless of the legality or opinions of outsiders, it remains a fact that Somaliland constitutes an separate political entity. A simple analogy: If a man steals a car, regardless of the opinion that he mightn't legally possess this car, it doesn't change the fact that he now possesses a car. Another: if a military junta takes over a state via a coup, regardless of the opinion that they don't legally run the country, it doesn't change the fact that they now run the country. Night w (talk) 05:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the fact that Somaliland's self-declared independence (as opposed to autonomy) is completely unrecognized the world over is not at all disputed (1): "...if an extradition treaty exists with Ethiopia, which like the rest of the world does not recognize Somaliland's independence and therefore cannot enter into any treaty with it." The onus is now on you to prove via actual quotes from reliable sources (not idle talk) that the above is not, in fact, the case, and that the view that Somaliland actually represents a country of its own is not one held by a tiny minority (i.e. the secessionists themselves, their associates & a few sympathizers). Middayexpress (talk) 06:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This article concerns a geographical designation, not a political demarcation. In geography, the term "country" is used to designate a geographical region. The geographical region in question is generally designated by the name "Somaliland," whether it is or isn't an independent nation.

    Yes, the article concerns geography. This is why it and every other Wikipedia geographical article on the various regions in Africa is based on the U.N. geoscheme, which, per the latter's own words, identifies the "Geographical region and composition of each region". The part of the article where Somaliland was inserted pertains to actual countries in Africa (it goes "East Africa is often used to specifically refer to the area now comprising the countries of..."), which Somaliland, as a part of the already extant country of Somalia, doesn't fit into either. Middayexpress (talk) 05:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If that is so, then it becomes even more mysterious why this sentence is included: "East Africa is often used to specifically refer to the area now comprising the countries of Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda, and (in a wider sense) also Rwanda, Burundi, Somalia, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Sudan." My subjective impression is that you move the goalposts at your convenience. When it is inconvenient to talk about sovereignty, switch the topic to geography; when it is inconvenient to talk about geography, switch the topic to sovereignty.Tom Reedy (talk) 08:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The article as a whole has always been about the geographical region of East Africa. It's when the unrecognized entity in northern Somalia called "Somaliland" was introduced into the article that things got complicated since every actual country that was already listed on the page is already recognized as such. The world does not recognize Somaliland's indepedence (re-read my quote below from yesterday for an explicit statement of this), nevermind its place amongst the territories commonly defined as East Africa. This is when the sovereignty issue first necessarily reared its head. Middayexpress (talk) 04:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The sentence doesn't say Somaliland is a sovereign nation, so any objections based on that reason do not apply. In fact, it states that Somaliland is part of Somolia with the status of a "breakaway republic", which appears to be a correct description. Somaliland appears to engage in informal diplomatic activities; it has been autonomous since 1991 with no effort on the part of Somalia to force it back into the state of Somalia that I have been able to discover; it has its own army; and the people don't pay taxes to Somalia. But it's not recognised by other countries, so its status is a kind of twilight zone of sovereignty. It's not a matter of urgency to other countries because it is small and poor.

    The sentence may not state that Somaliland is a sovereign nation, but it certainly does imply that it is. This is because it states that Somaliland is a "breakaway republic" (republics are most often sovereign countries), and lists the region right alongside Somalia to boot. Also, do not confuse autonomy with statehood. Merely behaving like a state or state-like alone is not enough to make a territory an actual country. The autonomous Puntland region of Somalia likewise has its own Ministry of Planning and International Relations, as well as its own Ministry of Health, Education, etc.. It also has its own army and flag, no different than the Somaliland region. Like Somaliland, its residents don't pay taxes to the federal government of Somalia, but to the Puntland administration.
    The sentence specifically states that Somaliland is included with Somalia (". . . Somalia (including the breakaway republic of Somaliland). . . ). It is passing strange how it can imply sovereignty as it is written. Tom Reedy (talk) 08:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not quite since the passage still clearly describes Somaliland as a "breakaway republic". What exactly did this alleged "republic" "break away" from if not the country of Somalia? Middayexpress (talk) 04:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Puntland has not seceded from Somalia, and its leaders have made repeated statements formalising that fact. There is no dispute to the contrary; therefore, the view does not need to be represented. As for your statement on taxes: not that it's relevant, but I'd really like to see a document stating the last time a resident of Hargeisa payed taxes to the government of Somalia. Ha! Are you kidding me? Night w (talk) 15:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You are correct in noting that Puntland's leaders have repeatedly asserted that they would never attempt secession from Somalia (nor have I suggested anything to the contrary, actually). Puntland was brought up because Tom was under the impression that because Somaliland maintains some informal diplomatic activities, has its own army, and its residents don't pay taxes to the federal government, that it automatically qualifies as a country of its own -- things which the autonomous Puntland region also has. What you are incorrect on, however, is the notion that Somaliland has already seceded from Somalia. It hasn't. It only declared independence (unlike Puntland) -- a declaration which still remains unrecognized the world over -- and operates autonomously (like Puntland). To secede, Somaliland first needs to invalidate the Act of Union that legally binds it to the rest of Somalia, something which has yet to happen. Middayexpress (talk) 04:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So no reference for that tax collection? Night w (talk) 05:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It was already provided yesterday. The "State" referred to on Puntland's Ministry of Finance webpage is the Puntland State of Somalia (the region's official name): "To give you a more clear Picture, as to the role of the Ministry it is worth mentioning that 85% of the State Revenue is gotten from this Ministry through the customs and Inland Taxations." Middayexpress (talk) 06:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Similarly, Somaliland's "relations" with foreign governments are no different to those of Puntland. Somaliland government officials are regarded and dealt with as regional representatives by actual federal governments such as the U.S. government:

    "While the United States does not recognize Somaliland as an independent state, we continue regularly to engage with Somaliland as a regional administration and to support programs that encourage democratization and economic development in the Somaliland region. We have consistently voted for United Nations Security Council resolutions reaffirming respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity, political independence, and unity of Somalia.

    This applies to the Somaliland region's president as well:

    "The Somaliland president, Dahir Rayale Kahin, is regarded more as a governor by other nations, even though he considers himself to be as much a president as, say, Thabo Mbeki of South Africa, Mwai Kibaki of Kenya or Olusegun Obasanjo of Nigeria, three prominent presidents on this continent."

    The passports the Somaliland government prints are likewise unrecognized:

    "The Somaliland passport — which bears the region's logo and looks as official as any other nation's — is not recognized by any country in the world, although the neighboring countries of Ethiopia and Djibouti do allow people to travel with it while still not officially recognizing Somaliland as a country."

    The fact is, the Somaliland region has no diplomatic recognition at all. Actually, Somaliland doesn't even have any de facto recognition as a country of its own:

    "Independence does not rely solely on whether it is deserved, but on the existing realpolitik. Sadly for Somaliland, they fall between the cracks in international law and cannot win the argument for de jure recognition while Somalia remains without a viable government, so they must instead push for de facto recognition – which no one is willing to offer."

    There has been no effort on the part of the Somali government to force Somaliland back into Somalia because it never had to: the international community as a whole (every single country & international organization) recognizes and has only ever recognized it as a part of Somalia. The international community also does not refuse to recognize Somaliland merely because the region is, as you say, "small and poor", but out of respect for the territorial integrity of Somalia (c.f. 1). The Somali constitution likewise recognizes Djibouti as bordering Somalia to the northwest, not Somaliland. Middayexpress (talk) 05:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You are correct in all that you say about the lack of sovereignty of Somaliland (except for your last reason about "respect for the territorial integrity of Somalia"; Robert W. Maggi, the U.S. Department of State’s coordinator for counterpiracy, said Somalia has no government, "It is an ungoverned space."), and all this would be great if sovereignty were the subject here, but my main point is that the sovereignty or lack of it is not the question in the informal secondary definition of East Africa that makes it clear the country is part of Somalia. (And even Lloyd Pierson of the U.S./African Development Foundation calls it a country.) Tom Reedy (talk) 08:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I am correct in everything I've said, including my assertion that the international community as a whole refuses to recognize Somaliland out of respect for the territorial integrity of Somalia. This includes the United States (yes, Lloyd Pierson's offhand remark does not represent the official U.S. position on the Somaliland issue; he also, incidentally, refers to Puntland as a country); kindly refer again to that quote above from Ambassador John Yates, the Secretary of State's special envoy for Somalia for the lowdown. Robert W. Maggi also does not state that Somalia has no government. In fact, he mentions its federal government (the Transitional Federal Government (TFG)) by name in that same paragraph you partly quote from above. Its the lack of governmental involvement in fighting piracy & the TFG's general ineptitude that he expresses frustration over (the TFG itself is, by the way, backed by the U.S.). The sovereignty point is addressed in my lastest comment above. Middayexpress (talk) 04:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The purpose of Wikipedia is to convey information to as many people as possible. Some of those people, obviously, consider Somaliland to be an independent, sovereign nation. Others don't, so it is a matter of dispute. Most people don't care and haven't thought about it. The purpose of the sentence is to convey what geographical regions are included in the term "East Africa." Those who consider Somaliland an independent nation would wonder why it wasn't on the list if it were left off; those who don't consider it an independent nation would note that it is designated as part of Somalia.

    The sentence as quoted would satisfy everyone except those who are active partisans on either side. Wikipedia is not written to settle scores, succor either side in a dispute, or declare which side is correct; Wikipedia is written to convey correct information to the largest number of people. By doing so in no way does it portray a slanted point of view by using the language in the sentence, in my opinion.

    It makes no difference what those who consider Somaliland an independent nation want. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to cater to special interests, but to reflect reality using reliable sources. And reality is that Somaliland is and has always only been recognized as a part of Somalia by the world at large -- there is no dispute at all on this (see the New York Times article titled The Signs Say Somaliland, but the World Says Somalia):

    "...if an extradition treaty exists with Ethiopia, which like the rest of the world does not recognize Somaliland's independence and therefore cannot enter into any treaty with it." -- Human Rights Watch, July 2009

    The alternative view that Somaliland is actually a country of its own is a tiny-minority view held by the secessionists themselves, their associates, and a few sympathizers here and there. And per WP:VER, tiny-minority views need not be included. Middayexpress (talk) 05:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If you believe that including the parenthetical information to a secondary geographical definition is "catering to special interests" or an expression of "a tiny-minority view held by secessionists themselves," then fine, keep edit-warring. I merely offered my opinion and my reasons for it. But my opinion is that a person who continually uses such language as "there is no dispute at all on this" and "this is, of course, preposterous," while disparaging every source that doesn't agree with his definition as "hardly neutral" while engaging in a protracted edit war, had better hunker down for a long, contentious battle about what is essentially an extremely minor point that doesn't contradict anything you've said. Lots of luck with that. Tom Reedy (talk) 08:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not state that "including the parenthetical information to a secondary geographical definition is "catering to special interests" or an expression of "a tiny-minority view held by secessionists themselves"". That, with all due respect, is a strawman. I stated that the view that "Somaliland is actually a country of its own is a tiny-minority view held by the secessionists themselves, their associates, and a few sympathizers here and there". And I proved it too by producing a quote indicating that the world at large does not recognize Somaliland's independence. Ergo, indentifying Somaliland as anything other than a part of Somalia is catering to that tiny minority. The onus is therefore on the other users to prove that the view that Somaliland is already a country of its own is not a tiny minority view i.e. that a significant part of the world does, in fact, recognize Somaliland's independence. This is, of course, easier said than done. Middayexpress (talk) 04:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh no, please don't leave! I've already been through this multiple times; after a while he just repeats himself over and over and then quotes the New York Times article. It lasts for pages and pages, I don't have the energy to continue by myself. Is there any way to invite a greater number of outside editors to casually review what's been said here, and offer an opinion? Thankyou for lending your time in any case. Night w (talk) 15:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If you find me repeating myself, that could be because I am answering your own oft-repeated claims. Middayexpress (talk) 04:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If this is important to you, I suggest you diligently follow the procedure for dispute resolution and don't skip any steps. Document the diffs and attempts at resolving the dispute and take it to WP:RFC/USER, if need be. Above all, don't expect instant resolution. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm still with it also, so do not fret Night w.! Sorry I've been busy with work and my few edits have been maintenance. I would like to echo Night w. and applaud him at the same time, that this argument only goes in circles and it really needs to stop. I would prefer that we avoid any type of topic ban, which might result from an RfC user, as Midday's non-politically based contributions are incredibly helpful to the project. From the above discussion I can see most of Midday arguments have been refuted, yet he continues. A topic ban may have to be an option. We must move ahead to the next stage in dispute resolution, either way. Outback the koala (talk) 21:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Refuted? You sure about that? lol Middayexpress (talk) 04:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I seriously doubt a topic ban proposal would be called for in such a trivial case, nor would I think it would be successful. All the energy that has gone into this could have been used to build another pyramid. Such is Wikipedia. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You may find it trivial because we may have cited only this specific page, however there have been many other pages that are effected. Perhaps this was not made clear. It has been a long running battle to have this state included on even some very obscure pages. Any mention of Somaliland brings Midday in to paste his long walls of text. Or even edits summaries that simply dispute Somaliland's status. It may seem small to you, but to me and others it impedes our ability to improve the encyclopedia (that template talk is a prime example). Outback the koala (talk) 22:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep personally attacking me, Outback, as you have done in the past. You only do yourself a disservice and again prove that you are completely unable to support your position without resorting to petty ad hominem & distortions. Doing so also won't in the least bit get me to stop objecting to and exposing POV whenever and wherever I see it, including your own. Middayexpress (talk) 04:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    How about we stopped focusing on Middayexpress as a person and started processing the information he has posted here, instead of trying to bully him into pariah status? It's laughable that we have individuals attacking Middayexpress for being elaborate and posting verifiable information, when they themselves were the ones who were blatantly using wrong sources on the East Africa article in question to support their edits, even in this very discussion a very lengthy case for Somaliland was made through multiple points and sources proven to be directly/in-directly connected to the seccessionist cause, and used to nicely synthesize a sentence that is never proclaimed in the original sources, when these points were addressed and refuted through the use of sources not connected to the Somali government, suddenly nobody wants to continue the discussion? Interesting. --Scoobycentric (talk) 00:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Why not post it at WP:NOR/N, then, if that is the root of the complaint? My opinion is restricted to whether it violated WP:NPOV, and it really puzzled me why anybody would think it did, because a reader would have had to think through several steps to arrive at that opinion, and any one of which could have gone the opposite direction just as logically and plausibly. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Everything that needs to has been said, Scooby. I'll not venture into another mindnumbing cycle of repetition like before. I'd prefer just to get a large number of outside users involved to go over the information (and the source used if you wish), and post their opinion. Perhaps just a general RfC will assist. Tom, am I able to invite RfC users to post their comments in this thread, or do we need to start a separate one? Night w (talk) 04:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I logged an RfC here. Scooby, if you still feel that there is a discrepancy between the statement and the source, I suggest you log a request for a review on WP:NOR/N. Thankyou. Night w (talk) 05:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The Home Depot#Whistleblower case

    First, in the interest of full disclosure, let me say that I am an employee of Home Depot, but do not hold any kind of executive or management position, and I am not acting as a representive of the company in any way.

    Now then, I'm concerned about the above linked section. I don't dispute the factual accuracy of the text, as it does seem to be supported by reliable sources, but it seems to give undue weight to a single court case. My thought is that it might be best to condense the current section to a shorter summary and add it to a new section with information on other Home Depot-related court cases, but I'd like advice and input from other editors before proceeding.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with you. The length of this section is not congruent with the total length of the article, especially considering the relatively low importance of this incident in defining the nature of what this company is. Summarizing this incident into a section with any other court incidents would be an appropriate fix. It might be appropriate to relegate the details of this lawsuit to its own article and just have a summary and wikilink in this one. Blue Rasberry 19:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's too long as it is, why would it deserve its own article? At 324 words, the section is about 10 percent of the HD article. It appears to me that poor writing is the cause of any perceived disproportion of that section, and it could probably be cut down to half or two-thirds by wringing out the unnecessary detail. Much of the rest of the article reads like a stockholder's prospectus. For what possible reason should the names of the BoD members be included or the history of the slogans? Why are three store pictures included when they all look the same?
    Conversely, at three sentences not near enough is included on the Robert Nardelli controversy. There was a lot more to it than stock prices and salary. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The whole article strikes me as a success for The Home Depot's PR department... Do we really need that corny sentence about the founder's vision and values? As for the whistleblower case, Tom is spot on: the problem is that it's poorly written. Pichpich (talk) 23:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to mention the list of "exclusive brands." What is the policy on articles concerning commercial businesses, anyway? This entire article strikes me as a cheerleader instead of an encyclopedia article. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Last I checked, the policy is WP:NPOV. Pichpich (talk) 08:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That applies to all articles. I was wondering if there was some type of content guidelines besides notability and prominence in the case of commercial businesses. I know almost every university or business article I've read reads like it was lifted from a promotional site. The information in all those articles is readily available on their websites, and I see no reason why the Wikipedia articles should repeat it verbatim instead of just including a link. I don't understand why Wikipedia should be a mirror site for institutions and corporations, but in effect that's the function it is performing. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If the WP article actually repeats large amounts of information "verbatim", then the info needs to be rewritten (with NPOV in mind). Otherwise, it's simply plagiarism. However, just because information is available on an institutional website does not mean that a link is all that is needed here. Articles here should be comprehensive, regardless of how much information is available on the web (or in libraries, for that matter!). Smatprt (talk) 15:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    How is it plagiarism if the Wiki article is written by the original author?
    I would imagine that the great majority of company and university websites do not give any authors credit, so I am not sure what you are asking. In most cases, I would imagine that some employee or other booster (or just a lazy uninvolved editor) is simply copying and pasting info from the sites you mention, directly into the WP article. That would be plagiarism, yes? Smatprt (talk) 17:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And there's a great pizza place in my town. So it deserves a Wikipedia article? Tom Reedy (talk) 16:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No idea - is it famous? :) Seriously, are you comparing the notability of Home Depot with that of your pizza place?Smatprt (talk) 17:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I never thought such literal-mindedness existed before I began editing at Wikipedia. I was trying to make a serous point about a problem that I see is endemic at Wikipedia, namely that a lot of individuals, groups, and companies see it as free Web space for their purposes. Sooner or later this is going to have to be addressed if it is to move beyond being a punch line. There are some good articles on Wikipedia, but most that I've seen are wretched due to the democratic nature of the editing process. People who are knowledgeable about a subject don't want to spend the majority of their time defending their edits against uninformed POV editors who manipulate the system to push their agenda. And who wants to spend the time rewriting an article about Home Depot, for Christ's sake? Not I. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Going back to my original point: this article could be handled in the same amount of space as this discussion has taken up to this point, or less. I've never seen a general encyclopedia jammed with such detailed business and university entries the way Wikipedia is, especially a business as prosaic as this one. The Lowe's article is just as bad. Who needs to know that "the chain now serves over 14+ million customers a week in its 1,710 stores in the United States and 7 in Canada" or "The domain lowes.com receives at least 7 million unique visitors per month"? That's like computing the number of swallows it takes to drink all the beer brewed in the northern hemisphere or how many times the number of condoms manufactured every year could stretch to the moon and back if they were all tied together. How exactly does that moves us to the goal of giving every single person on the planet free access to the sum of all human knowledge? These are all nothing but breathless self-serving hype and if Wikipedia is not getting paid to host them some committee needs to clean these up. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If you can improve or present a better free article by all means update or replace the current one. Wikipedia articles can only be as good as the contributions. Poor contributions means poor articles. If the only ones willing to contribute are the promoters then that's what will be shown. Lambanog (talk) 05:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks but no thanks. I have absolutely no desire to spend literally days of my life edit-warring with even more POV-pushers in the absence of any clear policy about commercial businesses. If Wikipedia policy permits article-sized spam, then it will have to live with its reputation until it figures out what type of encyclopedia it wants to be. Tom Reedy (talk) 08:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Conversion on the Way to Damascus

    There are a particular couple of lines in this article about a painting by Italian Renaissance artist Caravaggio. "This is not a pallid faith. Caravaggio has exterminated all the cherubim that infest the Virgin like flies in Carracci's adjacent Assumption." Infest the Virgin like flies? I wouldn't know how to fix this, but this doesn't read like an encyclopedic article.75.84.184.44 (talk) 06:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow! That's one of the funniest articles I've ever seen on Wikipedia. I suggest you just boldly remove all of the unsourced, flowery nonsense from 'On this canvas' to 'and the Martyrdom of St. Matthew.)', and the entire irrelevant 'Other paintings' section. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Gulfton, Houston

    Hi! I notice that a user posted a message on the article's talk page stating his belief that parts of the page are not NPOV towards immigrants. As a note the article passed good article standards in 2008 ([the passed version) WhisperToMe (talk) 13:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Reverting to NPOV version of Ahmad Raza Khan

    This article has long-standing POV problems which neutral editors have worked to improve, but recently one editor, Thelonerex continues to come back to revert the article to a much longer and obviously POV version. He generally provides no Edit Summary or explanation in Discussion, other than to claim that his version is "justified" or "neutralized" and the NPOV version is "unjustified".

    As a small sampling of the POV issues in Thelonerex's version (on the Discussion page I also list basic copyediting and composition problems as well):

    • "Ala Hazrat [an honorific] has been recognized as the great Mujaddid of the 19th century"
    • "A collection of fatwas by the title of Fatawa Ridawiyya, is his magna carta."
    • "his saintly guide His holiness Shah Aale- Rasool Marehravi"
    • "& his noble son Maulana Hamid Raza Khan"
    • "Main specialty of Kanzul Iman is Imam Ahmad Raza preserved the high status of Allah & his Messenger in the translation."
    • "The students of Arabic have considered the intellect of Imam Ahmad Raza Khan in this field. Applauding the ability of Imam Ahmad Raza Khan in the science of Hadith"
    • "An uncommon feature of Fatawa Ridawiyya is that it is hailed by among friends and foes alike."
    • "Antagonism towards modern day deviant sects"
    • "For a full exposé of deviant heretical sects and the verdicts against them according to traditional Sunni Islam, one can obtain English copies of Husam al Harmain from Raza Academy Ltd. based in Stockport in the United Kingdom, as well as many other works of Imam Ahmad Raza Khan."

    If you look at Thelonerex's contribs, he has a distinct pattern of Pakistan POV-pushing, including removing mention of Chinese support for Pakistani weapons development, and promoting Pakistan's status as a military power. I'm not sure what to do about Thelonerex overall, but we definitely need to stop the reversions back to this ridiculously POV version of Ahmad Raza Khan. Stability Information East 2 (talk) 07:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    1. ^ James Lyons and Tom Parry, "The truth about fascist National Front past of Britain's two new BNP members in Europe", Daily Mirror, 9 July 2009
    2. ^ The BNP on Question Time is the wrong party on the wrong programme, The Guardian, 15 October 2009
    3. ^ Nick Clegg, speaking on Today, BBC Radio 4, 8 June 2009
    4. ^ "David Cameron attacks 'fascist' BNP". The Daily Telegraph. 31 May 2009. Retrieved 31 May 2009. {{cite web}}: Text "24 April 2006" ignored (help)
    5. ^ Alan Travis, "Alan Johnson says BBC should bar 'foul' BNP from Question Time" guardian.co.uk, 16 October 2009
    6. ^ quoted in James Robinson, "The right to be heard?", The Guardian Media section, 19 October 2009 p1
    7. ^ Peter Hain, "A clueless BBC is giving the BNP the legitimacy it craves", The Guardian, 12 October 2009, p30
    8. ^ See also: Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words, Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&oldid=360859325"