Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about adherence to the neutral point of view in context!

Before posting here, consult the neutral point of view policy page and the FAQ explainer. Also, make sure to discuss the disagreement at the article's talk page. Fringe theories often involve questions about neutral point of view. These should be discussed at the dedicated noticeboard. You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:NPOVN-notice}} to do so. Additional notes: Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments, not on vote count or sheer size of argument. Consensus in previous discussions does not make policy, but you can generally rely on it. The list of articles where users flagged a point-of-view concern is here. This page is not a forum for discussions unrelated to the neutral point of view. We have a separate noticeboard for concerns about original research (material made up by a Wikipedia editor), and another dedicated noticeboard for questions about contextual reliability of a source. Start a new discussion

White Skin Privilege article still has unacceptable POV problems

User:MarieParadox continues to remove relevant POV-contestation tags despite the valid POV dispute I outline here and in numerous other examples of discussion-talk on this article page. I again implore various editors to come around to the page and assess objectively whether the article would qualify for deletion.

Further, it is one thing to refuse to delete the article and quite another thing to keep deleting the POV tags in order to ensure that the article appears to not be under dispute. It is indeed under dispute, and no single editor or group of editors has the right to make things appear otherwise. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 19:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The reason I reverted the edits is that Kikodawgzzz has been using drive-by tagging. Ze has been adding tags that presuppose that there are claims in the article that aren't supported by reliable, independently verifiable sources, but ze has yet to give a single example of this. Ze has also been adding tags that presuppose that the article is biased, presumably because it does not include the view ze favors, but ze has not been able to provide a single reliable, independently verifiable source to support hir viewpoint. (See Becritical's comment on the NPOV notice board and note that Kikodawgzzz could not even cite one reference that ze would use to support the viewpoint ze wants to include.)

I have on various occasions notified the other editors of my intent to remove tags (and then only after attempts have been made to address the criticisms other editors have made) and given them the opportunity to reach consensus on whether they should remain. [1][2][3] On some of these occasions no one has responded. (On one occasion Kikodawgzzz had an 18-day window of opportunity during which ze could have tried to engage me in finding consensus; ze only complained after the change had been made.[4] When I asked hir why ze did this[5], ze never gave an answer.) On other occasions Kikodawgzzz has been the only person to respond, but ze does not cite specific examples of failure to back a claim with a reliable, independently verifiable source. Instead ze makes vague or sweeping accusations about the entry. Recently when I asked for specific examples, ze did not give any and instead spammed the talk page with a word-for-word copy of vague, sweeping accusations that ze had already made before substantial edits had been made to the article.[6]

I think part of the problem here is that Kikodawgzzz has been making good faith edits to make the article conform to a neutral point of view without having an understanding of what NPOV means on Wikipedia. (Note, for example, that ze once used an analogy that presupposes that it would be okay to argue on Wikipedia that God exists, even if there were no reliable, independently verifiable sources that contained the arguments.[7]) Mind you, I'm not really sure why Kikodawgzzz does not yet understand this, because it has been explained to hir on various occasions that this is not how Wikipedia works.[8][9][10]

I and another editor have explained to Kikodawgzzz on many occasions that we would be happy to allow hir to include the arguments ze likes if only ze would provide reliable, independently verifiable sources.[11][12][13] Instead of putting us to the test and inserting sourced claims Kikodawgzzz resorted to accusing me and another editor of being "absolutely determined to control the article to the point where contestation of the slant of the article is written off as ridiculous".[14] Kikodawgzzz was once banned for abusive behavior; afterward Beeblebrox warned hir not to focus hir arguments on "the editors involved".[15]. Even so, ze has since returned to this behavior.[16][17]

In summary, it has been infuriatingly difficult to reach consensus on what must take place before tags can be removed, because rather than seeking consensus Kikodawgzzz has been making what appear to me to be passive-aggressive edits to the article and the talk page. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 15:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

FoxNews - lead barely mentions controversy

I believe that the current lead at Fox News Channel inadequately summarizes notable controversies and criticisms. From the second paragraph:

Many observers have asserted that both Fox's news reporting and its political commentary promote conservative political positions. ^{[18] [19] [20] [21]}   Fox News Channel denies any bias in its news reporting and maintains that its political commentary and news reporting operate independently of each other. ^{[22] [23] [24]}

My take on that: one sentence merely uses the term 'conservative' then the next counters alleged bias, even though the first sentence barely suggests bias. The following appears to be past consensus at the talkpage FAQ:

• per WP:Lead - Appropriate to overview the controversies / allegations of bias.
• in re "Many observers" - Critics are sufficiently numerous that elevating a single critic or source gives it undue weight and is in compliance with the accepted exceptions to WP:WEASEL.
• The lead should only briefly summarize the notable controversies. See the FAQ for more info, in particular on alleged bias.

Previous discussions: See archives 21, 19, 18, 17, 16 (Includes RfC) and 15. -also 23 & 25

I opened a discussion about this at Talk:FNC-Intro.. butsome others there disagree, apparently ignoring past consensus. One says the lead is the result of past compromise, even though it does not reflect the FAQ points.
Based on text that was already in the Criticism and controversies section, I made the following change [25]:

Many observers have asserted that both Fox's news reporting and its political commentary promote conservative political positions at the expense of neutrality.

but it was quickly reverted by 2 editors [26] [27] (the first revert was a failed attempt, using a different edit). PrBeacon (talk) 05:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It's clear from the body of the article that there have been a lot of voices saying that this news channel represents a conservative viewpoint. The current administration of the USA, no less. The lead para does not have to go into any detail on it and does not need to be referenced because the main body text should be fully referenced. For the lead, I would say that something like "many commentators have said that the station represents a conservative viewpoint". It should probably come higher up before some of the other detail. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I've done a lot of leads, and they should be thorough as well as interesting. There's room to add at least one detail to back up the vague comment about accusations of conservative bias. Leadwind (talk) 01:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

And what would you add? How are you going to pick between the many things that people on the left have a problem with? Are you suggesting leaving the existing phrase and adding a "for example" or "such as" type wording? Because such an approach will result in examples in the lead that provide the FNC point of view that they are balanced resulting in a bloated POV description. Furthermore, you do realize that this will, by extension, open up CNN, MSNBC, and so forth for the same kind of pov of view introduction. FNC does not exist in a vacumn, and to treat FNC differently than the others, regardless of WP:OTHERCRAP will result in a battleground. Arzel (talk) 03:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

". . . as exemplified in its promotion of the Tea Party movement and its subsequent coverage of it"? Tom Reedy (talk) 12:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

That is not a strictly conservative movement, it is more of a libertarian movement (ie small government). And is really more of a reflection of the left's hatred of the Tea Party Movement. What diferentiates this from the left's belief that FNC supported the Iraq War? Or the left's belief that FNC supported Bush 43, or the many other things for which the left dislikes FNC.....To which the corresponding response from FNC would be that other news media portrayed the Tea Party (or whatever) with a strong bias against and that FNC is the only station to provide coverage to the other side. Regardless of what you choose, you will have issues of recentism. Certainly the left is currently up in arms about the Tea Party or perhaps about perception of the treatment of Obama (compared to perception of fawning by the rest). But during the Bush years the left was absolutely enraged by the perception that FNC was promoting the war in Iraq. All of that aside, if you include specific issues, then you will have to clarify just who was critical. Arzel (talk) 17:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

This is not the place to proselytize, and using such charged language does you no service on a POV noticeboard. What is undeniable is that the Tea Party began and was promoted on the Fox news channel. Any article about a contemporary television network will have problems with recentism. You might want to check around for neutral sources such as factcheck.org/ or pewresearch.org/Tom Reedy (talk) 23:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The Tea Party began on Fox News? Really? Now who is proselytizing? As for your second point. Articles are to be written from a historical context, not what is currently driving partisan conjecture. Arzel (talk) 00:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks that way to me, but I'm no authority. I was merely suggesting an example. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem with this article is that it overly relies on questionable sources for allegations of bias by Fox, notably from its competitors, rather than using high quality reliable sources, such as articles in peer-reviewed journals about the media. The first sentence for example is sourced to a movie review of Outfoxed, a news story about the OJ Simpson book, a broken link to Politico, and an article in Slate. It is wrong to back up a claim that "Many observers have asserted...." by providing many sources. You need a source that says "many observers" and even then must be cautious per WP:Weasel. TFD (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Critics don't have to be neutral to be reliable, but I agree that the lead could be better sourced. There is more criticism at the FNC controversies article which might be satisfactory: Report on American Journalism and conservative Jonah Goldberg writing for the LA times, to name just two. -PrBeacon (talk) 17:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Once again Arzel uses the faulty tactic of putting words into others' mouths then arguing against those words. The lead can be improved with further detail about FNC's bias without using specific examples. PrBeacon (talk) 01:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Tea Party movement

The [Tea Party movement] article has been the focus of strong POV for some time, and it does not appear to be getting any better. The subsection dealing with Inappropriate Behavior is very problematic to say the least. Additionally, there are some sections which appear to be clear violations of WP:COAT and potentially WP:BLP.

Tea Party Express leader Mark Williams referred to the Muslim god as a "Monkey God". Williams' comments elicited strong rebukes from New York City Mayor Bloomberg, NY State Senators and Muslim leaders. In a subsequent blog posting, Williams said, “I owe an apology,” he wrote on his blog, “to millions of Hindus who worship Lord Hanuman, an actual Monkey God. Hanuman is worshiped as a symbol of perseverance, strength, and devotion ... Those are hardly the traits of whatever the Hell (literally) it is that terrorists worship.”[160]

This is an obvious coatrack. A minor person wrote something objectional on his blog which was criticized, however this has absolutely nothing to do with the movement, and it follows almost exactly the type of content that WP:COAT discusses. "X" is part of this movement, "X" did these things that are bad, but unrelated to the topic of the article. Comments? Arzel (talk) 04:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed-- this seems to be a cheap way to conflate all Tea Party goers as having this opinion just because this one guy has it. Note: we would not mention in the Democratic Party article something racist that one democratic leader has said. I would support removing this from the article. Ink Falls 17:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It's disingenuous or dishonest to characterize Williams as 'minor' here. One of the references [28] for the incident calls him a Tea Party leader, the other [29] calls him "the group's spokesman -- the star of many of its TV ads" -PrBeacon (talk) 02:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Stephen Ambrose

Stephen Ambrose is a prominent author of many books, among them "Band of Brothers." Recently he has been a subject of articles, most recently in the New Yorker, pointing out plagiarism and lies about the number of meetings he had with Eisenhower. These are serious things and there is no question that it has cast a dark cloud over his reputation. Obviously this has to be reported in Wikipedia, and it has. My problem is that it now consumes over half the space devoted to his biography. The largest section of the article is a three-part section called "criticism." Yesterday I raised the issue on the article talk page but not really gotten anywhere. Most recently I was told that the article must stay this way, grossly unbalanced, until the rest of the article fleshes out (if that ever happens), and of course if I want to flesh out the rest of his bio I would be welcome, but meanwhile the article must be in its present state, devoted primarily to describing the criticism of the man. I'd appreciate it if other editors could take a look at this article. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 14:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I have a similar concern regarding Doris Kearns Goodwin, where a similar situation exists. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 14:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I checked out both Stephen Ambrose and Doris Kearns Goodwin. You are correct in that the criticism sections are large and that they take up a percentage of space in the article that is not proportional to their relative importance. I agree with you that the articles ought not be this way, and that this kind of weight is somewhat a NPOV issue, and that this is a bad thing.

The solution to the problem would probably involve both condensing the criticism and expanding the rest of the article. I read some of the discussions which have already taken place, and if I understand correctly other editors have said as much, and above you also seem to be saying the same thing.

Until this happens, what is the problem with the article remaining in its present state? Is this not inherent to the nature of Wikipedia? What would you like to happen, or what do you think would be the best fix to this? Blue Rasberry 17:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The best fix is to fix the NPOV issues in both articles immediately. That would seem to me as being especially incumbent in the Goodwin article, as she is a living person covered by the Wikipedia Policy on Biographies of Living Persons. Both articles are dominated by editors who have little interest in Ambrose and Goodwin except to add negative content, so I see no other practical resolution in either the long or short term. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 15:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I also am of the opinion that the articles' current editors have little history of adding any content other than negative content. I agree that the articles are NPOV and violate BLP because the articles have too much weight on negative content. A fast solution to the NPOV or BLP problems would be to delete the negative content; however, the negative content is well-sourced and seems to belong in the article, just with less weight. I feel that it would be more wrong to delete this content than leave it, and I do not support that kind of fix. The better solution would be for some editor interested in the articles to spend a few hours balancing the criticism by adding good things the the subjects of the articles have done. I encourage any volunteer to add positive content to these articles. Is there something more that I can say or do? Is the NPOV issue resolved now? What kind of help were you looking for here? Blue Rasberry 21:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Obviously the NPOV issue has not been resolved because the imbalance remains. I agree with you that there needs to be a significant mention of the scandals, but at a proportionate weight. I hesitated to leap in to do the requisite cutting given the attitude of the editors on the page currently, and I was hoping that this notice would result in some positive intervention on the page by uninvolved editors. Yes, obviously fleshing out the biography is the best solution, but that is not happening, as evidently no one is quite that interested in Ambrose's life to do that work. So obviously the solution then is to engage in trimming of what is there now. If other outsiders are unavailable for that task then I imagine I shall have to pitch in myself, though I was hoping a more experienced user, and perhaps a site administrator, might be able to do that now that this problem has been brought out here. I make the same request concerning the Godwin article, though I think perhaps the living person's noticeboard might be the appropos venue for that. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 14:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

An inexperienced editor with interest in the topic is more valuable than an experienced editor who is not already interested. Please do not be shy. Be bold and edit the articles as you like, and then if you have a problem return to this or some other noticeboard. While you are free to post here or in many other places to ask for actual content writing, boards such as these are more commonly used to resolve issues related to specific niche questions, and unless you already know the board has an interest in your article and without you already being involved in editing the article it is unlikely you will attract a volunteer willing to commit the hours needed to make your project work. The article content does need to be expanded and the criticism does need to be trimmed, but if you trim, take care not to remove any sourced content without getting consensus on the discussion board. Based on what has already been discussed on the board, I think you would have an easier time making your point if you spent a few hours adding content to the articles before you started removing other content that has the precedent of community support.

As for you wanting an administrator's attention, you may want to check out this page to review what admins do and do not do. It is not clear to me that you have stated a problem that is likely to be resolved with an administrators help.

If you feel new to Wikipedia and want to start editing, you are welcome to ask me any questions on my talk page or if you want another sponsor then check out the WP:ADOPT section. Blue Rasberry 17:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea whether an administrator's attention is warranted by the imbalance of the page. In reviewing Wikipedia policies I believe there are two issues. One is that this article is a borderline "attack page," intended to disparage its subject, and the other is WP:OWN, in that policies are ignored by a small core of talk page editors. All I know is that there is an imbalance, as you acknowledge, and that the established editors of this page adamantly refuse to trim the disproportionately large Criticism section. The most active editor in that page just posted a comment saying, inter alia, "There is no agreement or consensus to make any cuts to the article whatsoever." See comments at bottom of[30]. The word "any" is italicized in the original. This is typical of the adamant refusal I've encountered to make this article neutral. As for adding positive material: I am not a Stephen Ambrose aficionado or I would be adding neutral material that the established editors have no interest in adding. I am simply raising this issue in what I believe is the correct forum, and if Wikipedia is powerless to addess a patently imbalanced article then this is Wikipedia's problem, not mine. I am not a relative of the late Mr. Ambrose, and if I was I would be very upset. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 17:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed this comment. It’s clear to me that you are well intended and a personally decent fellow. But it seems that you’re persistently going around to multiple articles where the subject of the article was found to have committed authorial/journalistic misconduct (Michael A. Bellesiles, Stephen Ambrose, Gerald Posner, Doris Kearns Goodwin, etc.), aggressively arguing that well-sourced negative material must be removed for the sake of “balance” (and that wording must be changed in a way that sometimes makes the article less accurate, again for the sake of “balance”). In general, I don’t see you adequately and thoughtfully listening/considering/responding to arguments and factual information given by other editors. I’ve made no edits to the Stephen Ambrose article myself. When I was asked by another editor (75.2.209.226) to review the article, I did so. Initially, the criticism in the article seemed slightly harsh to me (and I commented to this effect on the article’s talk page). But when I began intensively researching Ambrose, I realized that the article was actually a good reflection of the current consensus of historians (and of the media as well). Neutrality does not mean “equal weight to all positions”. Given how much energy you bring to this, it seems that it would be very productive for you to research the subject of the article and add information. Again, I want to emphasize that what I’ve just said is not badly intended – your personal decency is very clear to me. Best regards Eurytemora (talk) 10:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I went back to the history page of the Ambrose article and discovered that I actually did make one edit (that I'd forgotten about)correcting a typo on the page (i.e. May 27, changing the word "characterizing" to "characterized"). Eurytemora (talk) 11:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

In response to your inappropriate (WP:NPA: "comment on content, not on the contributor") remarks above: you have an acknowledged conflict of interest in the Posner article, in that you were involved in a crusade on the Internet to expose what you believe to be inappropriate conduct by Posner. As a result of that conflict of interest, at the request of another editor you voluntarily recused from editing the article itself and confined yourself to the Posner talk page. Your edits from the beginning, which have mainly been confined to the Posner article, have been problematic under WP:BLP, in that they have been confined to adding negative and controversial material to living people, initially from a blog [31]. It is precisely that sort of situation which led me to examine the balance of other articles, especially Ambrose. I'm always grateful for advice from experienced editors on policy, however, that does not apply to you. Please be mindful of WP:BATTLE as well as WP:STALK. I don't want to see you following me around with this kind of inappropriate commenting. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 14:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

We appear to have had an edit conflict. So I'll first reinsert the edit I was initially trying to make, then respond to your latest comment. :::::::P.P.S. Personally, I don’t think that the editors of the Ambrose article are even acting out of a motivation to “disparage” a “scoundrel”, as you essentially assert (here and on the article talk page). Rather, I think they believe it’s important to accurately record what is now known of Ambrose’s work – in part to rectify the historical record in light of his errors and apparent fabrication (especially given his vast influence as a popular historian). Some of Ambrose’s “inaccuracies” unfairly impacted the reputations of others. Personally, I don’t even view Jayson Blair as a scoundrel – but think it’s important in such cases for the problems to be noted, the record corrected, and that this information be publicly available (e.g. in Wikipedia, reflecting reliable sources). Eurytemora (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The kind of text in the lead that I corrected here, which was unsupported by any sourcing, is indicative to me of a lack of fair-mindedness. I haven't edited the article beyond that, because I have been told explicitly by the editor controlling that article not to make "any" cut in the oversized criticism section. While I see a WP:OWN issue here, I don't have the time or stamina to deal with this kind of situation. As I said previously, if Ambrose's heirs feel differently, I hope they do so. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 15:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I’m not following you around. I saw the Ambrose posting here a while ago, and decided to comment now (I hadn’t earlier). Before doing so, I checked your contribs. A comment of mine was apparently what first drew the Ambrose article to your attention. Most of my postings have indeed been on the Posner article and talk page, but other aspects of your characterization are rather misleading. I’ll not respond further here (de-escalation is what is required). Eurytemora (talk) 15:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct that a comment from you brought Ambrose and I believer the Goodwin article to my attention. I do not object to your commenting in this section. What is needed, however, is comment on the matter at hand, which is the NPOV of this article, and perhaps also the behavior of the established editors of that article. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 15:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

There are some personal comments about who is involved with what article above; I am going to leave all those aside and return to CheeseStakeholder's statement of two problems he sees. I agree that the article is an "attack page" in the sense that it is an unfinished article with more bad content than good, but this is the nature of Wikipedia. I do not believe that WP:OWN is happening, because I see no evidence to support the idea that anyone is preventing good content from being added about this person. I am going to simplify the case then check to see if we are in agreement.

• Suppose some notable person lives and dies and then someone makes a Wikipedia article for them. This person has done good and bad things. Now suppose some editor makes a Wikipedia article about this person by going to reliable sources, collecting only bad things about the person, and creating a Wikipedia article with information about bad things. Everything in the article is supported by references to reliable sources. The result is that the article is an acceptable Wikipedia article, the article is POV, none of the information about bad things in the article should be removed, and people who want to include well-sourced information about good things would be encouraged to do so.

My opinion is that this is the nature of Wikipedia; there is no problem here except of the perpetual lack of volunteer action. The short-term fix to the problem is a POV tag at the top of the article alerting readers of a problem and calling for help, and the long-term solution is to add information about good things. When all sides have contributed to an article and one side oppresses the other, then WP:UNDUE applies and this noticeboard is a good place to sort the problem. When some sides simply have not attracted an editor to enunciate the position, then WP:DEMOLISH takes precedent.

To what extent do you disagree with my opinion? Does my example not encapsulate what is happening in this specific case? How do you justify your proposal to remove sourced content? Blue Rasberry 16:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid your analogy is flawed for several reasons. Ambrose has been dead since 2002, and this article has been around for a number of years without significant change in its imbalance. It has been in its current, unbalanced state for years, not days, weeks or even months. I went back and checked, and found that it had an inappropriately large criticism section going back to at least the beginning of 2008[32] and was not significantly better at the beginning of 2007.[33]. So it is simply not factually correct to imply that this article is in any way in a state of transition, and it is wildly unrealistic to expect that editors will be by any day now to edit positive or neutral biographical details.

You are also assuming that this article warrants a length that would put this immense criticism section in proportion. Clearly, based on the history of this article, there is no evidence that Ambrose is even important enough to deserve a larger article. I am not clear that there is even any sourcing for suc an expansion. He has not been subjec of a biography. I don't know if he has been written about that much.

Since that is the case, I see no alternative but cutting back substantially on the size of the criticism section. I don't think that a permanent NPOV tag is the solution, given the supposed centrality of neutrality at Wikpedia. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 22:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

You have made me recognize the problems that my analogy has. I suspect that no amount of removing criticism will make the article completely NPOV because of the deficiency of positive content, but you raise valid points so I support your decision to explore making it more NPOV than it currently is by trimming or removing criticism. Feel free to ask for help here if you run into difficulty of any kind for any reason. I sincerely appreciate the thought you are putting into this and your willingness to talk things out. Blue Rasberry 01:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I’m going to add a comment here (though doing so is somewhat against my own better judgment – i.e. that I’ll get bitten).

>” I don't know if he has been written about that much.”

Take a look at Google. A search on Stephen Ambrose brings up “About 683,000 results”. Some of these are duplicates, but that is still a lot of articles. A search of Newsbank shows 12,133 news articles. LexisNexis also brings up a vast number of articles. And that doesn’t even count books in which he is featured. Stephen Ambrose has been one of the most prominent popular historians in recent decades.

It’s also worth taking a look at the content of the articles. [34] A large fraction of reliable sources are discussing negative material, though there are also plenty of positive articles, and articles with neutral information. That’s what I discovered when editor 75.2.209.226 asked me to review the WP article, and I began researching. Digging through the reliable sources changed my impression – from initially thinking that the WP article was somewhat unbalanced/somewhat too harsh, to concluding that it actually largely did reflect the balance of material now found in reliable sources. And my own impression (though I am still a novice editor) is that Wikipedia is supposed to reflect views roughly in proportion to their prevalence in reliable source material. Over the last decade, as more and more inaccuracies/fabrication/plagiarism has been discovered in his work, views of Ambrose have continued to shift. Here’s a somewhat typical current perspective piece. [35] Eurytemora (talk) 06:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Bluerasberry, thanks very much for your flexibility on this. I certainly erred in not more quickly pointing out the long-term nature of this problem. As far as requesting assistance if needed, that time has arrived. The article is completed dominated and "owned" by editors who do not want the criticism section trimmed, and their obstinancy and inflexibility can be seen by the stricture laid down by the primary article editor in his commandment here [36] that there is not to be "any" (italicized) material removed from this article. If anything, the position of those editors has hardened and become less flexible. The need for outside intervention in Stephen Ambrose is immediate and, in fact, years overdue. This article is an embarassment to Wikipedia. It is, as has been acknowledged, an "attack page." CheeseStakeholder (talk) 14:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Eurytemora, you are correct in that the proportion of extant negative material on the article's subject is larger than the proportion of positive material, and that the current state of the Wikipedia article probably matches that proportion. Measuring the ratios of extant reliable sources, like you did by using the document search engines, is a great way to determine whether an idea is worth including at all, but often applying these kinds of numbers as length guides for sections which everyone agrees ought to be prominently included may not support clarity or conciseness in an article. If what Cheesestakeholder wants to do removes bulk and makes the article more readable, then I would support maintaining a difference in the focus of extant reliable sources and the focus of the Wikipedia article. If what he wants to do seems to be removing critical information, then I would want to think more about the fractions.

Cheesestakeholder, I just looked through the history and it is not easy for me to see exactly what you have done in the past that was controversial. Generally in these situations, a workable protocol is that you make all the edits you want to make to the current version of the page, then you immediately revert the page to a previous version, and then you post a link to the WP:DIFF on the talkpage and ask for comments. I am watching the Ambrose talk page and will make sure that WP:OWN does not happen. If this plan works for you, let's do it and see what happens. Blue Rasberry 15:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I did as you suggest, though I think that it is futile. There isn't a snowball's chance in hell of the other editors approving of my proposed edit. They have the numbers so they can get away with it. They "own" the article and they are not going to let a trifle like WP:NPOV stand in their way. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 19:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:AGF and stick to talking about the content and not the editors. Let's go to the talk board there... Blue Rasberry 20:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Cheesestakeholder, I'm annoyed to find your comment here (19:41), having expressed support for the proposed edit on the article talk page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Your comment was an hour after my comment, and I was pleased to see it. Previously I had faced opposition to reducing the size of the criticism section, with no support and much against from every other editor on the page, which was why I came here. Other editors have yet to be heard from, including the editor most vociferously opposed, but hopefully this issue will be resolved. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 22:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Sir or madame, it would have been helpful to a full and above board discussion of this issue in this forum if you had at least had the courtesy to advise the editors that were already discussing it in the subsection you had started on the same matter on the Ambrose Talk page at the behest of the disruptive anonymous Wikistalking editor User:75.2.209.226 (who has now disappeared under that IP until he/she reappears with a "clean slate" under another anonymous IP), a discussion in which you acknowledge above that you were getting no support. (I will attribute this breach of etiquette on how the Wikipedia project works to your apparent lack of experience as a very new editor.) Today, through pure happenstance, is the first time I have become aware of this ancillary parallel discussion. For consistency, I have posted my reply on this issue on the Ambrose Talk page.

One thing I might point out here, however. Just because one or more editors who have have worked on an article for a long time and thus have very definite views on how it is constructed which they express vociferously does not mean that they are claiming "ownership" of an article. It is much more likely that they just probably know a lot more about the particular subject then you do and are familiar with how -- and why -- the article has developed over time. It certianly does not mean, however, that just because a new editor that lights on the article disagrees in one way or another and is rebuffed by those editors that the article then requires an "immediate outside intervention" to save it from itself. Centpacrr (talk) 04:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

This article is grossly inbalanced, and does require immediate outside intervention. I came to this noticeboard because this article has a substantial and I think undeniable NPOV issue, which is a criticism section that comprises over one-half of the text of the article, and because the article is dominated by editors who have refused to consider a reduction in the size of that section to ameliorate the NPOV concern. I think that this is "ownership" by any reasonable definition, particularly when expressed in terms of talk page posts that contain instructions not to make "any" reductions in the size of the section. I did not come here to find a new venue of discussion by the same editors, but to find "fresh" viewpoints. I was disappointed that only one outside editor expressed interest, but he is of the belief that my proposed edit is correct, and he also previously stated at the outset that the criticism section is too large. He initially felt that that problem would be rectified by normal procedures, by expanding the rest of the article, but I then pointed out that the article is stable and that there is no interest in expanding the noncritical parts of the article.

In bringing this to the NPOV board, I had no knowledge of any personal involvement of any of the Ambrose page editors in the subject matter, of the kind that you disclosed today on the Ambrose talk page. I don't know if what you disclosed, which is that your works were quoted in one of his books, rises to the level of conflict of interest, but I'm not happy with it, even though you aver that it was a positive experience with Ambrose. I don't believe that people personally involved in the subject should edit articles or prominently assert positions in article talk pages, whether their experience was positive or, as was the case with involved editor in the Posner article, negative.

On the talk page of the Ambrose article today you rejected my proposed edit, stating: "what has been called into question is not only the essence of his credibility as an academic historian, but also as one of the best known, commercially successful, and most widely read purveyors of American history to the general public, they require a far more detailed exposition and accounting to be both understood by, and credible to, the reader." That is your personal opinion, but I believe that reliable sources are needed to make such a sweeping determination, and I do not see any. I just noticed today that Douglas Brinkley, who is a noted historian, does not feel that the criticism negates his record as a historian [37].CheeseStakeholder (talk) 15:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

As Dr. Ambrose's decade long protégé and by far his closet professional colleague in the 1990s at both the University of New Orleans and Tulane University, Ambrose's handpicked successor as director of the Eisenhower Center, and his most frequent co-author (The Rise to Globalism: American Foreign Policy Since 1938 (1997), Witness to History (1999), and The Mississippi and the Making of a Nation: From the Louisiana Purchase to Today (2002)), Douglas Brinkley is hardly an objective or "disinterested party" when it comes to evaluating his mentor's work. I note with interest, however, that even Dr. Brinkley acknowledges that "As The New Yorker accurately notes, his work had flaws -- some very serious" but then implies that these should be overlooked because Ambrose was such a great "storyteller" by noting "I still consider Ambrose -- even with the recent revelations of ethical lapses -- an American treasure, our best campfire storyteller." The question is, however, are those "stories" historically accurate or embellished for dramatic effect? The latter may indeed be acceptable for a "storyteller" but certainly not for a professional historian.

As for the fallacies in the proponent's straw man argument for which he/she still seems to have generated little objective support, I have previously pointed thse out in detail on the Ambrose "Talk" page and so will not repeat them again here. Centpacrr (talk) 17:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

CheeseStakeholder - I just saw this: "I don't believe that people personally involved in the subject should edit articles or prominently assert positions in article talk pages, whether their experience was positive or, as was the case with involved editor in the Posner article, negative."

So now you're saying that anyone involved with a subject even tangentially, in a fashion that doesn't even violate WP:COI (i.e. doesn't personally know the subject, has never been harmed by the subject, gains no profit from edits, etc.) shouldn't even assert opinions on a talk page? And you're effectively trying to completely sideline a very knowledgeable contributor you disagree with (Centpacrr)?

Please try to build consensus and community. Seeking a larger perspective, constantly questioning the “rightness” of one’s own positions, trying to be inclusive of others, and looking for creative solutions, can, I think, facilitate that process.

As far as reliable sources that concur with the statement that "the essence of his credibility" has been called into question for Ambrose - there are many. I posted a link to one such source above, and I'll repost it here.[38]Eurytemora (talk) 05:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

* * *
To avoid duplication, please continue any and all further discussion of this issue here.
Centpacrr (talk) 02:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

This article is still in need of outside editors, to provide balance and neutrality to this article. We definitely have a great deal of fragmentary sourcing on complaints of a whole litany of things concerning Ambrose. The question is whether this article should treat Ambrose almost like Jayson Blair, as it currently does, without independent sourcing - not the impassioned arguments of Wiki editors - providing the basis for devoting the lion's share of this article to criticism/plagiarism. I agree with the above notice, and this is a request for outside editors, not duplicative argument here. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 22:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

This is misleading. I don't think any of the treatment of plagiarism/inaccuracies/etc. is lacking in independent sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

• CheeseStakeholder, what exactly is it that you consider to be unreliable about the many sources already cited in the article? (Please be specific.) The "expounding" (as you have described it) by Wiki editors (including yourself) is all in threads which you started in this and the Ambrose article talk pages where it is appropriate for editors to express and defend their personal views in discussions on the topic.

• At your request, Eurytemora and I have been searching assiduously for more sources that would support your contentions, but the more sources found in these attempts, the more Ambrosian "confabulisms" we find instead. (It appears he couldn't even keep the "campfire stories" about himself consistent.) As a published writer of history myself (and that does not mean my views violate WP:COI), I had always been a great admirer of Steve Ambrose. Now, I'm afraid, all I feel is royally duped. I really don't know what else to say except that over the past month I have become even more convinced than ever that this article not only does not violate the precepts of WP:NPOV, it in fact reinforces them. (NPOV does not mean it is appropriate to "whitewash" or "pablumize" the facts.) Ambrose was what he was. Unfortunately he was also very "good" at it so it took a very long time for the truth about his professional misdeeds to surface widely --and much damage was done in the intertim. As Eurytemora has done twice before, I invite you to look at "Bad history's impact corrodes public understanding" by James Palmer or any of the other sources that Eurytemora has posted above over the past few days. As an old broadcasting partner of mine once observed, "You can't polish a turd -- at least not forever."
• As for your comparison with Jayson Blair, what the mounting evidence shows of many of Ambrose's practices over decades was far worse in my view. Blair's writings were temporal and could be used to "wrap fish" the day after they were published. Forty plus years of Ambrose's, however, persist in bookstores and the libraries of millions of Americans and others around the world were they will potentially continue to do damage to the understanding of the real story of America for generations to come. I'm sure that much of what Ambrose produced was correct and valuable, but so much more has now been demonstrated to be unreliable that all of it must be considered as suspect because there is virtually no practical way to tell the difference without meticulously fact checking it one's self. Centpacrr (talk) 07:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to insufficient sourcing about the impact of the plagiarizing on Ambrose's reputation, as was pointed out to you on the article talk page by another editor. I only see one source on that. Are there others? That's what we need, not the opinions of Wiki editors as to whether he is a Jayson Blair or not. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 13:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

See, for instance the following: [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], just to name a few, all of which contain one or more references to damage to Ambrose's reputation owing to his professional misdeeds. (There are also many more such sources, but I thought a Baker's Dozen was a good start.) Centpacrr (talk) 19:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Judaism: Orthodox and Conservative Legal Opinions Being Presented Equally in Sections on Practical Law

The following question has arisen at the article Niddah, and raised also somewhat at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Judaism, but without any real move toward consensus and little interest. Additionally, I think that it is important to have this issue discussed by people without any particular stake in Judaism -- even, and perhaps especially, that that comes merely from being an adherent. I believe that the following are the relevant facts and are undisputed (if anyone involved does dispute them, please say so). During the Enlightenment and the emancipation of Jews in Europe, some traditionalist Jews, while rejecting the view of the new secularists and the Reform movement that the traditional corpus and process of Jewish law could be discarded, nevertheless favoured historical-critical academic study of Judaism, founding institutions called the Jewish Theological Seminary in Breslau and America. Other traditionalist Jews believed even this to be incompatible with traditional Judaism and condemned them as illegitimate. The former group, centered around the JTSes, became known as Positive-Historical, Conservative, or Masorti, while the latter group became known as Orthodox. While both maintained that the traditional corpus and process of Jewish law was obligatory, the Conservatives, because of their commitment to modern scholarship, believed that their opponents in Orthodoxy had an ossified view of its development and status, and eventually accepted academic criticism of even the Pentateuch. This has led to many Conservative authorities in Jewish law propounding opinions condemned by Orthodox ones as outside of legitimate legal discourse. Orthodox authorities generally view Conservatives as having an heretical view of the origin of the Pentateuch and an inadequate and improper grasp and application of Jewish legal material and procedure. Additionally, while very many Jews self-identify with the Conservative movement or belong to affiliated synagogues, very few care about or observe Jewish law as such, especially in areas like Niddah, despite the assertion of religious authorities that they are mandatory. In the practical law section of the Niddah article, I added legal opinions from Conservative authorities differing from those maintained by the general consensus of Orthodox authorities: diffs: [52] [53] These were moved to a separate section. Those who favour removing these opinions from the "Practical Law" section favour it for two reasons: 1) Orthodox Judaism is normative, traditional Judaism, while Conservative Judaism is both distinct and new. Thus, as an instance of the standing practice of placing older material first, Conservative material should be segregated from main "Practical Law" material. (This is maintained by Debresser.) 2) Since actual adherence to these laws is rare among self-identified or affiliated adherents of the Conservative movement, to place the opinions of Conservative authorities in with those of Orthodox ones would be to give them undue weight. (This is maintained by Lisa.) For these reasons, "Practical [Jewish] Law" without qualification, and "observance" thereof, must be taken on Wikipedia to mean "as interpreted by Orthodox authorities". I believe both of these to be highly blatant violations of WP:NPOV, and thus, beyond the reach of consensus. This is so transparent with me with regard to the first objection to the material I added that I honestly have great difficulty thinking of anything more to say about it. With regard to the second, the encyclopedic standard for normative religious views and practices is that they are recorded as articulated by the duly recognised authorities of that group, and the notability of the group is not determined by the actual level of adherence to norms articulated by its authorities. For example, official views of the Roman Catholic Church about proper Christian belief or practice are recorded as notable Christian ones on par with those of other Christian groups, regardless of the level of observance of them among actual Catholics, or of other Christian groups considering them inauthentic with true Christianity for whatever reason. The standards proposed by Debresser and Lisa above, therefore, appear to me to be blatant double-standards for Conservative Judaism, and thus in blatant violation of WP:NPOV. Please do see the Talk page for the discussion. Savant1984 (talk) 19:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Would it be possible for you to restate the issue outside of all context in one or two short sentences? Would it be fair for me to say that the NPOV issue is a claim of WP:UNDUE attention given to a fringe group? Blue Rasberry 21:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Stephen Appiah's Page

Reads like it was written by his agent.

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

"Pele was recently quoted saying "Appiah is one of the most gifted footballers of all time, and it is a pity that he has been hampered by injury throughout his career". He believes Appiah will make a comeback at 2010 World Cup and become a living legend." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.101.132.37 (talk) 12:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. I put a {{fansite}} tag on the article and made this post at the talk page. The problem would not be too difficult to fix; I encourage you to be bold and make the appropriate changes to make it right. Blue Rasberry 14:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Elections in Ethiopia

Given the recent election, Elections in Ethiopia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has seen an increase in editing activity. I have noticed a pattern of edits that change the tone of the article so as to favor the ruling EPRDF coalition. I believe the current version (link) is sufficiently neutral in that it presents the views of the government/ruling party, EU observers, AU observers, HRW and the opposition in a balanced manner. Various users (and it's generally a new account each time) have, I believe, been tilting this toward the EPRDF, for example:

• March 26 (removed criticism; added details that did not appear in the existing cited sources)
• March 27 (added a YouTube link as a reference for AU's findings; I replaced this source with actual news reports, and made copyedits, but these were undone)
• May 29 (restored March 26 edits; removed sources)

• May 29 (same editor; if the previous days' edits were questionably PoV, these edits most clearly show a pro-government and/or anti-opposition bias. Also deleted text from a direct quote.)

• June 2 (restored May 29 edits)

I had already suspected that sockpuppetry may be involved; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GchDenver. I think I should have reported this here first, but it wasn't such an obvious NPOV issue until the 2nd series of edits on May 29. (The ironic thing here is that in the past (really most of the 6 years I've been on Wikipedia), I'm the one who has been accused of supporting the EPRDF. FWIW.) -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, Gyrofrog, if you can get people inside Ethiopia to answer your email then you're more of a tool of the EPRDF than I ever will be.</sarcasm> Seriously, the ruling party in Ethiopia badly wants this election to prove they are the legitimate power in Ethiopia, so they're going to try to control the content of this & related articles by any means they can, ethical or otherwise. But since Wikipedia can only report what various observers have said about a subject, any article about it can't help but express the wide-spread suspicion that the elections were rigged which is stated in the reliable sources. Note that I said "suspicion" -- not a statement that this is actually what happened; the critics may be wrong & millions of Ethiopians wanted the EPRDF to carry this election. But it does seem odd that so many areas which elected opposition candidates five years ago elected EPRDF candidates this time around, & unless the EPRDF publishes their own interpretation of this election, this suspicion will, by default, become the only analysis of what happened in this election, & this interpretation will be reinforced by these clumsy efforts to alter the content of these articles. -- llywrch (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I've just reverted again. In the absence of any meaningful discussion, or at least an edit summary, I will point to my earlier posting here as justification for any revert(s). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

An anonymous IP user (most likely unrelated to the other editors), 71.191.58.166 (talk), added referenced information about the AU's election guidelines. However, s/he used the existing Afrique source to draw conclusions that the existing source does not specifically indicate. So I have reverted these as well. I think this information (assuming it could be properly re-written and attributed) is a level of detail that is better suited for Ethiopian general election, 2010. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I don't know whether to consider the NPOV issue resolved, but the related SPI has been completed: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CUDz. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Gaza flotilla raid

I have requested for a third opinion on the talk page of Gaza flotilla raid. The issue is about the blockade of Gaza and how to describe it in the context of the article. This might be relavant to some other articles related to the Gaza blockade as well. Any inputs are welcome at that section. Walky-talky (talk) 14:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Stereotypes of white people

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stereotypes_of_white_people&action=historysubmit&diff=365560546&oldid=365555768

There are multiple problems with this version of article. First and foremost, much of it does not relate to the articles subject, which is stereotypes about white people. The revisions re-inserted in the diff above relate mostly to stereotypes held by white people; all the other articles in the series concern stereotypes against black people, jews, gypsies, etc. If is necessary to have an article about how evil and racist white people are, I suggest that it should not be this one.

Moreover, the article repeatedly cites non-RS sources. I wrote the following in the last round of reversions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stereotypes_of_white_people#neutrality

I respectfully request that no-one tells me to take it up on the talk page, because I have done this multiple times before. Despite objections from at least two other editors, documented on the talk page, nothing has been done. Moreover, I brought up the issue on multiple wikiprojects,[[54]] [[55]] and again nothing was done. It is my opinion that these additions are in very clear violation of NPOV, NOR, RS and possibly other WP policies. These violations are what I seek comment on, this is therefore not simply a "content dispute". BillMasen (talk) 15:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Terrible terrible article, I'll spend some time stripping out the sources. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Note: related thread on WP:RSN. For what it's worth, I agree with Blueboar's comment there that these "Stereotypes of..." pages should be consistent (and use high quality sourcing) across the board. PrBeacon (talk) 16:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Jacobsen v. Katzer

Referring here from WP:COI/N. This article could use more eyes to keep it NPOV. This was a recently settled court case and there sure appear to be involved parties from both sides editing and making use of the semantics of the court documents to prove and refute each other's claims. A fork by one of the "sides" in the article appears at Robert_Jacobsen v. KAM Detailed Patent Issues, currently at AfD. Arakunem^Talk 15:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a complicated issue and I would not know how to get involved without making a major time investment to study the article's subject. Would it be possible for you to point to a specific area with a NPOV problem, preferably by providing a WP:DIFF and a link to some discussion on the talk page that describes the nature of the controversy? It is a lot easier to resolve particular NPOV problems than it is to do a NPOV check over the entirety of an article about a well-documented complicated legal case. Blue Rasberry 17:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Please don't tell me that what I just wrote was deleted.

Resolved

I just wrote a long and interesting editorial. I had just finished it. Then I hit the Backspace bar and was sent back to the last page I was at before I got to Neutral Point Of View. I tried to proceed to my editorial(if it can indeed be called an editorial), and got sent here. Being very new at this(this being my second day after creating this log in account), the thought of doing all that writing for nothing is distresting. I am now going to try to go back and fill in my email address where my User Name and password are. I did not do so yesterday when I filled out my account. If you can tell me what I did wrong, I would very much appreciate it. If you can tell me that my original article(editorial?)made it to you, I will be in seventh heaven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimrush2007 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

It isn't clear whether something you wrote was deleted, or you hit backspace and your web browser went back a page and lost what you had typed. I don't see that any of your contributions were deleted. Your only other contribution (that was saved, anyway) besides this page is on your user page, User:Kimrush2007 - is that what you're looking for? In any case, an editorial (other than perhaps on your user page) would be subject to the deletion process based on what Wikipedia is not (specifically, see WP:NOTOPINION). I hope this is of some help. Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 02:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Kimrush2007. Gyrofrog has answered your question, but I suggest that you read the Wikipedia:Tutorial, it has a lot of really good information about how to edit on Wikipedia, without getting too bogged down in the details. Welcome, and have fun. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 03:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

If there is any further problem please re-raise the issue. I am tagging this as resolved. Blue Rasberry 17:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Roundup (herbicide)

Roundup (herbicide) I feel that the edit represented by this diff clearly attempts to poison the well committing the argumentum ad hominem logical fallacy.

By 2000, a review published in a Monsanto sponsored journal conducted by Ian C. Munro (a member of the Cantox scientific and regulatory consulting firm whose role is defined as to "protect client interests while helping our clients achieve milestones and bring products to market" concluded that "under present and expected conditions of new use, there is no potential for Roundup herbicide to pose a health risk to humans".

I believe we can just state what the conclusion of the 2000 review finds. And then we can follow up with any criticisms of the content of the review published in reliable sources. We do not attack the man. We present criticims of the arguments put forward by the man.

Attempts to resolve this on the talk page Talk:Roundup_(herbicide)#WP:SPU have failed. Ttguy (talk) 11:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment Having an interest in Destroying Thistles and, having had a quick look at the article page I note that another study notes toxic effects are found on ... human ... cells in vitro ref. I do not know where these researchers got their funding from but it may well be relevant. Point is human health issues should trump wikilaws - we need to know who Ian C. Munro's paymaster is. CyrilThePig4 (talk) 13:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

If a company hires someone to prepare a report about their product then this should be mentioned. However, if a report is accepted by a peer reviewed journal then we may expect the peer review process to check for accuracy and we can determine the degree of acceptance of the report by reading subsequent articles that reference it. Since it appears that the report was peer-reviewed we should limit criticism of the report to subsequent peer-reviewed reports. Is there any reason to question the independence of the publisher? TFD (talk) 20:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I can see no reference to support that it is a "Monsanto sponsored journal". However, Dr Munro's job is to "protect client interests" - not to provide independent research and his COI should be noted. CyrilThePig4 (talk) 22:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The diff the OP provides shows there had been a reference supporting "Monsanto sponsored journal" but it, erm, died somehow. We all know about the revolving door concept. If Monsanto sponsored the journal, and/or Munro is a member of a scientific team tasked with protecting client interests, it's enough of a mitigating, consider-the-source kind of aspect to bear mention, though of course we need cites for those assertions. We don't, however, consider dead links to be like mere weeds that justify pulling out the entire connected structure of roots, the whole sentence or concept they once allegedly referenced. We put a cite ref tag on an exceptional statement that once had a ref that has gone dead, and allow it to remain for a reasonable length of time, so that interested editors may take notice and update the ref. Incidentally, it would be helpful if editors, OPs in particular, signed their posts so we know whom we're addressing. Abrazame (talk) 23:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of the dead link. I just used the way back machine to find out that Monsanto did NOT sponsor the journal in 2000- the year in which the disputed article was published [56]. It also did not sponsor it between 2001 [57] - 2006 [58] But it did sponsor it in 2007 [59] - the last year the Wayback machine has data for. So is is an article to be discounted because several years later a company sponsors the journal is is published in? I don't think that is fair. Ttguy (talk) 11:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Industry Sponsored? CyrilThePig4 (talk) 07:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm unclear on the bona fides of the journal (which apparently isn't being named in the text—do we have an article on them?), and the degree of peer review claimed or implied by publication therein.

I get that the author of the piece published in the journal worked for Cantox, a scientific-study factory committed to favorable outcomes for its corporate clients. (Reminds me of the financial industry ratings agencies.) Mitigating point against his raison d'etre, one realizes he's spinning his report in a way it will be most favorable to his client, Monsanto, and would not have sought to publish on a study approached from or headed in any direction that raised any concern about his client's product, so important to note that profound conflict of interest in the article.

The journal is less clear to me. Is this journal a typical venue for rubber-stamping their peer review seal of approval to by-design interest-conflicted softball studies? Or is this really a case in which a gold-standard respected journal peer-reviewed the Cantox study, which was then misused as supportive of this Roundup product of which this was only part of the ingredients? (As the allegation further down in that paragraph is that subsequent investigations found that Cantox had not been testing the combination formula actually used in the product the report was spun by Monsanto as approving, if I've got that right.) One might expect that a journal that wasn't normally manipulated (we'd call it mis-cited) in that fashion would somehow communicate, be it by letter to Monsanto or by printing a caveat in a subsequent issue of their journal, that the report they published should not be used as an A-OK on this combination product once the subsequent studies that exposed that detail came to their attention. (Not unlike one would expect the ratings agencies to downgrade an investment vehicle once they, ahem, "learn" that it isn't actually comprised of entirely AAA securities.)

So my problem with removing the "Monsanto-sponsored" qualifier from the journal would be, it's not a stretch to imagine that by the time these subsequent studies came to light, any unaffiliated journal worth its purported reputation may have been considering some ombudsman mea culpa on the study, when Monsanto steps in, apparently supplanting several other sponsors in the journal. (Going purely by your links above, I see a pattern of a dozen or more sponsors broken suddenly in half the year Monsanto comes in: 2001—12 sponsors; 2006—13 sponsors; 2007—5 sponsors plus Monsanto. Something is suddenly very different there that year.) The allegation is that they're still using the 2000 journal-published and ostensibly peer-reviewed study of this one ingredient as an endorsement of the whole product, even though it is apparently not a study of that whole product, or of the "normal and expected use" the Cantox man's language in the journal-published study actually states [meaning the conclusion he's drawn from the study was erroneous and overstated], and so Monsanto could be construed, in effect, to be sponsoring the lack of a retraction, even if not the original publication.

Full disclosure, I don't have a clue about the science, I haven't read the whole article, and don't know a thing about the latest weed killers as landscapers take care of my lawn, but am I notably off-base on my understanding of the way that looks? I'll grant you that the phrasing is not the clearest. It probably came about because Monsanto sponsored the journal at the time the editor added the point, and that editor probably had no idea about the 13 down to 5 plus Monsanto thing, but it's fair to note that their sponsorship came, again, six or seven years after the journal published the study they were still relying upon those six or seven years later yet which had recently been called into question.

The clincher? I go back just now to re-read the part about the subsequent studies calling this journal-published Cantox piece into question. The year they were published? 2007. The very year Monsanto moves in to supplant eight other sponsors of the journal. Dude, this is a movie script. Poison the well indeed. Abrazame (talk) 09:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not a study. It is a review of some 200 or so other studies. If the review was suspect then it should be quite easy for some one else who is knowledgable about the field to point out where the review is biased and faulty. But no one has. Save for a Greenpeace funded scientist complaining that some of the studies reviewed did not test glyphosate plus adjuvant. Usual tactic for people with no valid argument - attack the man. Ttguy (talk) 14:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting me, I didn't catch that it wasn't one study that omitted the entire formula to focus only on one ingredient, but one review of most of two hundred studies that did so. Do I have that right now? The text reads "mostly experiments where glyphosate and POEA were used alone, not as a mixture as in Roundup". So to paraphrase you regarding my parenthetical comparison, 'If the mortgage-backed security was subprime-heavy then it should be quite easy for some one else who is knowledgeable about the field to point out which investments were created to fail. But no one did. Until the entire world's economy was swirling the drain.' There are reasons for this, as I'd guess you know. I'm not going to suggest you are employing a tactic in doing so, but I would point out that here you call a Greenpeace-funded scientist "no one". From whom (and from how many) would one have expected the collateralized debt obligation whistle to sound? I'm partial to St. Jude, but Greenpeace, aren't they the tree-hugging no-ones who'd been shouting about how potentially dangerous for the environment deep-sea oil drilling is?

You're the doctor in plant molecular biology; I don't know if this adds up to meaning that Roundup is any worse than the next thing that kills stuff, but given that your question was basically, oughtn't we remove the factoid that Monsanto sponsored the journal, since it was seven years later (the very year the question arose about the studies and the way this company was using them to support claims that were not so—surely one doesn't pour their Roundup into a centrifuge and separate its ingredients), I'm just saying, peeling back the layers you presented, the way the details add up here for Monsanto the story is looking worse than that section was making it sound. I note that the current version of the article omits the "Monsanto-sponsored" qualifier from the first sentence. I agree that was clumsy and that a reader would likely have erroneously inferred sponsorship the year of publication, rather than the year the accusations against the journal's published study came out; I support the omission there at the beginning if later in the section we mention the fact that Monsanto began sponsoring the journal (which published the review by the Cantox man they paid who reviewed studies of mostly insufficient data of individual ingredients instead of the whole shebang, to conclude that a different formula was safe under expected conditions) the very year that criticism of that journal's publication first came to light. Surely you would admit that this, we'll call it coincidence, has an appearance of a direct conflict of interest far beyond the generic "close ties with the industry" as currently noted in that section, and more questionably timed than if they'd been sponsoring the journal since 1956. I say conflict presuming the interest of the journal is to have a good reputation for publishing neutral studies that aren't biased toward corporate clients (something you didn't answer in my previous comments but which "close ties with the industry" suggests may not have been so even before Monsanto replaced half their other benefactors). In 2007 Monsanto's industry rivals are suddenly gone as sponsors, but a "health sciences risk management" company and a "safety assessment and regulatory compliance" firm, as well as an "international scientific and regulatory consulting firm that helps companies protect their product at every stage of its life" remain.

I'll admit to being wrong about another guess. So 200 studies, reported on in the year 2000. "Mostly" not studies of the ingredient combination actually in the product. So assuming good faith, I thought, well, they must have been coming to market with, or getting FDA or what-have-you approval for, a new product that year or thereabouts, so who would have known to test for the actual combination in this particular product, maybe it was a groundbreaking idea to mix them. Then I catch in the article's second paragraph that the product was introduced in the year 1973. 200 studies, "mostly" not of the combination actually in the product, reviewed in a piece published twenty-seven years after the product was first marketed, but used to attest to its safety, written by the people most qualified to know their product's formula was not that which was tested in the studies they reviewed.

But that's not the kicker. The kicker is that the current version of the article (up till this post I had been focusing on your diff) states that the review in question was "written with the help of Monsanto scientists". I thought it was bad enough that it was written by this Cantox guy. C'mon, seriously? You gotta tell me you didn't know some of these details before you queried the qualifier. Abrazame (talk) 11:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

was "written with the help of Monsanto scientists". Since the article reviews unpublished data on the saftey of Glyphosate that were performed by the company they did have to have the help of Monsanto scientists. Again I ask - where is the substantial critisim of the actuall review. There are studies done on roundup formulations.

At least 58 studies Including

• Aquatic Micro organisms - 4 species tested
• Aquatic Macroophytes - 5 species tested
• Aquatic invertebrates 12 species tested
• Chronic toxicity to freshwater invertebrates - 2 species tested
• Accute toxicity to fish - 16 species tested
• Chronic toxicity to fish - 1 species tested
• Amphibians - 10 species tested
• Terrestrial micorganisms - effect on Nitrification, dehyhdrognease, urea hydrolysis and nitrogen fixation measured
• Terrestrial and soil invertebrates - 2 species tested
• Birds - 3 species tested
• Terrestrial mammals - 5 species tested

I fail to see how the fact that there are more studies done on the actuall toxin in isolation makes the studies that found very low toxicity of the roundup formulation itself null and void. Which is what the Séralini criticism (and Abrazame's) amounts to. Ttguy (talk) 05:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Anti-Americanism

Resolved

I rasied this question here Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Anti-Americanism but was told this might be a more appropriate board.

A doubt has been raised over whether or not Anti-Americanism#The_degeneracy_thesis is a fringe theory. The main point being is that this is supported by only two historians [[60]] or that other historians are just repeating the claims of the two historians [[61]], and as such do not support notability, (if I understand the objection correctly). Now it seems to me that whilst this is a bit of a silly theory (that Europeans hated the USA before it even existed in essance) it also seems to have recived some attention that takes it beyond the fringe (whilst still being a minority view).Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I have copied the question.Slatersteven (talk) 16:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I followed up on the original board at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Anti-Americanism asking for a more explicit statement of the problem and proposed fix. Blue Rasberry 17:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) Eh, that is pretty thin, and it's certainly getting too much space in the article as it stands. I don't think I'd put it as actual Fringe, though. It seems like a fairly sober academic claim that just doesn't have a lot of meat to it. However, I haven't read the full theory in context. If this is one of those "This is why everyone hates us" kind of arguments then calling it fringe seems more reasonable, but if this is just a couple of scholars exploring an off-beat idea then calling it fringe would be excessive. --Ludwigs2 17:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The theory discussed was one in the 18th century that held the environment of the Americas would lead to humans, animals and plants being less developed and smaller. But since those views were held by some people at the time - and leading American statesmen like Benjamin Franklin felt it necessary to write refuting this theory, has led modern scholars of anti-Americanism to write about it as part of the history of anti-Americanism. TFD (talk) 19:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that, but (a) it is a thin argument from a scholarly perspective (which, of course, we can't judge on) and (b) it apparently has very little current support or acceptance in the discipline. The reason why it's a weak argument from a scholarly perspective is that it's not really an anti-American argument to begin with so much as an anti-colonial one (America was not yet a nation at that point). one would have to demonstrate that this opinion about the Americas as a colonial region (a) was prevalent and accepted enough in the 18th century to constitute a distinct prejudice, (b) was transferred from the colonial Americas to the United states specifically after the revolution, and (c) somehow managed to persist in popular or scholarly imaginations across 100 years of scientific advancement (which put early evolutionary theories of that nature to rest), shifting political alliances (US ties with European nations - particularly France and England - grew and changed dramatically over that time period), and the US's isolationist stance through most of that period. I can imagine a scholar making such an intricate argument, but it would involve painstaking analysis of archival material from the early 18th to late 19th centuries (or at least some efforts in that direction). If, on the other hand, the authors simply glossed over that protracted period from 1776 to 1900 or so in order to make a blanket claim that anti-Americanism has always existed, well... that's a bit like claiming that Lincoln went to state dinners in periwig and breeches, because that's the way that Washington dressed. That would be fringey. --Ludwigs2 20:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

This [[62] seems to discuse it in some depth.Slatersteven (talk) 21:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

(EC) My understanding is that it is not even remotely a current fringe theory but an anachronistic and disproven one. The argument that plants and animals could not and never had been large or strong in the Americas was disproven by the bison, if not the redwoods and fossils of mammoths and dinosaurs. However, the fact that it is anachronistic and disproven doesn't mean it should not be in the article as historic insight into the general attitude. The purpose of an Anti-Americanism article is not to build a compelling case against America, but to present a complete picture of the sorts of views that were given serious scholarly credence over the years whether they were true or not, as Anti-Americanism is not simply the deficiencies and limitations of America(ns) but also those aspects, prejudices and misperceptions for example, of overseas observers. It seems not necessary, then, to prove that this view of the continent in colonial times transferred to the new United States (which, after all, was being established even as the theory was published and propounded) as it does to show a predisposition to degrade the "otherness" of a place, wherever it may be. At the time, the U.S. was little more or less wild and uncivilized as Africa or Australia, which Europeans also held in semi-fascinated contempt as uncivilized and outside the realm of the holy. The sun, after all, did not merely revolve around the earth, it revolved around Eurasia and the holy lands.

Comte de Buffon notes (though troublingly without a citation) that the man who conceived of the theory ultimately admitted he was wrong, allegedly after being shown up by Thomas Jefferson. Obviously denouncing one's own work is the sort of exceptional statement (though I believe true) that we need a cite for, but my take here is that this should by all means remain in the article, though more clearly represented as an historical and disproven aspect of the sentiment. Abrazame (talk) 22:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The most explicit statement of the original problem was the question of whether this topic was WP:FRINGE. I think the comments above are sufficient opposition to classifying it as such. I am tagging this talk as resolved; if there is still a problem with the content, please re-raise the issue. Blue Rasberry 16:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Margaret Bourke-White - Neutrality tag by Panyd, disputed by Blondtraillite

Resolved

Neutrality tag was added on 28 September 2008 citing "just look at the 'Early Life' Section."

I personally disagree with the tagging: while the article has many issues, I believe they are best described as inappropriate tone and a lack of citation (okay, and coherent focus, but that's subjective writing skill). However, I rewrote the "Early Life" section in hopes that it would both improve the opening of the article and satisfy Panyd. In its current state, I believe the Neutrality tag should now be removed; other, more appropriate, tags may be warranted and added. As the issue is rather subjective, I do not wish to be the only person involved in this decision.--Blondtraillite (talk) 00:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not know if this will make a difference, but I do plan to continue revising the article section-by-section.--Blondtraillite (talk) 00:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't look very controversial at the moment, so you could remove the tag and see what happens. Some books in the reference list, although the details are incomplete, appear to be full-length biographies, so if you can get access to them and make sure the article sticks to what they say there should be no problems. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy that the tag can be removed - so I've done it. CyrilThePig4 (talk) 09:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Should the Global warming article cover more than just the science?

As it is an encyclopedic article, Global warming is an umbrella issue covering the science of GW and the politics of GW as well as public perception etc. Judging from recent edits (like [63], [64] and [65]) and talkpage discussion (as in POV Tag and Recent removal.., it seems like editors there want to scrub it clean of non-science issues and/or offload the info to subarticles (like Global warming controversy and Politics of global warming and then pretend those are not a part of the overall issue -- perhaps froma sense of turf/ownership like keeping the science pure. One easy solution may be to create a new subarticle science of Global Warming. -PrBeacon (talk) 06:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

That's not really what I would see as encyclopedic. I would expect something with the title "Global warming" to be nearly all about the science, with short sections towards the end linking to the relevant articles discussing the implications, policy considerations etc. I think you can find many parallels such as Sun, Iron, where the priority is to present the science but there are also a number of cultural aspects. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I support what Itsmejudith is saying because I also see the same precedent. I do not support the creation of a subarticle for the science of global warming because the scientific viewpoint is primary. You have my good wishes; I am putting a resolved tag on this because no question or problem has been stated. If you need help please return and state what you want. Blue Rasberry 16:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The question was in the title (previously, without mark). Though it may not appear to be a POV issue, I still think that the problem of editor ownership factors into it which is why I'm asking here for outside opinions. If there is a better place to start an outside discussion please feel free to recommend it. All due respect, user:Itsmejudith has already stated her opinion on the article's talkpage. And I don't think the comparisons to other articles like Sun and Iron are appropriate here, since those don't have similar public policy components. -PrBeacon (talk) 16:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

How about evolution or Oil spill? Both of these articles focus on science, with the former having a single section about cultural issues, and the latter saying nothing about political or cultural implications. Or otherwise, can you give an example of a science article which has significant coverage of non-science issues?

Even if you are unable to find an example of what you want, it does not mean that now is not the time to make the kind of changes you are proposing, and if you have something to say then I will help you to get comment. Right now I think this board is a good place to get opinions, and it is hard for me to say where you could get more comment, but the talk pages of other science articles which have social sections would be where I would look.

You gave some diffs and I read them, but I am not sure how you are relating those to your question. I see that people have tried to add things and other people have removed them. It seems to me there is already a repository of this kind of information in the extant subarticles which you mentioned. Without further explanation, I would not support the addition of only the info in the diffs you gave; there are lots of social effects, but the diffs you gave only focus on the reactions of oil-refining companies, and it is not clear to me why that POV should take precedence over the many other views which could be described. If I were to support any plan for adding info, it would be a summary of many social views and not just the isolated views of a particular industry largely based in a particular class of countries. It is not clear to me why the subarticles are not meeting your needs or why you feel the main articles are being scrubbed of non-science content when the social issues have sections with links to subarticles.

Could I ask that you summarize your plan for changing the article, or better, write a draft of a new "views" section in a sandbox so that it would be easier to understand what it is you want to do? Also, do you feel that I am understanding you? How much content are you wanting to add? Blue Rasberry 20:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Gun laws in the United States (by state)

There is a disagreement about NPOV at Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state) over the inclusion of this map. One group of editors has repeatedly removed the map, saying that it violates WP:NPOV, but they will not point out what part of the policy it violates. While I think the map is not particularly POV, I have also pointed out to them that NPOV says "material should not be removed solely on the grounds that it is 'POV'."

This has gone on for several months. The controversy was posted here on March 16, and one editor (Stephan Schulz) responded on the talk page, saying "I don't understand the NPOV concern." But that does not seem to have helped much - one editor said "it's just another editor's opinion."

I would appreciate it if some people would take another look and give their opinions. Thanks in advance.

— JPMcGrath (talk) 07:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Giving this a bump. I appreciate that editors around here are busy, but a bunch of us over at that article really could benefit from hearing opinions of neutral editors about this disagreement. Thanks in advance for helping. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 16:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Though I don't agree with the pro-gun editors, I can see how the title of the map in question, "Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence" can be seen as POV-pushing since it's so prominent. Would changing that first title part help? Or is there a neutral source for the same/similar map? I also don't see why there needs to be so many maps, at a certain point (say, after 2 or 3) they become information overload -- and certainly all together like that. -PrBeacon (talk) 18:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

How is the title POPV if thats what the campign is called then thats its name.Slatersteven (talk) 18:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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[66]

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 ([67]):

"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)

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)

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". 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

So no reference for that tax collection? Night w (talk) 05:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Refuted? You sure about that? lol Middayexpress (talk) 04:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

The agruments you make are all refuted above. Outback the koala (talk) 19:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Only in your wildest dreams, pal. And certainly not by you. ;-) Middayexpress (talk) 21:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Avoiding WP:RFC/USER, I've instead opened an informal mediation case, the thread of which is located here. It will most likely take a while for an administrator to accept. Night w (talk) 13:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Revisited after a break

I have seen no action on this important topic in awhile, it had even been archieved. Where do we go from here? Outback the koala (talk) 19:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I am finding this issue to be inaccessible because of too much information. Excuse me if this has already been proposed, but would it be possible to put information about the controversy into a separate article, then on the main East Africa page immediately after the list of countries have some kind of link to the controversy page? Wikipedia, I think, is not the place to actually resolve this issue in any way other than to avoid the issue by documenting what reliable sources on both sides say and giving links to both sides within the article. That should solve the NPOV problem. Is there also a WP:RS problem? If not, then what is the problem at this point?

I would like to frame this problem with a plan to collect reliable sources, agree on what they say, then to fix the NPOV issue by going to the East Africa page and posting links to articles supporting all sides. Is there any other way? If so, what are the other options? Blue Rasberry 17:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, if we include "Somaliland," wouldn't that mean mentioning all the areas with secessionist tendencies? Somaliland isn't the only one. We would end up with "Sudan (including the transitional Darfur and autonomous Southern Sudan regions), Ethiopia (including the Ogaden) (etc., etc.)" We could end up with an interminable description. I am not sure this helps or not, it's hard to tell given the length of the argument/discussion. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

True, Gyrofrog. I was looking to the List of states with limited recognition for countries to include and also the List of sovereign states. As far as a separate page could go for this, the issue is not page specific and spans a large number of article and this desparately needs qualifing. Outback the koala (talk) 03:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you give me an opinion, Outback? I am seeing two issues here. One is that it is not obvious what single dividing line to use to separate states which ought to be named in various lists of countries throughout Wikipedia from those states which ought not to be included; the other issue, which is relatively minor and prosaic, is that assuming some states without full international recognition should pass the dividing line by meeting inclusion criteria, how should the lists be demarcated to indicate a difference between controversial and non-controversial entries. To what extent do you feel that the problem is a lack of defined inclusion criteria, and would be solvable with this kind of definition? Is there another big point in this issue which needs to be addressed? Blue Rasberry 17:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe you have certainly summarized the core issue here which, for reiteration, is how to properly incorporate these partially recognized states into the various pages of the project. A proper definition of inclusion in this area would greatly improve the situation of list and geographic location pages for starters. My argument is one of neutrality; That wikipedia cannot decide what states are legitimate or not, and so we must take an objective point of view which is free from the arguments of those whom have stake in the conflicts that accompany these states. Indeed, the biggest push back that this issue always sees is from those editors who have already taken sides in the issue and seek to show that the state in question is not legitimate regardless of where that state is recognized by others states as being legitimate. This thereby impedes discussion on the issue altogether. While Palestine and Taiwan attract some of the worst of these POV-pushers, all pages related to these states additionally attract these individuals, including the one mentioned above. Solvable with a definition, or better yet a policy, would be the ability to show these editors the project's objective stance by pointing to this definition. Those of us involved in this long-running issue have seen far too many edit summaries of 'not a country' with that state's removal(head to the List of Sovereign States for examples). While on some pages consensus has formed around this issue, that consensus does not apply to other pages, and there is a need to re-seek consensus and go through the motions on every individual page effected, replaying the same arguments, often with the same editors who are more than happy to slow down the process, attempting to bring discussion to a standstill, thereby keeping the status quo on the page. I am glad action could be taken on this issue. Outback the koala (talk) 14:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

A straightforward guiding principle will be to mention Somaliland and other disputed areas when they are relevant. And not when they are not. The original question related to the definition of East Africa. East Africa is a top-level article that will be accessed by many general readers with little knowledge of the area. The definition of the area in the lead paragraph needs to fulfil its purpose, which is to let people know what is and what isn't usually included in the area. You don't even have to do that by a list of all the countries, you can do it by only mentioning the ones in the north, south and west that are on the boundaries. Which is why my original answer was: you could go either way, mention Somaliland or leave it out, it doesn't matter very much. I don't think it would be right to have a general rule. Somaliland is a notable topic that must be included somewhere in the encyclopedia, but it doesn't have to be mentioned at every point. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I would ask Itsmejudith if inclusion in lists of countries is relevant; I am not seeing a stand on that in the above statement.

Thanks for providing context and scope to the issue, Outback. With what precedent are you familiar? You mentioned Palestine and Taiwan. Palestine seems to have some inclusion on Middle East and Taiwan in East Asia, which I would take to be analogous to the East Africa article, which is the focus of the specific case of this problem. You said the arguments were the same; how sure are you of this?

I think my plan for resolution of this would be to summarize what has been said in the East Africa discussion and other analogous discussions into a set of options, determine how much work each option would take to implement and maintain, then discuss the options.

Could you list the options already proposed for resolving the East Africa list? Full inclusion as a country and complete exclusion are two options; what others have been proposed? Blue Rasberry 16:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Veer Surendra Sai

Resolved

The POV of the article was disputed in July 2008. I have attempted to bring a NPOV by removing several 'glorifying' parts. I need an 3rd opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenfyre (talk • contribs) 11:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

What you did looks great; you made huge changes and the article needed it because writing about rebellion in a war is an area that often gets biased reporting. I do not think that anything you did is debatable; it all needed to be done. Please post a specific question if you are looking for other input. Blue Rasberry 15:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Anti-Americanism 2

There is (strangely) a dispute over whether there is a dispute over the neutrality of Anti-Americanism. I am not being allowed to put a "Neutrality is disputed" tag on the article. There is also a basic dispute over whether it is encyclopedic to call anything anti-American. I think it is obviously a political interpretation, a statement of opinion not fact. Others think it is obvious that (for example) if a country declares war on the US, it is factual to call that country "anti-American." That, if Charles Dickens says "The heaviest blow ever dealt at liberty will be dealt by this country [America], in the failure of its example to the earth." then it is factual for us to present that as anti-Americanism. I don't agree. Discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anti-Americanism#Anti-Americanism Noloop (talk) 04:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

From your link you state Calling the Nazis evil is also a violation of neutrality, even though we will all agree it is true. True ...but it does not follow that the wiki-article "Evil" should be POV tagged. CyrilThePig4 (talk) 11:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

It would if it stated or implied that the Nazis, communists, and Benedict Arnold were evil. It could provided (referenced) documentation those are widespread or significant perceptions. But to essentially call something evil because the editors think so is a POV violation, no matter how obvious it may be. The same is trued of anti-Americanism, but the AA article suggests all sorts of people are anti-American, because the editors thinks it is "obvious." Also, because an AP article used such a label in passing, or a number of reliable sources you could count on one hand published a theory about it. Noloop (talk) 14:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

...if it stated or implied that the Nazis, communists, and Benedict Arnold were evil I would add a {{cite}} tag to that sentence. This approach provides more information to the reader. It directs her to where exactly the problem is. CyrilThePig4 (talk) 14:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Cite tags are for factual claims: that is not the issue. As I said, the article suggest all sorts of people are anti-American. That's the point of posting here, to get some feedback on whether calling something anti-American is a statement of fact or opinion. I'm not sure where you got the idea that the only case in the entire article concerns Nazis. Please don't edge the article into an edit war by reverting people's edits, particularly when you don't understand what's going on. The tag says the neutrality of the article is in generally in dispute because the neutrality of the article is generally in dispute. It is in dispute because of due weight problems, as well as editors' thinking that claims of anti-Americanism are statements of fact. Noloop (talk) 03:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Citing sources explicitly covers statements of opinion in addition to facts. I will not be editing the article again but my view is that the article is editorially neutral and you have not obtained consensus to tag the article. CyrilThePig4 (talk) 12:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You don't need consensus to tag an article as being is dispute. That would make no sense. The whole point is to flag it as lacking consensus. You don't add cite tags to statements of opinion. The relevant factual claim, in this context, would be that someone has expressed a certain opinion. Noloop (talk) 16:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Its true that if an edds thinks something is 'A' then he is wrong to put it in an articel. But if he can find sources that something is 'A' then he can include it. Now given the nature of the subject (something that is used as effectivlt an acusation or slander) then it is best if such things are attributed ('X' thinks 'H' is 'A'). The articel is not about what is anti-American but what has been percived as anti-American, anmd whilst I agree that some of it seems a bit iffy much of what you have objected to is sourced (and it does not matter how many RS you use, it just has to be multiple as I understand it, especialy as only online sources have been used in many sections). Problom is that much of it has citations, the cites material is being objected to as well as uncited (it seem to be a general (and long standing) objection to the page in general).Slatersteven (talk) 14:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

This is flatly wrong: "But if he can find sources that something is 'A' then he can include it." The policy on due weight says the view has to belong to a significant part of the community of experts. Most of the interpretations in that article have a number of sources you can count on one hand. And in some cases (like the nazis) there is no source at all--it is just an "obvious" opinion. Noloop (talk) 03:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Point one 'number of sources on one hand' refers to on line sources only, and then from one search criteria. A lack of sources on a google search hit does not imply a lack of sources (by the way how many books have been published on anti-americanism?). Pont two the Nazi section does not use just one source (though one of the sources ws removed by anotehr edd). If some more source for Nazi Anti-Americanism I can provide them.Slatersteven (talk) 11:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

A lack of sources in the article implies a lack of sources in the article. The fact is, most of the interpretations of AA given in the article have a number of sources that can be counted on one hand. Are you suggesting that our ability to imagine that there could be lots of off-line sources for a theory is grounds for including the theory? What are you saying? As for the section on fascism, the last time I checked, it had zero sources that made a significant connection between anti-Americanism and the Nazis. Noloop (talk) 16:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Without knowing what you are refering to its difficult to prove you are wrong, your response is too general. If however you are saying that becasue there are only half a donzen sources supproting the inclusion of material have you produced one that supports its removal by not covering the marerial. Have you in fact demonstrated that any of the material goes against accademic consensus by the porduction of source that ignore or dismiss this materail?

Sources for Nazi anti-Americanism.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Jq4FMb47AnEC&pg=PA167&dq=anti+americanism+%2B+nazis&hl=en&ei=3W4XTK_eD9TgsAat2czqCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=anti%20americanism%20%2B%20nazis&f=false

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=JcbLSEQQY04C&pg=PA111&dq=anti+americanism+%2B+nazis&hl=en&ei=YG8XTJSmA56ksQaoto3qCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CFQQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=anti%20americanism%20%2B%20nazis&f=false

http://aei.pitt.edu/9130/01/Markovits.pdf

Will three do or do you want more? I would also add that as this is a page about what is in many resepcts (like holocasut denile and the moon landgigns being faked) a fringe theory, as such its a page about the theory, not one about America.Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Question on opinion in a biography?

Resolved

Curious if this line, unattributed and sourced, belongs in a biography? If not, how do I flag that sort of thing, or is it appropriate to just take the offending text out?

The text in question:

"Ever since finishing his run on The Maxx, Sam Kieth has become increasingly lazy with detail in his artwork. His take on Batman, Spider-Man, and even Ojo look as though he scribbled it up and had someone ink blotch it. Fans have taken notice and his fanbase has been declining."

The article (it's short):

Sam Kieth

Thanks for any advice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldbenway (talk • contribs) 08:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - no advice. I have removed as unreferenced opinion. CyrilThePig4 (talk) 11:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Please re-raise the issue if you have further questions. I am tagging this as resolved. Blue Rasberry 01:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Dignity

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

This article is currently under discussion at Wikipedia:ANI#Dignity, which is where I encountered it. I bring it here not for behavioral concerns, but to address the core content debate.

The basic question, in looking at this version: is it an issue under WP:UNDUE to focus much of an article on a broad topic on the opinions of one scholar (John Romney Aldergrove)? More conversation about the question is visible at the talk page (including the viewpoint of the contributor who believes that it is not). I would greatly appreciate additional opinions there rather than here, so that the conversation does not further fragment. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Help with a NPOV on Armenian Genocide reparations article

Please help in the discussion on the talk:Armenian_Genocide_reparations#NPOV, as an editor claimed the article violating the NPOV but fails to bring other published POVs by WP:RSs and, by that, possibly violates the tag. Thanks Aregakn (talk) 23:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Hiya Aregakn I have used an edit first, talk later approach. If you have any concerns feel free to voice the here, my talk page or at article talk. CyrilThePig4 (talk) 23:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

LGBT rights in Brazil POV

I'm not active in Wikipedia politics or what goes on in the dispute-zone, so my apologies if I am posting this in the wrong place.

The article LGBT rights in Brazil has extensive POV.

Statements such as, "Shortly after electing Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva as that nation's president, to the dismay of Brazil's right-wing zealots, various states are now taking serious measures ensuring that no one will be discriminated against because of his or her sexual orientation" are found throughout the article.

Since I don't know much about Brazil, or especially LGBT issues in Brazil, I put a POV notice at the top of the article and put a not on the article's discussion page. The POV notice was quickly removed. I reverted that edit, and put a note not to remove the POV tag without discussing the issue on the article's discussion page. The POV tag has been removed again with no discussion on the discussion page. I do not want to start a revert war, but I have no idea what to do... HELP! --68.40.223.225 (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

No, they're not allowed to remove the POV template until the dispute's been resolved. Further, these are living people we're talking about, so WP:BLP applies. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

WVWV (Wikipedia:Victim of Wahabi View)

On wikipedia,many Islamic article eg.Milad,are written with wahabi ]Point of View.Which have been sourced by non-neutral wahabi sites.many wahabis consider sunni muslims as kuffar/mushrikeen.Actually which is wise versa.

_Contribs Muslim Editor ^Talk 08:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Copied from Requests for Feedback, as it seems to belong better here. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Charles Darwin biography - English Language Page, first sentence, first phrase.

The first sentence on the aforementioned page is no longer neutral. There has been an enormous amount of debate on the talk pages, both in the archives and on the current one, but none of it has helped. It has in fact resulted in an even more biased wording.

A cursory comparison of the sentence in question with those in other languages clearly shows the bias of the English language one. Whereas the German, Spanish, and Latin pages generally show that Darwin proposed a theory, the English page claims he established facts.

I'm not trying to open yet another debate on the theory of evolution vs. creation. I think everyone on Earth can attest to the fact that this is still a hotly contested topic, so it's not going to get resolved here. I'm just asking people - especially those fluent in a foreign language - to compare the offending English sentence to those in other languages to see what the worldwide consensus on this phrase actually is. I've added three foreign languages I'm relatively fluent in as a start, in an attempt to show just how biased the English sentence is. Please add more with an English translation underneath. I'd ask that you please not manipulate the foreign language pages to reflect your own bias - just copy what currently stands and cite it with the "(ref)(\ref)" function.

English- "Charles Robert Darwin FRS (12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882) was an English naturalist who established that all species of life have descended over time from common ancestors, and proposed the scientific theory that this branching pattern of evolution resulted from a process that he called natural selection."

This formerly had the word showed in place of established - also somewhat biased - however the most recent wording is even more so.

German- "Bereits 1838 entwarf Darwin seine Theorie der Anpassung an den Lebensraum durch Variation und natürliche Selektion und erklärte so die evolutive Entwicklung aller Organismen und ihre Aufspaltung in verschiedene Arten."

Translation- In 1838 Darwin had already drafted his theory of the adaptation of the biotope through variation and natural selection and thereby explained the evolutionary development of all organisms and their branching out into various kinds.

Spanish- "Charles Robert Darwin (12 de febrero de 1809 – 19 de abril de 1882) fue un naturalista inglés que postuló que todas las especies de seres vivos han evolucionado con el tiempo a partir de un antepasado común mediante un proceso denominado selección natural."

Translation- "Charles Robert Darwin (Feb. 12th 1809 - April 19th 1882) was an English naturalist who postulated that all species of living beings have evolved through time from a common ancestor by means of a processes called natural selection."

Latin- "Carolus Robertus Darwin (Anglice: Charles Robert Darwin ; Salopiae die 12 Februarii 1809–Cantii 19 Aprilis 1882) biologus, palaeontologus, et zoologus Anglicus, theorias hodiernas evolutionis et descensus communis via selectione naturale proposuit."

Translation- "Carolus Robertus Darwin (English: Charles Robert Darwin; born on the 12th of February 1809 - died on the 19th of April 1882), an English biologist, palaeontologist, and zoologist, proposed the modern theory of evolution and common descent via natural selection."

Tdbostick (talk) 10:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no policy or guideline that this encyclopedia needs to follow wording used in other encyclopedias; what counts is reliable sources. At Talk:Charles Darwin, Tdbostick has proposed using the word "theorized" as in "Darwin ... theorized that all species of life have descended over time from common ancestors". However, no reliable source using similar language has been produced. Darwin worked continuously for well over twenty years before publishing his "theorizing", and the scientific community quickly embraced Darwin's ideas (mostly within several years). The word "theorized" is just not suitable English to describe this situation; theorizing is something one might do one afternoon. Johnuniq (talk) 11:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is a reliable source from 2008 - Evidence and Evolution: The Logic behind the Science by Elliott Sober, 2008. According to Google Scholar this book has been cited 50 times, and according to many reviews it has been well received.

According to one review of the aforementioned book by John S. Wilkins, which appeared in the journal Systematic Biology in August 2009:

"Under the rubric of Modus Darwin, Sober discusses how similarity implies a common cause, but he is not so naive as to argue that all similarity will imply that or rather that all similarity implies a common ancestor. Instead, he discusses how natural selection of various kinds can cause similar outcomes in, say, genomes, which does not imply common ancestry but rather a common selective environmental "force." "

The previous two references call into question the theory of common ancestry. They are from respected, peer-reviewed sources, and they weren't even that difficult to find. "Theorised" is only one suggestion I have put forth in an attempt to make the sentence less biased. "Proposed," "posited," "drafted," "explained," etc. would also work, as can be attested in the three sister pages in German, Spanish, and Latin. "Established," as it currently stands, or "showed" as was in the previous edit are a little too strong, given the detailed critique in Sober's 2008 book and the good reception from peers it has received.Tdbostick (talk) 15:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

For some reason the references I've provided don't hyperlink correctly on this page. If you open the edit box, however, and then look for the text within the "ref" commands, you can clearly see where I got this stuff from. I'm still kinda new to editing Wikipedia pages beyond simple proofreading changes, so pardon my mistakes.Tdbostick (talk) 15:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

This is not the place to debate evolution, but I will point out that your quote above states the obvious: just because things looks similar, does not mean they came from the same place (see convergent evolution for interesting examples of this). The quote does not disprove or even deny the truth of the sentence under discussion. See evidence of common descent for some very interesting background to how science knows that all life has a common ancestor. It's conceivable that some new form of life will be found, perhaps at a black smoker – life that started independently – but so far, even the molecules found in the cells of all the living creatures that have been studied confirm a common ancestor (see here).

Re references: On a talk page, it is best to remove the "<ref>" tags and the extraneous details of a reference, leaving just a simple plain-text reference. Something like {{Reflist}} is needed to make properly formatted references appear, and that does not work well on a talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 22:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

A computer programmer once compared genetic code to computer code on a very interesting website: http://ds9a.nl/amazing-dna/ , and even endorses Richard Dawkins' books on evolutionary theory, having used them for his source info. However by even making such a comparison - comparing the vastly more complex genetic code to something as obviously intelligently designed as computer programming, pokes a gaping hole in the assumption that "the evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design" (R. Dawkins). There are plenty of books and articles out there that also question Dawkins' assumption, but the writers and holders of those views are marginalized and discredited for their 'religious' beliefs. However, since both Dawkin's claim that there is no designer and the opposing claim that there is a designer are essentially religious in nature, people will continue to passionately debate them, and the opposing viewpoints will affect how someone interprets the evidence presented by the life sciences.

I'm not trying to debate evolution either, but the evidence provided by the life sciences for commonality, be it in design or descent, can be interpreted in many different ways. I've read a lot of the pages people have referred me to and haven't yet seen anything that can only be interpreted one way. It simply requires having an open mind. The offending sentence mentioned many many paragraphs back, should reflect that instead of dogmatically assuming only one view - common descent due to a lack of a designer. Until then, people who don't hold the same philosophical/religious viewpoint as those who have insisted on the biased reading will no longer find that particular page to be very credible and will turn to sources other than Wikipedia for their information. As a final parting shot, what's wrong with replacing established with explained in the offending sentence? Come on, throw me an olive branch here.Tdbostick (talk) 11:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Northern Ireland in relation to Ireland as a whole

There is a current problem over articles to do with Northern Ireland, primarily the Northern Ireland county articles over whether or not they should include their relation to the rest of the islands counties when manual of styles used on other countries counties don't make reference to other entities.

Primarily this involves around a lengthy discussion on whether it should be mentioned in a Northern Ireland county lede that it is one of the "32 counties of Ireland". Of the six editors who have taken part it is split even down the middle. I have tried to be flexible but the inflexibility of others has meant i am now standing firmer than before and have rejected a newer proposal i put foward myself.

The issue is contentious as there aren't 32 counties in Ireland anymore, the Republic of Ireland has constituted 29 counties since 1994. The term is also conentious as it is primarily used by Irish nationalists and republican ideology in respects to Ireland, and even though 32 counties is used by the GAA, they are an organisation with strong links to Irish republicanism and so can't be seen as a neutral reference. One editor Laurel_Lodged said that removal of the term would be best due to its potential troublesome nature.

I keep getting quoted manual of styles used on other articles to circumvent suggestions that might detract from the sense of all-Ireland (such as including Northern Ireland in the Northern Ireland county navbox, and adding UK into the lede), whilst the same editors ignore manual of styles used on other articles to suit their own ends which is essentially Wikipedia:Gaming the system.

The England, Wales, and Scotland county articles don't show their relations to counties in the other parts of the UK, so why should Northern Ireland? The same issue affects the county maps used. I was told by a user (Superfopp) that i couldn't use a six-county map of Northern Ireland in a navbox as it'd make Northern Ireland "look like an island" despite other navboxes and infoboxes making use of "island" like country maps. And that he'd rather have no picture used at all as i don't agree that the all-Ireland one he used is needed. On infoboxes every county in the UK is shown in relation to their constituent country but Northern Ireland is shown in relation to an entire island and thus also a country it isn't politically a part of.

There was even a proposal put forward by one user that Counties of Northern Ireland should be merged with Counties of Ireland. This is another attempt to blur the border and deny Northern Ireland its right of distinction.

My pov swings one way on the debate and i others desire to maintain Northern Irelands distinction from the other political entities on the island, whilst the others prefer to keep Northern Ireland within an all-Ireland context - politically or not. At times some of us, me including how gotten hot-headed and irrational.

So essentially i want to ask for neutral point of views on whether Northern Ireland should have to show its relation to the rest of the island when other articles don't show their relation to other political entities - and whether Northern Ireland articles such as county articles can properly assert their political distinction from the rest of this island with ledes and maps that don't make reference to other countries or geographical regions which can be found out in the actual Northern Ireland article itself. If people want to see an all-Ireland view of Ireland they can go to the relevant articles. I believe using the manual-of-style used on other UK county articles would be the best way. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm a participant in that discussion also. This subject touches on a balance that needs to be struck generally on Northern Ireland-related articles, where two opposing POVs at play:

(a) that Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland form two distinct jurisdiction without relation to each other;

(b) that Ireland forms a context in which to see topics relating to Ireland as a whole.

There is an understandable concern that an article could attribute too great a weight to one point of view and not to the other and therefore breach NPOV.

With respect to this particular issues, the counties of Ireland are commonly seen in an all-Ireland context, with weak divisions between North and south. For example:

"The island of Ireland is divided into two major political units - Northern Ireland, which along with England, Scotland, and Wales forms the United Kingdom, and the Republic of Ireland. Of the 32 counties of Ireland, 26 are in the Republic. Of the four historic provinces, three and part of the fourth are in the Republic." Frommer's Ireland, 2006

"The term 'All-Irish' is in common use for many cultural, sports, and other purposes, and many events, competitions, and organizations are 'All-Irish', that is, they cover the entire area of the 32 traditional counties of the island and not just the Republic of Ireland." World and Its Peoples, 2010

"The twenty-six traditional counties of Eire and the six traditional counties of Northern Ireland are used as the standard Irish geographical designations." - Robert A. Faleer, Church Woodwork in the British Isles, 1100-1535, 2009

The counties are mainly used in postal addresses, geographical units and for cultural/sporting organisation. Most counties in the Republic of Ireland have maintained their role as the basis of local government. Some new "counties" created, beginning in the 19th century, but these are not counted among 'the counties of Ireland' as normally understood. For example, County Tipperary was sub-divided into two "counties" for the purposes of local government in 1898 (24 years before partition of the country) but is still described as one of the counties of Ireland. The counties in Northern Ireland do not form the basis of local government since 1973.

A number of ways have been proposed in which to emphasise that Northern Ireland is a distinct jurisdiction from the Republic of Ireland, including specifically that it is in the United Kingdom. My concern is that removing reference to the 32-county context fails NPOV by removing one POV simply to satisfy another. --RA (talk) 12:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the articles County Antrim and County Londonderry and I regard the maps in those diagrams as being fit for purpose. The county structure is now historic but for most of their history, the six counties in Northern Ireland were merely six out of thirty-two counties. It is only in recent times that the six counties have been separate from the other twenty-six. If a significant part of the article deals with events before 1922, then it is appropriate that the county be discussed in the context of all-Ireland; if the article deals soley with events post-1922, then it is appropriate that only the context of Northern Ireland be considered. The maps that I saw in the above articles clearly cover both scenarios. Martinvl (talk) 12:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The last of the 32 counties was created in 1606 under the Kingdom of Ireland, a unitary state. They persisted within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland from 1801 until they were subdivided, starting with the Local Government (Ireland) Act 1898 that created some new "county boroughs". They all deserve the same treatment on wikipedia being historic administrative areas on the island of Ireland.Red Hurley (talk) 14:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Concur with the above three posters. I sympathise with the concerns of editors whose political outlook would be NI unionist, and I favour tailoring articles so as not to give the impression that they are being "swallowed" by the Republic, but nevertheless NPOV prevents us from actually biassing articles in favour of a unionist POV. The OP initiated a long discussion here where five or six editors worked hard at finding a formula that would suit everybody, and then, just as we were on the brink of agreement on his proposal, decided "screw it, I'm going back to my own entrenched position." I disagree with forum-shopping on principle. Scolaire (talk) 20:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Many boundaries have changed since the 1898 Act, but the 32 still have social, sporting and cultural resonances, not least in the Republic, even though they are all originally English-law constructs. I can see that Northern Irish editors don't want to feel swamped. The idea of a Northern Ireland only arose in the last century, but we all live in 2010 and have to respect each other. How about green-edged infoboxes for the southern 26, and orange-edged for the northern 6? Or is that colouration now seen as a bit twee and twentieth-century?Red Hurley (talk) 22:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Colouring the infoboxes a specific colour especially green for the south and orange for the north might be quite contentious and stereotyping the entities, i would accept a different colour for Northern Ireland though, say the neutral blue used as default on Wiki navboxes.

Is is biased Scolaire to ask for Northern Ireland county articles to conform to the standards and styles used on other articles across Wikipedia or their own set of principles? We weren't on the brink of agreement as two other participants didn't agree with the usage of 32 counties so there was no concensus. In the end it was more of just you and me. I have however put forward an idea on the discussion page on regards to the county ledes along with one last proposal, or rather change of one single word.

Martinvl made good points that i can agree with. Though his points have holes:

• We may as well include Great Britain in the maps to show Irish counties historical context with the rest of the UK especially as they where created by the English and ruled by them for so long and as everyone can agree, North and South are relevantly modern entities.
• County Wicklow's (which contains not much) history section only details its history when under British rule so should we not use a map of the British Isles, maybe with a blank Great Britain, and an Ireland that is divided into its counties?
• County Carlow has no history mentioned at all or for that matter anything to even state what country it is - so should it use a map that includes Northern Irish counties or just a map that shows the Republic of Ireland alone?

As the county map shows the relationship of Northern Irish counties to Northern Ireland is there a need to include "32 counties in the lede? People can see the relationship in the map. And why can't a simple 6-county map be used for a Northern Ireland county navbox? I had to request a neutral colour be used for them as it is to help show some distinction between the countries. If a 32 county one is to be used for the Northern Ireland county articles infobox map - can it be a fair compromise to use a 6 county map for the Northern Ireland county navbox? For a small box a more specific map is better than an all-Ireland one.

If Northern Ireland counties are to be shown and described in an all-Ireland context, do they have to match the same manual of styles as Republic of Ireland counties? Can they not maintain distinction whilst including the context?

By the way just because i am a member of WikiProject Unionism in Ireland and believe in Northern Ireland maintaining its distinction - it doesn't make me a unionist. I am also a member of WikiProject Gaeliege and Irish Republicanism. Also is it forum-shopping to ask for neutral povs on the issue as we all lean one way or the other and independant views are needed to show what way other people outside of the box think to see what a broader feeling is? Mabuska ^(talk) 22:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem with - "We may as well include Great Britain in the maps to show Irish counties historical context with the rest of the UK especially as they where created by the English and ruled by them for so long" - is that they were Kingdom of Ireland constructs, some were created before 1542, and many of the boundaries follow earlier Gaelic boundaries. The concept was Norman, which is why they were called counties (as in comté), and not shires as in England. I see them as lived by all the past people of Ireland, whatever their cultural preferences. There should be a common format but with subtle tonal differences, and let's have an extra infobox line on whether they are in NI or ROI today.Red Hurley (talk) 19:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The infobox does actually need a line to describe what it depicts. However many problems that have arisen in-regards to county articles have arisen from one certain user's undiscussed edits - all of which have done their best to blur the border unless challenged. The Northern Ireland county ledes, in the case of County Antrim was virtually the same for 7 years until they changed it to near enough the way they have it now. The new all-Ireland county maps they uploaded uses colours that are so pale the distinction is challengable as whether or not they are clear enough to clearly depict two different states.

Yeah i know about the Normans and the first counties. Shires (Scirs) where an Anglo-Saxon thing that the Normans never really understood, but it was easier to just use what was already there in England. Was the Kingdom of Ireland and Kingdom of England not ruled by the same king since 1542? The affairs of the two islands are extremely intertwined so there isn't any harm in showing the British Isle context - just a thought.

However i haven't gotten answers to other points i've raised - i'm interested in hearing responses to them; i.e. my comments on

Martinvls comments and about navbox pictures amongst other things. Mabuska ^(talk) 20:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's one take on it. "County" is a concept in administrative geography. It isn't a natural division of space but is a shape drawn on a map by the authorities of a nation-state. Therefore the salient point about County Fermanagh is that it is a sub-division of Northern Ireland and the salient point about County Kildare is that it is a subdivision of the Republic of Ireland. There is enough space in the articles on each county to explain the history. In the article leads, please consider the needs of readers in Mexico or Japan. Irish and British readers are more likely to be sensitive to the political nuances; they can read the whole articles and follow up references if they want to. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, I'm not from Northern Ireland, let alone a Unionist. But I'm really getting quite annoyed by all this talk of "traditional" and "32". This is just clinging to a myth and a fancy that had a brief flowering (infestation?) and then quietly (of sometimes with a bang) disappeared. As has been pointed out, the last county was created as late as 1605. Just over 200 years later, the ediface had begun to crumble: the splitting of counties started and has continued to the present day. So for this glorious period of 200 years we're supposed to feel a strong emotional bond and attraction? Please, it's a blink in the larger story of Irish history. Get over it. Why not feel attachment to the glorious 33 counties after the splitting of Tipperary? Were these counties are less real or legitimate than their predecessor of Tipperary? By no means. Yet many editors would have us weep and rend our clothes at the very idea of abandoning the glorious myth of "32". Pardon me for refusing to join the cloak-rending party. It was a temporary little arrangement, it's gone, get over it. It's not worth the loss of respect from our NI neighbours by insisting on clinging on to these irredentist coat tails. I'd be much more interested in uncovering the ancient tuath which these Norman impositions attempted to usurp and bury. They, at least, had democratic legitimacy, which is more than can be said for the administrative units imposed by the conqueror. Love your NI neighbours, concede the "traditional" and "32" claims as it causes them hurt but costs us nothing to abandon them. It's the right thing to do. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Itsmejudith and Laurel Lodged, a salient point about the "salient point" is that County Fermanagh is not a administrative subdivision of Northern Ireland. It has not been so for almost four decades. County Tipperary is not a administrative subdivision of the Republic of Ireland, neither today nor ever has it has been. It has not been a administrative subdivision of anything for over a century now. These are cultural/geographic units as described by the sources like the ones I quoted above. And the sources say there are 32 of them. --RA (talk) 16:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I see in relation to County Fermanagh that you're right, so I expect you're right about Tipperary as well. To my shame for my ignorance about the nation-state I live in and a near neighbour, and to a lesser extent to the shame of those who wrote an article where you have to scroll down to find out what the article is actually about. The district isn't coterminous with the county. In England we have county council areas that aren't the same as the "ceremonial counties". I'll look up how they are dealt with. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

It's like the ceremonial counties (or at least my limited understanding of them) although in the Republic of Ireland the counties do still form the basis of borders for local authorities. Fingal in County Dublin, for example, is a county council area but is never counted as a "county of Ireland". -RA (talk) 16:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why this was brought here as it was being dealt with @ WikiProject Ireland. I have no problem with Northern Ireland and saying it is part of the UK but I think for all of the reasons laid out above and in the WikiProject Ireland discussion we should make reference to the 32 countries and also to the four provinces. Bjmullan (talk) 16:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm really glad you are sorting it out within the WikiProject. Can I (humbly) suggest you add clarification in the leads of Local government in the Republic of Ireland, Local government in Northern Ireland and Counties of Ireland. In each case to say early on that the traditional areas don't correspond with the present-day ones. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Judith, and I agree that it has to be explained for e.g. a Singaporean wondering why he has read about the 32 counties, but finds that there are more than that today. We can improve on the example of Historic counties of England (e.g. Yorkshire), and have HC of Ireland. With a line in each infoxbox mentioning ROI / NI, as above. Who agrees with that? Does it need to be any more complicated? ...my wife has just produced breakfast.Red Hurley (talk) 08:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The topics mentioned here by have been discussed (each to various degrees, some not really at all) on WikiProject Ireland however external out-of-the-box views were needed to see if there was a way to break the deadlock with external input and ideas and to see should Northern Ireland always be mentioned in relation to the Republic of Ireland - and it has proved fruitful to varying degrees i believe.

The infoboxes really do need to declare the country the county belongs to. The best way i think for a Singapoean etc. would be to talk about 32-counties where it can be properly expanded upon - in the history section of the articles. The all-Ireland county map can also fit in there to. Why must it be in the lede or infobox? Should they not deal with the immediate concerns of the county rather than its historical or traditional relations to the whole island?

It would also free up the infobox for a more specific and possibly detailed map than the all-Ireland one would allow. I.e. a Northern Ireland county map that can show the main settlements in the county or a slightly topographical map which is currently impossible. I.e. just like this French one: [[File:France_relief_location_map.jpg]]

Also i was told that there was no need to state its part of the UK as people can find that out by clicking the Northern Ireland link - well on that methodology they could click a link and see the counties relation to all-Ireland - is that not what the Counties of Ireland page is for?

A point i'm going to re-raise as its not been mentioned by anyone: What is wrong with using a county map of Northern Ireland for a county navbox, i.e. in this one i created (its currently not in use):

I've been told it makes it look like an island and on that basis the editor would rather have no map. However many articles make use of "island" country maps. I think that it looks very nice in the navbox. I feel that the navbox should also state the country the county belongs to for clarification as several of the Republic of Ireland county navboxes declare "Ireland" afterwards yet i was told that as other county navboxes for the UK don't declare what state they belong to then Northern Ireland ones shouldn't. Something should be inputted to make clear where the county belongs to politically especially as Ireland counties have more potential to be troublesome than English or Scottish ones. Mabuska ^(talk) 18:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

No they don't have the "potential to be troublesome" if properly adminned, and we would revert any edits that were disrespectful in either direction. The tiny "32 County Sovereignty Movement" has members in the north, but none where I live in the south. Its outdated name confirms its members' outdated thinking. The rest of us are happy to recall the historic counties with no axe to grind. If you make a big thing out of the maps then in a year's time some other bright spark will want to show them as part of 9-county Ulster, and then all Irish counties will be re-mapped by province, ad nauseam. Over to the admins please, we have all made our points.Red Hurley (talk) 21:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Template:TaxonIds

Template:TaxonIds is problematic because: 1) against policies, especially [68]; 2) its application was discussed at inapropriate place Template talk:Taxobox#NCBI Taxonomy IDs. 3) Template would affect over 100.000 articles, so its all issues and also formal have to be solved prior to its application if any. For something such important will be necaessary at least Wikipedia:Requests for comment or Wikipedia:Mediation. --Snek01 (talk) 23:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, yes, I would also appreciate comments and feedback from the folks here. As Snek01 linked above, the discussion primarily occurred at Template talk:Taxobox#NCBI Taxonomy IDs, since the original proposal was to modify that template. Since then, the proposal has evolved to create a new template ({{TaxonIds}}), and this proposal seems to have broad support verging on consensus. The current plan is to find an interested bot programmer and to propose a trial with WP:BAG. Personally I don't think there is any NPOV issue in the proposal, but if others disagree then we certainly welcome the discussion. Cheers, AndrewGNF (talk) 16:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

This template can not be started to be broadly used, if it has policy issues, incompatibilities with guidelines, if it is duplicite with other template(s). I would expect the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of life. There is necessary to ask questions why the template is better thank other ones, how it should look like, how and in what extent this should be used, and so on. And especially it is NECESSARY to inform about starting of discussion at least all descendant wikiprojects. Not only inform about results of controversial quick work of less than 10 people about something which can affect over 100.000 articles. --Snek01 (talk) 10:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you're jumping the gun a little here. {{TaxonIds}} is currently mentioned (not even used) on a total of 32 pages, most of which are examples or discussions. Nobody is suggesting slapping this template on a thousand pages, let alone a hundred thousand. We're being bold and trying out different ways of linking to taxonomic databases. As the template appears on more pages, the more editors will be exposed to it and will either find it useful and beneficial (promoting its use) or dislike and bring up policy issues to kill it (and it will go extinct). We're not newbies here; we're not going to rush into something and get ourselves into a situation we can't fix. Wikipedia:Old dogs and new tricks suggests that if you think we're messing up here, you should try giving us enough rope to hang ourselves.

Now then, the issues raised. If there are problems with the template itself (design issues, policy issues, guideline incompatibilities, duplication), I think it would be best to discuss them on the template's own talk page. If you'd like to take the discussion to WP:TOL, sure, be bold and go ahead: we'd like all the feedback we can get for {{TaxonIds}}. I'm not sure why NPOV comes into this - and why, therefore, we're discussing this here. From our previous discussions, I got the impression that the NPOV issue revolved around us choosing a subset of all possible databases to link to, therefore biasing which databases Wikipedia readers are likely to access. But WP:NPOV (as I read it) relates to subjectivity in the language and the relative weights given to ideas inside articles. Every time a reference is added to an article, the editor chooses one news article, book chapter or research paper to cite - he or she doesn't cite every news article written on the subject. In the same way, we're providing the article editors with the tools to reference as many and whichever databases the editor sees as relevant to the article. If they don't think an article requires as link to biodiversity databases, they're free to remove the template from that page entirely.

Does that address your NPOV concerns? -- Gaurav (talk) 15:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

While I appreciate the desire to get input from as broad a range of editors (or ideally, readers) as possible, I cannot see any aspects of this proposal that affect the neutral point of view. Could you please explain how the template damages the NPOV that Wikipedia strives for? As an example, I recently wrote Hepatus epheliticus, which includes {{TaxonIds}}; what non-neutral point of view have I unwittingly adopted by adding the template? I don't understand how that article conflicts with the statement that "all Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". --Stemonitis (talk) 07:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, so I have started discussion. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of life#Templates for external links. --Snek01 (talk) 17:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Keiser University

The article Keiser University shows a clear violation of WP:NPOV. The text seems to be written by the university itself and I was surprised to find that there was no subsection on the controversies of the university as there are on the article for University of Phoenix. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 01:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

We'll handle it in WP:WikiProject Universities. I'll post there if I get a minute or in the meantime you could. Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

It does not violate neutrality. It is just a thumbnail sketch of the school and criticism sections are discouraged: favorable and unfavorable information should be included in the relevant sections. For example, if the residences are outstanding or substandard, it should be included under the residences section. Also, when you bring an article to this noticeboard you should place a notice in the article's discussion. What the article needs is greater detail and more referencing, but this is not the correct noticeboard for that. TFD (talk) 04:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

There's no harm done bringing it here. Like many university articles it was written up from the university's own sources. It's much better now that User:Nomoskedasticity has worked through it thoroughly and taken out the peacock terms. I don't see the point in lecturing the OP. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

American bias in Special education article

I would be grateful for a neutral point of view on the article on Special education. The original article was written by American editors. UK editors are now querying the format and terminology used in the article which to UK eyes describe the situation from the American point of view and not from a global standpoint. The two sections in particular which are in dispute are "Settings" and "Criticism". These sections have been moved backwards and forwards between the US section of the article and the general introduction. There are many words and phrases used which are specific to the US (eg, mainstreaming, resource room, response to intervention, push in). The US also seems to have a complicated system of "regular", "partial" and "full" inclusion, which is difficult to translate to other countries, and especially Third World countries. It also makes it very difficult for anyone from outside the US to understand the article. The vast majority of references are also from US publications. The lack of global focus has been discussed extensively at Talk:Special education but no consensus has been reached on how to proceed. We need to reach agreement on establishing a neutral globally understood terminology and the use of suitable references to describe special education in a global context rather than from the American point of view. I have tried adding a globalise tag which has already been reverted once. Does anyone have any suggestions? I've also asked for help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Education and WP:Schools but so far no one has responded. Dahliarose (talk) 11:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I have some sympathy with you, and I don't think the article currently meets the needs of UK readers, but I can also understand the perspective of the American editors. If you understand the education system in one country it's very difficult to get your head around the system in another country. Not only the terminology is different but also the concepts and the issues. I think the globalise tag should stay on and in the meantime there is just a lot of source research and writing to be done. You suggested on the talk page using UNESCO sources, and that sounds like a great idea. Gradually, you need to make this article into the general one, and take anything that is specific to national education systems into the dedicated pages. A "criticism" section sounds odd, in itself, to my UK ears. In the UK, no-one criticises the idea of special education. They might well criticise separate education in special schools, or they might criticise integration into mainstream schools. They don't criticise both at the same time, to my knowledge. I'd go back to WikiProject Education. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Itsmejudith, the "criticisms" section doesn't say anything against "the idea of special education"; it reports exactly the type of concerns you name here (criticisms about implementation, primarily). If you haven't actually read it, then perhaps you should. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Dahliarose has repeatedly claimed that UK people do not use terms like "full inclusion". This is an unverifiable statement apparently based solely on her personal experience.

In fact, this claim is not only unverifiable, but is actually verifiably incorrect: Look at how many official UK government websites use the exact, quoted phrase "full inclusion"[69]. Am I supposed to believe that all of these UK government web pages were written by Americans? Don't you think that hundreds and hundreds of instances of the exact phrase might indicate that -- even if this fact is unknown to an individual Wikipedia editor -- people in the UK are actually using this term?

We've provided Dahlia with multiple examples of (for example) British professors of education, at British universities, in British academic journals, published in London, using these terms. But no matter how many examples we give, it doesn't seem to matter. Twenty years ago, Dahlia's argument was probably accurate, but these terms have since spread around the world -- as evidenced by sources we've already named on the talk page that show them being used in south Asia, Central America, and parts of Africa. Oh, and United Nations websites, too, if you want an "international" standard.

If there is evidence that English-speaking reliable sources are primarily or preferentially using some other term, then I'd love to get a list of those sources -- but so far, what I hear is "One Wikipedia editor personally hadn't remembered hearing this term before reading the Wikipedia article", and that isn't exactly proof that the term is American-only jargon. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I have not repeatedly claimed that the term inclusion is not used in the UK. I have no problem with the use of the word inclusion. My only quibble is with the multi-layered approach to inclusion (regular, partial, full, mainstreaming) which is currently used in the article which is impossible to relate to the UK situation let alone to that of Third World countries, where children with special needs are lucky even to attend school at all, let alone have any special provision provided for them by whatever name you want to call it. . This article is in any case not about special education in the UK or the US the but about special education worldwide. Dahliarose (talk) 00:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a shame this notice is even posted, because certainly there are many other pages where NPOV needs to be evaluated and this one doesn't fit the criteria. I say it's a shame because the person who posted this hasn't read the article nor evaluated the sources. How do I know this? Well, there's this [70], which was mentioned before (on the talk apge), without comment by Dhalia rose, that in fact shows that "inclusion" is used in different contexts, such as full, partial, etc. That these terms are not U.S.-specific. That they are used by publications and institutions in in U.K. Yet, this does not seem to sway her. She states it's "impossibe to relate to the U.K. situation..." If that is the case, I suggest you brush up on your research regarding special education in the U.K. That is why there is this [71]. I have noticed via the page history you haven't made one edit there. Hmm.You might want to start here [72] Indeed, professor Lindsay is responsible for some good research regarding special education services in the U.K. But, as with any educated, compassionate scholar, he realizes the concerns of a special educator are universal, and does not expend needless energy on semantics. Lastly, the U.S. system of special education is not confusing. I have no idea what you mean by "multi-layering". Certainly, if you have questions about each type of inclusion, read the article. Read the sources.

You say above "I have repeatedly said that terms like mainstreaming and resource room are not used in the UK, and that it is inappropriate to use such US-specific terms to represent the global situation." Wrong again. Please see [73] because there are over 61,000 reasons you are wrong there. Quite a lot of districts seem to differ from your reckless statements. And resource room? See [74] Again, take the time to read, research and then think about the issues before making statements like that. People have invested time and energy creating this article, using sources from all over the world, and it is not in good faith to assume U.S. editors come to the article with an agenda. Jim Steele (talk) 02:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Dahlia, if the UK really doesn't use "the multi-layered approach to inclusion (regular, partial, full, mainstreaming)", then why do those precise terms appear hundreds and even thousands of times on the UK's own government websites? Personally, I don't believe that it is possible for the UK to simultaneously not use these terms, and to use these terms hundreds of times in official documents. Do you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

As I have repeatedly stated this article is about special education worldwide. It is not about special education in the UK and it is not about special education in the US. The US and the UK are just two countries in a very diverse world. There are around 200 countries in the world. As local editors are only familiar with the education system in their own countries I have suggested that for the basis of the general section of the article we use sources which have looked at special education from a worldwide perspective rather than using sources focusing on one country in particular. I have provided a whole host of sources from respected international organisations which one US editor has dismissed out of hand and the other has ignored and refused to comment on. These sources can be found here. http://www.unesco.org/en/inclusive-education, http://www.unicef.org/RI_Review_2007_Dec_web.pdf, http://www.unicef.org/girlseducation/files/QualityEducation.PDF, http://www.unesco.org/en/inclusive-education/10-questions-on-inclusive-quality-education, http://www.eenet.org.uk/resources/docs/IE%20few%20resources%202008.pdf.

The "sources" you turned up which you expected me to review are merely Google searches not specific sources. In fact if you take the trouble to look at the sources you will get a very different picture. If the word "mainstreaming" appears in the search results it is often because this word appears in a list of references rather than in the main article. England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all have their own systems. Scotland in particular uses very different terminology from England, and they have a completely different education system. Some of the US terminology (eg high school) actually originated in Scotland. I'm not familiar with the Scottish education system but it appears that the term mainstreaming is indeed used in Scotland. If you look at a Scottish report such as this one http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2006/01/05142243/0 you will however see that the "presumption of mainstreaming" in Scotland simply means that all pupils in Scotland are expected to be educated in mainstream schools. This is completely different from the US concept of mainstreaming and just illustrates the difficulties of writing an article which can be understood by a global readership when the terminology is so different and different words are used in different countries with completely different meanings. If you are interested in the education system in England there are a number of OFSTED reports which provide a good overview which you can find here http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/Ofsted-home/Publications-and-research/Browse-all-by/Education/Inclusion/Special-educational-needs. The problem still remains that no source from a global reference has yet been found to back up the descriptions of settings used in the special education article to verify that these settings apply equally in the USA, China, India, South Africa, Russia, France, Germany, North Korea and any other country you care to think of. This is why I've suggested it is best to have settings described in the individual country articles. You have not explained why you are so against this idea. Dahliarose (talk) 09:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the differences by country section only have around three other countries. Including England, mind you, which you stated was not represented above. Your admission that mainstreaming is used in other countries like Scotland (which is, as you know, part of the U.K.) contradicts you're original point of contention on this board and reveals that you just can't admit when you're wrong. I'm not against the idea of descriptions of other settings Dhaliarose, if you'd take the time to look at my diffs through the history you'd see that was one of my primary focuses while editing. But you obviously don't take the time to do this.

I'll tell you what--you create sections for the one hundred and ninety seven other countries if you' re so determined for a "global view." What's that? It's a lot harder to create articles with sources then to criticize them, isn't it? And to ignore evidence when presented to you like it was on the talk page, huh?Jim Steele (talk) 14:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Dahlia, I completely agree that mainstreaming is not a term generally used in England to describe minimal integration of students with special educational needs into the mainstream school. But you're not complaining here solely about the link to Mainstreaming (education): You're specifically complaining about terms like full inclusion, which appear on hundreds of UK government webpages and in long lists of scholarly publications written, published, and read by and for UK professionals.

Here's my frustration: I say, "The term full inclusion is used by UK professionals, as evidenced by ISBN 9781853469374, which was written by an educational psychologist in the UK, published by a London-based publisher, and is crammed full of UK-specific jargon and almost entirely devoid of any references to the USA. Therefore, the term full inclusion is used by reliable sources originating in the UK."

Your reply is "'Tisn't either, because it's outside of my personal experience, and some reliable sources in the UK don't use that precise term (for example, when talking about things other than full inclusion), and besides, we need 'international' sources."

Fine: Here's a UNESCO report that uses the precise term full inclusion: "Full inclusion is what we all would like to see, but the way forward is not straight, clear or easy." That precise term appears "full+inclusion" more than 100 times on UNESCO's website, including definitions, descriptions, and approving statements. It also appears in statements from international partners of the UN, like II's "The United Nation Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) promotes the goal of full inclusion and guarantees the right of every child to attend the regular school with the supports they require."

I look at these international sources and conclude, "The term full inclusion is used by reliable sources like international agencies such as UNESCO."

You apparently look at UNESCO's website and conclude "The term full inclusion is never used by international sources."

I've given you more than a dozen example of the term full inclusion being used by reliable sources in Europe, North America, Central America, Asia, and Africa. Your response is basically that these sources don't exist, or that they somehow don't count because you have already decided that full inclusion is purely American jargon. How do I keep this from degenerating (further) into a tis/tisn't spat? Do we need an outside editor to say, "It sure looks to me like those direct quotations are from non-USA sources and that they contain the letters f-u-l-l i-n-c-l-u-s-i-o-n"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

As I keep saying over and over again this article is not about the USA or the UK but special education worldwide. You've completely misunderstood and misrepresented what I said. I did not say that I did not recognise the terms full inclusion and inclusion, and I've not said that these terms are American jargon. All I was trying to say was the structure of the settings on the special education article as it currently stands is not representative of a worldwide view, and the same applies to much of the rest of the article. The article does not simply talk about inclusion or full inclusion. It talks about inclusion which is then divided into regular inclusion, partial inclusion and full inclusion. Then mainstreaming is another concept altogether. You claim that this whole section represents special education settings in schools worldwide. Two other UK editors have already said that they don't recognise this even as a description of the UK system so it's just not me. How is this description supposed to relate to schools in Africa where children either go to school or they don't? Is going to school "inclusion", "full inclusion" "regular inclusion" or "mainstreaming"? I spent some time searching for references and have asked you to find references to back up your views but no one has been able to find anything to show that all countries in the world adopt a four-tier inclusion system as in America. In view of the difficulties in finding common ground what is the problem with having different sections on the settings for each country which seems to me to be the only sensible way of approaching this article? The idea of approaching the NPOV board was to ask for outside input not to have the same editors repeatedly going over the same old ground. These misunderstandings would be better discussed on the article's talk page. Dahliarose (talk) 20:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It's quote easy for whatamidoing to misinterpret what you say, because it's certain you aren't sure what you are saying. I don't think you even have a clear mission here. Straight from the talk page, your words "Inclusion, mainstreaming, full inclusion. These terms are not explained and I’m struggling to understand the relevant linked Wikipedia articles. From what I can understand it is only the US which seems to have these different levels of inclusion. If I’ve understood correctly in the US you have full inclusion and partial inclusion (also known as mainstreaming). Other countries don't have these distinctions. Hmmm. Since then a lot of research has been posted showing that other countries use the terms, but it hasn't sunk in with you. As I said before, you want to describe special education in Africa, go ahead and create that section. Still don't see that yet, though. It's a lot harder to write then to criticize haphazardly others work, huh? And you want to move this back to to the talk page... have you looked (or, more importantly, read) at the talk page?! You were the one who posted this in the first place! Really, we are sitting here in awe at how out of your depth you are. It would be amusing if not for the fact it reminds us how informed, serious editors are needed on the education articles and how they unfortunately attract the wrong people.Jim Steele (talk) 00:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you have repeatedly complained about your belief that 'full inclusion' is an American-only term. But to look at the bigger picture, there really are only a few options for educating students with special needs:

What actually happens to the student	Term experts are currently using around the world	Outdated UK jargon (can be sourced 1970s and 1980s)
Student with special educational needs is educated primarily (or entirely) with non-SEN kids/in the ordinary classroom that the child would attend if he didn't have any special needs	Full inclusion	Integration
Student with special educational needs is educated mostly with non-SEN kids, but partly with only other SEN kids	Inclusion (sometimes called "regular" inclusion or "partial" inclusion, if necessary to indicate "inclusion, but not 'full' inclusion")	Integration
Student with special educational needs is educated mostly with other SEN kids, but with some exposure to a non-SEN students	Mainstreaming (education) (primarily US) or inclusion	Integration
Student with special educational needs is completely isolated from non-SEN kids in a separate special school/unit/program	Segregation (except in US, where no general term for this apparently exists, and segregation means racial segregation)	Segregation
Student with special educational needs doesn't attend school at all, or is educated outside of schools (ranging from private tutoring to no education at all)	Exclusion	Exclusion

The lines between these things are fuzzy, and some countries draw the lines between categories in slightly different places; we're talking about a gradient, not a discrete system, and the first three options are about (substantial) differences of degree rather than type. However, every modern source that describes options that line up with this. It's true that some countries don't provide every single option on the list (Barbados, for example, is pushing the first two of the five, although they also have special schools), but no source I've ever seen describes more steps in the gradient than what the article lists, and no editor has ever proposed a sixth option, so I think we've got a complete list.

And, importantly, experts around the world have changed their language during the last two decades. I believe they found it important to be able to easily differentiate between the kind of 'integration' that means "This child is allowed to eat lunch with non-SEN kids, but otherwise never sees non-SEN kids" from the kind of 'integration' that means "This child attends and participates in every activity of the class that he would attend if he had no SENs." The reliable sources make these distinctions (especially in outcomes-related research), so I see no particular reason to revert to a 1970s-style undifferentiated lump in which the options were "SEN student's school has the same street address as his non-SEN neighbor" and "SEN student's school does not have the same street address as his non-SEN neighbor" -- which is all you can tell from the very broad classification of 'integration'. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Dating the Book of Daniel

1. The article under discussion is the Book of Daniel.

1. The text under discussion is this one: [75]

composed, according to modern scholarship, in the second half of the 160s BC.

1. According to some users, this text reflects the position of consensus among current academical scholarship. According to other users, the "traditional" dating, supported by some scholars, should receive the same evidence, and the dating of the book should be presented as "controversial".

1. The dispute resolution process has been followed:
   • discussion in the talk page Talk:Book of Daniel#Date of composition in introduction
   • third opinion request
   • request for opinion in the three projects related to the article.

--TakenakaN (talk) 15:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Human Rights

An editor who has not previously edited the article on human rights has asserted that the article "looks at the topic with rose colored glasses" could an uninvolved editor look at this article and determine whether there is any substance to this claim that I have missed? in particular whether there are substantive changes that could / should be made to avoid any appearance of lacking neutrality, thanks! Ajbpearce (talk) 15:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The objections are too vague and sarcastic to be useful, and seem to be complaints that particular cases that editor cares about aren't included (so why doesn't he include them?). I've only read the lead, skimmed, and looked at the Talk page. It is true that the lead is concerned almost exclusively with the West. Also, this is unsupported and, I think, false: "Human rights are thus conceived in a universalist and egalitarian fashion." Individualists, of which there are many, tend to have an anti-egalitarian approach to rights. Egalitarianism >> wealth redistribution (socialist). So that's too controversial to be presented as fact. Noloop (talk) 16:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Saffron Terror

There is a massive edit-war brewing there, with unsourced POV violations by (now indefbanned) sockpuppet SuchiBhasin and meatpuppets Akilash and DawnoftheBlood. Their edits [76] conflict with NPOV. Furthermore, the agenda of the editors ca be revealed here [77][78]. It is clear that they are not interested in wikipedia policy of WP:TRUTH and WP:Verifiability.117.194.198.217 (talk) 07:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

• I am not anybody's puppet, I have got nothing to do with any of the editors mentioned above. My proud contributions history can be compared with rest of the world.--DawnOfTheBlood (talk) 08:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
• My IP can be compared with rest of the world as well--DawnOfTheBlood (talk) 08:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
• This is the first time when I am editing this article. To be frank (I read some but) I couldn't even read all the contents, I simply noticed deletions by this anon and decided to intervene.--DawnOfTheBlood (talk) 08:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
• I simply respect wikipedia policies and I believe referenced text should not be deleted from any of the articles without reaching wp:consensus. And in regards to this article, I found it a little strange that this anon - 117.194.198.217 is ruthlessly deleting (please see..1, 2, 3) text + references for no reason.--DawnOfTheBlood (talk) 08:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
• I have already warned this anon against deleting referenced text and I hope wiki administrators/editors will be able to help him understand wiki policies as well.--DawnOfTheBlood (talk) 08:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)