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

Ceuta, Melilla and Gibraltar

Ceuta and Melilla are two Spanish enclaves in North Africa, they are both claimed by Morocco but remain Spanish territory. The situation is very much analogous with that of Gibraltar, British territory claimed by Spain. As Ceuta and Melilla are only 15km from Gibraltar many commentators draw attention to the dichotomy whereby Spain claims Gibraltar whilst also maintaining its own enclaves. It might have been naturally expected that might be mentioned in the Gibraltar article but it is not.

I have prepared a brief mention, cited and giving due coverage appropriate to an overview article on Gibraltar, with more details at Foreign relations of Spain#Disputes - international. See [1]. I first proposed this edit in talk over the weekend, repeating the same suggestion without a response. Immediately I add it to the article it is reverted claiming there is no consensus to add it and a somewhat strange talk page post claiming this edit violates WP:NPOV.

I would like outside opinion as to whether the edit I have proposed meets WP:NPOV and gives appropriate coverage per WP:DUE. Thank you. Justin talk 20:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The main reason for saying that this edit is non NPOV has been that it gives voice to critics of the consistency of the position of one of the sides of the dispute (Spain, supported by the UN) but it does not mention equally noteworthy criticism of the other sides (Gibraltar and the UK) or the position of Spain about the lack of parallelism between these situations:

• If the Gibraltar article explains parallels between its situation and other similar disputes, it should also mention -for example- what notable sources say about the dichotomy (for the UK) of Hong Kong being returned to mainland China while Gibraltar is being kept, or about the parallelism with the original inhabitants of Western Sahara (who were displaced when Morocco invaded it -like Spanish Gibraltarians after the capture- and were replaced by a new population of Moroccans whom Morocco now says should vote in an eventual self-determination referendum -against the criteria of the UN), or...
• Also, for NPOV, the article would have to explain the POV of Spain about the different situation of Gibraltar and Ceuta and Melilla, the POV of the UK regarding why Gibraltar is different from Hong Kong...

Besides, a majority of editors (Spanish and British) have said that Ceuta and Melilla are not relevant to a Gibraltar article. They have said that the only common thread between Gibraltar, Ceuta and Melilla is Spain -not Gibraltar. Therefore, Ceuta and Melilla are relevant -indeed- to the territorial disputes section in the article about foreign relations of Spain (in fact, it is mentioned in that article) but not to the article about Gibraltar (even more if you take into account all the different implications that should be mentioned in order to reach NPOV). -- Imalbornoz (talk) 21:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of the posting to this board was to elicit outside opinion but to correct an obvious untruth, a majority of editors did not say this at all. 2 support it, 1 is weakly opposed and the above editor opposed it. Justin talk 21:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

(Note: I did not want to go into this (boring) detail, but you can count at least three editors saying Ceuta and Melilla are not relevant to the Gib article: The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick[2], Richard Keatinge, and yours truly. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 22:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC))

No you're being misleading again. RHoPF commented on a completely different and more detailed edit. That criticism was taken on board and acted upon. Richard's comments were to weakly oppose the edit as I have correctly reported already. What you have just stated is misleading. Let people comment please and stop adding misleading comments. Justin talk 23:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, including information about Cueta and Melilla in the Gibraltar article is inappropriate, specifically when it seems the sole purpose of doing so is to discredit Spain's position toward Gibraltar, which is where the NPOV problem arises. Grsz¹¹ 21:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC) (neither Spanish nor British)

It has nothing to do with discrediting Spain's position whatsoever, it reports what has been said in a neutral manner. If Spain is criticised for its position we report that, that is not a NPOV problem. Avoiding such coverage is a NPOV problem as it implies there is no criticism of the Spanish position and skews the POV of the article. Justin talk 22:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The argument for including some comment is that such remarks have indeed been made; to many people including the PM of Gib and the government of Morocco the plazas de soberania etc seem relevant to Gibraltar. The argument against is that, in fact, Spanish claims to Gib would not be affected if Ceuta and Melilla etc. had never existed. They are different places and most of the arguments are different. I suppose there's the point about integrity of national territory, which the Moroccans at least feel applies to all these claims, but then the Spanish position disagrees about that too... Altogether a complicated argument of minimal actual relevance to Gibraltar, on balance well worth leaving out of an overview article, though a link to Spanish foreign policy could certainly be engineered. And I'd suggest that this debate would be better in the Gibraltar talk article. Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Re "of minimal actual relevance to Gibraltar" and "sole purpose of doing so is to discredit Spain's position toward Gibraltar"

Agree and agree. Bottem line is, mentioning Cueta and Melilla is basically a debating point rather than a fact that will actually give a reader some useful information about Gibraltar. For the record, I happen to think this is good debating point, but frankly, WP is not a battle ground and an article on Gibraltar shouldn't contain this kind of stuff. NickCT (talk) 13:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

"sole purpose of doing so is to discredit Spain's position toward Gibraltar" Seeing as that as been highlighted as a reason for not including it, could you all please note that is not my reason for doing so. I perceive such a comment as a bad faith presumption as to my motive for including it, even if that isn't the intention. I was drawn to the compelling analogue of the situation with Gibraltar that was all, it seemed to my mind an omission to not comment on it. I still think it is to be honest.

I wanted outside comment for adding it, I got it, so I won't be including it. I happen to disagree with your comment and would have been a lot happier if outside comment had been allowed before the well was poisoned so to speak. There are a lot of issues on that page right now that I would really welcome outside comment on. Regards. Justin talk 14:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Re '"please note that is not my reason for doing so. I perceive such a comment as a bad faith presumption" - For the record, I was not trying to suggest nor do I believe that Justin's contribution was in bad faith. Additionally, I agree re the "compelling analogue" comment. NickCT (talk) 14:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you I appreciate you clarifying that. Regards, Justin talk 23:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Layng Martine, Jr.

He is determined to write the article about himself... badly. No response to any attempt to discuss. I have to rush off to choir practice; anyone else want to have a try? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I've placed a formal COI notice on his talkpage and reverted. He'll be over 3RR if he reverts again. A short block clearly and patiently explaining the reason might be salutary in making him understand how to contribute. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Women's rights and the Koran

An article I nominated for GA status, Women's rights in Saudi Arabia, failed due to NPOV concerns. The discussion is here [3]. I'd like broader input on the NPOV issue, as I didn't think the GA discussion was clear or thorough. The objection centers on quoting of the Koran in the green sideboxes. The quotes pertain to women's rights. The objection is that this implies that the Koran is anti-woman. If you find the quoteboxes in violation of NPOV, constructive suggestions would be helpful. Should they be deleted? Can the Koran can be quoted in any way?

• My thoughts are: 1) The quotes aren't interpreted, just given as what the Koran says, 2) The quotes aren't selected to paint an unbalanced picture; they were chosen because they are about the rights of women, 3) The fact is that the Koran is not exactly a feminist document: it states that husbands have a right to beat their wives, brothers generally inherit more, and so on. 4) It is relevant because Saudi Arabia is an Islamic state; the Koran (along with tribal custom) is the basis for women's legal rights there. Noloop (talk) 17:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd remove the quotes. This isn't about women's rights in Islam but in Saudi Arabia; while religion plays a big part in female repression there I'm more interested in quotes that relate directly to the nation's perspectives. Abrahamic religious texts are chock full of misogynist passages downplaying the value and rights of women but it's only Saudi Arabia that won't let women drive. Sol (talk) 22:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not familiar enough with Saudi law to give a definitive answer. My advice: Quote the Koran where the relevant passages underlie current Saudi law as proved by reliable sources. Footnote the connection. If the Koran is an overall source for Saudi law on these issues, relevant quotes for protection of, and limitations on women's rights should be cited. Put something about the role of the Koran in these areas of law early in the text.

Also, minor design suggestion: whiten the non-Koran quote boxes so as not to imply they are all agreeing with each other, and to diminish the sense that this is a point-counterpoint debate among the quotes. Also, put all the quotes on the right: it's extremely irritating to come to a new section and wonder if you should read the box quote or the section first.--Carwil (talk) 22:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd definitely not have quotes like this, as per Sol above. At the moment, the quotes give the implication that the Saudi system is the one true representation/interpretation of the Koran, which is clearly POV. It also seems to implicate "Islam" in the poor human rights record of Saudi Arabia, which is also POV. It's been the Saudi choice to legitimate their regime using the Koran, but thus was slavery, persecution of Jews, war and misogyny legitimated by the bible previously (and still now by some). We don't present the history of women's rights in Europe using prominent scriptural quotes. Koranic quotes should be presented only in the context of how Saudis have used them, preferably with an indication that the Saudi version is not the only version. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 00:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I missed part of this discussion. Regarding this comment: " This isn't about women's rights in Islam but in Saudi Arabia; while religion plays a big part in female repression there I'm more interested in quotes that relate directly to the nation's perspectives." The Qu'ran relates directly to the nation's perspectives. The nation's perspective is that Saudi Arabia is the world's foremost Islamic nation (because it is the birthplace of Muhummad). A number of people have asserted what is implied by the quoting. These alleged implications seem like POV to me. Who says quoting the Qu'ran implies that Saudi Arabia is the "one true representation/interpretation of the Qu'ran"? How? Why? Where? It is just POV to say that's implied. The only implication of quoting the Qu'ran in this article is that the Qu'ran is a significant part of women's rights in Saudi Arabia. Which it is. Noloop (talk) 23:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System and WP:COATRACK

Withdraw until after the AfD is over
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System is currently undergoing an AfD. I commented at the AfD that there is no inherent BLP issue with this entry and that it is notable enough to be kept, but that the current entry appears to be a WP:COATRACK. As a result I have posted a detailed discussion on the talk page of the COTRACK/NPOV issues - Talk:Werner_Erhard_vs._Columbia_Broadcasting_System#WP:COATRACK. This discussion quickly digressed into a verbal ping pong match with the main contributer to the article, which is just cluttering the talk page without any productive movement on the issues. I'm hoping some uninvolved eyes could take a look at this so that I can step back from the unproductive back and forth with the afore mentioned editor. I do not think the entry should be deleted or whitewashed. Not at all. Just think it needs some serious trimming. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC) I agree re COATRACK. Also WP:SYN violations. There are WP:OWN problems, also (the editor makes the argument that the coatrack is needed because the main articles are biased -- as blatant of evidence of POVFORK as possible). Once all the coatrack is removed, all that's left is a stub about a non-notable lawsuit that never went anywhere. The article should be merged into Werner Erhard to avoid the coatrack, and I would support such a WP:BOLD move. THF (talk) 14:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC) The comment above starting this discussion in this noticeboard is most certainly NOT a neutral or matter of fact presentation of the issue. The majority of comments at the AFD have posted positively about the quality of the article, have stated it is not pov, not a "coatrack", see ([4] [5] [6]). -- Cirt (talk) 14:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC) I have not looked into the details of the AfD, but this looks very much like an attempt to canvas at the AfD. This is not the purpose of this noticeboard. I would respectfully ask Griswaldo to withdraw this entry.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC) Agree with this comment by VsevolodKrolikov (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 15:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC) So I'm trying to canvass to get other to vote like myself, to keep the entry? Can you please tell me how to get a third opinion at the entry talk page about issues in the entry? Should I wait until the AfD is over? Once again, I'm not voting delete, and fully expect the entry to be kept. I'm simply trying to get eyes on it to improve it. Please tell me a better way to go about this. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 15:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC) Yes, it would be helpful to wait to address these other matters until after the AFD is over. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 15:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) (in agreement with cirt, but with detail) I said it's canvassing because you've appealed to a group of editors with a non-neutral presentation of the issue of something currently at AfD. It's clear that you are interested in getting people to agree it's a coatrack as it stands. AfDs often result not only in a keep or delete decision, but also a clear indication on how to move forward, which can be invoked in future discussions (this may or may not be official policy, but it's a common occurrence). I would suggest that the most proper thing to do in this case is wait until the AfD is over, and then discuss on the talkpage about how to improve the article. In terms of an approach, arguments such as "it's a coatrack but rescuable" (see also "it's basically OR, but it doesn't have to be") are usually not going to gain majority support in any AfD. It's probably better not to confront the issue (and have it ruled out after minimal discussion because editors will tend not to nuance as much at an AfD) and focus on the basic keep/delete for now.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC) Fair enough. Does this hatting deal with your concern?Griswaldo (talk) 15:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC) Totally. The short version of my babble above is : leave it for now (a) for propriety's sake and (b) you'll get a better hearing after the AfD. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Above discussion hatted, due to ongoing AFD. -- Cirt (talk) 15:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Hellfire

Hi. An IP has made a series of revert edits for which he has now been blocked, the last being the following: here.

I would revert him myself, as his reference is as other editors have indicated as well POV, off-topic, soap-boxing, and not supported from what I can see by the ref he initially claimed supported it. However, I don't wish to brush up against 3RR myself. The sysop who blocked the IP suggested that I therefore post the matter here, suggesting "f the edits in question are obviously that bad, you can certainly get another editor to remove them.". Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. Clearly a coatrack soapbox editor. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 23:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Aftermath of World War II - Operation Dropshot

In the article, Aftermath of World War II, Communicat has inserted a paragraph in the Post-war tensions section of the article on Operation Dropshot. Operation Dropshot was a contingency plan devised in the United States for the atomic/high-explosive bombing and invasion of the Soviet Union. It is my opinion that the detailed nature of the information provided in the Aftermath article gives an inaccurate impression that the United States was actually preparing to conduct the operation. Communicat's favored text was modified in this edit. I really don't think it belongs in the article at all.

We have attempted to resolve our differences on the talk page, though now he is talking of adding me [7] to expanding list of users he wishes to include in his quest for arbitration without seeking any intermediate steps. [8][9]

So, I'm hoping to find some neutral parties who can review the section in question, at least. Thanks in advance. --Habap (talk) 18:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I strongly concur with Habap, but that is is far from the only section of the article with NPOV problems, as I recently pointed out on the article's talk page. Review of the entire article by neutral parties would be greatly appreciated. Edward321 (talk) 03:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

My edit in question was not intended to lead anyone to believe or disbelieve that Operation Dropshot would or would not actually have been carried out. I have cited a reliable source that says clearly it was a "plan" and a date was put on the plan, the date being the anticipated date of war breaking out with the Soviet Union. If the filing party or his accomplice have any problem with that, they should either take it up with the author of the cited work Dropshot: The US plan for war on the Soviet Union in 1957, or they should contribute text and reliable ref indicating the plan would not actually have been carried out. The filing party's personal opinion is quite irrelevant as to whether or not the plan would actually have been carried out. A further and accompanying reliable source that I cited, asserts that the plan was abandoned after the Soviet Union developed its own A-bomb, which would have resulted in unacceptable American casualites had the Dropshot plan been executed.

The filing party and his accomplice have over a long period time not contributed any text or ref whatsoever to the article in question. It is worth noting that certain editors at the military history project, including especially the two above, habitually raise the evocation of "pro-Soviet POV" each and every time historical fact presents them with something they find patriotically embarassing. It's regretable and unacceptable that anything not overtly pro-American should automaticaly and misguidedly be construed by them as anti-American and/or "pro-Soviet". They appear to support Bush's phrase: "If you're not with us, you're against us." Which is a load of crap, and it has no rightful place in any NPOV article. Communicat (talk) 13:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me but I think we have evidence that the plan would not have been carried out, we are still here. The date was the date the Americans expected the Soviets to try and take over Western Europe (and other areas). It was a contingency plan to respond to such an attack.Slatersteven (talk) 13:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Communicat, if I've habitually cried out against "pro-Soviet POV", it should be easy for you to find dozens of diffs showing it. Please do so. Please also check out contingency plan, since you appear not to understand the concept. --Habap (talk) 13:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Communicat, before anything else, please strike the accusation of "accomplice", as it is an accusation of WP:meatpuppetry and does you no favours in the eyes of other editors. To the matter in hand, the book you cite (Dropshot: The US plan for war on the Soviet Union in 1957) appears to be a primary, not a secondary source, being authored by the US military rather than an independent analyst. As such, you cannot draw too strong a conclusion from it - in terms of how seriously it was taken, or how it should be interpreted. On the overall matter, I have to agree that implying dropshot was a distinct possibility seems unfounded. A quick look at the university imprint secondary literature on google suggests to me it was a contingency plan based upon a strong belief in the possibility of conflict with the Soviet Union, rather than a plan that would have been carried out had the Soviets not developed nuclear weapons of their own. For example, This text (U of Missouri) says it was never adopted as policy. It doesn't get that much coverage in books on post war tensions; to suggest or hint that it was a central part of US policy (rather than an interesting manifestation of US thinking) seems UNDUE. Sources generally say that the plan itself became unfeasible when the Soviets developed their own nuclear weaponry, but that is not the same as saying or implying that were it not for Soviet nuclear weaponry, the US would have come close to invading.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

According to my dictionary (The New Penguin English Dictionary, 2000) the word "accomplice" is defined as "someone who collaborates with another".

The book that I've cited is a secondary source, not a primary source, and the name of the author as stated is one Anthony Cave Brown. If it was a primary source it would be attributed to Department of Defense or similar. My text states clearly that it was a contingency plan. Mention of it in the article section "Post-war tensions" was done to convey the ethos of the Aftermath of WW2, in which the plan was formulated. Given the above comments emphasising the apparently harmless "contingency" nature of the plan, and the unlikelihood of it ever being implemented, it seemd odd that the plan was subsequently classified secret for the next 30 years. The plan was later adopted in modified form as offcial policy by Pres Eisenhower, viz., when it became known as the strategy of "Massive retaliation", as attributed to two reliable sources provided by me in the article. The Dropshot plan was abandoned when the Soviets produced their own nuclear weapon, and that is also attributed to a reliable source. I am not saying or implying anything. I am citing reliable referenced works, and if there are reliable referenced works stating the opposite, then you are free to include them for parity of sources.

I guarantee that if this article was openly anti-Soviet it would be tolerated, encouraged even, in compliance with the prevailing double-standards at milhist project. I can provide many examples, but for sake of brevity at this time, just take a look at existing wiki Soviet propaganda article which has been in existence for a long time without hinder, even though it breaks all NPOV and sourcing rules. It relies on a self-published source (disallowed by the rules), it wrongly describes CIA-defector Phillip Agee as "a historian", and it is otherwise riddled with inaccuracies and absence of reliable sourcing. But that's evidently quite acceptable by certain editors, just so long as it's anti-Soviet.

Or consider the "Social effects" section of the Effects of World War II article, (now reworked and merged into Aftermath of World War II)which had existed in a anti-Soviet biased condition for a long time before anyone (i.e. myself) did anything about it. It claims: According to historian Antony Beevor, amongst others, in his book Berlin - The Downfall 1945 the advancing Red Army had left a massive trail of raped women and girls of all ages behind them. Between several tens of thousands to more than 2,000,000 were victims of rape, often repeatedly. This is not properly referenced with name of publisher, publication date, or page number etc. The words "among others" have no sources whatsoever. But, the moment reliable figures are cited by me to the effect that 14,000 rapes were also committed by American GI's, the relevant section is suddenly objected to by Edward321 as "inappropriate". The bias and hypocrisy is clear and present, and it speaks for itself. Communicat (talk) 17:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I never used the term "inappropriate" when discussing the problem of undue weight in the article.[10] I did try to address the concerns about Operation Dropshot a few weeks ago.[11] In response, Communicat blind reverted me and filed a RfAr against me.[12] Edward321 (talk) 18:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Communicat, could you please directly quote from Ambrose stating that "The Dropshot plan was abandoned when the Soviets produced their own nuclear weapon." My recollection of the source is that Ambrose states that at no point after 1950 could the Americans have used nuclear weapons against the Soviets without unacceptable risk. The key point here is whether he states that Dropshot itself was abandoned or just that the risk of action was too great, as you're hanging your hat on Ambrose identifying the cancellation of Dropshot being directly caused by [[RDS-1]. I don't Ambrose ever mentions Dropshot, so you may be performing WP:OR. --Habap (talk) 18:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Re Edward321 above comment about rapes: the verbatim words you used were "I am not at all sure this is the correct article to address the topic." In other words you mean the topic is "inappropriate", which it is not, nor was it "inappropriate" in your view when it referred only to rapes allegedly committed by Red Army soldiers. I repeat, your bias is palpable. The RfAr was filed against you because of your persistent stalking and hounding of me from one project to another, projects upon which you'd never previously not worked on at all, and then engaging in edit warring by reverting my edits without discussion other than brief remarks in the edit summaries, which is disallowed.

Re Habap above: If my text re Ambrose crosses the line into original research, then I shall be happy to rework the relevant text accordingly. Other than that, I retract nothing that I've stated above, and I await your responses to the key issues at hand. Namely, your alleged pro-American/anti-communist bias, as also the same bias exhibited by Edward321 and a few other milhist editors, which is what this dispute is really about. Communicat (talk) 19:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

PS to Edward321 re Rapes/social effects which you objected to as allegedly not being in the "correct article to address the topic": You raised no objections to that previously, when the Effects of World War II merge discussion was underway, and the topic was merged by consensus, along with other topics. Only after reliable reference to GI rapes was added by me did you suddenly (but predictably) find it's "not the correct article to address the topic." Communicat (talk) 19:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

You state that I am "pro-American/anti-communist bias". If it's so obvious, it shouldn't be hard for you to show an obvious pattern. I am innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until I clear my name.

You seemed very certain that Ambrose was a reliable source that supported your assertion that Dropshot was abandoned because the Soviets got the bomb. Are you saying you haven't read Ambrose either? It seems that very often, when one of your sources is questioned, it turns out that you haven't read it. This makes taking your word on what any source has to say a risky endeavor. --Habap (talk) 20:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I have had the grace to concede above: If my text re Ambrose crosses the line into original research, then I shall be happy to rework the relevant text accordingly. The text does conceivably cross the line. Thank you for pointing it out to me. I shall be happy to rework that very brief text accordingly. It's not the end of the world. The article is a Start Class article, which automatically implies that it is a work in progress. Regretably, "progress" has been continuously disrupted by you, You fail to provide concrete text and reliable refs in favour of promoting your own personal views and opinions. I am tempted to seek an interaction ban against you. Consider this a warning.

As regards the alleged pro-American/anti-Soviet bias, see: your recent posting together with posting of 18 Aug 2010 at WW2 discussion re link to truth-hertz.net, in which, after disruptively reviving a WP:DEADHORSE issue, you attempted simplisticly to discredit me on the basis that the subject of an (by then already deleted) external link earlier provided by me had been favourably reviewed by a mass-circulation British communist newspaper. Your implied meaning was that the link was therefore "pro-Soviet" and hence not allowed by rules of NPOV. Your remark was negated by another, more objective editor. Communicat (talk) 13:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Two posts indicate a bias? Seriously, you must be able to find more, or at least something more damning than me noting that the Morning Star is published by, and using the editorial stance of, the Communist Party of Britain. I leave the interpretation of whether the statement of fact indicates bias to our readers here.

The review in the Morning Star is far more accurately portrayed by the quotation provided "If this unnervingly convincing analysis is correct, beware hydra-headed fascism." That paper was originally the product of the Communist Party of Great Britain and now says that the programme of the Communist Party of Britain underlies the paper's editorial stance. --Habap (talk) 15:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Or is it that disagreeing with you indicates bias? --Habap (talk) 14:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Examples of bias through omission on the part of filing party Habap: He will recall that I initiated a long discussion at World War II talk page concerning dubiously sourced text referring “brutal dictatorship” in N. Korea. I pointed out that the attributed “brutal dictatorship” source was disallowed by wiki's sourcing rules, and with the assistance of reliable citations I also pointed out that brutality was common also in US-backed S. Korea which, of course, was studiously not mentioned in the POV-biased article. It was then agreed by consensus that the “brutal N. Korea” text and reference should be deleted, which Habap undertook to do. Naturally, he failed to do so. I eventually did so on his behalf.

Other long-winded discussion that I initiated was in relation to the fact that the WW2 article relies on nearly 400 references derived solely from orthodox Western sources, to the exclusion of any non-Western or significant-minority Western-position sources. This is a clear infringement of WP:NPOV. Habap undertook to provide reliable non-Western sources, in order for referencing to be brought into compliance with the rules. He failed to honour his undertaking. The article remains heavily biased through omission.

I shall be pleased to provide diffs substantiating the above, should Habap challenge these examples of POV bias through omission on his part. The question of POV bias at milhist project, at mentioned above, was the subject of a request by me to the mediation committee. Mediation was rejected by the committee because Nick-D, a main party involved, refused to consent to mediation. The dispute remains unresolved. It is ironic, to put it mildly, that Habap should now be alleging POV bias on my part. Communicat (talk) 15:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Habap's abovementioned reference to the Morning Star was specifically in the context of discrediting me for providing a source that had been favourably reviewed by that newspaper. In other words, he implied that the source was unreliable simply because a communist newspaper had reviewed it favourably. (Various non-communist publications had also reviewed it favourably). Communicat (talk) 15:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

PS: I'm not going to further dignify your provocative remarks with a thoughtful response. The only reason I'm here in the first place is because Arbcom specifically instructed me to participate in Rfc before considering any re-submission of my request for arbitration. Communicat (talk) 16:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you forget that on the 22nd of August, you'd already admonished me for editing without allowing the arbitration process to complete[13]. Odd that I am fault when I make changes and also at fault when I favor a change, but await consensus before making it. "Bias through omission" has to be one of the more inventive arguments I've read in a while.

Interesting to see that you're only going through the motions here in order to get back to arbitration instead of discussing the actual issue, which is not whether I am biased, but whether detailed information on the contingency plan, Operation Dropshot, belongs in an article covering the the Aftermath of World War II. --Habap (talk) 17:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Unrelated to this discussion, I have blocked Communicat for 1 week for a personal attack on another user on that article talk page. This is the third personal attack block for Communicat in the last 10 weeks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree that Communicat resorts to personal attacks too frequently. I hope the one week break will allow the passions to settle. Let me point out, however, that, although Communicat's behaviour and his edits are far from perfect, the discussions he initiates eventually lead to improvement of the articles he works with. Going back to the initial issue, the only my objection to the Dropshot story is that it is not true that the idea of massive atomic pre-emptive strike against the USSR was abandoned in 1947. For instance, in his article "American Atomic Strategy and the Hydrogen Bomb Decision" (The Journal of American History, Vol. 66, No. 1 (Jun., 1979), pp. 62-87) David Alan Rosenberg writes:

"...Truman himself initiated a process that would finalize American dependence on the atomic air offensive. Concerned about spiraling inflation, he announced on May 13, 1948, that he was placing a $14.4 billion ceiling on the Fiscal Year 1950 defense budget. During the next eight months, despite military protests, he refused to raise the limit he had imposed. The JCS estimated that a budget of $21-23 billion, or even a compromise of $16.9 billion, would allow the United States to maintain adequate conventional forces to retain some foothold in Europe as well as to carry out naval operations in all or part of the Mediterranean in the event of war. They feared that the $14.4 billion budget would result in the total loss of Western Europe; conventional forces would have to be cut back so far, the JCS argued, that the only offensive operation the United States could undertake to meet an emergency would be an atomic air offensive from the British Isles and the Cairo-Suez area. The president's continuing refusal to budget adequate conventional alternatives thus made the United States virtually dependent on the atomic bomb.

By fall 1948 many air force planners had come to believe that the atomic air offensive would be adequate to achieve victory. LeMay, who assumed command of the Strategic Air Command (SAC) in October 1948, immediately set to work preparing a feasible strategic plan for atomic operations against the Soviet Union. His plan, SAC Emergency War Plan 1-49, called for SAC "to increase its capability to such an extent that it would be possible to deliver the entire stockpile of atomic bombs, if made available, in a single massive attack." When combined with JCS targeting requirements, as spelled out in war plan "Trojan," the SAC plan entailed strikes on seventy Soviet urban target areas with 133 atomic bombs within thirty days.34"

(the ref 34 in this article is: 34 Thomas S. Power to chief of staff, U.S. Air Force, April 1, 1950, OPD 381 SAC (23 March 1949), TS, section 2, Papers of the Chief of Staff of the Air Force. For bomb numbers and targets, see JCS 1952/11, Feb. 10, 1950, Weapons Systems Evaluation Group Report 1, CCS 373 (10-23-48), section 6, Bulky Package, and JCS 1823/14, May 27, 1949, CCS 471.6 (8-15-45), section 15, Papers of the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff. See also Anthony Cave Brown, ed., Dropshot: The United States Plan for War with the Soviet Union in 1957 (New York, 1978), 6.)

In other words, the decision to build the grand strategy based on the atomic weapon was a long term strategic decision, which was dictated by the fact that as a result of WWII the USA could not compete with Soviet land forces in Europe. Therefore, both Dropshot and the story about the US turn to the atomic weapon as a primary tool of its military strategy has a direct relation to this article.
Consequently, we have to concede the Communicat's point (although not necessarily his behaviour) was generally correct. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The immediate post-war US paradigm shift from an emphasis on conventional warfare to nuclear strategy should be included in any serious article on the World War II aftermath. The Joint Chiefs of Staff plan known as Dropshot was based on flawed assumptions and false predictions of Soviet aggression in Europe. That it was never carried out does not in any way detract from the historical fact of its existence. As such, it merits inclusion in the article.

Communicat appears to have been blocked for a very minor and possibly unintentional infringement, the effect of which has been to prevent Communicat from defending his position here. This is unfortunate, because the blocking conveys an impression of authoritarianism and rank buffoonery. 196.210.181.54 (talk) 14:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

And another SPA IP comes out of nowhere to defend Communicat.[14] Paul Siebert, clearly acting in good faith, has missed the point. Operation Dropshot was not a planned a pre-emptive strike, it was a theoretical retaliatory strike, as references clearly show. Attempt to correct this error made by Communicat was met with blind reversion and filing of an RfAr against me for attempting the correction. The quote that Paul lists does not establish whether later plans were for pre-emptive or retaliatory strikes. Edward321 (talk) 14:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

While I would now agree to discussion of the shift from conventional defense of continental Europe to a nuclear deterrent and a mention of Dropshot, I don't think that a detailed discussion of one contingency plan does anything to explain that shift. Communicat's leads the reader to believe that the US planned on using nukes and invading Russia on a specific date that was only thwarted when the Soviets developed their own nuke. Nice to see other South Africans springing to Communicat's defense, even if it has to be anonymously. --Habap (talk) 15:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I missed the point. I never stated that I fully support the Communicat wording. However, this, as well as other sources clearly states that the US strategic doctrine shifter to the use of pre-emptive nuclear strike (in particular as a response to the Soviet attack in Europe by conventional forces). Therefore this fact does belong to this article. I can provide other quotes if it is needed.

Let me re-iterate my earlier thesis. Communicat is not the most convenient editor do deal with, however, he gave a start to a useful discussion (as he already did before). Although his point about planned American invasion of the USSR was an exaggeration, the idea that the US built their military doctrine on the use of pre-emptive nuclear strike can hardly be disputed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI - another administrator reviewing the IP above's contribution determined Communicat was evading his block, and re-blocked him for block evasion.

Communicat, I assume you're watching this. Paul is making a good point, and one I have been attempting to work with you on with the RFC - you are introducing useful new perspectives. These are not being rejected out of hand, though some other editors seem to be in a mode of mutual confrontation now. But your behavioral problems - attacking people inappropriately, and now the rather blatantly obvious sockpuppetry - are on the edge of making it impossible for you to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Those need to stop. Please work within our community values and social and behavioral expectations here, so that you can continue contributing. I will work with you in good faith on the RFC when your block ends to help with this. But you need to be willing to participate fairly as well. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe Georgewilliamherbert and Paul are engaging in wishful thinking. While Communicat is providing a new perspective,[15] it is a perspective that the Guardian describes as "the extreme edge of revisionism" and the "sort of thing that gives conspiracy theory a bad name".[16]

GWH: You obviously have strong feelings about WP:NPA. The above unsigned posting by Edward321 constitutes a personal attack. It is also the latest in a succession of resurrections of a WP:DEADHORSE issue. Moreover, it is an issue that was dealt with and dismissed by the adjudicator of the COI noticeboard where Edward321 earlier and unsuccessfuly attempted to bring a case against me. I'd be much obliged if you could demonstrate your impartiality by warning and/or blocking Edward321, just as you have done to me in the recent past.

Separately, and to return to what is supposed to be the subject of this Rfc, namely Operation Dropshot: WP:VERIFY states: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. The published source Anthony Cave Brown is a reputable author/historian. The source is verifiable as given in the reference. The source is a secondary source, since it includes the author's comments and analysis of the primary document to which it relates. On this basis, the source conforms in all major particulars with the rule of WP:VERIFY.

Further, I fully support Paul Siebert's contribution above. It is obviously intended as a contribution towards improving the Aftermath article. The first-stike issue that he raises with reliable refs should be seriously considered for inclusion in the article, and not simply be disparaged and dismissed out of hand, as it has been by those apparently opposed to neutral and accurate improvement of the article.

It would be helpful if involved parties could stop obscuring, digressing and/or ambiguating the subject of this discussion, namely NPOV/Dropshot. Communicat (talk) 14:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Professional sports league organization

While the title suggests something broader, the gist of the article entitled Professional sports league organization is essentially a comparison between professional sports in North America and Europe. However, the choice of terminology, in particular, the use of the word "league", represents a North American perspective, being applied to European sport. A comparison of two subject areas, from the perspective of one of the two subject areas can hardly be said to be neutral.

The focus of the article appears to be even narrow - an attempt to explain the Premier League, and the various other competitions that clubs playing in that league participate in, to a North American audience unfamiliar with English football.

The North American perspective, together with the narrow focus, results in several inaccuracies in the section on European sport. I have raised these in the talk page. Rainjar (talk) 13:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Afshin (Caliphate General)

I am seeking assistance or involvement of neutral experts or administrators who can look into the Afshin (Caliphate General). I added over 7 references yesterday referring to both Turkic and Iranian background of this historical personality. Yet I am faced with opposition from User:Khodabandeh14 who seems to diminish or get rid of references to Turkic/Turkish in favor of Persian/Iranian throughout this and other articles [17], and seems unwilling to come up with a compromise, instead removing dispute tags and using restrictions to intimidate into accepting his WP:POV . I am not sure if this is more relevant to content noticeboard or here, I feel it is more about neutral point of view in judging references. The fact that User:Khodabandeh14 rejects multitude of other historical references using just one author C.E. Bosworth in both Afshin (Caliphate General) and Atabegs of Azerbaijan article raises concerns of excessive WP:UNDUE. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 16:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I urge everyone to look at the talkpage discussion. A) If ethnicity of something is disputed, it should not be in the introduction. B) The above user has simply used sources from 1848, 1910 (outdated) and three authors with no university/academic affiliations. I have brought authors from published academic journals and scholars such as Bernard Lewis, Peter Benjamin Golden and C.E. Bosworth [18] (Oxford University Professor and well known scholar), as well as Cambridge History of Iran. [19]. The above user is simply not reading the talkpage and claiming that I have only one source! He simply refuses to read the talkpage, and still repeats his own statement that I am using one source. C) I also urge a neutral expert admin to come to the discussion and I have called two admins already. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 16:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not want to get into this conflict, but according to mainstream academics, Khodabandeh14's version is the correct one. See for example Encyclopaedia Iranica:

• "... At the time of the Arab incursions into Transoxania, Osrušana had its own line of Iranian princes, the Afšins (Ebn Ḵordāḏbeh, p. 40), of whom the most famous was the general of the caliph Moʿtaṣem (q.v. 833-42), the Afšin Ḵayḏar or Ḥaydar b. Kāvus (d. 841; see AFŠIN). ..." - OSRUŠANA

It is also important to note that al-Afshin was later imprisoned and executed because he was an Iranian and because he was accused of anti-Arabic/anti-Islamic heresy in favor of ancient Iranian practices. In this regard, Iranica writes:

• "... [...] Afšīn’s position [...] became increasingly difficult. He was accused by his enemies of hostility towards Islam and of sympathy for ancient Iranian practices and beliefs [...] The contemporary Arabic sources thus regard Afšīn’s rebellious acts as those of a protagonist of Iranian religious and imperial feeling, and as the expression of anti-Arab resentment for the loss of ancient Iranian political domination, feelings which were at this time finding a more harmless outlet on the literary level in the Šoʿūbīya movement. That this view subsequently became the stereotype is seen clearly from the anecdote about Afšīn in Abu’l-Fażl Bayhaqī’s Tārīḵ-eMasʿūdī written over two centuries later (pp. 173-78), in which anti-Arab sentiments are specifically placed in his mouth. ..." - AFŠĪN

Please keep in mind that the Encyclopaedia Iranica represents the current academic mainstream view. In this case, Atabəy's argumentation is not convincing. He is disputing something that, very obviously, is totally undisputed among experts and scholars. Tajik (talk) 18:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Transportation Security Administration allegations

This section - Transportation Security Administration#TSA Sexual Assault - states as fact allegations of widespread assault and abuse by a U.S. government agency. The article neither states any rebuttal nor cites any official TSA or DHS sources, and openly advocates for activist websites which are cited as sources. This subject is a hot button media issue, and these claims are inflammatory at best, as well as self-promoting. Tad (talk) 00:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Charles Sumner

The article Charles Sumner is mostly great, but the lead (specifically the last two or three paragraphs) strikes me as overly long and lending undue weight to a particular set of opinions. Is this me? The editor(s) of the article don't seem to think so; see Talk:Charles_Sumner#NPOV_issues.3F. The lead is less than half a dozen paragraphs, shouldn't take long to skim them and chip in and let me know if I'm being unreasonable. Johnleemk | Talk 05:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Michael Welner

Talk:Michael Welner

• Does this BLP violate WP:PEACOCK?

It appears to me that for the past 3 years this BLP has been controlled by a series of single article editors and used as a promotional article for the Subject. Recently the Subject became more internationally notable and somewhat controversial for his testimony in GITMO. Presently there are 3 single article editors working in tandem [20][21][22] to keep the BLP 100% free of any but the most complimentary content. 1 of the 3,Stewaj7 is currently blocked for sockpuppetry. I have been very involved in the article since I first noticed it on Nov.1,2010. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• As one of the editors of Welner's BLP it is important to note that Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) is lying in the above. I have attempted to the extreme to work with Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) to bring the BLP to a place where all editors would be comfortable with its neutrality and would be happy to copy for you here the complimentary notes I receive from him when he enjoys my edits. That being said - it is the position of all editors except for Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) that certain sections that do not belong on a BLP not be added in and I have consistently removed those sections and tried to reach consensus with Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) on the talk page regarding these issues. However, on talk pages, Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) attempts to appear neutral and complimentary, to prevent himself from being blocked from editing the page, while then reverting edits, violating the 3RR rule and doing what he chooses, regardless of talk page discussions. Edits that are made without factual knowledge of Welner or his contributions and merely utizilize their advocacy positions under a guise of neutrality cannot be expected to have their edits remain on any page, particularly a BLP and this editor can only hope that all nuetral editors agree with this objective position. Empirical9 (talk) 03:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)— Empirical9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I encourage Mr.grantevans2 to watch his false accusations. Particularly, as the he/she was introduced to the page to which he is referring in November 2010. Before then very few edits have been made to the page and never has there been a dispute regarding its neurtality. Following the close of a very sensitive case, in which the subject of the BLP was involved, the editor who raises this claim became obsessed with inserting factually inaccurate, unrelated, controversial information into the page. This attempt to introduce defamatory content and malign Dr. Welner, has been cloaked with false assertions of adding neurtality and reducing pufferey. Clearly the editor is wiki rules savvy. I can appreciate reaching a consensus; however, Mr.Grantevans2 has not adhered when consensus is reached. Rather he accuses those who have reached a consensus as working in tandem - a risk one takes for disagreeing with him. Before offering an opinion to the matter, please take a moment to review the issues raised with the content that Mr.grantevans2 is trying to include. Despite having brought the inaccuracies and concerns to his attention, his efforts to include defamatory content continuesStewaj7 (talk) 14:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)— Stewaj7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I think these are the sections Stewaj7 attempted to provide links for:[23][24] Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 03:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Naturopathy

Please see Talk:Naturopathy there have been multiple NPOV issue raised here. I have suggested several new sources but am a new editor. Input from more experienced editors is requested. Mcmarturano (talk) 18:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Political propaganda by JACla

Can someone please go through this (sections Afghanistan#Foreign Intrusion and Civil War, Afghanistan#Taliban Emirate and United Front and Afghanistan#Recent history (2001-present)) and neutralize the edits made by the POV-pusher, it reads like someone's blog page. I believe that everything JCAla is adding to Wikipedia is political propaganda in which he's specifically bashing Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and all Afghan groups that he doesn't like, but at the same time he is praising and glorifying the Northern Alliance, a group which is often described as Afghan warlords. JCAla even added Pakistan as one of the Taliban's main allies when really Pakistan is engaged in a major war with them and is allied with US-NATO forces. Everytime I tag the page JCAla removes the tags.--Jrkso (talk) 23:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't just JCA1a who removed them. I also removed them (except for the unencyclopaediac tone one but that has also improved a bit), as did also another editor. You haven't substantiated your claims it is biased and good citations have been provided for everything there. The diff you provided was to another article and I don't think Pakistan should be counted as a current ally of the Taliban but that isn't what was said in the Afghanistan article. About the one thing I would say about it all is that much of what is said there should be moved to the history of Afghanistan article instead. Dmcq (talk) 00:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Dmcq, I like to ask you not to remove the tags until neutral editors fix the problem and allow them to remove the tags, so please be patient. I don't think you're neutral because you have opposed me before. JCala's edits are trying to mislead readers by telling them that the Northern Alliance (Afghan warlords) [25], [26] were victims and that the reason why Afghanistan is destroyed and poor is the result of foreign interference by nations such as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Uzbekistan, USSR, USA, etc. But we all know this isn't the case, the reason why Afghanistan is destroyed and poor is the result of Afghans fighting Afghans, which began in 1978 with the Saur Revolution. The foreign nations were trying and are still trying to help end this war. JCAla is defending warlords in Wikipedia while media reports say these warlords are more dangerous than the Taliban. [27], [28]--Jrkso (talk) 01:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Everything has been discussed here and here. All sources have been provided. They are considered as reliable and as coming from distinguished institutions and academic sources by the editors. Jrkso does not like the realities of history. Dmcq (except for the tone tag) and two other long-time editors have all agreed to remove the tags. We have further agreed that the content of the sections is valid, well-sourced and should stay. There was an agreement that the wording of the sections was not of encyclopaedic quality. That has been changed. Jrkso should stop his politically motivated, ridiculous accusations. He has disputes with many editors because he falsifies sources [29][30][31] for his own political agenda. His agenda becomes evident considering his statements:

• "... the reason why Afghanistan is destroyed and poor is the result of Afghans fighting Afghans, which began in 1978 with the Saur Revolution. The foreign nations were trying and are still trying to help end this war." -Jrkso

• "... warlords are more dangerous than the Taliban." - Jrkso

• "... There is no unity among its people [...] Each group is used as a proxy by neighboring countries and the Afghans always blame one another. This is an example of what happens to a country when it lacks unity." - Jrkso

• " ... he's specifically bashing Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and all Afghan groups that he doesn't like, but at the same time heis praising and glorifying the Northern Alliance, a group which is often described as Afghan warlords." - Jrkso

Some days ago he was claiming the oppposite:

• "You are defending the neigboring country of Iran ..."[32] - Jrkso

• "Both of these users share similar biased views on the history of Afghanistan, trying to make Afghanistan somehow a province of Iran."[33] - Jrkso

It is getting ridiculous. By the way, it was me who added "According to Human Rights Watch in 1997 Taliban soldiers were summarily executed in and around Mazar-i Sharif by Dostum's Junbish forces." to this section. JCAla (talk) 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Jrkso - I have not touched the tags since you put them in saying you were raising the issue here, so exactly why have you addressed me in particular about that? I have left them there so anyone here can look and judge for themselves.

Yes the warlords were the bigger threat in 2004 after the Taliban were nearly destroyed, and your point is? Plus I'm sure there's lots of Afghans who'd prefer the sort of stability the Taliban brought despite what they did, and what's your point with that? Are you really alleging the Saur Revolution had nothing to do with Russia and America didn't exploit it, never mind their various neighbours sticking their fingers in the pot and stirring it? I'm sure America would like nothing so much nowadays as a way to escape the whole business with a shred of dignity and leave the place halfway reasonable and stable - but that wasn't always so. Dmcq (talk) 11:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Dmcq, I have nothing to discuss with you, and you popping up everywhere is very annyoying, plus I have trouble understanding your English. So, don't ask me these questions please.--Jrkso (talk) 16:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

JCAla, whatever I wrote in talk pages in other places or how I personally feel about Afghanistan is totally irrelevant to what is being discussed here. Your edits JCAla need a review by neutral minded editors and I'm waiting to hear what they feel about this so just wait instead of accusing me of nonsense. You are clearly trying to only glorify the Tajik Nothern Alliance (Category:Afghan warlords) and bash all the other groups. This is wrong and Wikipedia is not suppose to have such biased information. Your edits are also very long, explaining unnessary details in an article which suppose to be about a country. As for the sources you cited, you have searched online and cherry picked unverifiable/poor sources (i.e. [34]) to help you send your politically motivated point across Wikipedia. Your sources are unverifiable books written by Afghans, who belong to different factions or political parties, and they're known for political rivalries.[35] Amnesty International states "Amnesty International is not in a position to confirm that the Taleban were responsible for this latest bombardment" but you still cited it. Try citing Encyclopedia Britannica, Encyclopedia Iranica, Library of Congress Country Studies, or others which are neutral academic sources but you're avoiding these because they don't mention what you want to explain. I don't want to hear anymore from you, leave the tags until neutral people fix the problem.--Jrkso (talk) 16:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

You are starting to adopt a wrong tone, Jrkso. And, as always, you are falsifying sources. I wrote in the article: "The Taliban started shelling Kabul in early 1995 but were defeated by forces of the Islamic State government under Ahmad Shah Massoud.[107] Amnesty International, referring to the Taliban offensive, wrote in a 1995 report: "This is the first time in several months that Kabul civilians have become the targets of rocket attacks and shelling aimed at residential areas in the city ..."[36] This is what has been mentioned in the article. Not more, not less. It is correct.

The full report by Amnesty International states: "According to reports, between 11 and 13 November 1995 at least 57 unarmed civilians were killed and over 150 injured when rockets and artillery barrages fired from Taleban positions south of Kabul pounded the civilian areas of the city."

What your quote (taken out of context) is referring to is the following, a specific bombardment of Nov. 11: "On 11 November, 36 civilians were killed when over 170 rockets as well as shells hit civilians areas. A salvo crashed into Foruzga Market forcing the shoppers and traders to run for cover. ... residential areas hit by artillery and rocket attacks were the Bagh Bala district in the northwest of Kabul and Wazir Akbar Khan..." The Taliban (positioned to the south of Kabul) were fighting against Islamic State forces positioned in the north of Kabul. Wazir Akbar Khan is the "diplomatic" area, also controlled by Islamic State forces. You, deliberately, did not cite the following sentence (referring to that specific bombardment) in a complete manner: "Amnesty International is not in a position to confirm that the Taleban were responsible for this latest bombardment, but the reports that the barrages have come from the Taleban-controlled positions appear to be credible".

Let's see your other claims. Human Rights Watch is a "cherry-picked unverifiable/poor source"? If you want to be taken seriously stop your bizarre accusations, your frequent references to rawa and your random usage of the term "warlord". JCAla (talk) 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I have not removed the tags, but I think that they are not needed. JCAla has provided good and acceptable sources. The only thing I am not happy with is the wording. In my opinion, it needs to be written in a more encyclopedic way. But the message is well sourced. I have offered JCAla my help in order to improve the section's wording, but my English is not that good, so I would appreciate support from native speakers. As for Jrkso: I do not understand his constant opposition and fight in Afghanistan-related articles. Basically, he is opposed to everyone else. Tajik (talk) 10:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It's 3 Tajik editors from Kabul, Afghanistan who are constantly opposing me. Your English is very good don't play games. Most of the sources are links to books written by Afghans and the books cannot be verified plus the content in the sections are purposly selected to make a point by a POV-warrior. According to reports, upto 2 million Afghans died in the 1979-2001 wars but the POV-warrior JCAla is only explaining about a dozen Afghans that were killed by the Taliban. This is a very stupid way to explain the Afghan civil wars knowing that 600,000 to 2 million Afghans died.--Jrkso (talk) 01:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

You must have supernatural abilities "knowing" where everyone is coming from without anybody ever telling you. Plus, your sentence, "the POV-warrior JCAla is only explaining about a dozen Afghans that were killed by the Taliban", (besides being a false statement since I also wrote about the execution of Taliban soldiers and atrocities committed by different militias in Kabul) proves where you are coming from (considering I was writing about the mass killings in Mazar-i-Sharif in which 2,000 - 8,000 civilians were executed by the Taliban). For the record, the most frequently used sources in the article are the following ones:

• Human Rights Watch - Blood Stained Hands (2005)

• Afghanistan Justice Project - Casting Shadows: War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity: 1978-2001

• Neamat Nojumi - The Rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Mass Mobilization, Civil War, and the Future of the Region (Review)

Nojumi - U.S. citizen with Afghan origins - has studied at the University of Hartford, Yale University and the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. Nojumi worked for Tufts University, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), Harvard Law School and the American Military University. Currently he works at George Mason University for the Center for World Religions, Diplomacy and Conflict Resolution.

• Prof. Amin Saikal - Modern Afghanistan: A History of Struggle and Survival (2006) (Chosen by The Wall Street Journal as One of the "Five Best" Books on Afghanistan)

Prof. Amin Saikal is a specialist in the politics, history, political economy and international relations of the Middle East and Central Asia/Afghanistan. He has been a Visiting Fellow at Princeton University, Cambridge University and the Institute of Development Studies (University of Sussex), as well as a Rockefeller Foundation Fellow in International Relations. He is an appointed Member of the Order of Australia (AM) for service to the international community and to education, and as an author and adviser. He is also a member of many national and international academic organisations, and the author of numerous works on the Middle East, Central Asia, and Russia. He is currently working as Professor of Political Science and Director of the Centre for Arab and Islamic Studies (The Middle East and Central Asia) at the Australian National University.

• Roy Gutman with the United States Institute of Peace - How We Missed the Story. Osama bin Laden, the Taliban, and the Hijacking of Afghanistan [37] [38]

Roy Gutman was director of American University's Crimes of War Project and a senior fellow at the United States Institute of Peace. He won a Pulitzer Prize for his coverage of the 1993 war in Bosnia-Herzegovina, where he provided the first documented reports of concentration camps. Gutman's honors include the Pulitzer Prize for international reporting, the George Polk Award for foreign reporting, the Selden Ring Award for investigative reporting, and a special Human Rights in Media Award from the International League for Human Rights. He holds an M.A. in international relations from the London School of Economics.

• George Washington University - The National Security Archive 1 and The National Security Archive 2

JCAla (talk) 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive use of the wikipedia notification boards by Jrkso and edit wars because of his political agenda

moved JCAla (talk) 26 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Vidim pushing for ancient origin of Waldensians

In the Waldensians article, in the section "Ancient origins asserted and disputed", User:Vidim has been attempting to give equal weight to the claim that the Waldensian church is older than Peter Waldo, a claim that even the Waldensian church does not support, that is not supported by contemporary sources, and that secular scholarship does not even bother with. He has been fighting my attempts to add neutrality to his additions (instead of removing them wholesale). We have not been discussing it in the article's talk page, but on his talk page instead.

His actions include:

• Downplaying mainstream scholarship
• Continuing to downplay mainstream scholarship, pointing out a potential bias in Roman Catholic sources while bringing in a source that has a Protestant and Anti-Catholic bias (the Dr Wylie quoted also wrote a book accusing the Papacy of being the Antichrist)
• Attempting to place more legitimacy on a pre-Waldo scholar by eliminating the similarity between the two scholars. He also states on his talk page that the edit was meant to show that "there isn't consensus within the Waldensians regarding their origins," which smacks of WP:OR.
• Here and here he attempts to cover up Wylie's academic misdoings (quoting a later source, but naming an earlier one before getting to the actual quote), at one point marking it as minor.
• Continues to read his own interpretation into Reynerius's words, puts the word "Waldensian" into the mouths of a Council that did not utter the name.

I have tried to explain repeatedly that information in the articles should be proportionate to reliable sources, and that neutrality does not mean giving equal weight to non-mainstream claims. I have tried to point out that he is reading his own POV into Reynerius's words "a long time." I have tried to point out that the sources he's been using are biased. He still wants the article to treat the pre-Waldo origin claim as equal, when the sources are:

• Pro-Waldo Waldensian scholarship - Their consensus is that they started with Waldo. It would be to the Waldensians' ecumenical-political advantage to be older than Waldo, but they by-and-large still go with Waldo as their origin. That alone speaks strongly.
• Pre-Waldo Waldensian scholarship - So far, a single reformation-influenced Waldensian whose view is cancelled out by his father.
• RC scholarship - Vidim thinks they have an agenda, fine. However, their sources are still contemporary, and they don't mention the Waldensians until after Peter Waldo.
• Pre-Waldo Protestant scholarship - The ones that push for a Pre-Waldo date have their own agenda, and they do not have contemporary sources. Also, this only represents a select portion of protestantism.
• Secular scholarship - No agenda regarding who has apostolic succession or not, they say the Waldensians started with Waldo.

I think part of the problem is that there are no other editors involved, so he is OK with dismissing just me as having some sort of "lack of neutrality in any argument about Waldensian antiquity," even though he initially admits that his edits may have been biased. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Christian mysticism

It seems that one or several evangelical Christians have been busily rewriting this article to conform with their own religious beliefs, as well as creating articles like Pauline mysticism and Evangelical mysticism, that also are meant, not to give objective information, but to ensure that Wikipedia confirms the beliefs of their particular church. There's a lot of stuff there, and some of it goes beyond my own knowledge... anyone interested in theology and in taking a look at this? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Timeline of the burrito

The article Timeline of the burrito has many WP issues from my perspective. Dispite initial cooporation offered by another editor Talk:Timeline of the burrito, that editor has since engaged in protectionism of all content within the article. Plenty of time was offered between conversation and the resulting good-faith edits to remove unencyclopedic material. Dispite this, the editor is now engaged a reverting edit war. WP:3RR does not directly apply because this article gets so little activity that reverts occur over a week rather than a day. I am hoping for fresh eyes to review Timeline of the burrito, especially since there is an attempt to merge this with the main burrito article. I fear the edit war will move over to that more significant article if this is not addressed now. — fcsuper ^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )} — 19:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Many of the article entries look like burrito-related trivia rather than encyclopedic content, violating WP:IINFO . I think it would help to have well-defined inclusion criteria for the list indicating what type of events are worth including and what type of sourcing is necessary. --Ronz (talk) 20:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Do we really need a "Timeline of the burrito" article that is completely separate from Burrito? Isn't the history a food usually included in the article on that food? I think that the very idea of a separate timeline article is flawed. --Habap (talk) 22:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Ronz and Habap: User:Fcsuper has completely ignored the discussion on the talk page, and I would encourage you both to review it. The user has in three separate instances, asked a question about a particular aspect of the timeline, received an answer, and then ignored the answers, claiming that his questions are being ignored. The user has also continued to unilaterally edit the article while disruptively tagging after the points in dispute have already been discussed. The merge discussion has been proceeding in harmony while Fcsuper has been engaging in reverts and tagging. This noticeboard report is good, but it is essentially ignoring the discussion that is already on the talk page. The user has obsessively and repeatedly tried to remove sourced data while at the same time refusing to look at the actual sources or do the slightest amount of research on the topic. I agree with Ronz that some aspects of this timeline have become trivial over the years, which is why I have recommended the merge into history section of Burrito so that the most important aspects of the food history of the burrito can be represented in prose form. In other words, we don't need the list as much as we need a well written history of the burrito section in the burrito article, which this list supplements in part. This is why I initiated the merge discussion, a discussion that Fcsuper has tried to disrupt. In what can only be described as obsessive and disruptive, Fcsuper has again ignored the answers given to him about the content on the talk page, and has again started an entirely new discussion by copying and pasting the questions he has already asked and received answers into another new talk page thread.[39] Fcsuper is engaging in tendentious editing on the talk page, asking the same question over and again and ignoring the answers because he doesn't like them. At least two other users, User:Dohn joe and User:Archolman have agreed with the merge. Dohn Joe has agreed to do some research and add academic sources, while User:Archolman has commented about the merge, "Who could object to something as obviously sensible as this?" The problem, therefore, is not other editors or the content, but Fcsuper. As a result, this thread should probably be elevated/duplicated on ANI. Viriditas (talk) 23:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Update: Since Fcsuper is unable to contribute to a calm discussion about the topic on the talk page or to the merge discussion, I'm currently in the process merging the content into the burrito article. Viriditas (talk) 23:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I think there are clear content problems. --Ronz (talk) 00:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I acknowledged the specific problem you raised with trivia here on this page, in my above response. I've also acknowledged it on the talk page, where I agree that currently, at least four trivial items should be removed. You are welcome to look at the talk page discussion, where Fcsuper refuses to acknowledge answers to questions about the content, and continues to ask the same question over and again about items we've already discussed. You are also welcome to look at my recent merges of selected content into the burrito article.[40] However, I fail to see how this is a topic for the NPOV noticeboard. If you feel that there are NPOV issues that need to be addressed, please raise them. Viriditas (talk) 01:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe the content problems fall into issues of WP:UNDUE. --Ronz (talk) 01:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to review the article and discussion and point out specific examples. When Fcsuper has raised those issues on the talk page in the past, he has failed to respond, instead opting to repeat the same questions over and over again. I am open and willing to leave out any egregious examples from either the timeline or the proposed merge (which I am implementing over the next few days). It would be refreshing to discuss this with someone who is willing to look at it. Viriditas (talk) 01:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I did look at the article and my immediate reaction was that it was a bunch of worthless information that doesn't deserve to be in an encyclopedia and, while fcsuper is behaving badly, part of the problem will go away after you merge the few useful parts of the article into Burrito itself. I agree that it is not a NPOV issue. It belongs on ANI or some other aspect of dispute resolution.

In my very short experience in looking at this NPOV page, any input from outside parties is unusual, so better that you not try to bite the heads off those who do happen to take a look and provide some kind of comment. --Habap (talk) 02:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it belongs on ANI, and I'm in the process of drafting a report. Looking at the article, we see that the topic has been covered by at least four different scholars, (Daniel D. Arreola, Emory Dean Keoke & Kay Marie Porterfield, and notable food historian Andrew F. Smith) and many additional reliable sources. We also see that this topic covers a lot of ground, from the food history of the intersection between Aztec cuisine and Mexican cuisine, to the culture of the Southern United States and the culture of San Francisco, to the history of food companies and restaurants, menu engineering and even competitive eating. While we are all entitled to our opinions, I admit I was surprised to find your strongly worded comment about the article being "a bunch of worthless information that doesn't deserve to be in an encyclopedia". I don't believe I've ever encountered that strong of an opinion about a related topic before, and I'm curious where it could possibly come from. I am also curious how this kind of information could in any way be considered "worthless" given its unique importance and contribution to the interdisciplinary nature of food studies. It is one thing to edit from ignorance, but quite another to promote it. Viriditas (talk) 04:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, let me point out the information I would find as "worth merging". The 16th and 19th century sections, though they ought to be rewritten, provide valuable information. The entry for 1961, on the first retail burrito, should be kept. Maybe the 1982 note on the different sauces, though it might better be merged into a new section of the Burrito article on sauces. Finally, the 2002 entry on Arreola's book is interesting. Most of the rest of the article is trivia or already included in the main article. As such, most of this article is not encyclopedic. Do you really think the trivia supplied in the 21st century section contributes "to the interdisciplinary nature of food studies"? It is one thing to provide quality information and yet another to simply provide quantity. --Habap (talk) 15:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Most of the article, is in fact, encyclopedic, with trivial additions making up a very small part. The information about restaurants and dishes, manufacturing and popularity, is important, and covered by reliable sources on the topic of burritos and their history. Feel free to look at the references in the burrito and San Francisco burrito article if you have questions. Viriditas (talk) 03:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Habap's "worth merging" assement of the content of the article. I think that is an excellent starting point to form a proposal for the merged material. — fcsuper ^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )} — 20:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Viriditas, are the dates on which restuarants opened really that notable? I'm not a Californian and have only been to a few places in Mexico, so I have no idea if any of them are important. For example, I consider the 1973 entry "La Taqueria opens in SF" to be trivia because there is no explanation of why this matters. There are, I think, six entries that are equally uninformative as to the importance of the restuarant opening. --Habap (talk) 16:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Givati Brigade

Editors are claiming undue weight over inclusion of convictions for abuse by two members of this military unit. There is world-wide coverage in reliable sources (Ynet, Jerusalem Post, Haaretz, BBC, Vancouver Sun, Bloomberg) and several previous acquittals of members are noted in the article. Convictions for such abuse are rare enough that it seems worth including. Is this removal appropriate?--Misarxist 12:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

There are at least two discussion at ARE about ongoing efforts to prevent any mention of this incident: [41], [42]. It would be helpful if other editors could comment at Talk:Givati Brigade and Talk:Gaza War. RolandR (talk) 19:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

NPOV tag at Mass killings under Communist regimes

I'd like to get the NPOV tag at MKUCR removed as it seems to be used there as a "badge of shame." Some editors do not like the article's contents, but really don't have anything to add to the article. Rather they want to remove certain points of view, e.g. that the mass killings of something like 100 million people were related to the Communism of the regimes that killed them. As I understand WP:NPOV it is about making sure that all non-fringe documented points of view on a topic are included, NOT that points of view should be removed if some editors don't like them.

I've asked for well over a month for folks to come forward with POVs that they think have been excluded, and only 1 editor has done so. That POV is essentially that comparisons of Nazi and Communist mass killings are essentially anti-Semitic. It seems a bit off-point and fringe, but I've invited him to include it in the article.

The main point of contention is that sources such as the Black Book of Communism, published by Harvard University Press, and many other scholarly works do make a connection between Communism and the mass killings, as well as many more popular and/or political sources such as the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation. Several editors do not like the views expressed by these sources and thus insist that the NPOV tag be kept - this is a complete inversion of Wikipedia's NPOV policy.

Note that several editors have made a point of trying to get this article deleted; there have been about 6 requests for deletion over the last 18 months, and they have failed every time. The NPOV tag should not be used as a substitute for deletion or a mark of "I don't like this article"! Smallbones (talk) 15:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

NPOV tags are generally "IDONTLIKEIT" tags - but the drama in forcing removal is generally not worth it. And the AfDers are likely about ready to nom it once more <g>. Alas. Collect (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't tag this, and have never read it before, but the sections from Controversies on down seem to have POV issues. That section in particular is a collection of POV forks only vaguely rebutted by the "famines as mass killings" section. For example, Great Leap Forward addresses several alternate readings of the mass death in the period other than Dikotter's. A systematic attempt at NPOV could fix this section.

For some summary material on Western colonialism's deaths see Mike Davis' Late Colonial Holocausts. The "capitalism/colonialism deaths are nowhere near the Red Holocaust" claim seems to fly in the face of that source and other several tallies of colonial deaths (and is difficult to understand because no attempt to tabulate the deaths described on this page, or deaths due to communist regimes is made). Ditto the Shoah to Red Holocaust comparison, which should be replaced by a Nazi/Soviet comparison (apples to apples, please). For general comparative genocide statistics, you might also consider The History and Sociology of Genocide by Chalk and Jonassohn.

Also, I don't understand this self limitation in the theory section: "Theories, such as those of R. J. Rummel, that propose communism as a significant causative factor in mass killings have attracted scholarly dispute; this article does not discuss academic acceptance of such theories."

Overall, an noteworthy subject that should have an article. However, that is not a reason to cut the tag until its POV issues are addressed.--Carwil (talk) 17:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, a list of things to work on! As I read this, you're saying there are not major problems in the top half of the article and in the bottom half things should be integrated better so that different sections are not in effect saying different things. The self-limitation "this article does not discuss academic acceptance of such theories," seems to come from the deletionist group who seems to want every source to be proved to be part of the "academic consensus." I think that's a hurdle not intended by WP:RS or WP:NPOV and is simply too high for any reasonable article to be written on any subject. The capitalist/colonialist comparison has been a very minor part of the article, and the nazi vs. communist comparison has been a source of conflict, but if you think there are good sources for these comparison we can include it easily (but I hope briefly).

I'll ask anybody who has experience in editing controversial articles like this, and who enjoys a challenge, to step up to the plate and help put this article in order. Smallbones (talk) 18:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

2010 Nobel Peace Prize

I'm admittedly forum shopping here, as we are not getting a very satisfactory level of response through the usual channels: There being little other talk page activity, I solicited a response from WP:3O in the hopes that it could be resolved that way. However, the editor I am having a disagreement with seems to still dispute the change even after the 3O intervention. I think it is because xhe genuinely believes it warrants inclusion, and that 2:1 does not constitute a very strong consensus, so I'm bringing it here.

The issue at stake is whether the 'Cyber warfare attacks' section which I have restored to the current version belongs in the article. My view is that the connection between this incident and this year's prize is too tenuous, and was only reported in the article in this way because of its topicality and for no other reason. There are no news articles I am aware of which are making a connection between the cyber attacks and the nomination of Liu Xiaobo. Inclusion of this section would tend to suggest that the attacks and the recipient of the prize were related. The other party believes that "[t]he presumed connection to the Nobel Peace Prize for this year is clearly made in all the articles used to reference the 'cyber warfare' section," and thus should remain in its entirety. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I don't have more to offer than a bit of feedback about this post: I would suggest not starting with "admittedly forum shopping" since that immediately discounts your argument and may cause editors here to move along without looking further into it -- e.g. I almost didn't even reply to say as much. It sounds more like you've tried one other channel aside from the talkpage and it didn't help much. -PrBeacon (talk) 03:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Overview of the territorial dispute in Gibraltar

We are discussing about the most neutral wording for a summary of the territorial dispute around Gibraltar (mainly around the isthmus and the territorial waters) in the overview article about Gibraltar. Which of the following two texts do you thing is more neutral?

Spain further interprets the Treaty of Utrecht more restrictively than Britain does. For example, Spain disputes Britain's claim to sovereignty over the isthmus connecting Gibraltar with Spain and does not recognise any right of Gibraltar to territorial waters.

or

Spain only accepts British sovereignty within the limits of the Rock, claiming that the Treaty of Utrecht does not mention any territorial cession outside those limits. The UK argues that British sovereignty in the southern half of the isthmus that connects Gibraltar to the mainland is supported by continuous possession. It also considers that the UN Convention on the Law and the Sea claims the territorial waters around Gibraltar arguing that both international customary and conventional law support British control.

Thanks! -- Imalbornoz (talk) 13:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC) PS: I've slightly reworded the second version as per the suggestion of one editor (customary law should be included). -- Imalbornoz (talk) 18:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see WP:NPOV issues with either of these versions. Is there a specific complaint about something that one of these versions says? NickCT (talk) 15:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. About the complaints:

• one user has said that the second version is unacceptable, non-neutral, completely inappropriate, utterly partisan and factually incorrect because Britain doesn't claim sovereignty -he says it has de jure sovereignty-, and the text makes judgment on merits of claims.
• one other user prefers the second version because -he says- it only briefly describes Spain's and Britain's positions and their arguments, while the first one compares the Spanish position versus the British (e.g. "interprets more restrictively", "does not recognise any right"), and -he says- it wrongly assumes that the different interpretation of the Treaty of Utrecht is one of the key points.

Thank you again. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 18:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Declaring my involvement (though I am not one of the two editors Imalbornoz quotes), the thrust of the first argument is that "[t]he UK... claims the territorial waters" may imply a lack of control, whereas Britain in fact has full control over the waters in question. I don't think the quotes Imalbornoz provides fairly or reasonably represents this. I would also note that the comments made have discussed several different versions of the above - shoot, the current version is not even mentioned on talk. Pfainuk talk 21:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

This is really out of order, if Pfainuk hadn't alerted the Talk Page this would have been completely unknown. It isn't like he is unaware that he should alert other editors, I recently posted a question here on a related topic and at least I had the courtesy to let everyone know. Its not even like this is the current proposal, he's presenting text from days ago. This is forum shopping not a serious attempt to get a neutral view.

He has also conveniently omitted to miss out the detail that the Government of Gibraltar has requested the dispute is referrred to the ICJ, an option repeatedly refused by the Spanish Government. Justin talk 21:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Is there any legitimate dispute that those two statements are factually correct? I don't see any problems with the neutrality of either one of those. Wikipedia is not a place to play politics and the article should never make any insinuation about which side is right. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 22:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

There are a number of issues with the post above. Firstly the above content suggestions above were not the texts under discussion, the post here was misleading. Imalbornoz also omitted to inform this board of the issue related to the Government of Gibraltar's request to refer the dispute to the ICJ and the Spanish refusal - the International Court of Justice is the only UN body capable of delivering a definitive legal judgement on the dispute. I suggest it should be mentioned as Spain refused, Imalbornoz says we shouldn't as the ICJ hasn't delivered an opinion, which it hasn't because Spain refuses.

So I suppose a better question for outside consideration would be should the article mention the GoG request for an ICJ resolution of the sovereignty dispute and the Spanish refusal? Suggested text:

Spain interprets the Treaty of Utrecht more restrictively than Britain, disputing Britain's sovereignty over the isthmus connecting Gibraltar with Spain and refusing to recognise any right of Gibraltar to territorial waters. The Government of Gibraltar has repeatedly requested the Spanish Government refer the matter to the International Court of Justice without a response.

I think it is a neutral description but would welcome outside comment - note the request for external input. Thank you for your consideration. Justin talk 13:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

A fourth option has been added, trying to be as symmetric as possible to the first and third options (in order to give some perspective):

Britain interprets the Treaty of Utrecht more expansively than Spain, disputing Spain's sovereignty over the isthmus connecting Gibraltar with Spain and refusing to recognise any right of Spain to territorial waters around the Rock. Spain is helping the European Commission fend off a legal challenge by Gibraltar over a decision designating most of Gibraltar’s territorial waters as one of Spain’s protected nature sites under EU law.

Which of the four options do you think is more neutral? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 18:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

In response to Voiceofreason01, yes. Spain's position is that Britain holds sovereignty over the town, castle and port of Gibraltar, along with their defences and fortifications - and nothing else. The statement that "Spain only accepts British sovereignty within the limits of the Rock" is thus inaccurate.

There is also an argument that this and other points are far too much detail for a three-paragraph summary of the entire dispute, and that the section is at risk of being diverted into WP:COATRACK territory where every single point made by either side has to be recognised (bearing in mind that we do already have two articles on the dispute, and this isn't one of them).

I would also argue that it is biased to present the legal dispute as the EU and Spain trying to fend off judicial persecution by the evil Gibraltarians, as Imalbornoz is now proposing. Pfainuk talk 18:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I would think that "the Rock and its port" cover quite accurately the "town, the castle and port of Gibraltar along with their defences and fortifications", but I am ready to accept a change to satisfy Pfainuk's objection.

Regarding the EC ruling (and the defence against the challenge by Gibraltar): it at least is a ruling by an international body with some jurisdiction over certain matters in Spain and the UK, whereas the text about the ICJ is just the Gvt of Gibraltar expressing some wishes. It could be moved to a more detailed article if Pfainuk thinks it is too much detail (together with the GoG declaration mentioning the ICJ). -- Imalbornoz (talk) 10:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

You feel that presenting the Spain and European Commission as the poor innocent victims of judicial persecution by Gibraltar is unbiased because both the UK and Spain are members of the EU? No. It isn't. Pfainuk talk 17:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the text presents anyone as a victim, it just mentions an episode that is relevant to the dispute (the European Commission ruled that the majority of the territory that Gibraltar and Britain consider territorial waters should be managed by Spain's environmental authorities; Gibraltar asked Britain to challenge that decision; the EC decided to defend its decision; and Spain decided it will help the CE).

Therefore, I don't think that the wording is biased, or that the issue is not relevant.

I think that it may be biased because it only mentions one episode that is not fundamental for the dispute and it gives no chance to mention other (probably equally anecdotal) episodes that support other POVs. If an episode is not fundamental and it supports only one POV, it may result in a biased text. BTW, I believe that Gibraltar Chief Minister's request (in an interview in TV, I think) for Spain to start a case about territorial waters in the International Court of Justice is even more anecdotal than this decision by the EC, and therefore it should not be mentioned in this overview article. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 13:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Then I imagine that you would consider:

Britain is helping Gibraltar fend off a long-standing Spanish demand that the territory be handed back to Spain despite the opposition of over 98% of Gibraltarians.

to be equally neutral as the only explanation of the dispute in an article? It is, after all, as neutral and as accurate as what you're proposing.

That said, this is a side-show. Justin has said he won't push the ICJ, and you've said you won't push the EC. The question at this stage is as to what exactly your objection to the first sentence of Justin's proposal is. Could you tell us please? Pfainuk talk 18:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree: both the ICJ and the EC decission should be metioned in a more detailed article instead of the overview article (as I said before). Regarding the text you propose, I think that it isn't a very neutral explanation of the sovereignty dispute (i.e. you wouldn't accept a reverse of the wording: "Spain is fending off (...)").

I think that first we must agree that a neutral text must not assume that one side has more "legal" right of sovereignty than the other (no matter what any editor thinks). If you agree on this point, I am sure that we can reach consensus. Do you? In that case, let's think up a text on which we would agree even if the wording was turned around. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 16:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I certainly don't propose it - indeed I would oppose it - but I find you prove my point. If you think it's biased to say Britain is fending off something, how can you find it neutral if it's Spain doing it? That's what you just argued.

Would I accept a wording "Spain is fending off (...)" as neutral? No. That's partly why I objected to your proposal, and partly why I would oppose the wording I noted above. You're the one saying that it's neutral on one side but not the other, not me. Pfainuk talk 18:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Toronto International Film Festival;Single White Female 2: The Psycho

So, I just wanted to ascertain if the use of Kiera Knightlie's (correct me if I'm wrong at spelling) image in the lead isn't a bit disturbing for WP:UNDUE rule? Why was her image used? I would understand if she was at top few who won the most awards at this festival, but it seems rather no reasonable arguments behind adding it in the lead, well the fact that she's fabulous and a prominent british actress erm.. adding in this article's lead wouldn't be really suitable from neutral point of view, I'm not being picky over trifles, well maybe a bit, because if I was actually I wouldn't be asking here for advice, now would I? So, maybe moving it to a downward section would do the trick? I leave up it to your comments, as I'm not actually against it being there.. but rules are rules, step by step they should be implemented if their implementation rewards for a better right order and efficiency.

Single White Female 2: The Psycho, the section Critical response. There's only one negative comment for the film, is it okay? Shouldn't it be balanced somehow to correspond with WP:Due rule, or forget about this rule, just to correspond with fair writing and to give amount of positive comments as well? Userpd (talk) 00:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

There appears to be no reason to use Keira Knightley's picture there at all. She's not even mentioned in the article. I'd remove it.

If there were other reviews of SWF2, it would be appropriate to add them. I think it sounds like it might be hard to find a positive one, but I haven't seen the movie, so can't be certain. --Habap (talk) 20:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Brooks, Alberta

Could someone look over the recent history of Brooks, Alberta? I would appreciate a second opinion on this. NW (Talk) 19:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's my opinion: The news story is a year and a half old; it is not about the town, it is about one of the newspapers in the town; whoever keeps re-adding this is not doing so because they want to improve Wikipedia; they have some other agenda. I will watch-list the article for a while. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 01:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Transportation Security Administration

With the recent controversy over enhanced security screening the article is suffering from Recentism and Coatrack issues and a lot of Imagery that does not neutrally reflect the TSA. The most interesting is the experimental full body scanner Image from 2007. According to its caption it is not what TSA sees at security thus psuhing some sort of agenda. I removed an Image yesterday of TSA employee who was sleeping off duty that had a caption implying he was sleeping at Work. Extra Eyes welcome The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

National Cheng Kung University

Here we have a user who is repeatedly adding this content. The sources he is using are questionable at best, and i can see nothing to prove they are what he says they are. In addition it should be noted that he is in fact the very person the section is talking about as is made clear here, and that he is even attempting to use wikipedia to further his own aims as can be seen here. Can someone please help me attempt to explain to him why he can't do this as I'm quite fed up of him. I hope this is the correct noticeboard for this--Jac16888^Talk 17:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

How can sources that are documents from a legal court ruling and Ministry of Education ruling be "questionable at best." Ifeel "sourcing" is being used in a tendentious manner here. Are editors reading the sources? Surely there must be SOMEONE who is Chinese-bilingual in the US who, in a matter of seconds, can verify the documents are authentic and read even just the highlighted section(s) of the document. The vague reference to "sources" suggests where the problem lies, and not in the sources themselves. The criticism here seems vague: "I can see nothing to prove they are what he says they are." What kind of proof is needed besides a legal court or Ministry ruling? And I'm not clear how personal involvement is an issue here? If I report a fire at my house does that mean the fire is not real because it happened at my house? Where's the logic? Does that mean the fire victim is "furthering his own ends" by reporting the fire? (As a matter of fact, the documents are not MINE; they are from the Taiwan court and Taiwan Ministry of Education.) And I do wish you would be more careful in your choice of words ("I'm quite fed up with him"); I don't write the same thing about you; even though people involved in this case are puzzled where you think the entry is not properly sourced; they went to the trouble of properly sourcing the entry. I dont write "I'm fed up with you." I'm trying to communicate with you, because I know the sourcing is correct by any reasonable standards. Other issues should be of no account, as I pointed out in examples above. I feel words like "sourcing" and "biased" are not being used the way they should, but are being using tendentiously. How can something be biased if it's based on legal documents? And how much sourcing can one use than legal documents? I see no difference between my entry on NCKU and, say, the entries on various Hollywood stars where similar entries are made. You write--Cincinattus (talk) 01:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)--Cincinattus (talk) 01:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)--Cincinattus (talk) 01:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC), "I strongly advise you to attempt to address the points i have made." I would suggest the same here to you. Jac, the illegal dismissal is a fact, by any reasonable interpretation of the word fact. If a court document or the Ministry of Education document is not sourcing, I don't know what is. The one point I might agree with is the reference to my blog (but that was done only in response to a previous edit when I was unfamiliar with what "sourcing" was required. I will remove that. I also would agree with the placement of the human rights entry, though I would not use a different argument than a previous editor did. Cincinattus

I'm not sure how I can be any clearer with you, but here goes. You are the person who was fired from the university. You say it is a Human rights violation and are campaigning for something, justice, whatever. Therefore you are not, nor can you ever be, neutral about the subject. Therefore, you can't edit about it. When you're writing letters to the university referencing content you personally added to the article, this is a clear attempt to use Wikipedia for your own aims--Jac16888^Talk 02:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

A posting to WP:COIN might helpful... As to the issue at hand, the material seems to fail WP:WEIGHT unless independent sourcing (i.e. newspaper reports, etc) can establish its notability to the university. Phrasing such as "human rights" are clear POV violations as well, and the apparent use of Wikipedia as bad publicity to get an "apology" out of school officials is unacceptable.Yobol (talk) 14:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Search results rather than paper?

We've got a question at WP:ELN#ELNO_.239 that's not properly an External links question, but since it's already in its second or third location, I hate to move it again. Could a couple of you please go over there to comment?

The issue is whether a link to search results from a (respectable, independent) database is a good (secondary?) source for supporting a statement that a given academic journal published a handful of (important?) papers. The aspect involving DUE is whether these papers should be called out in the journal's article at all, since nobody seems to have written anything like "Journal X is famous for publishing these papers". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

NPOV in the title

Hi, I wondered if you someone could stop by here and take a look. To avoid POV, should the title Chemtrail conspiracy theory be changed to simply "chemtrails", is the basic issue under discussion. Your input would be appreciated. 174.74.68.103 (talk) 05:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christians?

Despite having had it pointed out that standard WP:RS identify JWs as Christians (such as the Encyclopedia of Christianity published by Brill), an editor on the "Immersion baptism" page insists "JWs are not Christian no matter what your books say", and "I object to the use of the term regardless what your sources say and will not permit them to be called Christians on this page".--Taiwan boi (talk) 03:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

He's just wrong. Not much more to say. Sol (talk) 04:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Not wrong. I have WP:RS that say they're not Christian but a cult, however I concede that for the sake of Wikipedia and other non-Christian sources they are considered Christian. Tb is now just trying to deflect from his addition of multiple unnecessary headings. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

None of which you've provided. tb has provided sources. That's a big difference. Sol (talk) 05:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The important thing, perhaps in this case, is to not say definitively that they are or are not Christians. If there are reliable sources, cite the source directly, for example "XXX denomination does not consider them to be fellow christians, but YYY source does". The key is to not present things in Wikipedia's voice as authoritative if sources disagree with each other. If all reliable sources indicate one stance, then perhaps its OK to indicate that. But if there is a common disagreement, it's not Wikipedia's stance to take a stand. --Jayron32 06:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The dispute actually arose when the JWs were placed under an existing heading concerning immersion baptism in Christian denominations. Walter objected that they didn't belong there because they weren't really Christian, and he wants the title of that section to be changed so that it doesn't group JWs with other Christians. He is now changing his objection to "multiple unnecessary headings" (despite the fact that the original heading wasn't even mine). The truth is he doesn't want JWs grouped with other Christians, as he has made totally clear.--Taiwan boi (talk) 06:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

You guys are fighting over one line? And that takes up almost an entire talkpage? WP:LAME coming up... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

You should have seen how many pages of discussion it took before Walter and Esoglou would permit the five most commonly cited professional archaeological studies to be included in the article, and all the efforts made to resist quotations from standard lexicons. Editing that article has been uphill all the way against Christian sectarian POV.--Taiwan boi (talk) 06:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not fighting over it. Tb brought it here after I requested to change the wording and I have gone on record, twice, that I concede the point that as for Wikipedia, they should be considered Christian. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

You only stopped fighting over it when I brought the issue here. Previously you said "JWs are not Christian no matter what your books say", and "I object to the use of the term regardless what your sources say and will not permit them to be called Christians on this page", and you reverted my edit several times.--Taiwan boi (talk) 15:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

This entire debate is silly. I suggest we follow the principles laid out by WP:BLPCAT and accept that if a group self-identifies as "Christian", it is "Christian". NickCT (talk) 16:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

@ NickCT - Agreed, and thanks for that BLPCAT link, which I'd somehow missed until now.

@ Taiwan boi - let it go, the issue is resolved, it was a simple misunderstanding, and nothing more needs to be done about it. --Ludwigs2 16:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm letting it go but it needs to be pointed out that it was not a misunderstanding at all. Walter changed my edit several times, and told me pointblank that he did not believe JWs were Christians no matter which WP:RS said they were, and threatened that he would not permit them to be called Christians in the article; he was unashamedly POV. This is just one of many sectarian Christian obstacles I've met while editing that page over the last month.--Taiwan boi (talk) 17:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say it was a misunderstanding on your part. Walter apparently misunderstood the way these things are handled under wikipedia policy, he now seems to understand (or at least accept) it, and we should assume good faith that the issue is resolved. Please note though: he is entitled to have his perspective on these things, and I wouldn't begin to suggest that he should change his beliefs about JW. he just needs to work within policy as an editor. That's a vital part of NPOV, so don't criticize him for having beliefs that are different than yours. --Ludwigs2 17:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me that (given other examples) we do not label a group based on what they call themselves but what the bulk of RS call them. As it seems that the RS lean one way that’s the way we go.Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC).Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Warning: British Isles related (WP:BISLES)

Hi, apologies in advance if some editors have already bumped into the WP:BISLES discussions. I'd like to solicit some neutral/outside opinions on weight and reliability of references ... or in a nutshell, what would *you* be happy to see in the article as reliably referenced and neutral. We had an initial discussion here revolving around the "uniqueness" of the name "Westward Ho!" (with an exclamation mark). A number of editors contributed to the initial discussion and references were produced and discussed. The weight and reliability of references suggested "UK" as the largest relevant area. Subsequently the topic was reopened and an editor found a single reference for "British Isles". I've disputed the reliability of this reference, especially in the face of the WP:WEIGHT of the other references. Any opinions/help greatly appreciated. --HighKing (talk) 20:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It would be great if a neutral opinion was voiced - we'd really would appreciate any input. Thank you. --HighKing (talk) 13:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Jamie M. Koufman NPOV

I found this article when browsing wikipedia about GERD. The general article on GERD states that there is only anecdotal evidence regarding the effect of dietary changes on GERD, but this article states that the subject has collaborated to create "a low-fat, low-acid diet that will help cure reflux and is every bit as healthy and sustainable as it is delicious." The rest of the article also reflects the style of a book jacket plug. There is ample bibliography on the article but no citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.2.5.79 (talk) 13:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

NPOV being used to justify OR at Family Research Council

The question of WP:SYNTH was raise for adding a reference to a paper debunking a claim by the Family Research Council. The talk at FRC is at Talk:Family Research Council#POV pushing on the criticism section and the ORN discussion was at WP:ORN#Synthesis on Family Research Council. An editor now is trying to justify on the talk page of FRC the addition of the synthesis on the basis that it is needed to ensure a neutral point of view. I've tried to say the article should only be based on sources about the topic or mentioning the topic in some way but not ones that have no relation to it but they won't accept that. Dmcq (talk) 20:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Please note this dispute is only a day old, and this is the second board this editor has approached. As the first board was generally supportive of his position, and discussion is continuing, I don't know why he felt it necessary to also post here. Input is welcome, of course, but be aware the primary issue currently so far as I can see is that this editor is failing to AGF and work with others. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe I've solved this problem. The source here links its statement "Sprigg have pushed false accusations linking gay men to pedophilia" to this page. They directly link the words "false accusations," and so we can use a full refutation directly from a source discussing FRC. I don't see any lack of AGF? Am I missing something? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Editors have been accused of POV pushing if they didn't agree with Dmcq's interpretation of policy. This is a failure to AGF IMO. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I believe it does solve the problem. As to KillerChihuahua: Firstly it was a different editor who approached the other board. Secondly you changed the grounds from stright synth to saying NPOV overrode synth and quoted long experience for overriding my objection, so I brought it here to be exposed to other editors of long experience. Thirdly please desist from accusations of bad faith without very good grounds. Dmcq (talk) 20:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

You are in error. I did not "change the grounds" I was merely trying to discuss the issue and brought up relevant policies. I mentioned my time on Wikipedia in a response to your suggestion I read policy, saying that I had read it; not in any way to "override" any objections of yours. I certainly never said NPOV overrode SYNTH. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Water fluoridation controversy

I recently made this change to the article to improve the POV based on the the source, but was reverted. The source is an article that is a discussion of the precautionary principle, with one section discussing the application of it to water fluoridation. Our current WP article cherry picks safety issues raised by the authors of the source and ignores the context of the article (i.e. discussion of the precautionary principle and how the authors relate it to fluoridation, the authors' recommendation, etc); I was hoping to improve the article by placing this context in, as the source is a discussion of the precautionary principle, not a review article on the safety of fluoridation. I have now been reverted twice by an editor who admits to having not read the source in question. More input would be appreciated. Yobol (talk) 16:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I an only view the abstract, which does not appear to menion floridation. Could your provide some quotes from the articel that discuses floridation? The abstract does not support (as far as I can see) you desired text.Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I think some thought ought to go into choosing better encyclopedic names for the Water fluoridation article and that of the Water fluoridation controversy because at present some aspects don't fit well into either article. If the former name was changed to Fluoride (as dental treatment) it could include both artificial water fluoridation and topical fluoride application by dentists. In other words: the underling 'aim' would sit comfortably in one article and not exist as an afterthought. The new title would also makes it clear for the reader that this is nothing to do with plastic fluoridation, gas fluoridation etc. Then rename the water fluoridation controversy to Fluoride in the environment This could include the water fluoridation controversy and also sections about other sources of fluoride in the environment -good and bad. At the moment it is proving too difficult for editors to bring more stuff into any article and so fully cover all aspects. For instance there are problems caused by volcano eruptions and coal burning, eating certain food etc. which can increase levels of fluoride to harmful levels. China has now ended water fluoridation for this reason for the burden of fluorosis in it population was considered to have risen too high. Cattle in Iceland regularly suffer fluoride over exposer. Currently these two article names make countering systemic bias nigh on impossible. Sometimes, it looks like they are turning around and getting better, only to deteriorate again a few months later. They create a dichotomy in which both sides will always be wrong, (or is it the other way around). I would go further than Yobol and say both articles are simply oozing in POV and are an utter and shameful mess.--Aspro (talk) 18:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Water fluoridation is actually a featured article, and I think in fairly good shape. The controversy article however...not so much. Renaming won't solve that issue, as there is certainly enough material to justify a "controversy" article by itself, just that getting the right mix of POV is (and likely will always be) difficult. Both deal exclusively with artifical water fluoridation - any other information such as environmental fluoride would likely need a new article, not just a renaming of old ones. Yobol (talk) 18:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

(e/c)Certainly. For context, the text discussing fluoridation comprises a little less than one page of the approximately 8 pages of text of the article. Some quotes (I have removed ref numbers for ease of reading):

• Title of the section: "CASE EXAMPLES OF PRECAUTION AND DENTISTRY"
• Intro paragraph:

  "Fluoride has been added to drinking water the United State since 1945 for the exclusive purpose of preventing dental cavities. One could argue that it is the most widely used medicine in history. Since its inception, water fluoridation has been promoted as a "safe and effective way of preventing tooth decay", and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) now calls fluoridation "one of the great public health successes of the 20th century." However, some studies have raised concerns about the safety and efficacy of the practice. Some issues that make fluoridation ripe for applying a precautionary approach include the following:"

• Following 2 paragraphs lists individual studies (all negative) about fluoridation's safety or efficacy, including discussion of cumulative exposure
• Concluding paragraph:

  "In the face of uncertain evidence it is important to act in a manner that protects public health. A precautionary approach to fluoridation would consider all the available evidence on efficacy, safety, and alternatives. Given the temporal (throughout a lifetime) and spatial (broad population exposure) exposure to fluoride in drinking water, a more detailed analysis of potential impacts, including population variability and identification of potentially vulnerable populations would be prudent under a precautionary framework. Given the potential magnitude and scale of impacts, if they were real, one might accept a lower level of proof before taking preventive actions. Such actions could include a detailed analysis of whether cost-effective alternatives to achieve the function of fluoride exist (reducing cavities). Given the uncertainties and broad population exposure, dialogue with affected communities or their representatives would also allow a more thorough weighing of risks, benefits, and alternatives."

I note that the current text that is supported by this source seen here lists only the negative studies about fluoridation, while ignoring the intro and concluding paragraphs (and basically the entire context of the article). This is why I proposed this change. Yobol (talk) 18:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The phrase "Holy Bible"

I can't find any guidance on this. Is it acceptable to refer to the Bible as 'the Holy Bible' when this is not the actual titles of a published version? Is this in fact covered at MOS:ISLAM which says "Calling a book "Holy" is making a value judgement that is inappropriate to Wikipedia."? I presume it is. I can't find it on any of our MOS pages. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 19:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It's every bit as acceptable as "Holy Quran". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

And MOS:ISLAM makes it clear that "Holy Quran" isn't acceptable, that's what I just wrote above. Dougweller (talk) 20:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I would tend to say that Holy Bible is a value judgement. No its not NPOV.Slatersteven (talk) 20:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. "Holy Bible" or "Holy Quran" may well be appropriate to be named as alternative names mentioned in their respective articles, but not as a general name of the books in the editorial voice. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Either 'Holy Bible' or 'Holy Quran' should definitely be used... after we can conclusively verify the existence of a deity, and which scriptures are divinely inspired. Until we're able to know that for sure, we should refrain from taking sides by putting 'holy' on any of them. After all, it might be Thor, and then where would we be? Inaccurate, that's where. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, what's needed is not proof that God exists, but only that the term "Holy..." is the most common. The Bible says "Holy Bible" on its binding, but most folks simply call it "The Bible". Similarly, while many Muslims may call it the "Holy Quran", the most common name you're likely to find is "Quran" (or even "Koran"). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

"The Bible"? Do you have access to the official master copy (no doubt written in the language of Jesus and Moses, early 17th century English ;-)? I've seen many different bible editions, with widely varying texts on the cover. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The same applies just as much to Holy Bible Its not 'the offical name' either (perhaps we should just say the book dedicated to my darling Candy). At the end of the day all religeoous texts are holy to those who subscribe to wahtever Cloister they follow, and its just as equaly not holy to those who don't.Slatersteven (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

"Holy Bible" is another way to say "Holy Book". That's the title of the book chosen by its publishers, at least in some cases. But since "Bible" is the commonly used term, that makes more sense for the article - with the caveat that "Bible" is a commonly used term by Jews to describe what Christians call the Old Testament. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Are we talking citation, or in-text description? "The Holy Bible" appears to be the actual title of some publications, e.g., ISBN 9780840700414. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Vision restoration therapy

• Vision restoration therapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This new article is being written by a brand-new editor. He's doing a good job, but the article could use some help with someone familiar with WP:MEDRS, to choose and present medical information properly. --Ronz (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Template: Religious text primary, and Template: Primary sources

A TfD discussion has recently been opened on template {{Religious text primary}}. The TfD is currently fairly balanced in terms of bare !votes, and (as of today, Monday morning) still has about 24 hours to run. The template in question generates the text:

This article uses one or more religious texts as primary sources without referring to secondary sources that critically analyze them. Please help improve this article by adding references to reliable secondary sources.

Those bringing the TfD claim it represents POV-pushing of a particular view. They also submit that any valid purpose of the template can instead be served by template {{Primary sources}},

This article needs references that appear in reliable third-party publications. Primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject are generally not sufficient for a Wikipedia article. Please add more appropriate citations from reliable sources.

I don't want to pre-judge the outcome of the TfD, but it seems to me that one thing that the basic {{Primary sources}} template maybe doesn't do so well at the moment is to make it concrete what it is that, underlying WP:PSTS, we believe that secondary sources can bring to our articles. This is not just verification of the text of the primary source, but also critical assessment of its reliability, significance, broader context, etc.

So, regardless of the outcome of the TfD, I was wondering whether (for cases where it was more generally commentary on reliability, significance, broader context that would enhance the article; rather than simple verification that this is what the primary source says) it would be appropriate to add an option to Template:Primary_sources to put this over, to give text something like

This article uses one or more primary sources without referring to secondary sources that critically analyze them. Please help improve this article by adding references to reliable secondary sources.

I am cross-posting this message to both WT:PSTS (as that's the page that 'owns' the PSTS policy); and here at WP:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard (since in many ways this is more a POV/NPOV issue than an NOR issue -- that seems to be how both sides in the TfD discussion are framing it, one side seeing critical assessment as a POV that ought to be there included in any article, part of the fabric of what a reputable secondary/tertiary work such as WP aims to be; the other side seeing any such call as pushing in itself a particular POV, and therefore not neutral.)

So: Would extending Template:Primary_sources to allow it to generate text as above be consonant with the aims of the project? Or would it be POV-pushing, and (potentially) reinstating content deleted by due process? I thought I should seek advice. Follow-ups probably best centralised, I would suggest over at WT:PSTS. Jheald (talk) 12:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Need neutral descriptor for Jewish control of the media article title

A one-time editor renamed the article Jewish control of the media (Antisemitic canard) because he thought the original title made it sound like the topic was Jewish control of media, instead of a listing of various sources who say various people/groups alleged Jews controlled all or the great majority of media. However, canard means lie or fabrication and most sources use less loaded descriptors like myth, conspiracy theory or some other phrase. And there were BLP problems with constantly saying living people were guilty of a “canard” when the sources did not describe whatever they said in such negative terms. Other options are below. (Added later: I just added up results of the survey on the current name and only one person actually liked it, most just wanted some modifier and/or a more neutral sounding name that didn't make it sound like article was about that topic. See results here. )

Can people give their opinions - per Wikipedia:Name#Non-judgmental_descriptive_titles and Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Naming - on which of these, or some other alternative, is better?

• Jewish control of the media (antisemitic phrase)
• Jewish control of the media (antisemitic concept)
• Accusations of Jewish control of the media (or Jewish control of the media (antisemitic accusation))

Thanks.CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

If I look for stuff like Apollo moon landing hoax accusations, it takes me to Moon landing conspiracy theories. So how about Media control conspiracy theories? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Media control conspiracy theories is not quite right for two reasons: (1) the material is exclusively about alleged control of the media by Jews (although, in theory, it could be a sub-article of a larger article on other media-control topics ... but I'm not certain what those would be); and (2) the phrase "conspiracy theory" is too narrow: many of the sources do not treat the topic as a "conspiracy theory". The sources generally treat it as either: a bigoted antisemitic falsehood; an urban legend; a myth that is un-wittingly spread; the truth; a discussion of disproportional influence; or an example of media bias (see, e..g. Media_bias_in_the_United_States#Claims of a Pro-Israel media ). So the title should be broad enough to reflect all that. Very few, if any, sources use the nomenclature "conspiracy theory". Probably the most common phrase used in the sources is "Jewish control of the media canard" or "Myth of Jewish control of the media", but those do not exactly encompass the viewpoint of all the sources. --Noleander (talk) 00:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

For the sake of completeness, some other titles that have been mentioned include:

• Allegations of Jewish control of the media
• Jewish influence in the media
• Jewish control of the media

Note that the latter was the original title, but some editors felt that readers might be misled by the title into thinking it was an established fact. Hence the search for a title that gives more insight into what the sources say. Part of the confusion is that some sources do perceive disproportionate influence, and that often gives rise to claims of canard and/or anti-semitism, even though the source may not have intended it that way (and many of those sources do claim they were mis-interpreted). --Noleander (talk) 00:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I included the Antisemitism sidebar here, so other editors could get the bigger picture. The "allegations" portion in the middle contains several antisemitic canards. More are listed in the Antisemitic canard article. The word "canard" is very common in that context, hence the current name of the article. See, for example, Kosher tax (Antisemitic canard). On the other hand, other similar articles such as Zionist Occupation Government do not include the word "canard" in their title. So there is no solid pattern. --Noleander (talk) 00:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Why not go the simple route? - Belief that Jews control the media (antisemitism) --Ludwigs2 01:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: use of canard in other articles Noleander mentions, I don't think we can use that as a defense of canard in this title for two reasons. First, all but two clearly refer to negative and bigoted accusations. Yet not all of them use canard at all and/or have sources that use the word.

Second, one of those two is Jewish lobby, a phrase a simple internet search can show is used more by mainstream media and even Jewish groups than bigots, and that article reflects that fact as well as current WP:RS will allow. More pertinent here is that canard means lie or fabrication for bigoted reasons. However, WP:RS more frequently use myth or conspiracy theory to describe incidents, some of which are either confusion on the part of speakers or political debate which some have chosen to call antisemitic, but are not described as deliberate lies and fabrications. Which is why I am currently tagging as failed verification all those refs that do not label such incidents "canard," at least til a more neutral title for the article allowing things described as myth, conspiracy theory, misunderstanding or whatever can be found. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't use pejorative terms (even anti-semitism). You don't even have to be anti-Semitic (you could even be a loyal Jew) to wonder vaguely how much influence Jews or Gentiles have over any particular profession or part of society (e.g. the diamond trade, the law or a left-wing political party). Both Jews and Gentiles often joke, for example, about the number of Jews in Hollywood or particular parts of New York. That's not equivalent to wondering if Christian blood was shed to make matzoh for Passover (Pesach). Even if the article is exclusively and specifically addressing only the anti-Semitic belief of Jewish control of the media, it's harder to disabuse such persuadable readers of the general belief if they think the article is hopelessly biased (as one would conclude from an article entitled the "Fallacy of Evolution" or the "Fallacy of Creationism"). Maybe some term like "Extent of Jewish presence in the media" or "Jewish influence [not control] in mass media" would avoid the opposite problem of seeming to assume a control that doesn't exist. There's also the tricky question of distinguishing a disproportion of Jews in some professions (and, correspondingly, of Gentiles in others) from some kind of control or overwhelming dominance. —— Shakescene (talk) 03:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I, and doubtless others, have a feeling an article on "Jewish influence in the media" quickly would be AfD'd as being "antisemitic coatrack" as was the earlier article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversies related to prevalence of Jews in leadership roles in Hollywood. So perhaps only an article which focuses on negative uses of the term can survive. However, I myself will AfD it if it continues in its current highly negative form (both content and title). But if it accurately reflects sources, has some minimal discussion of when discussions of influence become bigoted accusations of control, and has strong defenses from WP:RS of those accused unjustly of being bigoted (for example, Jimmy Carter and Walt and Mearsheimer), it might at least serve some useful purpose of educating people on the topic. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Am I reading you right in that you are saying that if we don't characterize the people as anti-semites, or at least as people who have made anti-semitic comments (assuming there is a distinction) then the article will be considered antisemitic? Honestly I would hope that it is possible to have a neutral article with an encyclopedic title. I agree with Shakescene, perhaps the solution is to widen the scope of the article instead of focusing on one POV or another. un☯mi 05:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

This is just my personal perception, which could be wrong, and it's not something I agree with and obviously a partisan battleground problem. There does need to be a discussion somewhere of how to deal with articles about "accusations" against various groups of people which some or most consider to be bigoted but some significant number of WP:RS may disagree with or debate. But then I guess that's what NPOV noticeboard for. Anyway, the new title deals with my objection and I think the article can be rewritten in an NPOV way per policy, though there may be some large "debates" on various points. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

(Note: the article was just re-named to Accusations of Jewish control of the media. I don't think the re-name was intended to be disruptive; it was simply a consequence of an admin closing a week-old rename proposal. I don't think the closing admin knew about this thread here). --Noleander (talk) 06:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

That seems to me a good name for the article. Can we close this discussion now? Jheald (talk) 10:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

This sems to me a fair name. It prety much says what it does on he tin.Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It is not a bad title. But it seems like the word "allegations" is more appropriate in this context: Allegations of Jewish control of the media. "Accusations" seems to imply face-to-face vitriol; whereas "allegations" encompasses a greater variety of claims, some subtle, some not-so-subtle. --Noleander (talk) 17:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree. I'd prefer "allegations", too. --Konstock (talk) 17:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Now that you bring it up, I agree. Oh dear. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

"Allegations" might be better. It might depend on the overall character of those claims. If you've ever spent any time at the Moon Hoax article, some of the hoaxsters are serious fanatics, and have had actual face-to-face confrontations with some NASA people. "Allegations" is perhaps more general, and at least can be thought of as "not totally wrong", in that a number of Jewish folks over the years have had media empires. The issue is whether it's true "Jewish control" or "control of some of it by businessmen who happen to be Jewish". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I prefer "accusations". It's harder-edged, more firm, more solid, more concrete -- a good thing in a title, which should sound as definite as possible. I think it also better captures the weight and seriousness of these slurs. Jheald (talk) 23:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Scope and WP:COATRACK

I continue to be fairly neutral on the canard/conspiracy theory/accusation front. However, I want to highlight to the board that there's been some effort to specifically focus on antisemitic allegations of control, rather than analysis of Jewish influence. Spaceclerk and myself have both suggested repeatedly on talk that the latter be placed in Jewish influence on the media (or some more regionally specific version of the same. Marokwitz and SolGoldstone have supported narrowing the scope of the article to the antisemitic allegations, which is how we ended up with the problem presented here. This is a sort of pre-emptive split of the topic that should have some benefits (see below). Right now, the following text in the lead serves as a delimitation on the topic being considered:

Although some Jewish individuals and groups — like many other individuals and groups — do have significant influence on the mass media, the anti-Semitic essence of such allegations is the proposition that Jews are not simply one influence among many, but rather control some mass media to an extensive degree and utilize the control to promote Jewish or Zionist interests.

In my ideal world "influence on the mass media" would eventually link to Jewish influence on the media.

Why bother with this split? There is a well documented antisemitic theory that suggests that Jews control the media. Remarkably, this theory arose in media environments with very limited Jewish participation. There is also scholarly and other analysis of the prominence of Jews in the United States media. Separating these two things is a way of better describing each, and lets us reduce the tarring of legitimate research with antisemitism, while explaining the discomfort aroused in some by this research. Both topics are more likely to be NPOV and well written if described separately.

I've stayed out of the above discussion because of real world busy-ness, but also because the exact wording doesn't matter to me as long as we maintain this specificity. However, bringing the title here seems to have encouraged some topic creep from "antisemitic theory" towards "phrase that might be antisemitic or might be analytical."

This being the NPOV noticeboard, I guess the question is whether this sort of limited (and later, divided) scope deals effectively with NPOV issues.--Carwil (talk) 13:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have come back just this once to make just this remark. Right now, the central dispute seems to be between those who believe that there is one topic here and those who believe there are two topics. It is at root a scoping issue. To some editors, the difference between these two claims --

• "Protocols" saying that the press is in the hands of the Jews, who exercise absolute control of it
• A contemporary comment saying that overabundance of Jews in the western press tilts coverage toward Israel

is a matter of kind or category substantial enough to deserve two separate entries; to other editors it is a matter of degree and one entry would suffice. Carwil is an example of someone who considers it a matter of kind, while CarolMooreDC considers it a matter of degree. The point of distinction is clearly made in the sentence from the entry Carwil quoted.

I stand with Carwil on this. There is a strong historical argument for maintaining that these are two fundamentally different kinds of claims, and I think that attempting to blur the two together in a Cuisinart does a terrible disservice to the entry. "Protocols", "Mein Kampf", "The International Jew" -- these describe a worldwide and coordinated plot to control the world by controlling the gentile mind. They describe what they think is a flaw in the character of The Jew. Think James Bond villains; that's the scale of the plot the canard describes. And that clearly deserves its own entry, just as other antisemitic canards similarly well documented and widespread deserve their own entry.

These accusations are really quite fundamentally different in nature to contemporary discussions about whether or to what degree there is somehow undue Jewish influence on the contemporary western press. And it is of course an entirely different topic than whether or not there is undue Zionist (i.e. not necessarily Jewish) influence on the contemporary western press; adding that into the mix is to hopelessly muddle the topic and guarantee the article itself turns into applesauce.

The issue of "canard" vs "myth" vs "conspiracy theory" is really something of a red herring or a proxy for the fundamental issue here, and will not be resolved until that fundamental issue is resolved.

There is no serious dispute that there should be an entry on the "Protocols" historical canard. It is notable and well-documented. The dispute is about whether the article should be extended to include other things as well. It would be genuinely terrible if a solid and signficant article were turned into applesauce because of a dispute from someone who thinks the article's clearly delineated boundaries should be stretched to include other topics.

Carwil and I are among those who feel the two topics need separate entries, rather than trying to WP:COATRACK the second into the first. It is also, I think, the broad consensus of the talk page. No one is telling editors not to do an entry on Jewish influence on the media - literally no one has said this. But there is substantial resistence to coatracking it into the entry on the canard. And this is what must be addressed before any solution to the naming issue is likely to stick. Spaceclerk (talk) 19:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Gibraltar

[43] In the confident expectation this will be reverted to include text that cherry picks details and includes details as a coat rack for modern nationalist claims, I invite outside comment on the change. Justin talk 12:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

[44] And it was, I welcome outside opinion on my edit proposal. Justin talk 21:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Chrysostomos Papasarantopoulos

I've been trying to neutralize this article, but it keeps getting reverted by User:ΙΣΧΣΝΙΚΑ-888 on the basis that I'm "biased" and not an "SME" (whatever that is). See diff and diff.

Here is what I wrote on the talk page:

This article contains some wording that is more suited to a eulogy than to an encyclopedia. Some examples:

• Although no longer young, Father Chrysostomos displayed an energy, which a man half his age might have envied. He launched himself into a continual round of evangelizing, teaching and preaching. He had the qualities, which should be the hallmark of every priest: zeal, dedication, self-sacrifice, devotion to duty and, above all, holiness.
• The greatest desire of his heart was to spread Orthodoxy to Congo, and in this, he was marvelously successful. He was a perfectly humble man, full of the Holy Spirit, a truly altruistic person who remains relatively unknown even today.
• For 10 years, Father Chrysostomos laboured in Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania, but all the time his spiritual vision was fixed on another territory, where the flag of Orthodoxy had not at that time been raised.
• he fell asleep in Africa having started a huge task, which was continued with great success

Some other parts of the article are borderline. Articles are to be written in a factual, neutral tone. The goal is not to say how great the subject is. Even if the text is sourced it has to be written neutrally, unless it's a direct quote.

No response from the article author. Any advice? ... discospinster _talk 15:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

"SME" would mean "Subject Matter Expert". Those comments are definitely editorializing, and quite possibly lifted from elsewhere. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Charlotte Green

We've got an WP:UNDUE dispute. Please see this edit to see the dispute, and then comment at Talk:Charlotte_Green#UNDUE? on how much mention there should be of her 'corpsing' or giggling while reading the news. Thanks. Fences&Windows 00:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Yoshiyahu Yosef Pinto

Help in reviewing said page. Single unit users add biased information and simply dont read the sources. They want positives and not facts. Pls assist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.122.113 (talk) 11:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Appears to be a disagreement between User:Diannaa and User:Babasalichai, with the above IP intervening and User:Debresser reverting the IPs edits made on the 29th. I'm having a look at the article. --Habap (talk) 16:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Rabbi Pinto

Help in reviewing this advertisement —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.112.21.194 (talk) 14:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

There's already the same section some blocks up, couldn't you post it there? That would help the cleanliness here, at least a bit. And it's not like it was made a long time ago and disappeared from this noticeboard's front page to invoke a reminding. Userpd (talk) 00:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Rabbi Pinto

Rabbi Pinto every single item which they deleted has been mentioned in articles which they accept as sources. A mysterious death is relevant for sure and so is one of the most expensive synagogues in the US in a historical building. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babasalichai (talk • contribs) 01:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Rabbi Pinto

Rabbi Pinto Rabbi Pinto Prominence: The page is biased and whitewashed. How can he be such a great worldwide leader if the sources cited say the following: The Forward article says http://www.forward.com/articles/128944/#ixzz17UWltlMZ Pinto, an Israeli-born rabbi of Moroccan descent, is little known in the United States. The Haaretz article says: “Pinto is not well known in Israel.” http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/a-rabbi-not-afraid-to-deviate-1.265442

Should these not be added ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babasalichai (talk • contribs) 04:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

There are already ongoing discussions at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts#Rabbi Pinto and Talk:Yoshiyahu Yosef Pinto. --Mosmof (talk) 04:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

There arent participants other than the people whitewashing the info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babasalichai (talk • contribs) 04:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)