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

Frank L. VanderSloot

Request opinions on relative compliance with NPOV for these two edits: [1] (edit summary; that's not NPOV wording) [2] )edit summary: LGBT issues: NPOV wording)

The question is whether the linking of the living person to "Mormon pedophiles" by saying

he responded to a series on Mormon pedophiles working with children as part of the Boy Scouts of America.<]] by purchasing full-page advertisements in the investigating local paper criticizing the coverage and discussing, among other things, the sexual orientation of the journalist breaking the story

is more or less NPOV with regard to VanderSloot than is saying

he placed ads criticising articles linking child abusers with the Boy Scouts of America. Collect (talk) 07:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• WP:FORUMSHOPPING -- Collect has already been to BLPN and Jimbo's talk-page with this one. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Nope. This is a specific NPOV issue - and as such belongs here. Were I to raise it at BLP/N, I would be told it was not an issue to raise there. Cheers - but making such aspersions about intent when a noticeboard is being properly used to gain opinions fromothers is rather less than utile. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately it's true that you did raise it there. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
      • ROFL! Did you note who started the section on that page? GreyFell, not I. The issue as to the BLP content was raised by a different person - so accusing me of anything is simply absurd - this is the board wherein I suggested it was less than NPOV. And this is the board where such is a reasonable query to pose. BTW, making personal asides on a noticeboard is "not done" - the folks reading here do not wish to see wikilawyering done either as a rule. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

After reading the source on this topic, I think the first sentence linking VanderSloot to mormon pedophiles is fair considering that he took out multiple adds in the newspaper linking himself to the series via his critical full page ads. His bio does not accuse him of being one of them so imo it is OK in light of the weekly ads he had published in his name.Coaster92 (talk) 05:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Did you note the character of the "source"? Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

As I've stated at the recent BLPN post and on the talk page of the article. The sources are weak and this is not a major event in the context of this man's life. Therefore, it deserves only a minor and very neutral mention. Having read both sources, I consider the first (current) version to be highly inflammatory and non-nuetral. For example the first sentence says "among other things" but then cherry picks the most inflammatory aspect of the ads (the sexual orientation of the journalist) as reported by the newspaper that VanderSloot attacked (ie. the primary source). A neutral wording would be: "He paid for six full page adds which criticized that newspaper's articles linking child abusers with the Boy Scouts of America". Personally, I am not a fan of VanderSloot and I question his actions, but I will not support POV pushing on his BLP just because I or someone else doesn't like him.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

VS' actions are not in dispute. He took out the ads. His ads criticized and were in response to a series on mormon pedophiles. The first sentence is more accurate. The second attempts to shield VS from his own actions, which are undisputed. This is POV imo. The sentence and entire section are not out of proportion in his bio. Again, it looks fair in this case.Coaster92 (talk) 21:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I read the article completely and it appears the first text is indeed somewhat inflammatory. For example, the article never says the pedophiles are all Mormon. It refers to them as "Boy Scout pedophiles" and not "Mormon pedophiles." As written, the bio suggests VS was criticizing the paper for attacking the Church rather than for attacking the Boy Scouts. It's unclear to me what VS's rationale was for criticizing the paper (the story doesn't make this entirely clear), but it would be unfair to assume that he did so because he was Mormon. Also, context is important. The sentence in question is in a section titled "LGBT Issues." The ads he ran pertain to LGBT issues in that he devoted several paragraphs establishing that the author was gay and pointing out that the Church opposes gay marriage. The implication is that he criticized the reporting based on the fact that the reporter was gay. But the article doesn't actually say that. On the contrary it includes a sentence where VS says it would be unfair to conclude that the reporter's motives stemmed from his being gay. So what does the article really say about VS's views on LGBT issues? Not much really. Therefore inclusion of so much detail based on this article seems to demonstrate a clear POV bias in that it refers to a paid advertisement in order to tarnish VS's image by implication without appropriate detail on what was in the advertisement itself. To develop the section on "LGBT issues" there should be better sources than this. Coastside (talk) 06:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Are statements for a sources notability POV?

At Ramapough Mountain Indians an editor insists that a statement by the first of a long list of sources say "*Herbert C. Kraft Considered a "Noted Scholar" by peers in his field". I am not arguing that this isn't true, Kraft's an expert, but that this form of wording is pov and argument by authority. I suspect that there is quite a bit of pov in the article. The main editor is a member of the tribe who is, understandably, quite sure they are right about everything to do with the subject - a read of the talk page is recommended. If I ever have time I'll take a more thorough look at it. Probably quite a bit of OR also, I just reverted an obviously OR recent edit by the same editor but this isn't NOR. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 05:20, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Its not a WP:NPOV issue per se, to state that someone is a "noted scholar", "preeminent authority", or even a "tribal expert", if WP:RSs back that up. — GabeMc (talk) 05:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, being a "member of the tribe" does not exclude the editor from being NPOV. As far as the AbA concern, is the editor the source for the article, or do third-party reliable sources verify the material? — GabeMc (talk) 05:29, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

As it was written, the use of "noted scholar" would seem to imply additional weight should be given to his views in the paragraph concerned; simply describing him by profession would be more neutral. Part of the problem is that the section concerned is currently a sequence of eclectic statements presented as bullet points, rather than as decent prose describing the different perspectives. Some of those bullets are definitely POV in tone. If it was rewritten, then the prominence of the most respected or authoritative academic opinions could be highlighted in a more encyclopaedic fashion. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for this, it is a clearer restatement of the problem as I see it. I agree it should be rewritten. Right now it's almost a list. I'm not sure how to go about it and I suspect that it might be difficult. Dougweller (talk) 08:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Another example of what I think is pov (and OR) is a statement about a BIA report added by the editor 3 years ago, which says "The BIA failed to recognize the written eyewitness accounting of former county judge James M. Van Valen in his book History of Bergen County", published in 1900." This is an observation by the editor and thus OR, but it's also IMHO a pov comment, part of an argument the editor is making about his/her tribe. Dougweller (talk) 09:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I have written exactly how it was stated in the links provided but no one bothered to read them. It is not WP:POV when I am copying what was written. I have provided the links and still you have persisted to call it 'Puffery'. Regardless if i'm a member of the tribe or not, if it's written as such and verifiable, explain how it is POV? Ramapoughnative (talk) 15:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

As far as the part about the BIA, how would you write it? The information was supplied them but not utilized in their decision. (Since then, we now know why. It had nothing to do with our history and everything to do with the state's concern for Casinos.) Ramapoughnative (talk) 15:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

You've been pointed to WP:PEA and the supplment at WP:BETTER#Avoid peacock and weasel terms which explains how to handle this. The article now reads " a professor of archeology at Seton Hall University who conducted extensive studies of the Lenape" which is much better. As for your question about how would I write the part about the BIA, I wouldn't. There have been many times when I'd like to point what what someone overlooked, but as that is my observation it would be original research. Without a reliable source pointing it out, we leave it out. Dougweller (talk) 15:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Senator_letter.pdf My link for my above statement. also, WP:PEA states.. "The examples given above are not automatically weasel words, as they may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, where the article body or the rest of the paragraph supplies attribution. this is what is followed.. The BIA statement is not "my observation", it is fact because of their statement "None of the interested party or third party comments provided substantive proof that the earliest proven RMI ancestors descended from a historical tribe of North American Indians. Therefore, the third-party comments were not directly pertinent to criterion 83.7(e)". I am not here to discuss the opinions of the BIA, just present the facts. It is a fact they ignored eyewitness accounts from verifiable sources. Ramapoughnative (talk) 16:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Also i consider this "The article now reads " a professor of archeology at Seton Hall University who conducted extensive studies of the Lenape" which is much better." This is your POV, not mine and I find unacceptable as it is not how it was written in the links I provided. Ramapoughnative (talk) 16:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

"With the death of Herbert Kraft in 1999 and that of C. A. Weslager several years ago, we lost the leading Lenape-Delaware historian-ethnographers of the latter decades of the 20th century." This the description of Kraft from "a Kansas Delaware and a former Kansas Delaware Chief and and now Ceremonial Chief." on their website http://lenapedelawarehistory.net/mirror/bibliography.htm Still think he's just an archeologist? Ramapoughnative (talk) 16:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The fact that you find it unacceptable because it isn't the way you like it is I'm afraid irrelevant. Not only do you not have consensus for your preferred text (see WP:CONSENSUS it is pov. No one has said he's "just an archeologist", and it is not a good idea to put words into other editor's mouths.

As for the BIA, if they didn't use any of the third party comments, then we shouldn't be singling any out. Perhaps this is a pov problem rather than an RS one after all. Dougweller (talk) 17:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

You did! (16:37, 31 May 2012‎ Dougweller (talk | contribs)‎ . . (38,579 bytes) (-32)‎ . . (→‎Historical perspective: remove 'noted scholar', we should never try to use adjectives in this way to make someone sound authoritative) (undo)) Is this not your name on the edit? So the only argument you can use as a defense is WP:Consensus? Total BS and you know it. Despite the fact it is documented as such and 'not' implied, you want to go with your opinion of what is WP:PEA, contrary to what is described within as valid.. Discussing this with you is pointless and we need a third party to get involved who's unbiased. Ramapoughnative (talk) 17:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Please learn to WP:Indent. That is my name on the edit, it clearly does not say "just an archeologist". And note that the article history shows 4 editors, including me, disagreeing with you. So are all of us biased? Is editor Hchc2009 who posted above also biased? You've had a 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th party already. Dougweller (talk) 17:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Ramapoughnative, I'm straying a little from the NPOV noticeboard purpose here, my advice would be to focus on the structure of the historical section. If it began by describing, in its own words, rather than lots of quotes, the mainstream, modern view of the Ramapough Mountain Indians's origins pre-1790, you'd have a good couple of initial paragraphs. You could then explain that there are differing views about whether there has been continuity in the group over the entire period, especially 1790-1830. You could then neutrally describe Kraft and Pritchard's position - that there was continuity - and Cohen's view - that there wasn't. Many of the other named individuals in the section could probably be reduced to footnotes or eliminated altogether (e.g. Pierson, who doesn't seem very significant in the debate). This would set the scene for the Bureau of Indian Affairs application section, although perhaps cleaning up the structure and perhaps reducing the long quotes a bit? You'd then have a neutral article, but which captures (if I'm reading the material in the article correctly, I'm not a specialist) the point that a majority of the academics agree with the continuity argument. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

thank you Hchc2009. All I asked for was clarity. Every link I posted a valid link, it was met with a WP:whatever and not explaining their issue with it. Kraft had many lifetime achievements and should be respected for his accomplishments. He was top professor at Seton Hall (a scholar) and most of his work was the basis for other's work. He is recognized by the state of NJ and as well by various Delaware Tribes. (well known and respected) How does this not equal "Noted Scholar"? David Cohen was Herb Kraft's student. Ramapoughnative (talk) 20:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

@Dougweller.. mincing words now? "Archeologist Herb Craft" = 'just an Archeologist' when you don't recognize his achievements. Ramapoughnative (talk) 20:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. And you are dropping insults all over the place, please stop it. It's against WP:PEA and seems totally unnecessary. Why is it so important to you? You have 4 editors disagreeing with you at the article, you can't just ram it in. Dougweller (talk) 20:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

where are you seeing insults? I have not posted one insult to you yet.. Believe me if I were being insulting, you would know it.. What I can't understand is if it's in print as such in a verifiable source, why you're fighting so hard to exclude it. It was not my description but the description from others in print. If this is considered unusable, then it seems any source can be challenged by anyone who doesn't like what you print. Now i have others questioning federal documents and a lawyers submission to the Supreme Court as POV.. Totally ridiculous. Ramapoughnative (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for using indent, it makes threads easier to follow. "Mincing words" and "What language did you think we spoke before 1st contact, english?" are what I mean by insults. Now back to the issue. It isn't whether it is true or not that is in question, no one is questioning the fact that Kraft is considered an expert, the issue is about what we call puffery. I note that yet another editor has posted to the article talk page with links to puffery. We need to be careful that we aren't telling readers that one author is right and the other is wrong. As I've said elsewhere, we want to avoid a situation where we have "notable author x says y, not very notable author a says b, and dubious author c says d". What is wrong with Fat & Happy's wording? Dougweller (talk) 05:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be satisfactory.. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramapoughnative (talk • contribs) 00:12, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I think we can put this to bed. Ramapoughnative and I hope to work together to improve the article. Dougweller (talk) 16:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Cynthia Tucker bio

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

This sentence from the Cynthia Tucker entry requires little consideration before being removed:

"She blogs regularly but no one reads her drivel"

Further in the article, her characterization as a "radical leftist" is very debatable by anyone familiar with her writing. This sentence should be edited to include "considered by some" or be completely rewritten to reflect an objective POV.

No need to respond, I am not engaging in discussion. I am simply trying to report this & I do not see a simple place to do so.

Thank you (whoever) for your effort and consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.251.111.130 (talk) 15:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Those cracks were inserted two weeks ago and have now been undone, possibly because of your nudge. —Tamfang (talk) 18:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Soka Gakkai

Personally I am trying to stay clear to edit the article on Sōka Gakkai ... I am not sure if I can be called unbiased anymore, but the latest edits got rid of basically all critical views on this organisation ... could someone look into that? --Catflap08 (talk) 17:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

You do not specify which edits concern you but it looks like this is being discussed on the article talk page.Coaster92 (talk) 05:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

David Irving

I find it hard to believe that the article on David Irving meets WP:NPOV by any stretch. I tried putting the not-NPOV tag on it, but it was quickly removed. In part because I did not provide a list of specific things that make it clearly NPOV. This is due in part to the fact that the NPOV issues with the article will be *obvious* to anyone who has read it- and because the Talk Page and Talk Page history are filled with examples of NPOV objections (which went unresolved.)

I am neither pro nor anti-Irving, per se. But after reading the article I was left with the strong impression it was one of the least "balanced" and "fair" articles I'd read in some time. I'm listing this here so any fair-minded editors/admins can take a look at the page and decide for themselves whether they think it meets Wikipedias WP:NPOV stance. (Especially enough for it to qualify as a "Good Article".) Emeraldflames (talk) 03:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The article appears to reflect the preponderance of scholarly opinion. You would need to specify your concerns, because they are non obvious. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you Emeraldflames. That whole sector of Wikipedia en is biased and written and controlled by opponents of the groups and living people. Here is a list of the contributors if you want to investigate. There is no chance to do anything about it through editing, I suggest promotion in the public realm of the sector balance might be a better solution than attempting to edit it. It is impossible to write an informed neutral article about such contentious people or groups under English Wikipedia's current guidelines. The policies and guidelines are not strong enough to stop people coming to attack them, and such people have a lot of opponents, so rather than write a neutral informing article about the person , their opponents want to use the Wiki project to attack them - and that is what is happening in this sector - as happened in the climate change sector and the new religious movements sector and anything "fringe" - any attempt to correct the content bias is lengthy and massively disruptive and rises to Wp:arbitration before it is dealt with.Youreallycan 04:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: Fifelfoo, it is difficult for me to believe that anyone who has read that article believes it is even remotely fair and balanced. But I'll assume good faith.

Re: Youreallycan, I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, but what you said was the impression I've been forming. Especially after reading the Talk History of the article, I realized that my attempting to edit it would be pointless. I figured the only other thing I would do was to list it here and on the "Good Article" forum. (Although, I think it violates WP:BLP as well.) Thanks for your feedback. Emeraldflames (talk) 06:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I eagerly await your analysis of how and why the article fails to meet our policy. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I can't see how one could 'balance' his stuff like the TV stations try to do. At least with Hitler you could say he got people working and developed industry and patronised a style of art and architecture and patted little children on the head sometimes. What's there to say about David Irving that would make the article more 'neutral'? Dmcq (talk) 09:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires that even Satan get a neutrally worded article - which means Irving is worse off than Satan. Saying :we can;t find anything good to say about him at all" or the like is a direct statement that NPOV is allowed to be ignored. It isn't. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Irving is notable for his engagement with historical writing. The preponderance of scholarly opinion regarding Irving's engagement with historical writing has a clear and overwhelming opinion, and the WEIGHT to hold such a view, and the article we have seems to present this opinion. As Collect observes, we don't get to debate the value NPOV here (major policy reviews happen elsewhere). The article presents and centrally weights the key and singular scholarly view regarding Irving, just as required by NPOV. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

A good number of the editors of the article have made statements consistent with great disdain for the person on the Talk pages- and it certainly shows in their work. It shouldn't take much beyond the first sentence to see how overwhelmingly POV/hostile the editors are to the subject.

Let's just take the first three paragraphs: The editors have decided that a)he's not even a historian (some say he's not- others say he is- that isn't for WP to decide whether sources say it or not), b) that he denies the Holocaust (which is an apparent oversimplification of his actual position- and something the subject has denied. Again, not WP's job to decide that, whether sources say it or not.)

Surely his positions on the holocaust deserve a special section, since a lot of notoriety was created from that. A criticism section is obviously justified. But the entire article is almost singularly *devoted* to his controversial views on the Holocaust. And it does it *over* and *over* and *over* again. Just about every section is colored by it.

I don't know this subject terribly well, but based on some of the discussions in the Talk page history, it seems like- apart from his views on Jews- his historical work and expertise have been established. There are also plenty of examples in the Talk Page history of other criticisms of the objectivity of the article. Emeraldflames (talk) 20:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

So you don't know the subject well, but you claim to have mastered the current scholarly opinion on Irving's work sufficiently to criticise the article's correct implementation of NPOV. Wikipedia follows the preponderance of scholarly views, and dismisses FRINGE claims. People that suppose that Irving is a historian hold fringe views. This view may change, the position that Irving is not a historian has changed from the early 1970s, but the article reflects the current scholarly consensus; which is its obligation under NPOV. You seem to have a problem with our NPOV policy, the correct place to discuss major policy change is the village pump. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I know enough to know that some of your characterizations aren't true. For example, I checked online and have seen many mainstream (not fringe by any means) sources refer to him as a controversial historian. That's just one point though- there are numerous other issues with the article. But this isn't a battle that is worth fighting to me. The article is what it is. Emeraldflames (talk) 02:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The standard for scholarly articles is the current scholarly view; not newspaper characterisations. The Lipstadt trial, and its reception by the community of historians, is a clear and overwhelming indication of Irvings current professional status. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I really don't understand this claim that the non-neutrality is supposed to be "obvious". Neutrality is defined by the major points of view taken toward a subject by reliable sources. Unless you expect everyone to be familiar with the mainstream literature that reviews Irving and his work, I don't see how whatever you see is going to be obvious. I mean, of course it is obvious that the point of view of the article is decidedly anti-Irving, but if that's the only significant viewpoint, then it's the neutral one as well. We're not going to sugarcoat the article and hand Irving a lollipop because the big bad historians were mean to him. If you think there is a significant viewpoint that is neglected by the article, or that the mainstream viewpoint is misrepresented, then it's your job to show that. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality means that articles reflect how subjects are reported in reliable sources. Generally mainstream sources say very little good about people who promote far right fringe views and find themselves imprisoned and deported or barred from liberal democracies for their activities. However, for this discussion to go forward, you need to provide specific examples. TFD (talk) 04:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

A neutral point of view ought to be maintained *regardless* of how a subject is reported in reliable sources. The point of view of the article should *not* be decidedly anti-Irving. And there are quotations that others had wanted to add to the article that were more sympathetic to Irving which were denied. This was one of them:

Judge Gray on Irving

"As a military historian, Irving has much to commend him. For his works of military history Irving has undertaken thorough and painstaking research into the archives. He has discovered and disclosed to historians and others many documents which, but for his efforts, might have remained unnoticed for years. It was plain from the way in which he conducted his case and dealt with a sustained and penetrating cross-examination that his knowledge of World War 2 is unparalleled. His mastery of the detail of the historical documents is remarkable. He is beyond question able and intelligent. He was invariably quick to spot the significance of documents which he had not previously seen. Moreover he writes his military history in a clear and vivid style. I accept the favourable assessment by Professor Watt and Sir John Keegan of the calibre of Irving's military history (mentioned in paragraph 3.4 above) and reject as too sweeping the negative assessment of Evans (quoted in paragraph 3.5). But the questions to which this action has given rise do not relate to the quality of Irving's military history but rather to the manner in which he has written about the attitude adopted by Hitler towards the Jews and in particular his responsibility for the fate which befell them under the Nazi regime.

Emeraldflames (talk) 06:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Emerald, what do you think neutrality is? I get this feeling that when I say neutrality and when you say neutrality, we are actually talking about different things. Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. Neutrality isn't about being kind, or balancing "bad" opinions with "good" opinions. That's a writing strategy for journalists with no spines. But regarding the Judge's comment, can you link to the discussion that decided it would be excluded? Someguy1221 (talk) 07:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Exactly! WP:NPOV does not mean we have to go out of our way to treat somebody nicely, or to pretend that their views are rational or backed by the facts, when the overwhelming preponderance of evidence is to the contrary. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:51, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Emerald: I’m not clear what the problem is either, as far as neutrality is concerned.

The article starts by saying Irving “is an English writer”, “best known for his denial of the Holocaust, who specialises in the military and political history of World War II, with a focus on Nazi Germany”; that “His work on Nazi Germany became controversial because of his sympathy for the Third Reich, antisemitism and racism” and that “He has associated with far right and neo-Nazi causes”.

That seems pretty accurate, and a "fair, proportionate and unbiased" description of the man. What exactly is the problem?

It is hardly a breach of neutrality if an article on a con-artist says "x was a con artist" (viz) or one on a serial killer saying "y was a serial killer" (viz); why is this one un-neutral for describing Irving in the way it does? If that is what he is notable for, then that is what the article will (and should!) say.

And why is it an admin issue? If you have specific concerns about neutrality they should be discussed on the article talk page, preferably (seeing as the issues are self-evidently not self-evident to the majority of people reading this) by responding to the request for specific issues and suggestions. Xyl 54 (talk) 21:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The serious writing about Irving is overwhelmingly negative about him - he's been found to be a falsifier of history and a Holocaust denier, for instance, and he has no credibility as a 'historian' as a result. See, for instance, Richard Evans book Telling Lies About Hitler for a good example of the poor regard in which he's held. The article notes that some historians think that Irving's work is OK (though they almost always add some provisos in regards to his views on the Holocaust), but the general consensus is that he's discredited. As such, the article reflects the weight of opinion on Irving. Specific suggestions about areas in which the article could be improved would be more helpful than sweeping generalisations. Nick-D (talk) 23:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The majority of editors here believe that the David Irving article meets WP's standards for WP:NPOV. I accept that and have pursued the issue as far as I intended to. Emeraldflames (talk) 01:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The inclusion of various incidents of discrimination/intolerance against Christians in Israel in regards to NPOV

The article on Anti-Christian Sentiment concerning Israel was recently rewritten to sound more like an apologist essay replete with WP:OR statements including reduced numbers and minimized frequency of incidents. One editor in particular has shifted NPOV significantly with her/his contributions. I have since tried to find a compromise and get the article back to encyclopedic standards. An RfC has also been opened. Feedback from a broad background of editors would be greatly appreciated in stating how NPOV can be achieved.

Here is a reference of the most significant edits concerning this:

• The article previous to Avaya1's initial changes here

• Avaya1's original edit here ^{(After reading this edit, I began to contribute seeing NPOV sorely lacking.)}

• My first edit here

• My second and final edit seeking compromise with Avaya1 and trying to reinstate WP:BALANCE here

• How the section reads today here

The discussion is currently taking place on the article Talk page:Anti-Christian Sentiment#Israel.

Thanks for any and all participation. Veritycheck (talk) 19:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE: We still have a couple of issues to iron out to achieve a clear consensus. I would welcome the further participation of any editors who could drop by the talk page and leave their 2 cents worth.

Once again, the discussion is currently taking place on the article Talk page:Anti-Christian Sentiment#Israel. Thanks. Veritycheck (talk) 12:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Rich Nugent

I have edited parts of the Rich Nugent page, but was still looking to see if I can could get another opinion on this one, Nugent's page reads like someone who is a supporter of his has written it, I've removed some unnecessary detail that was on there but this really needs a look at by the board. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Americium-con (talk • contribs) 02:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, where to begin. The article reads like a promo or campaign ad for Nugent and needs to be rewritten with a more neutral tone.Coaster92 (talk) 05:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

A user just cleaned a lot of the article up - see here. I think that it is better now because of recent attention. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Feminazi

A couple of editors are insisting that the term feminazi is not comparing feminists to Nazis. The rest of us think that's absurd, but User:Paul Barlow, one of them, just removed a link to reductio ad hitlerum from the article, calling it unsupported. I feel that when you call your opponents "nazis" you have committed the reduction ad hitlerum by definition; but wish to get some outside input on this before we get into a real edit war. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• This is the edit in question: [3]. I deleted it because it was original research. If there's a source for the claim that the term is a form of reductio ad hitlerum then let's see it, and restore the sentence to the article (sourced). The Sound and the Fury (talk) 00:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I added two good sources to the talk page thread. Let's see how that goes for the article's editors. Binksternet (talk) 00:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Orange Mike is completely misrepresenting the issue. 'Feminazi' is a comic-polemical portmanteau word design to piss-off feminists. It does even apply to all feminists, only those deemed extreme. So it is not comparing feminists as such to Nazis at all, but alleged hard-liners among them. My argument is that this is the same as many other similar expressions, such as “health Nazi” or “fashion Nazi”, which refer to alleged extremists with dictatorial inclinations in those areas. No one doubts that this involves a comparison to Nazis. But the argument is that this is not an example of the Reductio ad Hitlerum, a logical fallacy in which a particular point of view is condemned because it was shared by Nazis. It's as absurd as saying that “fashion Nazi” [4] is a Reductio ad Hitlerum, and then 'disproving it' by expaining that in fact the Nazis had no special interest in haute couture. Even leaving aside the obtuse humourlessness of such an argument, that would be actually the opposite to the Reductio, comparable to Steinem's quoted words on the page (i.e. 'we are not Nazis because our views are quite different', whereas as the Reductio depends on sharing some views). Of course if you can find a source that says it is an example of Reductio, it can be included and attributed, though it would remain my personal view that this is a logical error and misuse of the concept. Whatever the case, it is not the case that "when you call your opponents nazis" you have "committed the reductio" by definition. That only applies to a particular type of logically fallacious comparison, not to any comparison. Paul B (talk) 08:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree, but going further than that, I think that it is using a newer meaning of the word "nazi", (which arose from but isn't Hitler Nazism) e.g. from dictionary.com "a person who is fanatically dedicated to or seeks to control a specified activity, practice, etc." North8000 (talk) 12:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Ought we redact Soup Nazi etc.? The modern use of the word is much broader than the WW II use now, whether we approve or nay. I certainly think it may be objectionable, but on a Wikipedia scale - it passes. Collect (talk) 12:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

What strikes me is that the line in question is part of the "Criticisms" section of the article. At the moment it is an unattributed criticism - which means it is being made in Wikipedia's voice. That is a POV problem... Wikipedia should not criticize anything in its own voice. Instead, we should neutrally report on the criticism of others. This is done by attribution. In other words, we need to tell the reader who objects to the term as being a "Reductio ad Hitlerum". Blueboar (talk) 12:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

First of all, even if original research were allowed on Wikipedia, the claim that feminazi is an example of reductio ad Hitlerum would be problematic. That is because examples of reductio ad Hitlerum are necessarily association fallacies. But that is not even relevant here, since original research is not permitted on Wikipedia. Therefore, whether the claim should be made in the article is not issue of neutrality, but of original research (Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Reductio ad Hitlerum). --Joshua Issac (talk) 19:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, this can be resolved through attribution. I would assume someone outside of Wikipedia has complained that the term is an example of "reductio ad Hitlerum" (and if not, then mentioning it would be giving this complaint UNDUE weight). Blueboar (talk) 20:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

We got there in the end. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 03:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian race controversy

This is an article under ArbCom sanctions. It was split from a larger article (which covers modern scholarship on this subject) and states at the top of the page "Please note: this is not the article for discussing actual evidence pointing either way in this debate. This is a "history of controversy" article: please discuss it in this way, bearing in mind academic consensus, this is not a referendum on Afrocentrism or Eurocentrism." When you edit it, there is a yellow message above the edit window that says "Please note: this is not the article for discussing actual evidence pointing either way in this debate. This is a "history of controversy" article: please discuss it in this way, bearing in mind academic consensus, this is not a referendum on Afrocentrism or Eurocentrism."

An editor with no previous edits arrived at it a few days ago and made major changes which were basically arguments about the "actual evidence pointing either way in this debate" and if they belong anywhere belong in Population history of Egypt. Attempts to discuss these on the article talk page and at WP:DRN have resulted in statements saying that the editors disagreeing with him are bullies, censors, etc although I and another editor have tried to explain the problems (I don't want to focus on editors' behavior, just pointing out that it is because of this behavior that am bringing this here). Last night the editor reinstated his version saying it should stay pending discussion. I was about to bring this here when that was reverted, so I want to discuss his earlier version and get more input. His version is at [5].

The first obvious thing is the use of quoteboxes. Our not-guideline on this says, correctly I believe, "As a matter of style, quoteboxes should generally be avoided as they draw special attention to the opinion of one source, and present that opinion as though Wikipedia endorses it." I haven't done much editing of this recently, but even before his edits there was too much use of quoteboxes (I'd remove most if not all of them), and his use of them in the lead and in the section on Modern scholarship made this worse and are, I and the other editor on the talk page, being used to push a pov as well as being in the wrong article.

Leaving aside the use of a block quote in the lead, he uses them heavily in his addition to the Modern scholarship section. This section starts with a paragraph stating:

"Since the decisions of the UNESCO Conference of 1974 several authoritative Encyclopedic references have made conclusive statements on the "race" of the ancient Egyptians based on contemporary research, which disputes those earlier claims. The 1984 edition of Encyclopedia Britannica concludes that the Negroid element of Egypt was stronger during predynastic times."

Wikipedia articles should clearly not be claiming that there are any 'conclusive statements' on a subject which is still disputed (and complex). There's an RS issue about Britannica which I may bring up at RSN, so we don't need to discuss that there, but the use of a blockquote from it is I believe not appropriate in any case.

The rest of his addition here is basically blockquotes. I can't see how an exhibition at the Fitzwilliam can be a conclusive reference to anything, but he firmly states that it represents mainline scholarship.

He also introduces a large blockquote about the introduction of sheep. It looks to me as though the original use of that source from the National Georgraphic wasn't accurate in that it doesn't seem to say what it is referencing, and I'll look at that and fix it if needs be shortly, but the blockquote was at best overkill in an article about the history of the controversy, which it doesn't mention at all.

I'm going to take the liberty of adding a post from Wdford on this subject: "SirShawn, the material in the "population history" article is all relevant here, as a "modern hypothesis", because there is still controversy and a lack of consensus among 'scholars". However this article was spilt a while ago, because it was getting too big. The basis of the spilt was decided - with much acrimony – to be along the lines of a “history of the debate” article and a “modern scholarship” article. It’s a bit arbitrary, but a split had to be made. "In line with wikipolicy, the “modern scholarship” section in the “history” article is thus just a very brief summary, with a clear link to the other article for those who are interested. Lovell etc are mentioned in the “modern scholarship” article already, as is the discussion about languages, skeletal proportions, DNA analysis etc etc. The short summary is supposed to be short, but you have been adding lengthy quotes (which co-incidentally all support a certain POV) while leaving out the huge corpus of scientific study which doesn’t support this viewpoint. Feel free to add your Lovell quote at the appropriate section of the “modern scholarship” article, alongside the info that contradicts her, but we don’t need to duplicate material across the two articles."

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 10:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

These are the edits that I've proposed to add [6]

Let me first start off by saying that every single contribution that I have made to that article are as mainstream and contemporary as it gets in regards to this discussion. In the modern scholarship section of the article I have added in the official statements of the "Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt", "The Encyclopedia of Archaeology of ancient Egypt", University of Manchester, "National Geographic" (which in itself cites a dozen scholars for their statements), and the Encyclopedia Britannica. The issues that several posters are having is that every one of these modern authorities have pretty much plainly come out in the support of the "black African" theory in regards to ancient Egypt. Their rejection of these sources is clearly a reflection of their own biased. Doug has attempted to argue that the contextualized (in terms of the social concept of "race" which is relevant to the article itself) statements by every one of those authoritative sources belongs in an article which is supposed to deal with individual studies dealing with strictly with biology and culture ("Population history" article). The population history section is dealing with conflicting individual studies, and almost none of which deal with "race" in the social sense. Doug is also hypocritical on what he perceives the purpose of the article to be. He states that it is somehow only to reflect the "history" of an on-going debate, while simultaneously acknowledging a section of the article devoted to MODERN scholarship and disputing the inclusion of the most MODERN and accepted theories in regards to Egypt's origins TODAY.

Interestingly enough another issue with the article is that a blatant lie in regards to a claim that modern Egyptians are "90%" genetically identical to ancient Egyptians is cited by a source that does not state it anywhere in the link. This claim prior to my contributions was posted THREE TIMES throughout the article (clearly a POV). Now why should that original research be repeated throughout the article, yet the contextualized (keyword) statements dealing with race of the Fitzwilliam, Oxford, Manchester, Britannica ect be excluded? It's makes absolutely no sense.

Another issue is that they are saying that my sources are basically biased to support my POV. Well is it at all possible that one particular POV is well...where the facts lay in regards to this issue? If not, then why not simply cite another modern institute of the same academic integrity (as the Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, Encyclopedia of Archaeology of ancient Egypt ect) which opposing contextualized statements? If it's really that much of a dispute amongst modern scholars shouldn't it be easy to cite other recent views, rather than censor the one side to make it appear as though no decision has been reached? Clearly there are emotional attachments to this issue, and imo anyone who wishes to censor any of those top notch sources should not be taken seriously.

One poster (WDford) attempted to say that somehow argue that including these sources were a POV because they were cited "Afrocentric" scholars. When I pretty much debunked that assertion (see the talk page), he nor anyone else responded.

As evident by the talk page these users aren't trying to be logical in their decisions. They are emotionally attached to certain ideas, and are simply trying to bully their views into place with a so called "consensus" to be unreasonable.SirShawn (talk) 21:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I think SirShawn's stuff is inappropriate for that article and should be in Population history of Egypt, And even there something should be done about removing the big quotes. Basically I agree with Dougweller that the split of the articles should be respected.

However I think the Ancient Egyptian race controversy would be helped by a bit of revision to make its scope clearer. The position of modern scholarship should be put at the very start and be more clearly a summary of part of the population history of Egypt article. The title 'Specific current-day controversies' is a bit strange, 'Current controversies' would be shorter. The history section could go at the end as it is historical. Dmcq (talk) 23:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for those suggestions. I've never been a major editor of this article and don't want to be, but I will do a bit more. SirShawn, despite being warned that this article is under probation, continues to edit war to include all of his desired version. In doing so he's ignored my edits, so he's removed from the lead "Recent studies suggest that the modern population is genetically consistent with an ancient Egyptian indigenous to northeast Africa." and replaced it with the Redford block quote, and in the body of the article he's removed my edit "In 2008, S. O. Y. Keita wrote that "There is no scientific reason to believe that the primary ancestors of the Egyptian population emerged and evolved outside of northeast Africa.... The basic overall genetic profile of the modern population is consistent with the diversity of ancient populations that would have been indigenous to northeastern Africa and subject to the range of evolutionary influences over time, although researchers vary in the details of their explanations of those influences." and replaced it with his 'conclusive evidence' material. He's misrepresented what I've said. He doesn't acknowledge, possibly because he didn't actually look at my edits (although I was specific about this removal in my edit summary & he uses edit summaries) but just put reverted to his version, that I'd removed the 90% claim (I apologise for not seeing a similar claim that says the same thing in a different way, but I would have if he'd discussed it). His edit summaries keep saying things such as "Other participants must be willing to discuss rather than running off." but discussion doesn't get anything but insults. Dougweller (talk) 05:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

National Geographic and Encyclopedia Britannica are non-scholarly tertiary sources which are incapable of bearing any weight in an article that ought to rely on scholarly field reviews; they are not appropriate to establish a scholarly point of view that bears any WEIGHT—their summaries and conclusions are not part of the neutral discourse on the topic. I have not looked into the other sources, as I have never seen a full citation on a noticeboard. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Fifelfoo why are you ignoring the fact that I've also cited statements from Fitzwilliam (University of Cambridge), The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt (written by Donald Redford) and the Encyclopedia of Archaeology of Ancient Egypt written by Kathryn Bard? Please explain how these are not authorities on the matter of ancient Egypt? Why would these sources not convey points that are agreed upon by most scholars, or in other words "fringe theories"?

Also interestingly I was not the one who initially the National Geographic page which contains S.O.Y. Keita's summarization of multiple scholarly works. That source was inaccurately being cited to support a claim of Demic Diffusion into the Nile Valley from the Middle East in the modern research section of the article. I took the exact same source that was misinterpreted and posted an actual passage from the article to verify what was truly concluded on the matter. That being the misinterpretation of that article is still being presented in the modern scholarship section. If there is opposition to the passage being presented from the national geographic page, then perhaps the misinterpretation of what is actually being said should also be excluded.

So what I propose is that rather than getting rid of my contributions they should be placed in the "black African hypothesis" section as a opposed to the current research section. SirShawn (talk) 09:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Provide adequate citations, amongst the other criteria required, on WP:RS/N and we'll see just how reliable they are. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Also please explain why the 2010 genetic analysis pinpointing the land of punt in Ethiopia/Eritrea continues to be deleted as well? SirShawn (talk) 09:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

This editor has now reinserted his block quotes which start with the obvious pov paragraph "Since the decisions of the UNESCO Conference of 1974 several authoritative Encyclopedic references have made conclusive statements on the "race" of the ancient Egyptians based on contemporary research, which disputes those earlier claims. The 1984 edition of Encyclopedia Britannica concludes that the Negroid element of Egypt was stronger during predynastic times." His edit summary says "Any objections to these contributions being specified in this section please explain why each individual source should be removed on the talk page" I and other editors have made it clear that Wikipedia should not be claiming 'conclusive statements', that the block quotes should not be used, that the Britannica is not a reliable source for this, etc.

SirShawn says "I've also cited statements from Fitzwilliam". This is not true. He is using the fact that the Fitzwilliam put on an exhibition which posted the question ""Were the ancient Egyptians Black?’ as we use the term in Britain today." as though it was some sort of source for what he refers to in the article as a 'conclusive statement', rather than just an exhibition. He also uses a blockquote for this tiny question. I think it may be time to go to Arbitration Enforcement, it isn't as though I and others haven't actually discussed these edits. Dougweller (talk) 10:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Shen Yun Performing Arts

This edit is being disputed, on the grounds that my removal "Basically calling into the question the editorial independence and integrity of the newspaper without evidence."[7]. I'd just like to establish whether a performance write-up, not a review and not sold as such, should be used to endorse a glossy description of a performance. I mean, is it sufficiently reliable or neutral to be used in this manner; or ought it to stay go? --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Some salient points: the review in question is here[8]. It's published in the entertainment section of the St. Paul Pioneer Press, and is written by a regular arts critic for the paper[9]. Ohconfucius wrote in his edit summary that it was an "obvious advertorial" as a reason for deleting it. It is not an advertorial. It is a theater review. Advertorials are advertisements and are labelled as such. Calling a theater review an advertorial is tantamount to impugning the editorial independence of the writer and/or the newspaper. Homunculus (duihua) 05:18, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

"Erroneous" position in the Alternative Vote debate

User:Nemo20000 has been editing a number of pages about politicians who were on the "No" side of the United Kingdom Alternative Vote referendum, 2011. He will edit their page to put in that they were on the No side, which is fine, but then says that one of the arguments is "erroneous". The argument that particularly annoys him is that there will no longer be a "one man one vote" as minority parties will be able to vote for their candidate and after the candidate is eliminated then they can get counted again for their more mainstream second choice.

This is incorrect, as the record shows. I did not add the wording that they are on the No side, I have only reverted the usually anonymous removal of the word 'erroneous' and its legitimate citation. nemo (talk) 18:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The claim that this is erroneous is backed up by a briefing paper from the Political Studies Association. There is no page number given, although it seems that what Nemo is referring to is a section on page 10 "The claim that AV gives some voters extra votes is a fallacy". It firmly takes the point that as it only turns up in one final total that this means that there is no real value in a vote being seen more than once. It's a legitimate point of view, but I don't think that it's that authoratative that it can override the NPOV policy.

Some examples are John Reid, Stephen Mosley and David Cameron. There are more.

There are issues of WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE, but can we ignore these for the moment?

I could be wrong on this and have missed some subtlety in the policy, but I think that this is a fairly clear breach. However I think that the editor feels very strongly on this particular issue and this could easily become an edit war.

The editor is fairly experienced, having first made edits in 2007, but seems to have until recently not attracted any attention on their talk page, so I think they've avoided controversy and I think that it would be a good idea to be gentle.

JASpencer (talk) 07:49, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the summary of the situation. I also went to this user's talkpage and invited them to this board. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The paper about voting does not mention particular politicians votes and therefore shoud not be used in articles about them. This is straight WP:Original research and synthesis. Dmcq (talk) 16:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Dmcq. We never go into the rights and wrongs of the policies that politicians espouse. We might note their political positions, but only where those are notable. If a number of politicians supported a campaign, it makes more sense to describe the campaign's position in its own article rather than in the articles one each politician. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Unless we have a source that both reports what someone said and says it was erroneous, it is synthesis. Even if such a source is found, it may need to be expressed as an opinion not a fact. Also, a politician's position on AV is probably too unimportant to be included in their article. It is better to explain all the arguments and various positions in the AV article. TFD (talk) 17:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I apologise for any terseness but I had got a bit tired of anonymous edits and political arguments. This is not a matter of opinion or politics, but of fact. May I direct anyone unsure about the AV vote issue to the existing Wikipedia content on the matter, or if that's too long, go direct to MORI's document via this wiki citation (page 3). AV is also known as 'Instant run-off voting' and its Wikipedia article debunks the same myth.

So, MORI says the claim is erroneous, the University of Reading says it's erroneous, Channel Four News says it's erroneous, and the Michigan State Court have ruled it erroneous. This is rather more than what JASpencer would have as "a legitimate view but not authoritative". In addition, though not admissible as a citation, I spoke by telephone to the Electoral Commission themselves who said "Every ballot paper counts once in every round" and I encourage anyone unconvinced by MORI, Reading Uni, Channel4 and Michigan State to give them a ring via their main switchboard number (020) 7271 0500.

So the claim that AV gives some people more votes than others is erroneous. This is not a matter of opinion. It is akin to claiming that the Earth is flat. It is not, and a politician claiming otherwise does not make it "a matter of opinion"! As to its importance, this was an oft-repeated and defended position taken by a number of prominent politicians despite being completely and provably untrue. Mr Cameron in particular was vigorous in espousing this myth even when challenged by the BBC.

Secondly we come to the claim that "Unless we have a source that both reports what someone said and says it was erroneous, it is synthesis" (maybe the BBC's John Humphrys?). So we know A is erroneous, and we know that person B said A, but we cannot write that person B said the erroneous A? This is absurd and pedantic weaselling. If a politician were to claim that the Earth is flat, we would not be defending their "opinion" or dithering about NPOV.

Ultimately though, the fact that a collection of Wikipedia Editors should have any doubts about the issue is proof itself of its importance, the necessity of documenting the facts, and the requirement to promote the baselessness of the claim to any mention of it, rather than bury that fact in a linked article. Otherwise, readers will see "Joe Bloggs claimed that the planet Mercury is made of Titanium" and will probably not follow the link that reveals the absurd fallacy.

Spreading untruths is not what Wikipedia is for. nemo (talk) 18:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Putting in that citation and saying their claim is erroneous is against Wikipedia policy. And I'm saying that as someone who thinks their claim is silly. If we could stick that sort of stuff in then others would be also right in putting the other side in and then each of those articles becomes a WP:COATRACK for the argument. The argument should be in an article about the topic. Any more about it could only go in if the person had got into a debate about it and the debate was being reported. Wikipedia articles are not places for people to pursue their arguments, they should just summarize what reliable sources say about the topic of the article. Dmcq (talk) 18:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for responding so quickly. By "that sort of stuff" do you mean "facts"? Do you doubt the citations I have provided? As to others putting "their side", there isn't another side to a fact, they wouldn't be "right" to put in such a thing. That's the thing about facts versus opinions. As it happens, Cameron DID get into a debate on this issue with John Humphrys (link above), but I don't think a debate about whether the Earth is flat has any relevance to whether it is or not. Finally as we should "summarize what reliable sources say about the topic of the article" would you agree to David Cameron's article including reference to John Humphrys telling him he got this wrong? :-) I must also reiterate: Contrary to JASpencer's claim, I did not author these passages, I have maintained them against repeated anonymous edits - check the history. JASpencer's are the first attributed redactions. nemo (talk) 20:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The BBC item about the interview with Cameron is probably okay but it should summarize what the people said rather than say Cameron was wrong. I would have thought it had rather too low a weight for the David Cameron article but it might possibly go in the United Kingdom Alternative Vote referendum, 2011 article. Looking at that bit from the BBC it didn't say what David Cameron said was wrong, it said John Humphrys said that what David Cameron said was not true, and it also said John Humphrys had been unclear about the point of contention. That is hardly a ringing endorsement of your position. Personally I think the citation is fairly worthless for anything.

Please do not start going on about the truth and that it must go in. We summarize what is in reliable sources about the topic and we don't drag in things which don't relate directly however important editors think they are. If you want to change the policy then Wikipedia talk:Original research is I believe the right place, but really I don't think you have a leg to stand on about this. I have explained why the policy is in place and we are not in the business of writing our own analysis dragging in whatever strikes our fancy. Dmcq (talk) 21:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth I think you're wrong in your analysis - this is not original research (surely you aren't dismissing MORI, Michigan State Court etc as "original research") so are we agreed that the point of contention is not whether the claim is untrue, but whether that should be part of the articles concerned? nemo (talk) 09:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Cedars-Sinai Medical Center

Dubious as to whether this edit is neutral or supported by a reliable source [10]. More eyes welcome. 99.156.68.118 (talk) 22:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I replied on that article's talk page. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Bluerasbery's comment on the talk page, i.e., the language of the edit in question is inflammatory in tone, not neutral, and not based on an accepted reliable source.Coaster92 (talk) 05:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Metej Bel Univ. Student Organizations

I have tagged this article with a WP:COI tag since the major recent editor seems to have a close relationship with the subject which may make adherence to a neutral point of view difficult. As it stands, the "Student organizations" section, reads more like a promotional leaflet. Also most of the text in the "Student organizations" section is simply copied either form other Wikipedia articles or from Facebook fan pages of the clubs. I would like an unbiased third party opinion . Also I have a second problem, it is that every time I fix the article's (grammar, links, facts) the major recent editor puts the same things back. What should I do about it?SelomITC (talk) 20:44, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Moved the above post from the WP:RFC/BOARD Coastside (talk) 15:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I see a few places, like here, where someone is changing your good grammar to bad grammar. The content about student organizations does not belong. The debate about whether this is promotional or NPOV does not come into play because the information does not mean notability requirements because it is not verified in third party sources. I am deleting it now. It should stay gone until an argument for notability can be asserted.

For the grammar issues, post a note asking the person to talk to you about grammar on the talk page. I am sure that the person means well.

Thank you for posting on this board. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Lead on Kirsten Gillibrand

Engaged in a discussion regarding the relative length and the content of the lead on Kirsten Gillibrand. At this point we seem to just be going around in circles on Talk, so I think it'd be constructive if some other folks could weigh in. Thanks! Arbor8 (talk) 20:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

IMO the third and especially the fourth paragraphs of the lead contain more detail than a concise summary ("a summary of its most important aspects") as is indicated per WP:LEAD and could be scaled back. As a result there is a somewhat WP:UNDUE effect especially in paragraph 4.Coaster92 (talk) 04:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Requesting assistance with Safetray

As creator of the Safetray page I have a conflict of interest in that I work for Safetray Products Ltd. After some debate about deletion the article is being kept, and I would like to ask more experienced Wikipedians to check it over for Neutral Point of View and for them to make any changes they deem necessary to ensure it meets Wikipedia neutrality guidelines, plus any other issues they might spot. Thanks very much for any help and advice you can give Carolinewhitham (talk) 17:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The tone of the article is sufficiently neutral in my opinion. And the article is an accurate statement of the information contained in the references. The article could use more development, which can happen as the product receives more news coverage in reliable secondary sources.Coaster92 (talk) 04:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your feedback! Carolinewhitham (talk) 11:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Homophobia

There is a huge debate going on at Talk:Homophobia about the wording of "homophobia". Numerous editors have expressed concern over this wording and the pro-gay stance this article takes. However, myself and other editors are being bashed by the militant homosexuals on Wikipedia that consider all religious or conservative sources unreliable and want pro-gay liberal fodder sources to prove our points. I just want to make this article a little less biased and more centered. I want the title or a paragraph explaining that there has been disagreement as to weather homophobia is truly a "phobia". Most people that speak out against gays are not scared or fearful of them, but this is the exact wording of the article. EVEN THE LEAD PARAGRAPH DOES NOT MENTION FEAR! A phobia, by definition is a fear. Heck, some dictionaries even do not define opposition to gays as "homophobia". Homophobia is a made-up word invented my the militant homosexuals to label people with just reason to oppose gays. Call it anti-gay, or opposition to gays! That is my opinion, it reflects a NPOV, and many editors agree with me! Andrewrp^Tally-ho! 15:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

It is, unfortunately, the sort of article which intrinsically can not be made NPOV as it involves certain sociological assumptions related to the topic. And this is not just true of LGBT issues - it applies to a slew of social, economic, political and religious articles. Collect (talk) 15:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

It may be hard, but it can't not be. Can we try to possibly include this differentiated viewpoint, as should be? "Their point of view must be mentioned if it can be documented by notable, reliable sources, yet note that there is no contradiction " Andrewrp^Tally-ho! 15:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand the phobia is internal, the irrational fear of one's own homosexual tendencies, this fear directed outward at others. Social theorist and professor Andrew Sparkes says that a change happened to the word "homophobia" in the 1970s, that homosexual behavior changed from being deviant to normal, and that prejudices against homosexuals became deviant. For those who think homosexuality is deviant, the old meaning is hard to give up. Binksternet (talk) 16:51, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Just because the title has 'phobia' in it does not necessarily mean the topic is a phobia per a dictionary definition. Wikipedia articles are about topics, not words. The article should distinguish carefully between internal states ascribed to people acting in a particular way and actual actions that might be due to such feelings. This is difficult as people are always ascribing reasons to actions and I think the article has gone some way towards it but there will always be this problem with things like this. It is perfectly possible for a person to commit a homophobic crime without having homophobic feelings or reasons and it is perfectly possible for a person to have homophobic feelings without doing homophobic actions. Dmcq (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Based on comments the OP has made at Talk:Homophobia#A_Mislead_Article_and_a_Good_Point. it appears they are WP:NOTHERE. a13ean (talk) 19:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Could we concentrate on elucidating possible issues rather than people's motives for just a little longer please. Dmcq (talk) 19:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There is already a section on the development of the term, and if reliable sources can be found, it may be interesting to document how the word came to refer to anti-LGBT sentiments, as opposed to very specifically a fear. However, Andrewrp and co. have utterly failed to provide reliable sources, and also to come at the issue from an appropriate angle (the question is not whether "homophobia" is a legitimate term - it is, because it's what's used in reliable sources; this "but I'm not afraid of gay people, I just hate them" is getting very tiresome - but rather how the term evolved). I don't see that this debate is going to go anywhere, due to the lack of interest on one side in complying with WP policy or working with others; it seems like Andrewrp just wants to take an opportunity to whine about "homosexuals" oppressing him. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, duh, it's a parallel with Xenophobia. Cf also Antisemitism, which is something of a misnomer in that it isn't hatred of Semitic peoples, but specifically hatred of Jews. "The meaning of a word is its use in the language."Itsmejudith (talk) 19:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Could I point out again that homophobia has also been applied to actions irrespective of internal feelings or motivations. Getting hung up about internal mental states would make a complete mess of much of that article. If a person is convicted of homophobic violence their internal mental state is not really relevant, and in fact it is quite possible thy did it for some other reason like wanting to fit into a gang. Dmcq (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)