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

Ukraine conflict

Almost every time I have attempted to edit articles related to the conflict in Ukraine, my additions have been removed. Certain users are constantly involved in edit warring over this issue. User:Volunteer Marek seems to be the most aggressive.

The main issue is the removal of well sourced material.

My recent edits (April 2015): diff, diff, diff diff

Removed (April 2015): diff, diff, diff, diff

This disruptive behaviour has been going on, and on, and on, and on... diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff diff. Diff speaks for itself (other editors, User:MyMoloboaccount, User:Leftcry, User:Herzen, User:Haberstr, and User:HCPUNXKID seem to agree with me)

And, of course, there is a blatant double standard: diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff

For example, I've tried to add the latest Crimean public opinion poll, but was reverted by User:Volunteer Marek and User: RGloucester (see diff, and diff) − "not adhering to NPOV". And User:Tlsandy joined here − "Poll in wrong article because article about annexation exists".

Bloomberg article says:

"Ukrainian political scientist Taras Berezovets, a Crimea native, recently started an initiative he called Free Crimea, aided by the Canada Fund for Local Initiatives and aimed at building Ukrainian soft power on the peninsula. He started by commissioning a poll of Crimean residents from the Ukrainian branch of Germany's biggest market research organization, GfK. The poll results were something of a cold shower to Berezovets."

"The calls were made on Jan. 16-22 to people living in towns with a population of 20,000 or more, which probably led to the peninsula's native population, the Tatars, being underrepresented because many of them live in small villages. On the other hand, no calls were placed in Sevastopol, the most pro-Russian city in Crimea. Even with these limitations, it was the most representative independent poll taken on the peninsula since its annexation." —Bershidsky, Leonid (February 6, 2015). "One Year Later, Crimeans Prefer Russia". Bloomberg News.

Everything has been discussed here, and clearly no consensus was reached.

I am not a big fan of Putin / his authoritarian rule or Soviet / Russian imperialism (see some of my past edits: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]), but neither am I suffering from Russophobia.

Everything is not always black and white, and WP:NPOV says clearly include fairly all significant views published by reliable sources. This means the article should not be trying to argue for one view or another, but simply representing them proportionately.

I completely agree with User:Herzen: "It is impossible to avoid the impression that some editors of Ukraine related articles are not here to build an encyclopedia, but to avoid any mention in articles of anything that puts Ukraine in a bad light, and to insert anything into them that puts the rebels or Russia in a bad light. Editors are not even trying to maintain any appearance of being interested in trying to maintain NPOV." [17]

Thank you for any help you are able to provide. — Tobby72 (talk) 10:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your great efforts in gathering up this huge mass of evidence. I agree on Volunteer Marek, obviously, though unfortunately there are about three other editors at the Ukraine-related articles that have a very similar perspective and are equally resistant to compromise, discussion and NPOV. He/she is the most ill-mannered, though. Hopefully we can eventually create balanced Ukraine-related articles that reflect all RS-based perspectives on the conflict/crisis. It's embarrassing to leave out key facts like the Crimean opinion polls and the alleged role of the US and Victoria Nuland in what transpired, just because that does not fit a preferred POV narrative.Haberstr (talk) 12:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

This is more forum-shopping by tendentious editors. Ignore it. RGloucester — ☎ 13:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

What RGloucester said. There was an extensive discussion about the proposed changes here [18]. These were overwhelmingly rejected by consensus. Tobby72 and Haberstr then moved onto another, but related article, and tried to cram these same (or very similar) changes, which had already been rejected into that one (2014 Ukrainian Revolution). When they were reverted there as well they started running around forum shopping.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

What RGloucester and Volunteer Marek said +1. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

At this point, there is ample evidence that Russia is both providing material support to the rebels as well as engaging its own regular troops. [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]. Reliable sources report on Russian objections, but take the assumption that the overall conflict is driven by Russia as the ground truth. [25] [26] [27] [28]. Given Russian admissions of false denials and false flag operations [29], along with the well-known unreliability of Russian-controlled media [30], there is at this point no justification for any ongoing complicity of Wikipedia with Russia's maskirovka campagin. Any passage not specifically pertaining to conflicts between points of view should dispense with any qualifiers like "disputed" or "according to some". That Russia is involved with, controlling, and responsible for the conflict in Ukraine should be assumed and asserted.

That said, Russian denials are a significant point of view that we have a responsibility to report proportionately. Any editors that have an issue with the way in which that PoV is included, such as its wording or whether it belongs in a different section or different article, they should endeavor to WP:PRESERVE reliably sourced content and WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. If they feel unable to do this, they should present the problem and recommendations on the talk page rather than removing the material. Rhoark (talk) 16:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with this and the fact that Russia denies involvement is mentioned and discussed in these articles (the question as to whether this also needs to be in the infobox is a bit more tricky). But this is not enough for the editors above, who want to present "all sides" (sic). I.e. they want the articles to use Wikipedia voice to reflect the Kremlin point of view.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

So long as the "Kremlin point of view" refers to public pronouncements by officials and not outlandish fringe theories, the articles should reflect those views, along with the changes over time, rebuttals, etc., in context.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's already in. Although putting in "rebuttals, etc." would violate WP:UNDUE. There's only so much space and time we want to attribute to these views, which is in proportion to the space and time they receive in reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Exceedingly well-put. I would have a problem with Russia's official pronouncements being deliberately excluded from these or any other articles where they are relevant, but that doesn't mean we need to treat Russian state media as a reliable "counterweight" to media outlets in the rest of the world; in fact, based on their verifiable unreliability and lack of editorial distance from the Kremlin, we shouldn't. And Russian denials of involvement should not be treated with credulous and undue weight, considering that the preponderance of reliable sources weighs against them. I find WP:GEVAL to be a very good guideline in situations like this. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• Tobby72 tells that some materials were not included. What materials, exactly? For example, the Crimean opinion polls are currently included in a number of pages. I agree with Rhoark that annoying repeats "denied by Russia" should be removed from boxes on many pages. It is enough that denials are currently described in the body of these pages. My very best wishes (talk) 18:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

What materials, exactly? For example:

For his role of a "super hawk" regarding the Russian military intervention in Ukraine NATO's top commander in Europe General Philip M. Breedlove has been criticized by European politicians and diplomats as spreading "dangerous propaganda" by constantly inflating the figures of Russian military involvement in an attempt to subvert the diplomatic solution of the War in Donbass spearheaded by Europeans."Breedlove's Bellicosity: Berlin Alarmed by Aggressive NATO Stance on Ukraine". Der Spiegel. March 6, 2015.

Removed, Restored, Removed – "Kremlin point of view"?

On 24 July, Human Rights Watch accused Ukrainian government forces and pro-government volunteer battalions of indiscriminate attacks on civilian areas, stating that "The use of indiscriminate rockets in populated areas violates international humanitarian law, or the laws of war, and may amount to war crimes." Human Rights Watch also accused the pro-Russian fighters of not taking measures to avoid encamping in densely populated civilian areas."Human Rights Watch: Ukrainian forces are rocketing civilians". The Washington Post. 25 July 2014."Ukraine: Unguided Rockets Killing Civilians Stop Use of Grads in Populated Areas". Human Rights Watch. 24 July 2014.

Removed, Restored, Removed – Kremlin propaganda?

Crimea is populated by an ethnic Russian majority and a minority of both ethnic Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars, and thus demographically possessed one of the Ukraine's largest Russian populations. A poll of the Crimean public was taken by the Ukrainian branch of Germany's biggest market research organization, GfK, on 16–22 January 2015. According to its results: "Eighty-two percent of those polled said they fully supported Crimea's inclusion in Russia, and another 11 percent expressed partial support. Only 4 percent spoke out against it."Bershidsky, Leonid (February 6, 2015). "One Year Later, Crimeans Prefer Russia". Bloomberg News. Eighty-two percent of those polled said they fully supported Crimea's inclusion in Russia, and another 11 percent expressed partial support. Only 4 percent spoke out against it."Социально-политические настроения жителей Крыма" (PDF). GfK Ukraine (in Russian). Retrieved 12 March 2015. 82% крымчан полностью поддерживают присоединение Крыма к России, 11% - скорее поддерживают, и 4% высказались против этого. Среди тех, кто не поддерживает присоединение Крыма к России, больше половины считают, что присоединение было не полностью законным и его нужно провести в соответствии с международным правом"Poll: 82% of Crimeans support annexation". UNIAN. 4 February 2015. Retrieved 12 March 2015. A total of 82% of the population of the Crimea fully support Russia's annexation of the peninsula, according to a poll carried out by the GfK Group research institute in Ukraine, Ukrainian online newspaper Ukrainska Pravda reported on Wednesday. Another 11% of respondents said that they rather support the annexation of Crimea, while 4% were against it. Bloomberg's Leonid Bershidsky noted that "The calls were made on Jan. 16-22 to people living in towns with a population of 20,000 or more, which probably led to the peninsula's native population, the Tatars, being underrepresented because many of them live in small villages."

Restored, Added, Removed, Removed – Kremlin propaganda?

The poll determined that 33.3% of those polled in southern and eastern Ukraine had considered Ukraine's interim government of Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk to be legitimate:Babiak, Mat (19 April 2014). "Southeast Statistics". Kyiv International Institute of Sociology; Ukrainian Policy. Kiev. Retrieved 20 April 2014.

• 16.6% Donetsk Oblast
• 16.8% Luhansk Oblast
• 33.4% Kharkiv Oblast
• 35.0% Zaporizhia Oblast
• 40.8% Odessa Oblast
• 47.6% Dnipropetrovsk Oblast

Removed, Removed – Kremlin propaganda?

Mykhailo Chechetov, former deputy head of the Party of Regions, committed suicide by jumping from the window of his apartment in Kiev."Ukraine's former ruling party hit by spate of apparent suicides". The Guardian. 23 March 2015.

Added, Removed, Removed – Kremlin propaganda?

On 10th February 2015, Amnesty International reported that an Ukrainian journalists called Ruslan Kotsaba was jailed by Ukrainian authorities for 15 years for "treason and obstructing the military" in reaction to his statement that he would rather go to prison than be drafted by Ukrianian Army. Amnesty International has appealed to Ukrainian authorities to free him immediately and declared Kotsaba a prisoner of conscience. Tetiana Mazur, director of Amnesty International in Ukraine stated that "the Ukrainian authorities are violating the key human right of freedom of thought, which Ukrainians stood up for on the Maidan” .In response Ukrainian SBU declared that they have found “evidence of serious crimes” but declined to elaborate."Ukraine: draft dodgers face jail as Kiev struggles to find new fighters ". The Guardian. 10 February 2015.

Removed, Removed – Kremlin propaganda?

Relevant images - Removed – Kremlin propaganda?

-- Tobby72 (talk) 13:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

As you well know, because this has been explained to you before, you have a habit of mixing in very controversial changes with fairly innocuous ones, such as adding in images. Someone who's stock of good faith has been exhausted might suspect that you're trying to sneak in POV edits under the radar. Most of the images are fine and if you were just adding them in, that'd be one thing. But you try to use them as a cover for slipping in POV stuff, such as this "Kosovo precedent" or other unsourced, non-reliably sourced or UNDUE material. For example, the stuff about Ruslan Kotsaba was just inappropriate in the article it was being added to. There might be another article where it's relevant, but there's no reason to spam it into every single Ukraine related article. Etc. These changes have already been mostly discussed on talk and rejected, likewise for other venues. As stated above, here, you are just forum shopping.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

But you try to use them as a cover for slipping in POV stuff, such as this "Kosovo precedent" or other unsourced, non-reliably sourced or UNDUE material.

Where? Addition - 5 April (added link, source), Removal - 5 April. - Tobby72 (talk) 14:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I do not have time to examine all these diffs, but in general, the justification for such removals (your first diff) is very simple: these polls are not particularly relevant to the military intervention, which is the subject of the page. I agree that some results of the polls should be included in more relevant pages, and they are included. In fact, they are included in too many pages, for example, here, where I think they do not belong. And speaking about your last diff, I would not mind to include some of that after discussion, but there was no consensus. My very best wishes (talk) 18:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek continues his rampage: diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff. What can be done to prevent such behaviour? -- Tobby72 (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Tobby72, you seem to have forgotten that this is not the ANI. While you're about it, please desist from personal attacks. He is not a rampage, but is following consensus. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

There is hardly any consensus. -- Tobby72 (talk) 22:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Continued POV-pushing – May 2015

Tendentious editing continues unchallenged. Same POV pushing, removal of sourced material: diff, diff diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff.

And, of course, blatant double standard: diff, diff, diff, diff, diff.

Further discussion here: Talk:War in Donbass, and here: Talk:2014–15 Russian military intervention in Ukraine.

Excuses for POV-blanking: diff, diff, diff, diff.

No clear consensus was reached. See examples here: MyMoloboaccount: Restored, Tobby72: Restored, Darouet: Restored, Volunteer Marek: Removed.

and here: Tobby72: Restored, Anonimski: Restored, Volunteer Marek: Removed.

Thanks for taking a look. -- Tobby72 (talk) 21:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd agree that "Tendentious editing continues unchallenged": Tobby72 keeps on posting the same cherrypicked content on multiple pages, over and over again, regardless of how many times the problems have been pointed out by other editors; and the same old lengthy arguments on talkpages - and this noticeboard. bobrayner (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree with Tobby72 here. These are highly reliable sources, with noncontroversial information. There is no reason for them to be removed.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

DPR – POV tag re-removed

The "neutrality dispute" notice reads: "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." I placed the notice on the article Donetsk People's Republic on February 7, (diff) and provided an explanation on the talk page (diff, diff). The neutrality notice was reverted slightly over an hour later by User:Volunteer Marek (diff). It was restored, at which point an edit war began diff, diff, diff, diff.

It was also discussed here. User:Rhoark wrote: "The neutrality of the article is clearly disputed. An involved editor should not remove the tag without consensus." (see diff, diff)

This article (specifically "Human rights" section), which has obvious POV issues, has been jealously guarded to preserve it's content. The article itself is a WP:COATRACK. Any attempt to improve has been blocked by WP:ACTIVIST editors who have it as a WP:SOAPBOX (see diff, diff, diff)

The subject is already covered elsewhere and given more than the weight it deserves. We need editors to help repair this problem by moving and merging excessive content to the relevant articles.

Other users who disagreed with the current state of the article: (diff - 18 May 2014), (diff - 12 June 2014), (diff - 7 September 2014), (diff - 3 November 2015), (diff - 1 February 2015), (diff - 8 February 2015)

Please see the discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donetsk_People%27s_Republic#POV_tag_re-removed

Thanks for taking a look. -- Tobby72 (talk) 10:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

More forum shopping. This has been covered repeatedly and explained to Tobby72 multiple times. You don't get to put in a POV tag on an article just because you feel like it. You need to substantiate these tags. If you don't, then yes, the tag can be removed (despite what the template says - the template is NOT policy, WP:NPOV is policy and it's pretty clear about that). Basically Tobby72 doesn't like what reliable sources say. So he puts in a tag per WP:IDONTLIKEIT because he cannot remove well sourced material (or add crappy-sourced material). Other users object and ask him to substantiate the tag. He fails to do this. Tag gets removed. As it should.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

There can be reasonable disagreement about whether a two-week lull in a discussion spanning months indicates it has run its course. @Volunteer Marek:, you are heavily involved, so if you don't want to wait for an unambiguous consensus, you should go to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. It's still my impression that there is an unresolved NPOV dispute about the Human Rights section, but the lack of resolution has less to do with stonewalling than the lack of a specific thesis of what exactly is non-neutral and how it should change. I share the perception there's a problem there, but someone more involved needs to articulate it. Lack of resolution does not mean that the article can be indefinitely held hostage by an NPOV banner. I suggest to @Tobby72: to come back with a concise agenda of additions, deletions, or relocations and link to that with an NPOV banner scoped to the Human Rights section specifically. Rhoark (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

This is a reasonable suggestion and if Tobby articulates that's fine. However, one thing they should NOT try to do is to repeat the same demands that they have made previously which have already been rejected by consensus.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

It should also be noted that Tobby72 has been on this POV-tag pushing bender for awhile. They were even brought to AN/I for it [31] [32], but the request was closed as stale because Tobby72 stopped editing Wikipedia when the AN/I report was made. The closure of the AN/I request stated: "Tobby72 hasn't edited in 2 days, so this might be closed as stale. We'll just have to see if he resumes the pushing of that POV tag." and "It's been about 3 days, so closing as stale. If reported user returns, a new report filing is advised".

And guess what? As soon as the AN/I report was closed, Tobby72 returned and immediately started the same disruptive behavior again. The filing on this noticeboard is just another instance of it, where he's forum shopping since his proposals were repeatedly rejected.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Tobby72 returned and immediately started the same disruptive behavior again. Where??? Donetsk People's Republic: Revision history. No personal attacks and false accusations, please. Comment on content, not on the contributor. -- Tobby72 (talk) 14:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The above is neither false nor is it a personal attack. It's an accurate description of your actions. Which part is false? And please be aware that criticism of a person's action is not a personal attack. I've provided the diffs, people can check for themselves.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

1) We should take inspiration from Northern Cyprus#Human rights and law or Kosovo#Society. -- Tobby72 (talk) 21:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Kosovo is an established, stable partially recognised state. As you are most certainly aware, discussions on the DPR's talk page constantly revolve around trying to work out what their constitution actually is, as well as the fact that whatever territory they currently physically control is under martial law. We don't even have RS for any semblance of a functioning infrastructure (aside from martial law). There is nothing in the way of transparency as to what their theoretical 'Constitution' is, with conflicting evidence as to what the constitutional rights of the LGBT_community are.

Your comparison and desire to follow the structure of Wikipedia's articles on Northern Cyprus or Kosovo falls short on every level. The DPR is an entirely theoretical "state", therefore why - and more to the point, how - should/could it be treated as if it were something it isn't? Your attempts to resurrect this discussion at NPOVN are WP:TEDIOUS. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

James Martin (priest)

Repeated unsourced POV-pushing since 20th March on a BLP article, labelling a priest as "Leftist" in the lead. See article history: [33]. Even if such simplifying labels would be encyclopedic, they would need reliable sourcing from an uninvolved, neutral source. Mr. Martin already asked for assistance about this issue on the help desk in the past, but the removed phrase was repeatedly re-inserted. Could another editor please look into the situation? I have notified the 2 involved accounts Bo Smithers (talk · contribs) and Big Bo Smithers (talk · contribs) about this thread. GermanJoe (talk) 16:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Desires of the article subject are largely irrelevant, but you're in the right that such a label would require a quality source (and consensus). Rhoark (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

The user re-added the controversial label. I have reverted the edit and posted a lvl4 warning on Big Bo Smithers (talk · contribs) talkpage. GermanJoe (talk) 18:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Need someone to help here please, another re-add [34]. GermanJoe (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Nationalist POV

I have been looking over the articles related to Vietnam in general and one thing I have come up (with the exact same sentence) is

"The Cham in Vietnam are only recognized as a minority, and not as an indigenous people by the Vietnamese government despite being indigenous to the region. Both Hindu and Muslim Chams have experienced religious and ethnic persecution and restrictions on their faith under the current Vietnamese government, with the Vietnamese state confisticating Cham property and forbidding Cham from observing their religious beliefs. Hindu temples were turned into tourist sites against the wishes of the Cham Hindus. In 2010 and 2013 several incidents occurred in Thành Tín and Phươc Nhơn villages where Cham were murdered by Vietnamese. In 2012, Vietnamese police in Chau Giang village stormed into a Cham Mosque, stole the electric generator, and also raped Cham girls. Cham Muslims in the Mekong Delta have also been economically marginalized and pushed into poverty by Vietnamese policies, with ethnic Vietnamese Kinh settling on majority Cham land with state support, and religious practices of minorities have been targeted for elimination by the Vietnamese government. The Vietnamese government fears that evidence of Champa's influence over the disputed area in the South China Sea would bring attention to human rights violations and killings of ethnic minorities in Vietnam such as in the 2001 and 2004 uprisings, and lead to the issue of Cham autonomy being brought into the dispute, since the Vietnamese conquered the Hindu and Muslim Cham people in a war in 1832, and the Vietnamese continue to destroy evidence of Cham culture and artifacts left behind, plundering or building on top of Cham temples, building farms over them, banning Cham religious practices, and omitting references to the destroyed Cham capital of Song Luy in the 1832 invasion in history books and tourist guides. The situation of Cham compared to ethnic Vietnamese is substandard, lacking water and electricity and living in houses made out of mud."

This statement or something similar to it has occurred in these articles: Champa Religion in Vietnam History of Champa Southeast Asia, South China Sea

I think this is an attempt to push a nationalist POV by making one country (Vietnam) look bad and evil even though other countries have done this in the past. It doesn't matter if it is referenced, just look at the tone used in these articles. The evidence comes from the fact that the user who keeps adding this is User:Rajmaan (talk) and this user had been warned not to add in these kinds of edits in another page.

I would support removing all of these statements although it would be nice if other comments from other users are available. Any comments on dealing with this issue would be welcomed. Thanks. Ssbbplayer (talk) 13:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

First of all you violated one of the guidelines for using this noticeboard. Notice it says at the top, Before you post to this page, you should already have tried to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page. Include a link here to that discussion. If you brought this up on the talk page of those articles I would have been happy to discuss the content. (and no, posting a complaint without bothering to wait for a response and filing this report within just under twenty five minutes of leaving a notice on the talk page does not show that you "tried to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page". Since you didn't bother waiting for a response.

Now that you didn't bother to do that and already filed a complaint here, if you have a problem with the content, find other sources that provide another POV on the Chams and add them to the article alongside the content I added. I will stand by my edits- I used reliable sources, and the content I added is paraphrased material from the sources with no embellishments or exaggerations. On the contrary, the original sources as they are in the articles, are far harsher in allegedly making Vietnam "look bad and evil". Take it up with National Geographic and the academic journal I used. And nobody is stopping you from adding "bad and evil" content on countries other than Vietnam. Go ahead and find sources on Vietnam's neighboring countries if you are so worried about POV, or find your own sources on minorities in Vietnam as I said. By your logic, we should delete all information about every single other genocide that occurred on planet earth because they make some nation look bad, even if reliably sourced. And I was not "warned" by any authority figure or admin, the person who "warned" me, was an edit warrior and a sockpuppet master who was banned multiple times with a history of pushing Mongolian nationalist POV. You know how many respected editors filed complaints about him at ANI, edit warring and sockpuppet investigations? [35] [36] [37] [38].Rajmaan (talk) 23:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

That user part was something I did not know previously. It's just that this had appeared in many pages so I though it would be better to discuss here rather than saying the same thing on many talk pages. I also realized that you mostly added them and I was surprised that apart from that editor you mentioned above, no one commented. Even if the Vietnamese government has a poor human rights record without a doubt, I am not saying that we should delete all information about every single other genocide, (I might had misunderstood others) but to state that one occurs requires a lot of evidence to back up that claim. One particular concern is the statement on Vietnam on Southeast Asia under the section "Indianized Kingdoms" and the article on 1471 invasion of Champa since in those sentences, they mention genocide but I looked at the references and they did not mention this word at all. I will move this discussion to those pages of concern. Ssbbplayer (talk) 02:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

If the content is being copy pasted on multiple pages which maybe tangentially related to the subject, this might be a case of WP:CITESPAM. That being said, the best thing I can say here is see WP:SUMMARIZE & WP:WEIGHT. If the content is given significantly more weight than it is related to the subject, discuss it civilly, and get a consensus of active editors. This is one of many places that can help with dispute resolution, but if there is not active dispute, than perhaps, an editor might have skipped a step. Please assume good faith of all editors.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Are these article titles neutral?

Do the article titles

• Rape jihad
• Love Jihad
• Sexual jihad

And, to a lesser extent,

• Offensive jihad
• Defensive jihad

show a NPOV?

Most of these are not mentioned in our article on Jihad, which mentions many types (greater jihad, lesser jihad, educational jihad, missionary jihad, intellectual jihad, economic jihad, jihad of the heart, jihad by the tongue, jihad by the hand, jihad by the sword) which have no separate article.

In addition, the sources that supposedly show that these are WP:COMMONNAMEs are rather dodgy -- a lot of anti-islam blogs or news sources mentioning that various anti-islam groups use the term. The article titles don't seem neutral to me. Compare such neutral article titles about similar practices as as Marital conversion and Missionary dating.

Note: I know almost nothing on this topic and am not involved in editing any of these articles, so I may be walking into a minefield here... :( --Guy Macon (talk) 13:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

(A) Haven't taken time to form opinion but if I did I'd proceed this way....

(1) Is the article so far written as being about the alleged practice or about the neologistic term?

(2) Do the available RSs suggest the article should be about the alleged practice or about the neologistic term?

(3) Do the RSs say the alleged practitioners use this term to describe their own acts or is it a term used by their "enemies"?

(4) Good questions raised by others?

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think they are POV... However, "Rape jihad" does seem to be a little used neologism... so that one probably needs to either be retitled, or merged (no opinion on which is best). "Love Jihad" seems to be more widely used, and so is probably OK. No opinion on the others (yet). I am still looking into their prevalence. Blueboar (talk) 13:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I have looked at almost 895 news stories.not a single one mentions rape jihad in the title, nor does any single one show what rape jihad is supposed to mean. I propose a merge. sexual and love jihad seem to have gained prevelance as far as I can see. However they are so fringe that they should not be mentionded in jihad FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 15:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

895 news stories not about the subject are irrelevant, ChitChat (and I have reasons to not believe you in any event). What is relevant are the ones you keep deleting from the article even though the exact phrase "rape jihad" occurs in their titles. Pax 16:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

• Rape jihad does not mention the name of a religion; Christian terrorism does. Both articles were recently subjected to AfD and reviews over the same days (i.e., it was impossible to participate in the discussion of one at the deletion review without being aware of the other, since there were only three topics under review that date and none could be URL-accessed independently as in, say, a parked browser tab). Charges of being synthetic neologisms were leveled at both, and Christian terrorism swam through easily despite being a demonstrable smear-job of an article. I would argue that the systemic bias (I would go so far as to describe it as subconscious hypocrisy) of a preponderance of editors is noticeably on display during such contrasting events: to wit: Islam can do no wrong and must be "protected" from criticism, whereas Christianity can do no right and much be pillaged at every opportunity.

Detractors of "rape jihad" were given opportunity at the recent AfD to suggest a new title, and no more suitable term was forthcoming. Pax 16:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Islam can do no wrong [...] whereas Christianity can do no right - you are aware that we have Islamic terrorism, right? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

We have Islamic terrorism for, among other things, because Islamic terrorists keep posting videos of themselves being proudly terroristic. Similarly, we can have, among other reasons, Rape jihad because jihadists are publicly issuing justifications for them being all rapey. Pax 20:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

And strangely, though we have "Rape jihad", we have no article on Rape crusade, or Christian rape, because of course WP is sooooo biassed against Christians. Paul B (talk) 19:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

We might have articles on those if they were prevalent, let alone contemporaneously ongoing, events. But they're not. Pax 20:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

You have spectacularly missed the point. The point is that your absurd claim that on Wikipedia "Islam can do no wrong [...] whereas Christianity can do no right" is falsified by the evidence of articles and their content. Few people would dispute that Islamic terrorism is far more significant in the modern world than Christian terrorism (unless we extend the meaning of 'terrorism' to the point of uselessness). The balance of articles on Wikipedia reflects that fact very very clearly. Paul B (talk) 21:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I think a little context might help. So if we look at this way, what does it convey?

• Rape Holy War
• Love Holy War
• Sexual Holy War
• Offensive Holy War
• Defensive Holy War

Take away the cache of using jihad as a buzzphrase and it puts these in a new perspective. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure that's in good faith, but are you making a an assumption that everyone is equally prejudiced linguistically / ethnically / religiously / whateverly ? It made no difference to me, I still think what I wrote previously, with not a flutter heartbeat difference. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

To answer NewsAndEventsGuy's question, "Do the RSs say the alleged practitioners use this term to describe their own acts or is it a term used by their "enemies"?", I would observe that, in at least the case of rape jihad, that the practitioners are Arabic-speaking and do not use the English term; they are, however, boisterous in their advocacy of the practice. Pax 17:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Looking at Rape jihad, I find basically no reliable sources, but only ultra-conservative propaganda outfits. There are better sources in the article, but they don't seem to use the term. It's a classical example of WP:SYNTH. This term definitely seems to be a neologism without encyclopaedic value. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Synth, neologism and RS arguments were centerpiece at the last AfD, and failed to secure consensus for deletion. Labeling the sources "ultra-conservative propaganda" is just an adhom smear without any regard for veracity - and given that the jihadists (ISIS, Boko Haram) agree with the "propaganda outfits" who are simply relaying what the jihadists said, veracity isn't even an issue. Pax 20:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with that reading of the situation very much. Can you show any sources where ISIS or Boko Haram use the term "rape jihad"? As for the recent AfD: It had very limited participation (by number of editors), and "no consensus" is not "keep". Moreover, consensus can change. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Yup. The usual suspects using the usual spin to push the usual line. Not remotely encyclopaedic titles for articles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Who are you labeling a "usual suspect"? Have they been "suspected" somewhere else previously? Or are we just dropping civility already? Pax 20:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

"ultra-conservative propaganda outfits". And WP:CIVIL doesn't apply to descriptions of sources. Particularly when the description is demonstrably true. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

From a sufficiently socialist perspective, anybody telling the truth is an "ultra-conservative propagandist". For example, Islamists are openly boasting about raping their slaves, but it's a political football to even mention that they are. Pax 07:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Scalhotrod, why do you claim that "jihad" means "holy war" when our article on the subject clearly states (backed up by reliable sources) that it means "struggle"? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps he used the primary definition of Jihad as found on Merriam-Webster: "1. a holy war waged on behalf of Islam as a religious duty..." ScrapIronIV (talk) 19:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

@Guy Macon:, ScrapIronIV, Well, I was using it the way that I've predominantly seen it used in the media as well as what I was taught going as far back as elementary school. My apologies if my usage is out-of-date or out-of-touch with its WP article, but the same point could be made using "struggle"...

• Rape struggle
• Love struggle
• Sexual struggle
• Offensive struggle
• Defensive struggle

The commonality is "jihad", what purpose is using this word accomplishing? Are these titles POV editing or miscommunication or something else? I don't know, but I'm trying to encourage open minded communication. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The problem with replacing "jihad" with "struggle" is that "jihad" holds multiple meanings and connotations which are important to the articles. Moreover, "struggle" can be misleading, since "Rape struggle" could easily be misinterpreted as meaning "struggling during rape". This applies to all those article titles. I think "jihad" should be retained both because its use is important to the articles, and because the articles primarily discuss the jihadist activities of Islamists (including activities by Muslims which satisfy the definition and practice of "jihad"). In other words, these articles appear to exclusively (or almost exclusively) deal with conduct by Muslims, usually Islamists, who conduct such activities as a part of Islamist jihad; thus, I believe "jihad" should be retained. When I first reviewed this issue, I hadn't even considered "jihad" to be the problem. I was more concerned about the terms "love" and "rape", which itself may be POV. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 20:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think he was advocating replacing Jihad with struggle or holy war. He was making a point (and it was a good point) getting us to think about whether the titles would be NPOV even without a word that is associated with Islam. --Guy Macon (talk)

Then I probably misunderstood his point. My bad. I agree with his point, then, though I stand by my argument—namely, that we shouldn't be avoiding Islamic terms simply because they're Islamic, especially when the article's contents are primarily or exclusively related to Islam. But I guess that's kind of a banal point, isn't it? Sorry about that. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 04:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

"Struggle" verges into WP:WEASELWORD. "Holy War", even if it were purely synonymous with jihad (which it isn't, has no RS using it in such fashion, i.e., "holy war rape", etc. Meanwhile, the specific phrase "rape jihad" has acquired enough cachet to become an organizational tag item at various sites: [39],[40], etc. Pax 06:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Please take note of related discussions at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Gatestone_Institute_used_as_source_for_Rape_jihad.2C_WP:OR.3F and Talk:Rape_jihad#Proposed_merge Rhoark (talk) 21:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

• Let's not forget the article anal jihad. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Why, exactly, does that article even exist? I'm surprised that hasn't been deleted yet. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 04:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

It is now at AfD. Meanwhile, one individual is going for some kind of record for breaking the most rules editing an article. :( --Guy Macon (talk) 13:39, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Good God. I really wanted to avoid these discussions and was hoping Rape Jihad's AfD would quell the likes of Freeatlast and Rhoark for a month or two, but they're both engaging in a ridiculous amount of edit wars and policy violations (such as creating false AfD discussions or repeatedly blanking articles despite being told several times that it was a violation of WP:BLANK). These guys clearly have some sort of agenda that they value far more than the procedures and policies we're supposed to follow. --DawnDusk (talk) 03:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I have no opinion about these two users, since I haven't been involved in this issue until after it was posted on the Noticeboard (and just recently), but if such activity is occurring, I recommend you or someone else seek arbitration. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 04:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes @DawnDusk:, please start a filing on how you're pitting WP:BLANK against WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. That will boomerang so hard. Rhoark (talk) 14:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no living person named "Rape Jihad" and the article in question is not a biography. "BLP" is not a magic word that allows you to delete anything you don't like, and Wikipedia's BLP policy does not protect large political organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood from criticism. Please stop vandalizing Wikipedia. (Note that I !voted for deletion at the AfD.) --Guy Macon (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

'Comment'Everywhere I see a discussion about sourcing of rape jihad or any other changes to the article, there are users DAWNDUSK and PAX arguing that the article is good in its current form, while all other editors try their best to make them understand that the article is a poorly sourced POV neologism. I can see that more than 'SIX' discussions have taken place about the sourcing of this article and each one of them says that sourcing is very very bad, and now this discussion has reached consensus that even the title is a POV(which it so blatantly IS). I hope there is some change to the article soon.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 09:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Why do you think the article title is POV? ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 12:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Quick peek for random quality control, result OR/SYNTH At Rape jihad there is a section on "justification". I clicked one of the refs, which turned out to be Katharine Lackey, "Pamphlet provides Islamic State guidelines for sex slaves," USA Today, December 13, 2014. That RS does talk about sex enslavement, but stops short of identifying the practice as "rape jihad"; saying this explains justification for something that is not even mentioned in the source is classic SYNTH/ORIGINAL RESEARCH. If we use dodgy sources, or even good sources such as this one in dodgy ways, we have bigger problems than POV titling. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, I understand that, and certainly do support some serious reworking of the articles in question; however, I'm trying to make sure we remain on-topic, since the issue raised is one of POV article title, not content. People are already being rather hostile toward each other so far, and some are veering off-topic and into forum territory. I'm not disagreeing with you; I think it's pretty obvious that the articles have some significant, if not fatal, flaws. That's probably best kept to their respective talk pages, though. I'd help out, but I probably know less about these topics than you do (or anyone else in this discussion, for that matter). ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 13:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

POVFORK? Rape Jihad at least seems like a POVFORK of Wartime sexual violence NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Continued discussion (arbitrary break)

Love jihad has some coverage in the Indian media, so not much an issue. AFAIK, Rape jihad is a neologism with extremely rare usage and none by reliable sources. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 13:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Fold into Clandestine_HUMINT_asset_recruiting ? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Not convinced on that one. "Love jihad" has much more independent/secondary attestation than "rape jihad" and is not principally a state intelligence activity like HUMINT recruiting. Rhoark (talk) 15:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

alright, it was just a quick peek anyway NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:13, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Rape jihad is a term that is part of the jargon of islamophobia. If significant secondary sources explained how "anti-islamists" used this term, the article would be justified. However it would start by saying something like, "Rape jihad is a term used by sources generally described as islamophobic", and the article would be about who uses the term, where and why. Instead the article treats it as a generally accepted concept, which is why the article is biased. TFD (talk) 16:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. The question should not be "are these article titles neutral?" That's really to miss the point. After all The Protocols of the Elders of Zion are not really protocols written by the "elders of Zion", but the article is still quite properly called that. We also have Allah as Moon-god, even though he isn't; and Muhammad in the Bible even though he isn't. The title simply describes the concept. We could certainly have articles discussing these concepts, if they are notable ebnough, but that would require sources talking about the idea of "rape jihad" or "sexual jihad" or whatever. That's certainly not what the Rape jihad article does, though the Love Jihad one clearly describes the fact that it is discussing a disputed concept/catch phrase. Others, such as Offensive jihad are rather more uncertain cases. Paul B (talk) 18:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is literally described in the first sentence of the article as "an antisemitic hoax purporting to describe a Jewish plan for global domination". It's named that because the book's title is The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. We name the titles of articles about a book the name of that book title. Nothing strange there. As for Muhammad in the Bible, I don't see the problem here. The article describes the alleged prophesies of Muhammad in the Bible. Allah as Moon-god documents the notable criticism and opinion of some who purport that Allah is actually a moon god. I feel like you aren't considering the context of the article's contents in relation to their titles. What other succinct, accurate, and neutral article titles could be used? Yes, you could misinterpret the article title as conveying something if you're completely ignorant of its contents; but anyone who actually went to the article would understand why it's called that. Or do you think God as the Devil, Jesus in Scientology, and Surah of Wilaya and Nurayn are all likewise POV? I think the point being made here is that the article titles are POV because of the content of the articles, and because of the controversial words used in the title. Since these terms are not adequately verified as used by reliable secondary sources, and because it combines two very controversial terms which may convey something POV, there may be issues about these article titles. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 20:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

The "Protocols" has in fact been published under numerous different titles. We call the article "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" because that's the WP:COMMONNAME in English. I really don't know what point you are trying to make here. I am not challenging the titles of the articles I gave as examples. I gave them as examples to point out that article names do not have to reflect "truth" or be innoffensive. You can't legitimately object to "rape jihad" as a title if there is is significant discussion of the supposed phenomenon in sources under that name. That is quite clearly established with Love jihad, I think. It is far far less clear in the case of 'rape jihad'. While I see nothing especially wrong in a discussing a distinction between "offensive" and "defensive" forms of jihad, IMO those particular articles do not fully establish that the distinction is sufficiently established to merit separate articles. We have to look at these on a case by case basis. Paul B (talk) 12:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see where I was mistaken. I thought you were arguing that the article titles are problematic because they are conveying something, like the "Elders of Zion" having those "protocols", or Allah being a moon god. I realize now that we are both in agreement. I apologize for the misunderstanding. You can chock that up to my up-for-24-hours poor reading comprehension last night. We have no disagreement, and what we did have was contrived from misunderstanding on my part. Thanks for dealing with my mistake so courteously. I agree with your assessment. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 19:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, isn't it also biased to assert that this term is Islamophobic and thus those who consider it real are Islamophobes? What evidence do you have that this is an Islamophobic term? The article may be biased or POV, but switching it to the opposite POV still makes it POV. I do not deny that there are serious problems with these articles, which may include their titles, but I am hesitant to label them as Islamophobic. Critical, even critical to the point of POV, is not necessarily hatred or discrimination or any sort of -phobia. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 20:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

No. The term is obviously islamophobic to an informed unbiased observer. It associates a particularly emotive term with strong negative connotations with a term that has varied and complex meanings, but is strongly associated with Islam, suggesting that "rape" is an intrinsic feature of Islam, and is intimately linked to it. There may be people who don't consciously understand this propaganda trick, and there may be people who believe that the association is factually correct and thus neutral. The first group invalidates your argument that everybody who considers this term is an islamophobe, and the second group consist of islamophobes who don't admit that they are indeed islamophobic, but neither helps the the status of the term. For similar (though weaker) examples, consider American imperialism or Jewish greed. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I reject the implicit insinuation within the term "Islamophobia" that fear of something "strongly associated with Islam" (e.g., Sharia Law) is irrational (and thus a phobia rather than a legitimate concern). That's a "propaganda trick" orders of magnitude more severe than anything the title of this article could possibly imply. Pax 11:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Islamophobia is just the term that has become established to refer to hatred of Islam/Muslims. The etymology is irrelevant. 'Homophobia' does not really imply an irrational fear of homosexuals either. It's used for people with virulently anti-homosexual views. Anti-Semitism, for example, has a completely different etymology but an equivalent meaning. We just use words that have neen establshed in language. It's not a conspiracy or 'propaganda' to do so. The question for the article 'rape jihad' is whether that label is well established in the way that 'love jihad' clearly is. And the article should be about how and in what contexts the phrase is used. Paul B (talk) 12:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Stephan Schulz, I don't think that "[t]he term is obviously islamophobic to an informed unbiased observer". Maybe I'm just not informed, or maybe I'm just biased, but I would only consider the term (presumably "Rape Jihad"?) to be inaccurate and perhaps POV unless proven otherwise. I completely agree with you that the term "associates a particularly emotive term with strong negative connotations with a term that has varied and complex meanings, but is strongly associated with Islam", which is why I oppose it at this time, but I disagree that the conclusion of this is that it suggests "that 'rape' is an intrinsic feature of Islam, and is intimately linked to it". Assuming this term is inaccurate (which I believe it probably is), I believe that it is at worst a biased and misrepresenting title which attempts to disparage Islamic jihad and condemn so-called "rape jihad". (Although "rape jihad" is wrong, in my opinion, it is not our duty as Wikipedia to assess it as wrong, only to document information about it.) Unless there is significant documentation that "Rape Jihad" is used as a legitimate and accurate term to describe certain conduct, we should consider retitling or removing the article altogether. I don't believe it implies that "rape jihad" is "an intrinsic feature of Islam", though, anymore than do the actions of Islamists and fundamentalist Islamic extremists represents "an intrinsic feature of Islam".

I don't think an article about the so-called "jihad" practices of some Muslims (who are probably Islamists) is necessarily implicit commentary of Islamic jihad as a whole, or criticism of the very foundation of Islam as a religion, anymore than is "American imperialism" commentary of what it is to be an American or "Jewish greed" of what it is to be Jewish. Such terms are representative of behaviors or conduct—real or perceived—of a certain type of Muslim, or American, or Jew. I don't believe this "rape jihad" term is intended to describe the entire demographic of Muslims, however, anymore than "American imperialism" is intended to be a descriptor of all Americans or "Jewish greed" a descriptor of the economic attitude of Jews. Then again, I don't use such terms, so perhaps those who do mean them to describe the entire demographic. Perhaps those peopleare Islamophobic, or anti-American, or antisemitic, but it's not our job to determine whether these individuals are, nor do I think it meaningfully contributes to the discussion.

What matters here is whether the article titles accurately describe and reflect that which it titles in a neutral and encyclopedic manner; and whether the content which is titled as it is notable or worthwhile enough to actually include in Wikipedia as an article. Isn't that what this discussion is about? Whether the article titles are biased or POV? Whether the term is Islamophobic is only meaningful when documenting how the term is used, but I don't think it's important to note when determining the article's title. If it were, then—and apologies for bringing these terms up, but it's to illustrate a point—shouldn't we be bringing "Nigger" up for NPOV for being racist, or "Faggot" for being homophobic? I think the use/mention distinction is important to note here. In any case, I don't think we should be judging the views of others here. What's important is whether the article titles are NPOV. Are they? Why or why not? I'm not an Islamophobe, but I'm not going to jump to the conclusion that others who believe this article is neutral, or its title, is Islamophobic. If anything, wouldn't that be POV? But I reiterate: I may be uninformed and I may myself be biased (though I don't know what I am biased for or against). I admit that I may be misunderstanding this whole issue, so if I am, please do let me know.

I really hate being the verbose one here, but hopefully my thoughts don't fall on deaf ears (or blind eyes?). I think we're getting off-track here, and should be focusing on determining whether the article titles are NPOV. As Guy Macon noted, the reliable sources which assert that these terms are common names are dubious at best. In my opinion, unless we can find more credible sources, the topic of discussion at this point should be what to replace the article titles with, not whether they are biased. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 19:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

You have the issue the wrong way around. You are trying to argue that we should somehow find the "correct" name for rape jihad. But there is no correct name. "Rape jihad" is not a derogatory term for something that has a proper name, it's a buzz-phrase invented by anti-Islamist (or Islamophobic if you like) commentators to refer to loosely related, and sometimes wholly unrelated, issues. Basically sex crimes committed by Muslim men are all, apparently "rape jihad". Either the article is about the usage of the phrase, or it is about specific real incidents, which already have their own articles, in which case its existence is pointless. Paul B (talk) 12:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, in specific I'm arguing that if the article title is POV or problematic and does not qualify as a common name, then we should be discussing what to replace the title with. I don't know enough about whether the title is actually POV and biased, or if it's actually a common name used by numerous reliable sources. I just have some concerns about the title, the same reasons as Stephan Schulz above—namely, that it combines two controversial and provocative terms to convey something which may or may not be POV or biased. That much is true, but if the RS indicate that this is the appropriate title, then we should keep it. My last paragraph in the lengthy reply above is most relevant in this regard.

If, as you say, this term is used by anti-Islamist (do you mean -Islamist or -Islamic?) or Islamophobic people who loosely identify certain events and phenomena in order to push their agenda, then that changes things significantly. Unless this term is used notably enough to warrant its own article, it should be deleted per WP:Notability. Naturally, if what you say is true, then the article would probably need to be completely rewritten , in which case we're arguing for an entirely new article anyway. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 13:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Do each of these refs mention these terms? I mean if every reference of Offensive Jihad is mentioning this term? Article looks a lot like it might have been borrowed from other articles like Islam and violence. Neutrality disputes should come later, first it has to be sure if these references have supported the term. Delibzr (talk) 15:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Sexual jihad has got a lot of content about the marriages, adultery. Refs like [41][42] has been used, but they don't mention these two words. When you are using self-publised website[43] you have to attribute more, it is not enough right now. Delibzr (talk) 15:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

References of Rape jihad[44][45][46] do not support the term. There is a merge proposal, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rape_jihad#Proposed_merge, I have supported it. Delibzr (talk) 15:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Merge for Defensive jihad was also proposed, I have removed 2 years old merge tag now. Delibzr (talk) 16:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

G. Edward Griffin

A couple of RfC ongoing at this BLP that need more participation. Atsme☯^Consult 03:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually one needs closing as obvious, one needs closing as no consensus and the sources discussed need to eb addressed individually, and one needs more input or closing per WP:SNOW based on the first. Guy (Help!) 22:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Nagorno Karabagh using correct political terms f.e Armenian Dram

Dear Wikipedia users, i would like to point out that in many Armenian articles or dealing with N/K and Azerbaijan, armenian users always alter the following names to suit their point of view on events. For example we can see such cases in Henrikh Mkhitaryan article where in his personal life they mention Artsakh Republic instead of commonly used and politically correct term of de facto independent Nagorno Karabagh which is de jure part of Azerbaijan, In general many articles use different terms which do not present the neutral point of view and already accepted political terms which are argued by both in here and by Thomas De Vaal. I believe altering the terms suits interest and makes the articles biased towards Armenian point of view since most of the moderators have clear sympathy with Armenian cause, i put forward using the correct political terms to suit both parties since Armenians want to claim its independent while Azerbaijani side is clearly stating the obvious and internationally accepted term of occupied territories, in my opinion to suit both parties all N/K related articles and any mention of N/K should include the following politically accepted and commonly used term "De facto independent and de jure part of Azerbaijan Republic". From my side several attempts to correct the articles have always been reverted even though i clearly stated the reasons and also described the issue in Talk page however no issue has been ever answered and i was suspended once for this! Please i would like to know the other point of view Agulani (talk) 08:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

References

Double standard at Deaths in 20xx

There's a controversy at Talk:Deaths in 2015 that may interest some watchers here. In a nutshell, those called "Sir" or "Dame" are having their listings piped from the article name to include their title. Those with military, political, religious or medical titles are not. It's a longstanding practice, but seems unfair to hold one select group in higher esteem.

Had an RFC, opinions were split and it seems we've defaulted back to the way it was. Your input may help get a decisive answer, whichever one it is. Weigh in here or there, I guess. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:37, April 22, 2015 (UTC)

KEEP it as it is. It is a significant cultural difference. An honor bestowed, as opposed to a position attained. There is no equivalent in the US, but highly revered in the UK. It is inherently "unequal" in that sense - but I respect their right to have it. ScrapIronIV (talk) 13:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

In all cases, someone has to attain a certain position to have a certain honour bestowed. Joe can't just unilaterally declare himself General Joe or Doctor Joe after putting in a certain amount of work. He likewise can't just do good for the kingdom and call himself Sir Joe. Always relies on a superior. Fine for individuals to consider one superior superior to all other superiors (I think my Queen's better than my Prime Minister), but when a global encyclopedia does it, it seems silly.

Not that silliness is terrible or anything. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:58, April 29, 2015 (UTC)

As someone who does not live in a place where such honors are bestowed, I guess I would be affected more by the "inequality" of my culture not being included in this exception. Yet, somehow, I remain unoffended by it. A general earns his rank; a private can earn and have a Medal of Honor bestowed upon him; these are things that would help define a person on my side of the pond. We don't use titles in the same sense. But we Yanks are an interesting lot, exceedingly casual as a rule, but taking far too much pride in accomplishments. We are often both amused by and enamored with the pageantry of royal affairs - we are full of anglophiles waiting for the next royal baby, yet steadfastly insisting upon the equality of individuals. I am more than willing to allow the cultural difference to explain the exception in this case, and let those who have been given that honor be treated in the way that their culture most deems fit. Let these notable individuals have their "Sirs" and "Dames" - and choose to be content that there will always be some inequality somewhere. Scr★pIron^IV 17:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

It's definitely low on the list of offensive inequalities in the world. That royal babies can't vote is slightly more of an outrage. Just an annoying oddity, in my books. As fun as the British system is to explore (I like checking out Barons' estates), it just seems a rather antiquated one to base a guideline on, in 2015 Earth. Meh.

Congratulations on your new signature, by the way. Quite spiffy! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:54, April 30, 2015 (UTC)

I think we should either use everyone's title (Mr., Ms. etc. are titles too) or just ignore them. Since the tendency is to not use titles such as Mr., I would ignore them. I disagree that titles are highly honored in the UK. In general they are only used where one would otherwise write Mr., Ms., etc. So if your list has "Mr. Richard Roe", then if John Doe is a knight, he is referred to as "Sir John Doe." TFD (talk) 01:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

And for some reason, even accomplished knights call young boys "Master". InedibleHulk (talk) 02:07, April 30, 2015 (UTC)

More input needed

Further input is needed at Talk:Siege of Kobanî#RfC: Icons used in prose, any and all appreciated. Mlpearc (open channel) 03:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Institute of Engineering and Science IPS Academy

Repeated promotional fluff additions and external link spam. Currently cleaned up again (no immediate action needed), but I would appreciate an additional editor keeping an eye on this article. I am not sure, why so many schools and universities confuse Wikipedia with their own web host, but have left some standard infos on the involved IPs' talkpages. GermanJoe (talk) 13:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

GermanJoe It is very difficult to manage Wikipedia articles on schools in India. Every year many of them pay staff to edit Wikipedia and there is very little published about these schools in any language anywhere. Additionally, the students as volunteers are eager to talk about the school but again can usually not cite sources. You can see that this article does not meet WP:GNG, and most schools in India do not, but they get a lot of traffic and editors.

You did the right thing in cutting spam. I recommend cutting it where you see it as only rarely will IP editors engage here. I have watched Indian university pages for years and have never had someone talk on the talk page. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:United States#Trends in local vs global inequality

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:United States#Trends in local vs global inequality. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)Template:Z48

Ferrovie dello Stato Italiane

I write to request a comment about this edit [47]. User:Kiwirigi keeps adding a debt figure in the net income section of the infobox. First of all, that is not the appropriate place to put that information. Moreover, the figure is cited from an estimate done by a newspaper. It seems to me that this is a very non NPOV edit and I think it should be removed. I appreciate any comment on this. Thank you. --Ita140188 (talk) 09:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I responded at Talk:Ferrovie dello Stato Italiane. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:57, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Veganism and cancer risk

I have the impression that the discussion on the talk page for the article veganism is going nowhere and a bunch of reverts have been made, so I'm asking others to have an outside look and possibly make changes. Please see Talk:Veganism#Veganism and cancer and try to be as neutral as you can, no matter what you think of veganism as a whole. --Rose (talk) 13:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Much of the page has far from a NPOV. It reads like promotional material for veganism. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

There are numerous reliable secondary sources which claim that vegetarians (at least in the U.S.) tend to have a reduced risk of cancer. This includes vegans. At least one study [48] showed that vegans have a lower overall cancer incidence than lacto-ovo-vegetarians. There are of course nuances - vegetarianism reduces the risk of some types of cancer but not others, and the risk varies depending on individual dietary habits - but the claim is objective and verifiable. If there's an issue here, it's one that can be resolved by minor tweaks to the wording. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Content on medical claims needs to comply with WP:MEDRS - which advises against citing primary studies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: Here are a couple review articles on the subject: [49],[50]. They say much the same thing. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:51, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor with very little history of editing on related topics, I suggested on the articl3e talk page that this could be addressed with a "suggests that" or "the author concluded that a vegan diet may" type statement. Is there any reason that this was not an acceptable compromise?

There is a tremendous amount of data in the literature showing that COOKED meat contains a variety of carcinogens derived from pyrolysis of amino acids at high cooking temperatures and is associated with increased cancer risk in multiple organs. And there are secondary sources covering epidemiology studies. Neither of these types of studies seems to me sufficient to support statements in Wikipedia's voice that veganism reduces cancer risk, given the limitations of observational studies. But we would not be leading our readers astray to suggest the potential for reduced risk, and it is my impression that this is the current view of those who study such things. Though I suppose to be strictly correct, eating raw meat is probably pretty safe from a carcinogenicity pov. 01:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC) Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI statement} 01:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Those "tweaks to the wording" are what I'm looking for, and I'm hoping someone can do the job. My attempt to edit that problematic sentence would probably be reverted again, and based on the rules of Wikipedia, there's no way I can hold against two editors that are convinced I'm wrong if their desire to revert remains. --Rose (talk) 01:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, let's keep talking and see what the other guys say. Sometimes these things look more difficult than they turn out to be. Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|Proud of my new COI} 01:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3048091/
• http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/22/2/286.full

--Guy Macon (talk) 01:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

What we need for the article Veganism is something like "When analyzing the association of specific vegetarian dietary patterns, vegan diets showed statistically significant protection for overall cancer incidence", as seen in the Results section for one of these studies. And since we have evidence of vegan diets offering protection, vegetarianism shouldn't be mentioned as we have a separate article for that. --Rose (talk) 02:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Again I don't think we want to word it too strongly as these are not randomised trials. Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|Proud of my new COI} 02:35, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

What the sources say

The two on-point secondary sources for vegan diets being cited are PMID 19279075 and PMID 24871675.

• The first has:

  To date, epidemiologic studies have not provided convincing evidence that a vegan diet provides significant protection against cancer. Although plant foods contain many chemopreventive factors, most of the research data comes from cellular biochemical studies.

• The second this:

  While lacto-ovo-vegetarians have lower risk of cancer of the gastrointestinal tract, vegans experience a higher risk for cancer of the urinary tract. For other-cancer sites, the risk is slightly but not significantly lower for both lacto-ovo-vegetarians and vegans compared to non-vegetarians. Subsequent reports with longer follow-up time and more cancer cases will help clarify the role of specific vegetarian diets with cancer outcomes.

These sources both say the reduction of cancer risk, if any, is not significant. This in my view accords with the current wording of the article that there is no good evidence of risk reduction. (Though saying there's no "clear" or "conclusive" evidence may be better I think; and maybe we could say "meaningful risk reduction"?). Alexbrn (talk) 09:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I see your point. I think the best refs for the "pro" camp are the two from Sammy. The Nutrients paper is a bit odd, as it only looks at Adventists. This population is not entirely typical of the non-Adventist population. For example, the tables show very little lung cancer in this group, while it is among the most common causes of cancer death in the US population overall. While this is dangerously close to WP:OR, I wouldn't worry about the increase in urinary tract cancers as an issue so much; these cancers are relatively uncommon and would not likely affect the conclusions about overall relative cancer rates. But overall, this paper has some issues I think.

The other paper from Sammy (Cancer Management) says "The direct and indirect evidence taken together suggests that vegetarian diets are a useful strategy for cancer prevention." Seems like this guy is unambiguous in his conclusions.

Could we go with something along the lines of "Epidemiological and nonclinical studies have provided data suggesting that a vegan diet may confer a reduced risk of cancer relative to an omnivorous one. However, most experts believe that more study is needed before firm conclusions can be drawn."? Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|Proud of my new COI} 13:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd not argue with that wording. I too harbour some doubts about the Nutrients paper, but there's (surprisingly?) little material that is directly relevant. Alexbrn (talk) 13:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

If you want to keep types of studies in the first sentence, then cohort studies should be added to the list, as they're what most of the sources we have discussed refer to. The second sentence should look like "Experts have noted that more study is needed before firm conclusions can be drawn.", because we can't pretend to have reviewed every expert opinion on the subject and come to a conclusion that includes "most experts". --Rose (talk) 15:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Seems fair enough to me. Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI Statement} 16:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Better still not to invoke "experts" but just WP:ASSERT that which is not contested: ".... However, this evidence is not clear enough for firm conclusions to be drawn". Per MOSMED we should avoid "more research is needed" type constructions. Alexbrn (talk) 16:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

It was only a few hours ago that you said you had no objections regarding the wording Formerly 98 had suggested. The word "experts" was still there, and so was the part that you compared to "more research is needed". Nothing constructive is coming out of this, and what you're suggesting now is pretty much synonymous to what is already in the article. --Rose (talk) 17:06, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to promote veganism by cherry picking studies from the literature. We need a good authoritative secondary source that states the generally accepted view on the vegan diet. Until and unless there are generally accepted benefits to the vegan diet we cannot include calims of benefits in the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Martin, I don't think we want"a good authoritative secondary source" to tell us the generally accepted view so much as to follow WP:NPOV, presenting various viewpoints per their prominence in reliable sources. We have one secondary source that seems to say the evidence is sufficient and three that day it is not. So my understanding is that we write something that includes the minority view while giving it less weight. Rose, what is your objection to the language suggested by Alexbrn?

My impression is that most authorities see some evidence of benefit and most agree it is not conclusive. Can we agree on this and build language around it that also acknowledges the existence of minority viewpoints? Or have I misunderstood?Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI Statement} 22:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Every single article that's been brought up expressly states that vegans are at reduced risk of cancer compared to both vegetarians and non-vegetarians. I have already provided quotes on this page and the other talk page that back that up. It's true that the sources also say things like "more research is needed", but that's what science is about, which I would assume is the reason WP:MOSMED recommends to avoid saying that. For Alexbrn, that somehow means we must replace it with an assertion that negates the idea of the preceding sentence, to the effect of "There's no good evidence", that the user has been advocating for. And that's without saying that the user's behavior is disruptive, as seen in their sudden reversal of opinion regarding the same text as a whole with the only differences being one removed and one added adjective. --Rose (talk) 02:55, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

My suggestion to move from

• "However, most experts believe that more study is needed before firm conclusions can be drawn, to
• "However, this evidence is not clear enough for firm conclusions to be drawn"

Is not a "reversal" but merely a tightening of language in line with our WP:PAGs. What's more it is better aligned with the review articles we are using. We simply cannot state or imply there is clarity in an area where our sources specifically say there isn't clarity: that's neutrality. Alexbrn (talk) 05:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

If you want to tighten things and even some leaning, "however" is a great word to avoid. Always makes the thing before it seem less than the thing after. Just say both things without it. It doesn't work in a few cases, but only a few. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:39, April 30, 2015 (UTC)

In general "however" is overused, but in this case removing it would tighten away an important nuance, since the sources say that whatever the data, there is nothing clear that can be concluded from them. I'd quite like "but" instead. Alexbrn (talk) 06:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Of "however", "although" and "but", the tiny one definitely works best. Same as why we call a feline a "cat". But I don't see how the nuance is important here, unless you're trying to steer people toward disbelief. A noble cause, but still slanted. By saying it last, it already carries enough of a weight advantage. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:59, April 30, 2015 (UTC)

It's nothing but a reversal when you first say "I wouldn't argue with that wording" and put "fine by me" as the edit summary to make it even clearer, then suddenly propose a completely different sentence. Moreover, the evidence is quite clear and I'll just highlight the quotes I've already used within our discussion, from the sources already found in the article or introduced by other people here:

• "Health effects of vegan diets":

Vegans consume considerably more legumes, total fruit and vegetables, tomatoes, allium vegetables, fiber, and vitamin C than do omnivores (14–16, 20, 23). All those foods and nutrients are protective against cancer (25)

• Beyond Meatless, the Health Effects of Vegan Diets: Findings from the Adventist Cohorts:

Overall, vegans experienced modest risks reduction (14%) for all-cancer

• Vegetarian Diets and the Incidence of Cancer in a Low-risk Population:

When analyzing the association of specific vegetarian dietary patterns, vegan diets showed statistically significant protection for overall cancer incidence

--Rose (talk) 06:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Please WP:FOC - you have a strange idea of what "completely different" means! You are again bringing primary sources to the table in support of a POV. We mustn't do that - simply WP:STICKTOSOURCE and summarize what our WP:MEDRS-compliant secondary sources have concluded. When you say "the evidence is quite clear" you are directly contradicting our WP:RS which says the evidence is far from clear. Your reinterpretation of the primary data in reviews is original research. Alexbrn (talk) 06:55, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

None of these sources have been introduced by me. On top of that, even you used one of them to back up your stance in the beginning of your "What the sources say" section. Your second quote is from "Beyond Meatless", which is also where my second quote comes from. Double standards? --Rose (talk) 07:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• Why are we using studies talking about a vegetarian lifestyle to draw conclusions about a vegan lifestyle? It's not as if choosing not to wear a leather belt or carry a leather purse has any effect on cancer rates. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:43, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

It's about the diet, not the lifestyle. But yeah, there's still a difference between what vegetarians and vegans don't eat. A typical vegetarian would have no qualms about eating the belt, beside the general texture and taste. A typical vegan would rather starve. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:10, April 30, 2015 (UTC)

So looking back at Guy's remark, I see that I misread. The secondary source says "vegetarian" in the conclusion, though my impression was that the word was used to refer to all non-meat eaters, I cannot say that for certain. So I would see a sentence along the line of what Alexbrn suggested as the best for now:

"However, this evidence is not clear enough for firm conclusions to be drawn", probably preceded by some statement that "Some evidence is suggestive of an overall reduction in cancer risk".

I think we know the following:

• Cohort studies (with all their limitations), have found a reduced cancer rate in vegan as compared to non-vegetarian Adventists. But Adventists are not representative of the total population for many reasons.
• A large body of data suggests that carcinogens are produced when meat is cooked, and people who eat large amounts of cooked meat have increased cancer rates of multiple organs. (I'm pretty sure we have good secondary refs for this)
• All this data is summarized by most if not all of our secondary sources with a statement that more research is needed. (In fact, we'll never actually have "good" data bearing on this question, as a long term randomized clinical trial would be nearly impossible).

I think all of this suggests that Alexbrn's language is about right. I suspect that Rose may be close to the "Truth", but more restrictive language is what best fits what is verifiable, and wikipedia is about the latter, not the former. Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI Statement} 17:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

"Cohort studies (with all their limitations), have found a reduced cancer rate in vegan as compared to non-vegetarian Adventists"? Don't you mean vegetarian or perhaps strict vegetarian as compared to non-vegetarian? Again, I don't see any connection between owning a leather belt and cancer. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Table 7 here shows a 0.86 relative risk for cancer overall in vegan compared to non-vegetarian Adventists. The 95% CI does not cross 1.0, but it is of course a non-randomized study.

Guy, I am not a vegetarian/vegan and am not here to engage in [[WP:ADVOCACY]. I'm simply taking a break from fighting with people in my usual areas, where it is always difficult to get outside 3rd opinions. If I have a fault here it is a tendency to try to understand issues above and beyond the secondary sources, which sometimes leads me into WP:OR. But I think it is hard to argue that there is not at least suggestive data supporting a reduced cancer rate in vegans and other vegetarian subtypes compared to meat eaters like myself. A pubmed search turns up quite a bit on this topic (searched on "meat and "cancer").

BTW, I agree belts don't have anything to do with cancer (unless they are radium impregnated). But I don't think they have anything to do with the definition of veganism either. Vegans are a subset of vegetarians who eschew milk and eggs in addition to animal flesh, with the abstention from flesh alone being sufficient to define vegetarianism. Thanks. Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI Statement} 18:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

If, as you claim, leather belts don't "have anything to do with the definition of veganism", why does https://www.vegansociety.com/try-vegan/definition-veganism say

"Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose. From 'junk food vegans' to raw food vegans, and everything in between, there's a version of veganism to suit everyone. Yet one thing we all have in common is a plant-based diet avoiding all animal foods such as meat, dairy, eggs and honey - as well as products like leather and any tested on animals."?

And why does http://www.americanvegan.org/vegan.htm say

"Veganism also excludes animal products such as leather, wool, fur, and silk in clothing, upholstery, etc. Vegans usually make efforts to avoid the less-than-obvious animal oils, secretions, etc., in many products such as soaps, cosmetics, toiletries, household goods and other common commodities."

(Emphasis added.)

According to WP:COMMONNAME, those who avoid meat, eggs and milk in their diet should be called "strict vegetarians" or "dietary vegans" while "vegan" should be reserved for those who avoid any use of animal products. That's what the word means to most people. --Guy Macon (talk)

Most people aren't sure what most people think about anything. Especially when it comes to fashionable things that weren't a generation ago. Especially when the fashionable period coincides with the Internet period, when anyone can define anything, and get a huge audience. We've come a long way since Level 5 vegans were novel jokes. Now the vegetarian nation is dead serious about levels. And stages. Little wonder new ones need support. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:53, May 1, 2015 (UTC)

The page at [[51]] is pretty useful. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I see no problem in giving more information about different levels/types of vegans/vegetarians but let us just be sure to maintain a NPOV. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

So can we all agree not to claim that veganism does or does not have an an effect on cancer and instead say that a strict vegetarian diet (or a strict vegetarian diet as practiced by vegans if the article is about veganism) does or does not have an an effect on cancer? Per WP:COMMONNAME "Vegan" refers to someone who not only maintains a strict vegetarian diet but also avoids animal products in clothing, cosmetics, etc. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

We should not say anything at all about the effect of any form of diet on cancer unless it is a generally accepted fact supported as such by an independent quality secondary source. Delving through primary sources to support one theory or the other is not our job, that is a form of OR which has no place in WP articles. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed 100%, but that wasn't my question. My question concerns acting as if something that isn't a diet (veganism is a diet plus other things) is a diet. The question of whether a particular diet has a particular effect should be, as you correctly pointed out supported by high quality sources without original research or cherry picking -- but that isn't the issue I am addressing. We don't say that being a citizen of Japan has a certain health effect when all the sources talk about are whether the typical Japanese diet has certain health effects. So again, can we all agree to not make claims about veganism having or not having certain effects when the sources talk about the diet typically followed by vegans, not the other aspects of veganism? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Guy I am not sure that I fully understand your point but I probably agree with you so I will say no more. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Since we have good secondary sources which address the question, I think there is a strong neutrality argument for inclusion of something on vegan diets and cancer risk. In practical terms this seems to be something of great interest to Wikipedians (indeed, questionably, we have two entire related articles on Vegan nutrition and Vegetarian nutrition which both go large on "health effects" and which are both disaster areas), so saying nothing would just be an invitation to re-run this type of discussion in the future. I think we could either leave the current text or adopt something along te lines of Formerly 98's suggestion above. Alexbrn (talk) 07:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with what you say and what you said above. The mainstream science opinion on a vegan diet is that there are no significant health effects of a vegan diet, if the diet is properly constructed and supplimented where necessary. I think that is all we should say on the subject; any more is just an OR battleground. We can cite the sources you give above to support that statement but we should not include quotes from any sources. In general these are completely meaningless without more detailed statistics. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

"The mainstream science opinion on a vegan diet is that there are no significant health effects of a vegan diet" Was there a source that said that? Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI Statement} 09:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia's job is to reflect the mainstream view, so we could omit the first ten words of that statement, if that's what mainstream scientific sources actually say. bobrayner (talk) 11:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

That is a tricky one. In my opinion there are no sufficiently independent and authoritative sources stating that there are significant health effects of a vegan diet so can we say that, I do not think that could be classed as OR, or should we just say nothing at all, that would be fine with me. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:06, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm lost guys. I don't recall seeing any source state that "there are no significant health effects of a vegan diet". I saw

• This brand new Position Statement by the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, states

• "A vegan diet with structured group support and behavioral therapy compared to the National Cholesterol Education Program diet was associated with significantly greater weight loss at years 1 and 2.42"

This is a vegan diet with structured group support and behavioral therapy which it says was associated 'with significantly greater weight loss at years 1 and 2.42'. No causal connection is claimed.

• "Vegan diets seem to be most beneficial in improving heart disease risk factors"

This is somewhat theoretical, it talks about 'improving heart disease risk factors'. There is no evidence of any improved health outcomes from these diets.

• "Low-fat vegan and vegetarian diets, combined with other lifestyle factors, including not smoking and weight reduction, have been shown to reverse atherosclerosis... As such, these diets are strongly recommended to all clients with heart disease who are willing to adopt them."

Again, we have, combined with other lifestyle factors, including not smoking and weight reduction. The diet may, in fact do nothing, or even make matters worse.

• "Results of the EPIC (European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition)-Oxford study showed that vegans have the lowest rate of hypertension of all diet groups (vegans, vegetarians, fish eaters, and meat eaters), including the lowest systolic and diastolic blood pressure."

Firstly it is odd that they say nothing about cancer. Should we say in the article, ' "Results of the EPIC (European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition)-Oxford study showed reduction in cancer'?

This is a study of diet groups not the diet itself. It could well be that other common factors cause the effect.

• "Vegan and lacto-ovo-vegetarian diets are associated with a nearly one-half reduction in risk of type 2 diabetes compared with nonvegetarian diets."

• The Cancer Management paper from Sammy unambiguously states "The direct and indirect evidence taken together suggests that vegetarian diets are a useful strategy for cancer prevention."

All this claims is 'a useful strategy'.

Vegan diets are a form of vegetarian diet (per the position statement of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietics above), and no papers I have seen state that veganism is exempt from the benefits that accrue to vegetarian diets in general.

Vegan/vegetarian is not the same thing. Vegetarian is a form of omniverous diet.

Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI Statement} 13:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I have made comments about individual sources above. None of it makes me think that the generally accepted view of mainstream science is that there is a health benefit to a vegan diet. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:39, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Just to explain my postion, I am not a vegan but I have nothing against vegans or the vegan diet but I do object to WP being used as a promotional too for veganism. If we add our own preferred interpretation of some specially selected sources, even quoting them just as you do above, we mislead our readers into thinking that it is generally accpted that there is a significant health benefit from a vegan diet. There are not even any numbers in your quotes to show how much the claimed benfit is.

How hard have you or anyone else tried to find souces claiming no benefit or even harm from a vegan diet? What we have here is Confirmation bias. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

One remark: comparing vegans who don't smoke and don't drink alcohol with meat-eaters who drink alcohol and smoke is selection bias.

Further, see these links:

• http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/harmquack.html
• http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/cancer.html
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_cancer_treatments#Diet-based
• http://www.abc.net.au/health/talkinghealth/factbuster/stories/2014/03/13/3962359.htm
• http://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/complementaryandalternativemedicine/dietandnutrition/vegetarianism
• http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/prevention/antioxidants

Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Martin, my response:

First, my literature searches are about "vegan diet" and "review" in pubmed, and are agnostic with respect to the author's conclusion.

Second, I am not a vegan and I generally hate all this homeopathy/anti-vax/veganism/accupuncture/alternative medicine stuff that comes out of Marin County. Please don't doubt that I come at this from an initially skeptical POV. But my other prejudice (which I freely admit to), is that I am a chemist. I know what chemical reactions occur when you cook meat, I read the papers associating exposure to the resulting nitrosoamines and heterocyclic amines with increased rates of cancer of multiple organs, and I find them convincing. There are both epidemiological studies relating cooked meat to cancer and supporting animal and in vitro studies showing that the chemicals produced when meat is cooked damage DNA and cause cancer in lab animals. I know that mentioning this leaves me open to charges of WP:OR. I'm just trying to be honest.

With respect to the article, I think we have a couple points of difference here, lets see if I can address them.

• First, I think we are arguing past each other. I rejected the statement that "there is a clear literature consensus that there are no significant health effects of a vegan diet". Your response was "None of it makes me think that the generally accepted view of mainstream science is that there is a health benefit to a vegan diet." These are not necessarily incompatible statements. The third possibility, and I think the correct one, is that there is no clear consensus either way.
• I believe I am correctly following the literature in stating that veganism is a form of vegetarianism (per the position statement I noted above). I believe your statement that vegetarianism is a form of ominiverous diet is incorrect. Do you have a citation to support that?

No I do not have a source but I was referring to the simple fact that a vegetarian diet is a subset of an omniveroust diet, just as a vegan diet is a subset of a vegetarian diet. It is quite possible that a vegetarian diet has some health effect that a vegan diet does not, possibly due to the effect of the milk and eggs etc. What applies to a vegetarian diet does not therefore necessarily apply to a vegan diet. I think that this is what Guy was saying. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• If my position on veganism as a form of vegetarianism is correct, then in the absence of sources stating otherwise, I think we should assume that the benefits known to accrue to vegetarianism accrue to veganism. But I'm not going to fight to the death over this point, I can see that other POVs would be defensible.
• I think you are splitting hairs with your "useful strategy" remark. If vegetarian diets are not associated with reduced cancer incidence in the opinion of the authors, how would they be a "useful strategy" for avoiding cancer?

Lastly, I'd just like to comment that the purpose of bringing questions to this board is to solicit outside opinion. I've done that but my interest in the subject matter is limited, and I have no desire to argue these points endlessly. I think that you are somewhat short of a compelling consensus for your point of view, and it would be good to try to draft some compromise language. There are two editors that support a more positive tone on this issue, one that seems willing to compromise, and two that are taking a hardline position against any favorable comment on the vegan diet. We can debate for weeks, but WP:CONSENSUS calls for us to draft some compromise language since neither side has a clear majority.

I say all this with the utmost respect. I've seen your work on other articles, and I generally respect your opinion, and am disappointed to find us in such profound disagreement here.Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI Statement} 16:14, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I would be happy to make a completely neutral statement, along the lines of 'there is no generally accepted opinion on the health effects of a vegan diet' or similar. I think that going beyond this with statements like, 'there might be beneficial health effects but we are not sure yet' is weasel wording that gives the impression that there really are health benefits. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, this is as much effort as I want to put into this topic, so I'll leave my final thoughts and I suppose you will decide.

WP:NPOV states that we do not exclude minority opinions or attempt to present only the "average" or mainstream opinion. Instead we present difference POVs according to their prominence in reliable sources. We have about 5 WP:MEDRS compliant sources and several of them make statements along the line of "There is evidence to support one or more health benefits of a vegan diet, but it is not conclusive". These are POVs found in reliable sources, and should be presented with space equal to their prominence in MEDRS compliant sources. If there are reliable sources saying that a vegan diet is potentially bad for you, those should be presented too, again given space according to their prominence in reliable sources.

Good talking to you. I'm sure you'll make a good decision. Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI Statement} 21:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

There is a consensus that eating lots of fruits and vegetables, some fish and doing physical exercises improves ones health. There is also a consensus that alcohol and/or tobacco increase cancer risk. However, as the nutritionist speaking on behalf of Cancer Council Australia wrote, there is no convincing evidence that totally renouncing meat or all animal products would reduce overall cancer risk. Besides, the internet is full with crazy ideas like "becoming a raw vegan heals cancer" advocated by people who tell the fable that vegans don't develop cancer. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The logic is this: more fruits and vegetables mean less calories, less calories mean less obesity, less obesity means less cancer risk. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

There are a bunch of people who gained weight on a strict vegetarian diet and lost weight on an atkins diet who would disagree (and of course there are also a bunch of people who gained weight on an atkins diet and lost weight on a strict vegetarian diet who would agree -- I suspect that portion control has a larger effect than meat/veggies). The question is what reliable sources say on the subject. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

And reliable sources say that vegetarian diets are likely to be cancer-protective. --Sammy1339 (talk) 05:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I know that a vegetarian/vegan diet does not automatically makes somebody thin, but prof. dr. Martijn B. Katan wrote that the benefit of fruits lies mainly in what they do not contain, i.e. they don't contain lots of calories (in comparison to whatever people may eat instead of fruits). Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: I have no idea how those citations support your POV. Only one of them mentions the word "vegan". Two are not WP:MEDRS compliant. And the one (The NCI page) MEDRS compliant source that does mention veganism supports my POV that there is permissive evidence for health benefits. Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI Statement} 16:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

"Fruits, vegetables, and grains are rich sources of dietary antioxidants." That's what it says. "Fruits, vegetables, and grains therefore prevent cancer" would be original research. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Honest question (as I have not been following the discussion closely): do any of the available RS's say that there is no consensus that vegan diets are protective against cancer? If not, we can't just make that up. Contrary to Formerly98's assertion that WP:CONSENSUS calls for us to seek compromise, it actually only calls for compromise between editors with legitimate concerns. Feeling that a POV should be represented in the article which is not represented in any RS is not a legitimate concern, and should be ignored. --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The two reviews cited at the top of this section say there is no convincing/clear evidence of reduced risk, although some data suggests there might be. Alexbrn (talk) 08:49, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes but I would add that the sources that say that there might be a reduced risk also refer to a posssible increased risk. I suggest that we must leave both out an give only the overall conclusion that there is no significant evidence of a reduced (or increased) risk. Adding speculation based on selectd data sets is misleading and does not represent current mainsteam scientific thinking on the subject. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I have just checked the article and noticed some possibly problematic changes had taken place which I reverted (see Talk:Veganism#Health effects reversion). I don't sense much progress being made here - since this is a question of biomedical content I wonder if it's worth seeking widened consensus at WT:MED? Alexbrn (talk) 09:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

That seems a good idea to me. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, see WT:MED#Veganism_and_cancer_risk. Alexbrn (talk) 14:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Turkish language in introduction of Gračanica, Kosovo

Maurice Flesier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) insists on adding Turkish language to the introduction of settlements in Kosovo which have no Turkish community, on the conclusion that "Turkish language officially recognized regional language for Municipalities of Kosovo like Albanian and Serbian!!", however, Turkish is not the only regional language, so are Bosniak, Romani, and others — adding any regional language to articles of settlements which have less than 0.1% of said community is extremely redundant and unconstructive, which I have commented in edit summaries, as well as on his talk page. Btw, the user is Turkish (hence his POV-pushing). Maurice Flesier: "The presence or absence of the Turkish population must not be considered as a reference point. Well, why give place to Armenian pronunciations in Turkish cities such as Erzurum, Bitlis, Sivas? Armenian is not even recognized as an official language and Armenian population does not live here! I see it as a WP:IDONTLIKEIT! " Again, it is extremely redundant — a Turkish community does not exist in Gračanica, and furthermore, the Turkish spelling is only a transliteration of the actual name (the toponym did not originate in Turkish — also in this respect, redundant). The definition of "reference point" is "a fact forming the basis of an evaluation or assessment" — no connection to this case. Turkish should without a doubt be used in the introduction of Mamuša, inhabited by 93% Turks, and other Turkish-inhabited settlements. Gračanica is inhabited by Serbs, and 0% of the population is Turks — redundant. I fail to see Maurice Flesier's connection with Armenian place names in Turkey (though the comment again shows Turkish POV). Turkish has no official status in Kosovo, it is neither the lingua franca or a second language in schools in Kosovo.--Zoupan 15:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm tired of prolongation of this issue.It's not even disputed. Why Turkish language considered a problem for the Gračanica while carrying other Kosovo cities? Capital Pristina Ferizaj Prizren, Orahovac.. Also,Turkish is located together with the Serbian and Albanian in municipal official adress of Gračanica. Please read constitution of the Republic of Kosovo Article 5.

Turkish, Bosnian and Roma languages have the status of official languages at the municipal level or will be in official use at all levels as provided by law. Maurice Flesier (talk) 16:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I am against Turkish-language inclusion in the introduction of any settlement or municipality where there is no notable Turkish community — we have a dispute. This has nothing to do with recognized minority languages. It doesn't make any sense why Gračanica, which has no (0%) Turkish community, or other municipalities, would have Turkish in the introduction. It has none (zero) educational purpose. Turkish-language inclusion in the introduction of Turkish-speaking settlements is undisputed. It is solely your Turkish POV that pushes the use of Turkish in non-Turkish settlements. Are you seriously not seeing the point?--Zoupan 16:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

See also Talk:Minority_language#Minority_languages_.E2.80.8B.E2.80.8Bin_geographical_articles.--Zoupan 17:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment.- It seems to me that the inclusion of the Ottoman Turkish language into articles lead section (but not infobox) might be justified in the whole of Kosovo due to historical reasons. Also, if some language have co-offical status I would say we should include it. My point here is that we should see how Article 5 of Constitution should be interpreted. A common European practice is that minority co-official language can be introduced at the municipal level on the basis of legal regulations and/or municipality decision. To be honest I have never heard that minority co-official language is automatically introduced in all municipalities in some country. It is common for the state to determine that there should be some percentage of minority population in order to use co-offical minority language. I guess it might be something similar in Kosovo case. Still, I am not sure, maybe Kosovo is specific case where all municipalities automatically introduce all minority languages. You need to look at whether there are specific laws (like Croatian Law on Use of Languages and Scripts of National Minorities) or relevant international agreement (like European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages). It seems to me that Constitution itself as a very general document may not be sufficient source and that you should also read local statutes and other documents for each municipality. If those additional documents outside of constitution include modern Turkish, my advice is to be sure to put it into infoboxes to.--MirkoS18 (talk) 18:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I do not support Ottoman Turkish to be included in the introduction of any settlement, since that belongs to history only (history section). It could be bolded (if appropriate) in the history section, regarding Ottoman-era history.--Zoupan 18:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you in part MirkoS18. The Bosnian and Roma languages is not an obstacle to the take part in the introduction Of municipalities of Republic of Kosovo. These languages ​​have already been taken to guarantee under the Constitution. European Charter supports it and there is no need for another source for it. (At least better than the OSCE.) Zoupan's reaction on Ottoman Turkish and fait accompli on Gračanica and other towns seems to be the greatest evidence violation of WP:NPOV on the subject. Modern Turkish officially is located all websites of municipalities and it should take place lead section and infoboxes. Maurice Flesier (talk) 19:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Let's try again. Turks are a recognized minority in Kosovo < Turks are no community in Gračanica. Should a minority language be part of the introduction in settlements which does not house that minority? Do you understand that inclusion of minority languages into settlements where those minorities do not exist, from your side, is Turkish POV-pushing, and not supported by any constitution (Turkish in non-Turkish settlement vs. Turkish as recognized minority language). Do you understand that a minority language does not find itself in the introduction if there is no minority (and no Turkish-speakers for that matter) in that settlement?--Zoupan 20:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Here is a map of Turk-inhabited settlements. The Turks number 18,738 (1.1%). Where there is a notable Turk community, I would support the inclusion.--Zoupan 20:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment.- I found relevant national law that you should also consult in order to know what to do if you want to determine if some language is co-official. It is called Law No. 02/L-37 on the use of languages (Serbian language version, didnt find Turkish version of document).--MirkoS18 (talk) 10:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • You can also use this OSCE report Municipal language compliance in Kosovo, maybe also Law on Protection and Promotion of the Rights of Communities and their members in Kosovo and visit web page of Office of Language Commissioner (Serbian, Turkish).--MirkoS18 (talk) 10:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Request for comment

Please see the discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/The Myth of Islamic Tolerance (3rd nomination). Should the article The Myth of Islamic Tolerance be deleted, as I believe the article fails to meet any of the criteria at WP:NBOOK. As of yet, no editor has indicated how it meets WP:NBOOK, however consensus cannot be reached AusLondonder (talk) 15:27, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

@AusLondoner: Many editors have explained that it meets NBOOK criteria in virtue of having multiple independent reliable sources discussing it in depth. This is also not the right forum for this question. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

National Rifle Association finances

Article: National Rifle Association. (Sub) Section: Finances.

Statement:

• A considerable amount [of the NRA's income] comes from the gun industry, which the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) says has "more than 10,000 manufacturers, distributors, firearms retailers, shooting ranges, sportsmen's organizations and publishers."

Discussion/Votes - Question #1

1. Is the "A considerable amount" part of this statement a neutral summary of the sources' reports on how much/what part of the NRA's income is from the gun industry? --Lightbreather (talk) 18:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

FWIW: The fourth (Business Insider/Hickey) source is under discussion at WP:RSN under Walter Hickey / Business Insider. --Lightbreather (talk) 18:12, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: there is a discussion on this at the article talk page. Faceless Enemy (talk) 02:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Discussion/Votes - Question #2

2. Is the "which the NSSF says" part of the statement undue for the article/section in question? --Lightbreather (talk) 18:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: there is a discussion on this at the article talk page. Faceless Enemy (talk) 02:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Continuation of Souther Strategy Neutrality Dispute

All, Sorry I was unable to post for a while. The neutrality issue associated with the Souther Strategy article is still on going https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_51#Southern_Strategy_-_removal_of_sources_which_don.27t_support_opening_section.

I would like some moderation input from others. It's clear that we have some who are not happy about adding a more balanced POV to the article as can be seen in the above link. How do we bring this topic back to the front page? Thanks Getoverpops (talk) 14:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Obviously the archived discussion is much too long for non-masochists to read. Would you care to *briefly* summarize the reliable sources which state that the Southern Strategy was not racist, and explain why you believe these are not fringe views? --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Every peer reviewed reliable source that was provided spoke to the racist nature of the Southern Strategy. Some emphasized other factors, but still ultimately admitted that an appeal to racist attitudes played a part in it. Even the peer reviewed sources that analyzed other factors in the south admitted that the mainstream view of the Southern Strategy was one that acknowledged an appeal to racism.Scoobydunk (talk) 23:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Good and accurate summary. No support has developed for the POV that is being pushed by one editor. The purpose of this board is to bring other people's eyes to an article that they don't normally watch. Thanks for participating. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

That is a dishonest claim and you SHOULD know it. If you can't be honest please don't bother posting.

Sadly, Scubby seems unable to provide a non-baised review of the information that was provided. Sammy, please forgive me but your opening remarks sound biased from the word go. I will leave it at a few things. The article and the editors who are trying to protect it are unwilling to add a section which disputes several claims associated with the article. The biggest issue is the idea that there was some racist southern plan that is why the southern states changed from blue to red. Many of the pier reviewed articles I provided show evidence that the transformation was not related to any racist appeal but instead based the socio-economic outlook of many southern voters better aligning with the GOP. The "racist" part appears to be the notion that the GOP wanted to avoid offending moderate souterners rather than appealing to hard core racists. Scooby, a come lately editor to the article, refuses to allow such information into the article. He also seems to demand a high standard for any source that doesn't fully embrace yet is perfectly OK with low quality material in other parts of the article. Getoverpops (talk) 00:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I can't lie: that does sound like revisionism to me, and it's obviously a minority view. So you can call me biased. But what are the reliable sources that articulate this idea, which you would like represented in the article? --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

You got that right. The previous discussion generated no serious support for GetOver's position. It's really time to end this. Everyone who wanted to comment had ample time before. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of biased editors... I can see why people don't want to fight with editors like you who are interested in maintaining liberal biased articles regardless of the facts. I'm sorry that real life kept me away for a bit. We did have some voices of reason who were supporting my arguments. It's not surprising that you would try to forget those. I have to admit, I don't blame others for wanting to stay away. I fear that I will put effort into this and biased editors such as you and Scooby(never posted before I came to the article)dunk.

The specific articles were previously mentioned. I would simply cut and paste the articles. If you read the original dispute request, you will have filter through those who seem to want simply block anything that mitigates the racist telling of the story, you will find that a number of credible sources dispute the claims that the success of the GOP in the south was due to a plan to appeal to racism. Note that on a some level racist claims were made but this would likely be true for both sides at local levels (when you expand the scope too all politicians of either side who have said something dumb, both sides look really bad). Also, the article seems to go back and forth on the extent of this southern strategy. Is it just a short term thing for the Nixon years or all the way through H Bush? It's true that some of the peer reviewed sources I presented said that yes, some appeals were made with the intent to not alienate mildly racist people (there are specific notations about hard core racists) but none said it was a master plan that lasted into the 80s. The reputable sources on the other side also don't support that claim. Part of the issue is the soft, fuzzy nature of what they claim are racist "code words". Is a "code word" really proof or simply a convenient way for one political side to "prove" the other side is racist?

Anyway, I believe the wiki article should have a section that disputes the claims that this was a wide spread strategy that lasted over a number of election cycles. Those are claims which can be backed via the academic articles and writers I have cited. I also think the claims of the other side should be subject to the same level of scrutiny that is expected of my sources. If opinion articles against don't count then opinion articles for shouldn't count either. Getoverpops (talk) 02:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Nothing new here. Three people have responded and you have insulted all of us. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

@Getoverpops: After looking over some of what was written in the original discussion, it seems like you rely heavily on opinion pieces. Can you clarify whether you want the article to state that some individuals have this opinion, or whether you want Wikipedia's voice not to assert unconditionally that the Southern Strategy appealed to racism? The latter requires a reliable source, such as one with editorial oversight, to dispute this idea. For the former it would also be better to have a reliable secondary source discussing these individual opinions. Can you point to such sources? --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

@Sammy1339: Thanks for taking a look. Perhaps I was to quick to assume you were one sided. Three comments: First, the article seems to cover the strategy as a proven fact and as something that had a wide ranging impact on elections. Thus I would like to call into question some of the assumptions that previously the article took for granted. Prior to my earlier edits the article was getting a number of facts out of op-ed articles. I've tried to clean that up but the "what it was/is" stuff still reads like a conspiracy theory. Very questionable statements are taken as proof. At the most basic level we (the article) should be able to tell us what the strategy was, in precise term (specific examples of how it was used, over what time period etc). Currently we have a Nixon aid who claims it was a thing and another who disagrees. It's hard to judge why each feels as they do and what there motivations were for speaking. But the article and some sources imply this was a strategy that was used through H Bush. Well where is the proof? That's were we get a conspiracy theory type answer. It was "code words". These code words included things like welfare reform. If wanting welfare reform is the "proof" then we need something better since it's possible one wants reform to harm minorities who use the system or because they feel the system wasn't working well. If that is an issue important to southern voters is it racist or simply appealing to the voters? The point is the article needs to be more concrete about what is alleged so that the reader can better judge the facts. The articles I've found seem to suggest that Nixon's aids did talk about crafting a message that would avoid offending conservative southern voters but it's not clear there was a racist message. Thus is that a "racist southern strategy" or just a "southern strategy" that was sensitive to the voters but didn't promise anything racist?

Second, things get more confused when you factor in local and state elections vs nationals. At the local and state level it's harder to say if some state GOP'er didn't say or promise something that was directly or obliquely appealing to racist voters. Thus if a sources says, "yes there was a southern strategy" can we really take that to mean a racist one or just a plan to be sensitive or what? What is the scope of the thing the writer is talking about? Does it mean when Regan talked about welfare reform he was actually using Nixon's "racist southern strategy"? Basically the vague claims need to be replaced with some concrete statement around which the article can hang it's hat.

Third, my sources are largely from academics in the field (thus expert opinion) or peer reviewed articles. Much of the "pro" work is based on opinion articles and really is no better in quality. I've tried to police the article to some extent by demanding page numbers for some sources and asking that opinion articles in the media be cited as such. I've had some luck with that. Anyway, I feel that my list of references is at least on par with the quality of sources used in the existing article as "proof". Note I'm not evaluating the long and unnecessary section of the article which discusses the rise of the solid south etc. It's an excessively long history section but aside from too many words (a flaw I sometimes share) it doesn't detract from the quality of the article. (ASIDE NOTE: I will be gone starting tomorrow through the end of the week. That doesn't mean I don't want to continue with the improvements to the article, like before sometimes we have lives outside the web). ThanksGetoverpops (talk) 04:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

The sources in the article are mostly aligned with the academic consensus among peer reviewed literature that the Southern Strategy was an appeal to racism. Your sources are not aligned with this mainstream consensus and your peer reviewed sources actually support the narrative of an appeal to racism discussed in the article. It is very clear that there was a racial message and here are diffs with direct quotes from peer reviewed reliable sources that discuss the appeals to racism and racial attitudes utilized by the Southern Strategy. [52][53]Scoobydunk (talk) 07:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

You don't even understand the point I'm making. As someone who was never an editor before I posted here why are you even in this discussion? So on to your "points", some sources say the points were appeals to racism. Other peer reviewed sources say the points were attempts to avoid upsetting voters but were not appeals to racism. Furthermore, you need to scope the duration and extends of this souther strategy. If one politician does something that could be seen as racism is that enough proof for you? I addressed your references last time. It seems your intent this time is to again so muddy the waters as to make this neutrality dispute all but unreadable. That was the extent of your contribution last time. Please don't try to cloud the issue as was your previous strategy. Getoverpops (talk) 07:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

"Naya Nazimabad" This article violates the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy

Hello

I have already raised a discussion concerning this article "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naya_Nazimabad" It violates the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy.

I filed a report about it via the "Biography of living persons noticeboard" because the article was created to defame the man "Shunaid Qureshi""Joseph2302" responded and place a tag for discussion on cleaning up the article.

Now, one "Insider99" was hired by the sponsors of the article to update it and deal with the tag. "Insider99" came up with other controversial and non-neutral points on the article. later on, some of those parts were cleared. Later on the tag on violation of the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy was removed.

Now, the truth is that, the article "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naya_Nazimabad" still violates the rule on (NPOV) policy.

Earlier on, a similar bio article was created to defame "Shunaid Qureshi" The link was " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shunaid_Qureshi"

I reported it on the "Biography for living persons" noticeboard for violating the wiki rules. It was a clear case of WP Attack and WP Crime. Now, the admin that responded redirected the link to "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naya_Nazimabad"

So, when you click "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shunaid_Qureshi", it redirects to ""https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naya_Nazimabad"

Now, the issue is that, this page "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naya_Nazimabad" still violates (NPOV) policy after raising it for discussion among editors. The same group that created "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shunaid_Qureshi" are also behind the other one.

The (NPOV) Policy violation is seen under this heading "Chemical Dump" in the article "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naya_Nazimabad".

Here are the lines:

"A case was filed in the Sindh High Court (SHC) against the Naya Nazimabad residential scheme near Manghopir, claiming that the area has been used dumping ground for dangerous chemicals.[3] A Supreme Court of Pakistan study found that the populations residing in Gadap Town and nearby areas such as Naya Nazimabad are prone to cancer-like diseases through Asbestos.[4][5][6]

Shunaid Qureshi, developer of Naya Nazimabad, CEO Al Abbas Sugar Mills and former Chairman of Pakistan Sugar Mills Association (PASMA) was arrested in January 2014.[7] The Javedan Cement Limited (JCL) was privatized, which is estimated to cost Rs. 100 billion ($1 billion),[8] and also Pakistan government $ 6 million annually.[9]"

So, since the discussion could not solve the issue, I advise the article should be completely deleted. It is created purely to defame "Shunaid Quresh". It was also created to defame "Naya Nazimabad" and its owners and little population.

The person involved and the entire Naya Nazimabad" are not happy about this development. Someone is using wikipedia to defame.

Thanks Rosemaryujoh (talk) 07:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)