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

Due weight and numbers of sources

Just moved this over from WP:RSN, since I figured here was more appropriate. This is Gibraltar again, I'm afraid.

An editor is currently citing an argument made here (in a mediation case since closed), which judges the due weight of points to be made in an article based on the raw number of sources found in a search of Google Books. The methodology is to search for keywords in books that contain the word "Gibraltar" in the title.

I have three questions:

• Is this a reliable means of judging the appropriate weight to be given to subjects in articles?
• Would it be a reliable means of judging the appropriate weight to be given to subjects in articles, if it was confirmed that all of the sources actually mention the piece of history concerned?
• If it was not done through Google Books, but rather through a count of sources containing the point collated by some other means, would this be a reliable means of judging appropriate weight?

Thanks, Pfainuk talk 18:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Preliminary comments and clarifications

Extended content

To add to the above, I was about to start a new thread. I am involved in the above discussion so will not comment but add further information. It has transpired that two editors who have been arguing the edit they prefer is justified per WP:DUE and WP:V but they do not have access to any sources whatsoever. They are relying upon limited searches of google books, often from google snippets. Having no access to any sources I'm at a loss to see how that can make an argument based upon WP:DUE. 20:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC) The question of relying on Google hit counts was a side issue at RSN. It seems appropriate here because establishing relative WP:WEIGHT (or balance) is central to NPOV. And it is an intriguing idea. However, it has been discussed at RSN#Archive 54, where it rejected. Main problem is that Google hits are only on strings of words, and any inference beyond the numerical occurrence of a specific string of words is unsupported. Also, the domain referenced (nearly all the garbage on the WWW) has no particular authority. The simple answer to the question posed is: No. The very idea that proper WP:WEIGHT can be determined by any simple numerical or (not so simple?) statistical measure (whether Google hits, or citation counts, or ??) is misleading. Such measures might show how notorious a subject is (i.e., how much it is being discussed), but how much weight any discussion or viewpoint or argument should be given depends in a large part on the quality of the argument, expertise and reliability of the proponents, etc. These have to be assessed by the editor, require some familiarity of the field, may even require expert knowledge on specific points, and in the end are subjective. It appears there is not, nor even could be, any "simple" arithmetical determination of due weight. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC) Thanks. Actually the original question was whether it is reasonable to rely on Google snippets from reliable sources as evidence for the occurrence of a single phrase, and I gather that you might accept this. We are currently trying to follow a bibliometric approach to another vexed question and I take your point that bibliometry cannot be determinative. In fact we have been stuck on a fundamentally subjective issue for two years of argument, and I can't really see any way to solve it. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC) No Richard that wasn't the original question at all, due weight is argued on the basis of the number of google hits. And as we've seen it isn't a suitable argument at all. What we've now found is that those making this argument, don't have access to sources and the argument pursued for 2 years to the frustration of any attempt to improve the article is one that isn't sustained by policy. Please do not confuse the question and allow outside comment and don't deter it with walls of text as virtually every attempt to elicit outside opinion is. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC) May I point out that this is the NPOV notice board? As to whether due weight can be determined by any "bibliometric" means, I have given you my opinion. Now you both are sliding back into the more general question of reliable source, which seems more appropriately discussed at WP:RSN. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC) Talk:Gibraltar#RfC: Due weight & NPOV in the History section I have started an RFC to gather outside opinion related to this issue. Those who have commented here may care to contribute an opinion. Thanks. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC) P.S. I finally found WP:Google searches and numbers (an essay proposed for policy), which states: "One of the biggest fallacies in determining notability of a subject is the results of a Google search...." Yes. Google can be a useful finding tool, and the results useful as a very rough measure of notoriety. But not as metric for purposes of WP:WEIGHT. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC) As a side note, I completely agree with JJ. But nobody has used Google search. We have used Google books (not google search) search and then have checked the books one by one in order to see if they were specifically about the issue at hand (and each non-complying source was discarded). In my opinion, this process avoided many of the drawbacks signaled by WP:GNUM I also agree this is not a final criterium, but I would say it is a very strong evidence suggesting notabilityl. Please, JJ and other outside editors, could you please give your opinion on this? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 23:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC) Hence the third question above. Whether the count of sources, where the weight given to each point in each source is not considered, is appropriate. JJ addressed this above: The very idea that proper WP:WEIGHT can be determined by any simple numerical or (not so simple?) statistical measure (whether Google hits, or citation counts, or ??) is misleading. It also is patently false for you to say that "each non-complying source was discarded". Your much-repeated thirty-seven hits on San Roque included primary sources, histories of San Roque and a biography of an Austrian general. Many of the books concerned are not available except though Snippet view, which we have already seen cannot be used as a reliable source. It included at least one source that didn't include the words "San Roque" at all. But even if they had been discarded, that is addressed by my second and third questions above. Pfainuk talk 07:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC) I have proposed (below) that all discussions on Gibraltar be continued on the talk page. However, it may be useful to try to resolve this discussion here, provided it stays on topic ("Due weight and numbers of sources") and does not slide into other aspects of reliable sources or such. It seems to me you all have slightly different takes on what, precisely, the issue here is. Is it a fair statement, and generally agreeable, that the issue here involves a reliance by Imalbornoz (and one or more others?) upon Google or Google Books to either 1) determine the reliability (and therefore the weight given to) individual sources, or 2) determine the proper weight (balance) to be given a sub-topic as represented in the aggregated sources? (And please, no debate yet, just let me know if this is a fair understanding of the situation.) - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC) Point 2 is what is argued primarily by Imalbornoz and one other. The argument is used for two claims, one based on a Google Books search, the other based on a raw count of quotes provided by others without regard for context. Point 1 is only argued inasmuch as the sources counted for point 2 are not otherwise assessed for reliability (or indeed content). Pfainuk talk 18:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC) To put this into perspective, Imalbornoz has adopted this technique for a reason. As we found out during the mediation case here he doesn't have access to sources Diff [1] Regarding Jackson and Hills, I wish I had access to the books. I think Ecemaml has one or both. I think I'll ask him.. Jackson and Hills are named as the primary sources of his edits - he relies on a 3rd party for quotes. Similarly he relies heavily on Google snippets. This is a very misleading way of editing, for example here [2] where even after I pointed out that Chapter III of Andrews p.54 is about the period after Utrecht he continued to claim it supported his edit, though it did give me the clue to find the snippet and technique he'd used. He searched in Google Books here for Shrimpton the Hapsburg Governor from 1705 to 1707, unfortunately Andrews introduced a discussion of the corruption of early Governors by referring to Shrimpton's dodgy deals earlier. (I recently found a copy and can confirm he is incorrect). Then there is this example [3], well I had a look at this list here. He also claims to have compiled a filtered search, in which he personally verified that each text was relevant. However, as Pfainuk notes it contains much irrelevant material, including the Austrian General or simpy San Roque. Sadly I don't think there is any substitute for actual research from reliable sources. At best what we see with these searches is simply the observation of Confirmation bias since the search terms predicate the outcome, and if the editor is looking for terms to support an edit, which is what we see here it is inevitably biased. We look to the sources to dictate the edit, we don't write the edit and then look for sources. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC) Whoa — a big wave of text just overwhelmed me! Look, I was seeking assent; a simple "yes" or "no" would be an adequate answer. Instead, we have argumentation with supporting points, and the chickens are loose again. You folks are just too ready to dance, but I really need smaller bites. I think you will make more progess if you go slower (por favor!), one small point at a time. (Think in terms of using low-gear, where using a higher gear will either loose traction (spin the wheels) or stall the engine.) Let's try this again, and I'll simplify the question. Is it a fair statement (i.e., close enough) that the issue presented here regarding numbers of sources is about the use of Google (or Google Books) by Imalbornoz? (A yes or no is adequate, thank you.) - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC) Yes Wee Curry Monster talk 23:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC) Yes (the use of Google books as one argument -not the only one- of a set that also included qualitative arguments, please see here for example). -- Imalbornoz (talk) 07:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC) Looking good. Let's wait a tad longer before continuing, in case there are any dissents. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 02:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC) Yes, but it also applies to Imalbornoz's use of raw counts of sources that are gathered by means other than Google Books (but instead provided by an outside editor), that similarly do not take account of context or weight given to the points by the individual source. Pfainuk talk 17:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC) Okay, the preliminary formulation of the issue, as far as it goes, seems generally acceptable. I am leery of Pfainuk's extension, but we will see where this goes. Before proceeding I want to establish certain caveats. First, this is not the reliable sources noticeboard; this is not the place to discuss the criteria or means of identifying reliable sources. We will be discussing that part of NPOV concerning the due WP:WEIGHT or balance to be given certain issues, and particularly a certain use of numbers of sources to determine that balance. Second, Imalbornoz is not on trial here. He is the proponent of the usage under discussion (and I am curious, are there any others?), and I hope will be a worthy champion of that usage. But we presume he uses it in the belief it is satisfactory, and the discussion here is only on whether the usage is satisfactory. Now I need some clarification: What is being weighed here? Is it the space or treatment accorded certain sub-topics? Or is it possibly something else, say the weight to be given various sources? Imalbornoz, perhaps you could provide a short explanation? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC) It is both the space and treatment of the certain sub-topics. Deph of coverage is excessive and the quantities of text dedicated to certain details are grossly out of proportion with coverage in sources. Related to this, is that sources are not used for the edits, rather Google Book searches used to justify a pre-determined edit; Google Book searches then become an example of Confirmation Bias. Another issue and I appreciate it you wish to cover one at a time, is that this is achieved at the expense of a) not covering signficant events as opposed to details and b) the range of relevant opinions in the literature. The latter can be dealt with later, I merely raise it to register there are multiple issues with proposed methods. Wee Curry Monster talk 07:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC) Actually, the number of sources was not an argument per se. The argument was a benchmark of events in the same section of the article. Quite a few of them are mentioned by fewer sources (some of them maybe only by a couple of sources) than the events that WCM and Pfainuk want to remove. So I thought that it was quite unconsistent to remove some facts cited by 37 sources and keep some events mentioned by fewer sources in the same topic area (Gibraltar). Counting the number of sources seemed to me a good objectivization of this inconsistency. Again, this was only one argument (call it circumstantial evidence) among other more qualitative arguments. Regarding the text, the factuality of the events is not under dispute. It is the importance of the events for the History of Gibraltar and their due weight in the article that is under dispute. WCM and Pfainuk want to eliminate detail to a point that the events are not actually mentioned because they say they are not important to the topic (the history of Gibraltar in an overview article): from "there was widespread raping, almost all houses of the town were looted, all churches except one were desecrated and almost all the villagers left -the largest part to a nearby town called San Roque." to "they [the invaders] were frustrated when, after three days of violent disorder, almost the entire population of the town left citing their loyalty to Philip V, the Bourbon claimant.". -- Imalbornoz (talk) 09:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC) I won't comment in detail but no one is suppressing anything and I for one am tired of the constant accusations of suppressing material, see the footnotes for a start, in fact we're arguing for greater detail. The fact of the matter is, its this additional details to address a NPOV issue that is obstructed by the demand to mention a detailed list of crimes to the detriment of other significant events. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC) I've prepared a sandpit comparing the two proposed texts here for editors to judge for themselves. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC) Wow, another deluge of text!!! Okay, for you guys this is relatively short, but you really need to practice on shorter. One step at a time. WCM: your first sentence ("It is both...") would have been adequate, and even the second sentence was not out of line. And if you truly appreciate that I want to take one issue at a time, you would not introduce "another issue" (at least, not yet). Okay? Also, there is a rather serious matter raised by your statement that you are "tired of the constant accusations of suppressing material". I have looked closely at Imalbornoz' statement (and let's not raise up old issues not "in evidence" here), and the only basis I see for your statement would his statements "events that WCM and Pfainuk want to remove" and "WCM and Pfainuk want to eliminate detail...". These appear to me to be very plain, objective statements of fact; I do not see that these amount to any "accusations of suppressing material". Your complaint is a misrepresentation (perhaps only a misunderstanding?) of what Imalbornoz was saying; it is an invalid strawman argument. It is also some what inflammatory, which does nothing to help us. (I hope I will have these comments in place before anyone else comes back at you with a hot retort. Everyone cool it!) Also, and for everyone: supplying alternate texts is a good thing — on the article's talk page. On this noticeboard we should stay focused on the usage complained of. Imalbornoz: a good start, even if over lengthy. Let me ponder on that for a bit. And everyone stay cool. A slow, considered step forward progresses much faster than rapid fire missteps that have to be retracted. Also, I added indentation above (pushing the boundary of talk page etiquette) to make matters clearer. To the same end, would anyone object to permitting me to freely indent, reduce, emphasize, or even hide your comments in this discussion? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC) Eliminate, remove, suppress are one and the same thing and it happens to be untrue. This is not a misunderstanding, nothing is eliminated or removed the content is still there - please take a look. My comments are not a misrepresentation in the slightest but the accusations of eliminating, removing or suppressing are. I have no problem with hiding comments if they're tangential - feel free. But WP:TPG would indicate you should note edit by indenting, reducing or emphasizing. Anyway we're dancing around the issue of actual relevance, hit counts in google searches whther in google books or plain google are not a substitute for research of reliable sources but the argument presnted here is that it is. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC) JJ, I won't object. Thank you for taking the time to mediate in the discussion. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 23:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC) Of course it would be improper to change any remarks to the point of misrepresenting them, and I hope to avoid that. But with you all's permission I may reduce or even hide extraneous comments, for the purpose of clarifying matters and seeking a resolution satisfactory to all concerned. WCM: Quite a bit of the "dancing around" I see here (and on the talk page) seems to arise from your comments, which prompts other editors to respond, and around the houses you go. Keep in mind that not every comment you feel should be said is necessarily useful. I think we should have a side discussion about this. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC) After considering the prior comments I have two questions. First: am I correct in understanding that the issue presented here is not the weight to be given to various sources themselves, but rather to the weight the sources (individually or in aggregate) provide regarding the inclusion (or not) of certain events? Second: is it possible that issue here can be boiled down to selection of alternate texts, such as Imalbornoz quoted above? Not that the example above is the only alternative in dispute, but: is it a representative example of the core issue? (And "yes" and "no" are adequate responses.) - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC) No. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Yes. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 08:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC) I'm not sure that I fully understand the questions. (Minor reformatting. -JJ) On the first, I think the answer is yes and no. The weight given to each source is significant to the point in that Imalbornoz's argument weighs all sources equally, regardless of reliability and content. The weight the sources provide regarding inclusion is significant in that the question is as to whether certain points in the article are given more weight than is due to them based on sources, and whether this ought to be decided based on a raw count of sources or on the weight given to the point by individual sources. On the second, the whole point is that we are trying to find an alternative text to that currently in the article. Now, the possibilities for a new text are obviously theoretically endless, but we must be sure that the new text does not give undue weight to any particular point - and particularly the arguments of one side or other in a modern dispute (bearing in mind that this is not an article on that dispute). Pfainuk talk 18:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC) So we need some finer resolution. WCM, I want to hear more about your "no", but let's hold off on that until we can sort out Pfainuk's points. Pfainuk, on your second point it seems to me that you have only stated generalities. Of course the possibilities are endless, and we must avoid undue weight. What I am asking is whether, out of those endless possibilities, two statements could be taken, representative of each point of view (perhaps the from/to versions quoted by Imalbornoz), and the issue here reduced to determining which is "best". Is that clearer? Re your first point, I think you are saying that the weight of a source — essentially how much impact it has — may vary depending on reliability, etc. Which is correct. But the means and criteria of determining what the weight of a source should be is a matter for WP:reliable sources, and not appropriate here. I am hoping that is not part of the issue here, that you all have (at least potentially) some degree of consensus regarding the weight to be accorded the sources, and the issue here is the application of those weights to determine an adequately balanced point of view. Is that clearer? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC) JJ the issue for discussion here is very clear, it is the claim that you can establish WP:DUE on the basis of hit counts whether it is in Google Books or simply Google. We seem to be diverging away from that considerably. Can we focus please. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC) Slow down, wait your turn! I am trying to keep a very tight focus, which right now is on Pfainuk's elaboration of certain points about this claim. I promise you we will get back to the other stuff, but if we try to discuss everything all at once we will choke. Let's take one bite at a time, chewing slowly. I am going to carefully consider the following remarks, and also what I might usefully say; this will take at least overnight. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC) Sorting out my points, therefore: The weight of each individual source - how much impact each one has - is a part of the equation here because the methodology used to create these counts gives all sources equal weight. The reliability of the sources, along with the context (if any) that the point is mentioned in and the weight given to the point by the source are assumed to be either inherent in the search or to be irrelevant. Such an assumption is necessarily a part of the argument being made. It is impossible to create the kind of purely quantitative measure that Imalbornoz is arguing is the sole possible means of establishing weight from sources without ignoring all qualitative factors - including reliability. But this applies also applies in cases where the reliability of the sources is accepted by all parties. The argument in these cases still relies on a raw count of sources, with qualitative factors excluded. There are many ways in which an individual source can give more or less weight to a point, including the amount of detail given, the positioning, whether it is emphasised and whether it is highlighted as important by surrounding text. Imalbornoz's argument deems all of these factors to be irrelevant compared to the number of sources used, which is argued to override all other factors. Is it an argument between two such texts? Not necessarily. It has been proposed that the points that are currently given undue weight as compared with reliable sources be given a more appropriate weight by putting them in references or by dramatically increasing the length of the paragraph to compensate. Problem is, Imalbornoz continues to argue that his counts of sources entirely override the weight actually given to the points by the sources. Pfainuk talk 21:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC) I think Pfainuk has not seen my previous (very brief) comments, so I will repeat one of them below: "Yes ([the problem in discussion is about] the use of Google books as one argument -not the only one- of a set that also included qualitative arguments, please see here for example). -- Imalbornoz (talk) 07:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)" I hope it is clear now. Thanks. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 15:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC) I don't actually see any qualitative arguments in that this is due weight from that link. There's a statement that it's due weight because you say it is, and a claim that other editors are editing in bad faith, but no actual qualitative argument. Certainly, there is nothing that would render any part of my comment above inaccurate. Pfainuk talk 17:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC) Pfainuk, thank you, that is a clear and well reasoned explanation. However, you are getting ahead of me — that was about the methodology, which I haven't gotten to yet. From your remarks it appears you are not taking issue with the degree of reliability of the sources (authors) themselves, but with how that and other factors are used to weigh or balance a point of view (regarding certain events); this is effectively affirmation of my first question. As to my second question, well, I don't want to hear a rebuttal to an argument I have yet to hear, and I don't want hear objections of any kind. What I want to hear is this: given that the issue here comes down to an issue of some text (as most WP issues do) either including details of a certain event, or not including such details, is the issue here really about the use of certain means or criteria (e.g., the "methodology") of selecting between these alternatives? (NOTE: it could be about a lot of things. What I am trying to do is scrape off all the side issues that will only distract us.) - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC) I am taking issue with the reliability of some of the sources that are used to generate these numbers. In many cases I also dispute their relevance and/or the claim that they even verify the points concerned. This is, to some extent, beside the point, since even if I did accept all of that, I still wouldn't accept that it is appropriate to ignore the weight given to each point by the sources in favour of merely counting them. Is it about text? Well, when it comes down to it, practically everything on Wikipedia is about text or images, and in that sense it is about text. The text currently says: “ On 4 August 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession, a combined Anglo-Dutch force captured the town of Gibraltar. The terms of surrender provided certain assurances but commanders lost control, sailors and marines engaged in rape and pillage, desecrating most churches, and townspeople carried out reprisal killings. By 7 August, after order was restored, almost all the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and fled to San Roque and other nearby areas of Spain. ” It is argued (among other things that are less relevant to this discussion) that this gives undue weight to the specific acts of violence that took place and to one of many verifiable reasons why the townspeople left; it is also argued that it gives undue weight to San Roque. These arguments are made based on the weight given to these points by individual reliable sources, on the basis of factors similar to those I listed above. That the weight given to these points by the current text is very much greater than that given by individual reliable sources on the subject has never (to my memory) been disputed. It is further argued that the points being given such undue weight are exactly the points that have been argued by Spain in support of her position in the modern dispute, and that for us to give undue weight to these points thus takes Spain's side in the dispute. For these reasons, texts have been proposed with the aim of reducing the weight given to these points. In defence of the existing text, it is stated simply that these details "must be mentioned" or that they are "very notable and relevant", generally without further comment or argument. When pressed, those defending the existing text argue that due weight must be determined by a simple count of sources (through Google Books for San Roque; by other means for the details of the violence), and refuse to acknowledge or accept any other means by which sources can be used to determine appropriate weight (such as the weight given to points by individual sources). They also accuse editors who favour change of trying to hide facts that they are embarrassed about. Pfainuk talk 22:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC) Well stated, but you are broadening the discussion, which makes it too difficult to get a handle on it. I will address your points, but hopefully to lay them to rest, not to expand the discussion. (And my apologies for so much text.) First: this is not the place for discussion of the reliability of sources. I am hoping that we can get this discussion focused on the methodology raised here, and not the particular inputs. Think of it like algebra, which studies the process of calculation, not whether specific inputs are "correct" or reliable measures of anything. Sure, the purpose of algebra is eventually to produce a result, whose validity (just like here) will depend on the actual inputs. But that is a different question! The question raised here is about the process (the methodology), and I think you will agree that if the process is invalid there simply is no reason to use it at all, irregardless of the inputs (sources). So let's back away from any questions of reliability or authority or such; those are for later, and likely elsewhere. As to due or undue weight of specific text, yes, that is, at the highest level, the issue here. But we know that! You are again raising generalities. More particularly the issue here is how to determine proper weight, and specifically the validity or adequacy of a certain means that has been used for making that determination. You also raise the issue that choice of text will favor or disfavor one side or another in a political dispute, and that we shouldn't favor Spain. Well, I don't know that we should favor Great Britain, either, or even the local residents. But considerations of who will be favored are an extremely poor way to resolve such a situation. Anticipations of who might eventually be favored should not color matters of fundamental importance, and even warrants drawing a "veil of ignorance" as to the ultimate beneficiaries to avoid such considerations. For any editor to consider "whether this helps my side or not" is inherently non-neutral, and not admissible here. Finally, your statement that others "accuse" is in itself an accusation. As I told WCM above, in this discussion I see no accusations of "trying to hide the facts". I realize that you all may have past (or even current!) history in this regard, but please: get over it. You all may have traded a few verbal punches before, but ask yourself: did any of those do any good? And what good would they do now? I hope that instead of "getting even" we can focus on getting ahead. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC) If all that is adequately resolved I would like to ask again: is the issue here really about the use of certain means or criteria (e.g., the "methodology") of selecting between alternative text? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC) JJ I believe you have misunderstood Pfainuk's point. There are a range of opinions expressed in the literature but the article does not reflect these. Instead it promotes a single opinion that reflects a modern national narrative. That is the problem, it does not present a NPOV by failing to reflect the range of opinion in the literature. Secondly, one of many issues is that this is justified on the basis of hit counts in Google Searches. The claim is currently that this is superior as the searches are "structured". He misses the point that the searches are structured to justify a point, thereby resulting in Confirmation Bias. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC) My apologies if I have misunderstood anything (I hate that!), as distinct from ignoring what might not be relevant here. I would say that if there is a range of views on some aspect of the topic then the article should mention that. (Perhaps not going into detail on each view, but at least mentioning that a range of views exists, and perhaps pointing to any notable views.) And while that may be a valid issue in this article, should it be part of this discussion? I say no, that we should focus on the narrow bibliometry issue, in accord with the title of this section and the three questions Pfainuk originally posted. In your second point you touch on this possible issue of balance as being "justified on the basis of hit counts", which is pretty much what I think this discussion should be about. Our determination of whether that the method used is valid (or not) will bear on this other issue, and is antecedent to it; therefore it should be resolved first. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC) I agree, it is high time that there is clear guidance as to whether this method is acceptable practise. If I may open by offering my own opinions as to why it is not. A) Bibliometry is not nor should it ever be an alternative to researching a topic from valid sources B) "Structured Searches" in Google Books are not a reliable way to establish WP:DUE as they are inherently unreliable due to Confirmation Bias. C) Finally, due to the very nature of Google Books, the full text is not available so it is impossible in most cases to establish context. At best Bibliometry may have a role in indicating occasions of WP:UNDUE but not should never be relied upon as the sole reason. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC) [Reduced by JJ.] Thank you, WCM, but your comments are premature; we are not to that point yet. At this point I am trying to address Pfainuk's comments, and hoping that he is agreeable that the discussion here might be narrowly constrained to the use of this bibliometric method in determining the proper balance of alternative text. Pfainuk, is this agreeable? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC) The question as a whole is as I described in the previous section. If you want to narrow this discussion down to the questions I asked at the beginning - that is, whether counting sources a given point while disregarding the weight given to that point by those sources (where the counts are generated either through Google Books or by some other means) is an appropriate means of establishing the weight to be given to that point - that's fine with me. Pfainuk talk 21:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC) Yes? I do want to narrow this discussion to the original questions, but I am concerned that we may have a subtle divergence of view; your statement just above is unclear. I think you are referring to a way the basic "methodology" (which is not yet in evidence) can be tweaked by factoring in another consideration ("the weight given to that point by those sources"); I would deem this within the purview of this discussion. Alternately, possibly you want to consider whether the results of this methodology are contradicted by other, independent considerations. I would say that any such contradiction should be evaluated, but only after we determine the validity of the methodology. Does that work for you? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC) I'm afraid I'm still not 100% on what you mean. Are you suggesting that we broaden the question to discuss the weight given to each point by sources? I don't have a problem with that. Obviously, you can't delve into the results until you've decided what weight to put on things. But I am a bit concerned that it has been three weeks and we still seem to be discussing what the question is. Pfainuk talk 21:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC) Yes, it has been slow. And that is intentional. I initially reckoned about two months to sort this out, and half of that on determining the precise, narrow focus of the question. So by my reckoning we are not doing badly. As I have said before, there is more progress in one slow step forward then a bunch of fast steps that don't go anywhere and may even have to be revisited. Hang in there! Your comment just above about whether this discussion should be "disregarding the weight given..." I think can be applied in two ways: either as a factor of how the subject methodology works, or as an alternate consideration, possibly in conflict with the results of the methodology. Either of these could be pertinent to this discussion, but not in the same manner, nor at the same point in the discussion. And either way I think it is too early to definitely include or exclude discussion of "disregarding the weight", so perhaps we could table that consideration for the moment? And if so, then would you agree that the question for consideration here is regarding the use of a certain methodology for determining the proper balance of POV in this particular matter (of San Roque)? That though there may be other issues in this matter, here we focus on the validity of methodology? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC) As an aside, I'd note that the verb "to table" has directly contradictory meanings, depending on whether you're writing in British or American English. I assume that you are using the AmE meaning (to leave aside for later discussion), as opposed to the BrE meaning (to bring forward for immediate discussion), since it seems to make more sense in context. So, based on that, I agree that the question is regarding a certain methodology and we can start with the validity of this methodology - and then possibly move on to discussion of other methodologies afterward. But to my mind, it is actually the detail of the violence, not San Roque, that is the more important issue here. It is there that the more significant weight problem occurs. San Roque is also an issue, but not the more important one. Pfainuk talk 15:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC) Yes, I do mean "leave aside for now" (American usage). Thanks for the clarification. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

(Collapsed in anticipation of a summarization. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC))

Possible summarization

Wee Curry Monster! Thank you for your patience, and now it's your turn. Way above I asked 1) whether the issue here is not the weight to be given to various sources themselves, but the weight they provide, and 2) if (for the purpose of considering the validity of the methodology) we can limit the discussion to use of this methodology in choosing between alternate texts; your answer was "no". Without getting too deeply into matters, could you explain your answer? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

WCM seems to be missing in action. In anticipation of his return (and satisfaction of his concerns) I would like to learn more details of this "methodology" that is the core of this discussion. Imalbornoz, would you be so kind as to describe this methodology and how you used it? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments originally here by WCM have been moved below. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the methodology:

• What is its origin and what have I used it for? It has not been the base for an edit. I have used it as an argument inside a discussion (in December 2009!!) in order to establish an objective measure of relative notability of the exodus to San Roque. Pfainuk and WC Monster argued that the article was too long to include San Roque, so I argued that there were already many episodes in the section with less notability than San Roque. Therefore, I said, if they wanted to reduce the length of the article, they could start with less notable episodes.
• My methodology in this comparison was:

1. Search in Gooblebooks for books which mentioned "San Roque" in the text AND have the word "Gibraltar" in the title (that way, I would be sure to not include books that mention the exodus but are not about Gibraltar).
2. Repeat that search looking at other keywords related with other events undisputably mentioned in the article: a group of Conversos that came from Cordoba in 1474 (keywords "Cordoba" and "1474"), the Battle of Trafalgar ("Trafalgar"), the German WWII plans to invade Gibraltar from Spanish territory ("Operation Felix"), the importance together with the Suez Canal for the British Empire ("Suez" and "British Empire"), the 1967 referendum ("1967" and "referendum"); I also included other episodes that were undisputed by WC Monster and Pfainuk at the time (although they are not mentioned in the current version) such as a Muslim occupier of Gibraltar ("Abd al-Mumin" or "Abd al-Mu'min"), several episodes in WWII and the Spanish Civil War ("HMS Arethusa", "HMS Hunter", "Deutschland", "Guernica", "Endymion", "Jose Luis Diez", "Sikorski"...
3. Look inside the books mentioning San Roque and discard those that don't mention it in the context of the exodus (for example, a hunting party to San Roque in a book about Gibraltar).
4. The final result was that:

• I was able to find 37 books about Gibraltar mentioning the exodus to San Roque.[4]
• I found fewer books mentioning the benchmark episodes:

• Number of books with “Cordoba” (or “Cordova”) and 1474 in the text and “Gibraltar” in the title : 4 [5]
• Number of books with “Trafalgar” and 1805 in the text and “Gibraltar” in the title: 33 [6]
• Number of books with “Operation Felix” (or “Operación Felix”) in the text and “Gibraltar” in the title: 22 [7][8]
• Number of books with “Suez” and “British Empire” in the text and “Gibraltar” in the title: 10 [9]
• Number of books with “referendum” and “1967” in the text and “Gibraltar” in the title: 30 [10]
• Abd al-Mumin or Abd al-Mu'min: 7 books[11]
• Pedro de Herrera: 1 book[12]
• HMS Arethusa: 1 book[13]
• HMS Hunter: 1 book[14]
• Deutschland: 13 books[15]
• Guernica: 4 books [16]
• Endymion: 6 books[17]
• Jose Luis Diez: 6 books[18]
• Sikorski: 6 books[19]

My conclusion: the exodus to San Roque was much more notable than other episodes undisputedly mentioned in the article (at least not disputed by WC Monster and Pfainuk). Therefore, it didn't seem consistent to say (like they did) that "San Roque" should be removed because "The problem with this article is that it is already too long by wikipedia standards" (Justin, 22:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)) while many other less notable issues were not even under discussion.

I hope the goal and the procedure of this methodology is now clear. Of course it was not the only argument for inclusion, but just one more argument inside a discussion. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 16:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Important notice for everyone: note that pending the result at WP:AE we are not discussing the San Roque incident, only a methodology that was applied to it. This is a very thin line, so everyone please be on your nicest, most civil behavior, lest we spark any fires that we can't put out. In the interest of preventing a critical mass I may (as discussed above) suppress any intemperate remarks, but you all need to practice restraint.

Thanks to Imalbornoz for a clear description of "the methodology" and its purpose. I want to think about this (restraint!) for a night or two before proceeding, but my tentative comments are as follows.

1. It was used in a specific context for a specific purpose.
2. It attempts to measure not notability per se, but the relative notability of several episodes.

Further comments after I have contemplated this in light of the anticipatory criticisms. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Worth reminding people that it is not just San Roque that this is applied to. As I noted before, the application of a very similar methodology to the detail of the violence is also at issue here. This is why I asked the questions I did, and in particular the third of my questions above. It would be very unhelpful for this to get sidetracked into a discussion of the San Roque methodology in isolation, ignoring the methodology used to justify the detail given to the violence, when the issues of weight surrounding the detail given to the violence is the more significant issue in this dispute. Pfainuk talk 21:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

This is part of what I was trying to settle in our preliminary comments above: the focus of this discussion. Which may be settled for us if the pending arbitration enforcement request comes down prohibiting you guys from discussing San Roque at all. Rather than back and forth through all of that, I am going state (somewhat heavy-handedly, for sure, but this is my requirement, lest we get stuck in a hole) that the focus of this discussion is the validity of this particular methodology (which, incidentally, as been applied to the San Roque issue), not the determination of the San Roque issue itself. Or as you initially proposed: "Is this [the methodology] a reliable means of judging the appropriate weight to be given to subjects in articles?"

I remind all of you yet again that a good part of why you all haven't gotten anywhere on these multiple issues can be traced back to your collective tendency to run off like jack rabbits towards each and every possibly relevant issue. You all need to practice chewing on one mouthful at a time; not the entire banquet! - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Prior comments from Pfainuk. -JJ

You miss out the other part - your argument that the fact that you can cite multiple books that detail the violence in some form means that it has to go in, regardless of any other factors (such as the weight that each source gives to those details). I would note that you have not attempted any other evidence-based arguments that I am aware of: the other (so-called) arguments referred to are that these points are "very notable and relevant", simply a "requirement" - or simply that there is no consensus for change.

(For the record, my argument on the other points has always been that Imalbornoz is welcome to dispute the inclusion of other events, but that such argument should be based on the weight provided by reliable sources, and that I reject his contention that the above is evidence of this.) Pfainuk talk 16:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Everyone please pay careful attention; I want this to be a learning opportunity for you all.

I asked Imalbornoz to describe his methodology, so we can all be "on the same page" in regard of what we are talking about. He did not (with the arguable exception of his conclusion) make any argument about the validity of this method. He states the conclusion he draws, but does not argue about its validity or implications. Nowhere does he argue what Pfainuk imputes to him, "that detail the violence in some form means that it has to go in, regardless of any other factors". I remind you all again that "other factors" are not being discussed here. It is possible that we might eventually compare the result of this factor against "other factors", but we are not there yet. At this point in the discussion we are looking at what the methodology is, and the issue at this point is whether Imalbornoz' description is complete and correct. Whether other points in the article have been disputed is not relevant here. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

In that case, no, it isn't complete. There are two closely related methodologies here. They can both be described together in general terms since they both boil down to counting sources (as in my original question). But they differ in detail, and the detail that Imalbornoz provides only applies to one of them. One uses Google Books, the other doesn't. One attempts to establish "relative notability", the other doesn't. You note that he doesn't argue the point I mentioned. This was the point I was making: what he has provided is not a complete description of his methodology. Pfainuk talk 21:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Anticipatory comments by WCM moved from above. -JJ

I'm back but only briefly.

1) The way I work is to read a range of sources, digest them, then compose an edit that tries to reflect the weight of opinion in the literature. The weight given to a topic thus reflects its coverage in the literature. Imalbornoz turns the process on its head, he starts with a pre-conceived notion, looks for sources to support it and then argues weight.

2) The methodology is to conduct what Imalbornoz terms a structured search. He searches in Google Books for a key word, then searches within those book hits for the phrase of interest. So he might search for Gibraltar, then search for San Roque. He might then take the first search and search for a second term, say WW2 and compare the two results. If there was more hits for the first search than the second, he argues the first is given more weight in the literature.

The problems:

a) Confirmation Bias. The searches are structured to provide a result, inevitably the results reflect the structure of the search.

b) Literature coverage. There are more books on the Great Siege and Capture for example, so hit counts don't reflect weight

c) False Positives. Eg the book on the Austrian General, brought up as he carried a medal of St Roche.

d) It is used as a substitute for research, so the search reflects the desired edit not the weight in the literature.

e) Google Snippets. Snippets are like looking through the source down a straw, you can't see the context and the results are misleading. Much of the hit counts reflect snippets which can't be used as a reliable source as there is no context. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Same comment as above: I asked Imalbornoz to describe his methodology. Your anticipatory criticisms are not about the completeness or correctness of this description, but jump ahead to question of its validity. Okay, I am going to assume that no one disputes this description of this methodology; this, or some variant or modification that we may agree on, adequately describes the methodology being discussed here.

Several comments on your criticisms. (You may want to consider and respond to each point individually, and as you have time.)

a) I do not see that "the searches are structured to provide a result" in your sense of confirming a particular position regarding San Roque. If you can show some kind of inherent bias in the search structure please do so. (See following.)

b) Literature coverage. You say there are "more" books. I think what would be relevant here is a list of books not included in the 37 found by Imalbornoz. If you can provide such a list, and we can agree that they have some relevance (even if we do not agree on their proper weight), then we would want to consider 1) why they were missed, and 2) if that lack biases the result.

c) False positives. Here again, please show instances of "false positives" which Imalbornoz did not exclude from the result.

d) Substitute for research. Here I am going to jump in and argue that you may not understand the purpose. It appears to me that this methodology is intended not as research, but as described: an objective method of relative notability. (And please, as I have noted above, we are not examining "other factors", but only this factor.)

e) Google snippets [misleading]. For sure, "snippets" (of anything), out of context, are not suitable as reliable sources. But please note the subtle distinction: these sources are not cited for what they said about San Roque, but whether they said anything at all (or not). Now it could be argued (and has been) that (e.g.) a principal, respected authority mentioning this might warrant more consideration than several minor and less reliable sources that don't (or vice versa), but lets' save that for discussion later on. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow exactly what you mean for all points.

a) The searches are structured, perhaps my comments have been misinterpreted, probably down to being poorly written as I did them in a rush as I had limited time. The results depend on the key words, pick different key words and you get different results. Hence, my comment about Confirmation Bias a different editor would have picked different keyboards and sub-consciously or consciously the results are skewed. This is one of the main reasons I do not consider Bibliometry of relevance.

b) Sure I can provide plenty. Ayala, Hills and Jackson turn up in Imalbornoz search but plenty of major works do not.

Extended content

Dodds, K (December 2004). "Solid as a Rock? Britain and Gibraltar". BBC History: pp 18-21. Bradford, E.(1971), The history of a fortress, Gibraltar, Rupert Hart-Davis Francis, AD. (1975), The First Peninsular War, 1702-1713 Garrat, G.T. Gibraltar and the Mediterranean, 1939 Spilsbury, John. A Journal of the Siege of Gibraltar, 1779-1783. Sayer, F. (1862). The history of Gibraltar and of its political relation to events in Europe. Ancell, S. (1784) A Circumstantial Journal of the long and tedious siege of Gibraltar. Mann, JH. (1873) A History of Gibraltar and its sieges Field, Dr HM (1890) Gibraltar Martin, RM (1887) History of the British Possession in the Mediterranean Drinkwater, Col (1824) A History of the Siege of Gibraltar 1779-1783 Acton, J. (2009) The Constitutional Foundations of Gibraltar; the EU and the Law, Triay & Triay, Gibraltar James, T. (1771) A History of the Herculean Straits.

c) False positives. Bear in mind it has been verified that each of these 37 books specifically mention the exodus.

Extended content

'An introduction to the documents relating to the international status of Gibraltar, 1704-1934' (Wilbur Cortez Abbott) Mentions San Roque once on p.87 relevant to 1780. 'Das Leben und der Briefwechsel des Landgrafen Georg von Hessen-Darmstadt, des Eroberers und Vertheidigers von Gibraltar' (Heinrich Künzel) San Roque isn't mentioned. 'El estrecho de Gibraltar: su función en la geopolítica nacional' (José Diaz de Villegas y Bustamente) Doesn't mention San Roque. 'Espías en Gibraltar' (Enrique Arques) A book about spies in Gibraltar 'Gibraltar y su campo: una economía deprimida' (Juan Velarde Fuertes) A book about the economic impact of Gibraltar on the surrounding Campo de Gibraltar. Gibraltar, identity and empire' (Charles Carrington) Briefly mentions British officers dining in San Roque. 'La Parroquia de Gibraltar en San Roque (documentos 1462-1853)' (Rafael Caldelas López) Is a book about the parish of San Roque 'La población de Gibraltar: sus orígenes, naturaleza y sentido' (Gumersindo Rico) See [20] 'Southern Spain: with Gibraltar, Ceuta & Tangier' (Litellus Russell Muirhead) A tourist guide book

d) I establish due weight with research, Imalbornoz claims this methodology does the same [21]. He may claim above that is not what its used for but that is what he has done.

e) Bear in mind that Imalbornoz has none of the 37 books, he establishes their relevance with Google Snippets. If he had the books we wouldn't be having this discussion would we?

Does that answer your question, I collapsed lists to keep the text compact. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's consider these points individually (bite size!), so we don't get so spread across the landscape. I will be stating what I think Imalbornoz was doing, and I hope he will correct me if necessary. But I would like you all to not be pinging on each other directly, okay? And I think we need to start with the last two points.

e/d: Google snippets ... as substitute for research?

WCM, you have made an issue before that Imalbornoz did not (in general?) read the books found. But it seems to me that you misunderstand the intended purpose. It appears to be not research per se, or a substitute, or as a source for any specific edit, but, as Imalbornoz said, an objective method of determining relative notability. As I said above (at "e"), these sources are not cited for what they said about San Roque (or the other incidents), but whether they said anything at all (or not). You say that you "establish due weight with research". Let's consider that for a moment. (Not so much for itself, but as a possible counter-example of what we are discussing.) In your determination of the due weight to be given some incident (relative to other incidents), how many books have you "researched"? And how did you select which ones to read? (Take however much time you need.) - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Wet blanket for reducing temperature.

I realise what he may have said here but may I point out that isn't how he used it. WP:AGF does not require I divorce myself from reality. May I enquire whether you checked the diff I provided earlier? Quoting from above the purpose of these searches is "an objective measure of relative notability of the exodus to San Roque". Moreover, "37 books about Gibraltar mentioning the exodus to San Roque." If you check that list, a substantial portion do not. The list is in fact cited for an incident not for the general notability of San Roque. It is also the case that Imalbornoz hasn't read the books found or that he uses as sources. The sole source of his edits are 3rd party quotes and google books. And please re-read the above, the search is to establish the notability of the Exodus to San Roque. He claims that he personally verified all 37 books. When you check the claim it comes up short. I also happen to disagree that his method is objective. For example he claims only 5 hits for references to the Jewish population of 1474. A different search turns up 223 hits [22]. BTW I don't claim to have personally verified each and everyone but if you check the first page you'll find at least 10 all focused on this. Similarly different searches turns up 0 hits for the details of the events of 1704 [23] or even [24] (for info the latter uses precisely the same method described above and the details Imalbornoz claims are so notable). I guess you can get whatever result you want really, hence, my comment that Bibliometry is about as much use as Extispicy. How many books have I researched? Well for Gibraltar I've used mainly Hills, Jackson, Andrews and Bradford, backed up by Francis for details of the First Peninsular War. I've read all 5 and made detailed notes from each. For most articles I've ever written I refer to multiple sources, cross-checking facts in each, usually at least 4-5 but on more esoteric topics sometimes 2-3. In addition, I've copies of all the books named above for example. I haven't read all of them but in certain cases used them to verify comments in the secondary sources. How did I select them. Some I have read out of personal interest as history is a great passion of mine. I also went to the library and looked through the catalogue. When I find reference works of merit, I check their Bibliography and get further references that way. Andrews I happened to buy because I tracked down a cheap copy. In addition, my cousin is a second hand books dealer and I get all sorts of references from him. I read prolifically, one of the benefits of insomnia. The important thing for me is to be able to see a topic in context and how it relates to surrounding events. If you are unable to do that, I fail to see how you can establish weight or NPOV. Does that address your question in sufficient detail. Does that answer your question? Wee Curry Monster talk 21:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Everyone back off. (Papa is feeling very cranky.) Look, you guys just keep banging off of each other, you always have to raise the ante, you keep dragging in more points and issues without fully addressing (let alone resolving) any of the current points. My patience is starting to wear thin, so we are going to take a temporary break. Do not forget that you all are subject to an arbitration enforcement, and pursuant to that I am hereby setting a temporary limitation of no comments whatsoever on this discussion. This is to give us all a respite, and for me consider how to best proceed. (One consideration is whether comments should be strictly limited in length.) If you absolutely have to say something send me a private e-mail. But keep in mind that around the third line I'm likely to hit the delete key. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Throwing wet blanket over explosion of text.

a) Bias in structure of searches: you usually want the "proof" of your thesis to be very robust. Therefore, if there is any bias, it has to be in reducing the number of books supporting the proposed thesis: I allowed a count of books supporting the benchmark episodes higher than the episode I proposed to mention. See below. b) A few books supporting my thesis are not mentioned because of what I say in point a): I discarded all the books where I couldn't check any explicit mention of the exodus to San Roque. They may mention it, but a preview of the mention may not be available, so I discarded them. On the other hand, I didn't verify or filter out any of the books that came up in the Googlebooks search of the benchmark episodes. Some conditions affect both the disputed and the benchmark episodes: the sources may not even be in google books, like Dodd's article -which is not a book, but a BBC article or simply no preview may be available at all so they don't come up in the search, like Ernie Bradford's "The history of a fortress, Gibraltar" or they may not have the word "Gibraltar" in the title, like the book about the Jewish Diaspora in WC Monster's example above, or Francis' "The First Peninsular War, 1702-1713" (arguably, this is all right because those books do not guarantee notability regarding the History of Gibraltar; they talk about the Jewish Diaspora and the Peninsular Wars). c) I don't remember every detail of the search, but I do remember I only listed the books with explicit mentions of the exodus (of course I may have committed some mistakes, which would only discredit me, not the methodology). Anyway, I think that WC Monster's review of the searches may be inaccurate when he says that he doesn't find any mention, or that the mention is not about the exodus (see inside the collapsible list): Extended content 'Das Leben und der Briefwechsel des Landgrafen Georg von Hessen-Darmstadt, des Eroberers und Vertheidigers von Gibraltar' (Heinrich Künzel) "San Roque isn't mentioned" (WCM). "It is mentioned in p 415" (Imalbornoz) "die kleine spanische Stadt San Roque wo sich die meisten spanischen wohner Gibraltars nach der Einnahme von 1704 niedergelassen" "the small Spanish town of San Roque, where most Spanish residents settled after the capture of Gibraltar in 1704" 'El estrecho de Gibraltar: su función en la geopolítica nacional' (José Diaz de Villegas y Bustamente) "Doesn't mention San Roque" (WCM). "It mentions San Roque in 8 pages; e.g. 305" (Imalbornoz) "Al arrebatársenos el Peñón, sus pobladores le abandonaron, fijando su residencia en San Roque. Desde entoces se conserva allí, con carácter provisional, el Pendón glorioso de la Muy Noble y Más Leal Ciudad de Gibraltar, (...)" "When the Rock was taken away, its inhabitants abandoned it, taking up residence at San Roque. Since then, there remains, in a provisional basis, the Glorious Banner of the Most Noble and Most Loyal City of Gibraltar, (…)" 'Gibraltar' (Charles Carrington) "Briefly mentions British officers dining in San Roque" (WCM). "It also mentions the exodus to San Roque in page 6" (Imalbornoz). "The bulk of the inhabitants settled at San Roque in the hills overlooking the Bay and there preserved the privileges and the tradition of Spanish Gibraltar." 'La población de Gibraltar: sus orígenes, naturaleza y sentido' (Gumersindo Rico) "See [25]" (WCM). "Indeed, if you look there, there are several references to the exodus to San Roque" (Imalbornoz). 'La Parroquia de Gibraltar en San Roque (documentos 1462-1853)' (Rafael Caldelas López) "Is a book about the parish of San Roque" (WCM) "It is a book about the parish of Gibraltar in San Roque, and talks -among other things- about the transition of the 'spiritual' government (sic) of Gibraltar to San Roque" (Imalbornoz). 'An introduction to the documents relating to the international status of Gibraltar, 1704-1934' (Wilbur Cortez Abbott) "Mentions San Roque once on p.87 relevant to 1780" (WCM). "I think there were other mentions, but I don't seem to find them now" (Imalbornoz) There are other non-history books about Gibraltar that mention the episode. I would think this only adds to the notability of the exodus to San Roque: 'Espías en Gibraltar' (Enrique Arques) A book about spies in Gibraltar 'Gibraltar y su campo: una economía deprimida' (Juan Velarde Fuertes) A book about the economic impact of Gibraltar on the surrounding Campo de Gibraltar. 'Southern Spain: with Gibraltar, Ceuta & Tangier' (Litellus Russell Muirhead) "A tourist guide book" (WCM)... "mentioning the San Roque episode in the part about Gibraltar" (Imalbornoz). d) and e) JJ is right to say that I only wanted to make a count of sources, and check whether the episode was mentioned in them. Therefore, I only needed the context to establish that, not the exact position of the source about the episode. f) (If I may). In my opinion, this "bibliometric" methodology is only useful in cases where the keyword is a given name (for a place, a person, a ship...) because in those cases there is a univocal relation between the episode and the keyword (i.e. you can be sure that the description will always include the keyword the same way). In cases where it is just a narrative description ("churches were desecrated", "women were raped", "homes were looted"...) this is more difficult to apply, because there are way too many ways to mention the episode (e.g. to describe the violence after the capture of Gibraltar, different sources use at least the following words: desecration/profanation/defilement/sacking/destruction, rape/outrage/abuse/mistreatment, looting/sacking/plundering...) Thanks. I hope it's clearer now. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 08:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC) I'm collapsing my comment, waiting for JJ but there is a response below. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC) Extended content No the "methodology" has no credit at all. A) you have your search that only turns up 5 hits, a different search 223 hits. You can clearly have whatever results you desire. B) "this "bibliometric" methodology is only useful in cases", ie when it doesn't give the results you want you ignore it. Either it is a consistent metric or it isn't, you can't choose to present results that contradict your claim. C) And I went through your search in detail see User:Wee Curry Monster/sandpit, if there are any discrepancies between what you did and what I did, then that also further demonstrates that Google Snippets is inherently unreliable. D) False positives for example [26] is clearly a false positive. There are others. Every time I examine your claims about sources I find disrepancies. See below: Extended content 'Das Leben und der Briefwechsel des Landgrafen Georg von Hessen-Darmstadt, des Eroberers und Vertheidigers von Gibraltar' (Heinrich Künzel) "San Roque isn't mentioned" (WCM). "It is mentioned in p 415" (Imalbornoz) "die kleine spanische Stadt San Roque wo sich die meisten spanischen wohner Gibraltars nach der Einnahme von 1704 niedergelassen" "the small Spanish town of San Roque, where most Spanish residents settled after the capture of Gibraltar in 1704" [27] Once on P.347 (a false positive) and the text you claim doesn't appear to exist [28] 'El estrecho de Gibraltar: su función en la geopolítica nacional' (José Diaz de Villegas y Bustamente) "Doesn't mention San Roque" (WCM). "It mentions San Roque in 8 pages; e.g. 305" (Imalbornoz) [29] Nothing of relevance to the Exodus as you claim. "Al arrebatársenos el Peñón, sus pobladores le abandonaron, fijando su residencia en San Roque. Desde entoces se conserva allí, con carácter provisional, el Pendón glorioso de la Muy Noble y Más Leal Ciudad de Gibraltar, (...)" "When the Rock was taken away, its inhabitants abandoned it, taking up residence at San Roque. Since then, there remains, in a provisional basis, the Glorious Banner of the Most Noble and Most Loyal City of Gibraltar, (…)" [30] And again when I look I don't find what you claim. 'Gibraltar' (Charles Carrington) "Briefly mentions British officers dining in San Roque" (WCM). "It also mentions the exodus to San Roque in page 6" (Imalbornoz). "The bulk of the inhabitants settled at San Roque in the hills overlooking the Bay and there preserved the privileges and the tradition of Spanish Gibraltar." [31] Again nothing relevant to the exodus. Despite trying various different searches [32],[33],[34] 'La población de Gibraltar: sus orígenes, naturaleza y sentido' (Gumersindo Rico) "See [35]" (WCM). "Indeed, if you look there, there are several references to the exodus to San Roque" (Imalbornoz). [36] Actually no there does not appear to be any mentions of the exodus. 'La Parroquia de Gibraltar en San Roque (documentos 1462-1853)' (Rafael Caldelas López) "Is a book about the parish of San Roque" (WCM) "It is a book about the parish of Gibraltar in San Roque, and talks -among other things- about the transition of the 'spiritual' government (sic) of Gibraltar to San Roque" (Imalbornoz). [37] Not the exodus as claimed. 'An introduction to the documents relating to the international status of Gibraltar, 1704-1934' (Wilbur Cortez Abbott) "Mentions San Roque once on p.87 relevant to 1780" (WCM). "I think there were other mentions, but I don't seem to find them now" (Imalbornoz) [38] No it doesn't, when you examine the claims they come up short.

Taking another tack

A little longer break than I had planned, but, frankly, I am a little frustrated (and needed the break). I entered this discussion to see if certain changes in behavior (how you all interact) might lead to resolution of the issue. What frustrates me is the difficulty of getting that antecedent change in behavior. (Esp. WCM.) Such glacial progress might be okay if we had "world enough, and time", but I do have other work, and limited time. And my reserve of patience is getting low. If we are to continue (and I am thinking of just closing this discussion), I think some restrictions are necessary. I propose the following:

1. Do not respond to each other. That just fans the fires. Don't do it.
2. Respond only when queried, either where "network control" (or moderator, that would be me; I'm following how certain radio networks operate) queries you directly, or queries everyone.
3. Observe strict limit on length of responses/comments, either a default of 80 words, or as specified. "Strict", because I also propose to enforce this by deletion of responses in violation.
4. Respond strictly to query, unless invited otherwise. Don't jump off elsewhere.

Everyone okay with this? Just for practice, let's limit response to 20 words. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• No, I have lost confidence in your objectivity. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
• Yes. Please do not lose your patience, we need as much external opinion as possible (20 words up to here ;-)). -- Imalbornoz (talk) 10:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

WCM probably has in mind a comment I made privately that Imalbornoz "may be on to something", however imperfectly. This really has no bearing on the proposed restrictions; I take it to apply to the whole discussion.

Pfainuk, how are you with these proposed restrictions? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 17:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

No WCM took offence at being singled out in your comment above to be truthful. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

This is the WP:NPOVN, its supposed to be for gaining external opinion on NPOV matters and that is all.

  Indeed, this noticeboard is intended for the asking of questions. But as you illustrate below (and I will comment on later), you are not asking a question. You are advocating a position on which you are already fixed. The question in this section has been trying to formulate the conditions in which we might productively address the questions originally raised by Pfainuk. At this point I think this is futile. See below. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm quite prepared to listen if you're saying that I'm wrong and will listen to your explanation as to why. But you have done none of that, instead you focus on asserting that I have a closed mind. Please do not deter outside comment or other opinions, which is what you're now doing. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

  You have shown in your own words that your mind is already decided. As to deterring you from further comment on this topic: that is the ban from Arbitration. This discussion was exempted at my specific request; I now terminate the exemption, and continued comments are in violation. I hope you will heed that, but suit yourself. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I am quite prepared to listen to a logical argument and change my opinion if I'm persuaded of its merit. However, I have seen none and continuing to assert my mind is closed is hardly persuasive. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Simple matter, simple question

How about a straight answer to a straight question, ie can Bibliometry establish due weight and notability objectively?

collapse my personal opinion, give me yours

The essay WP:Google searches and numbers suggests not One of the biggest fallacies in determining notability of a subject is the results of a Google search using the title or keywords of an article or subject, essentially known as a "Google test." Instead of a Google search, can structured searches in Google Books establish due weight and notability? Could this be the basis of an objective means of establishing notability? In my personal opinion, Bibliometry cannot form the basis of establishing WP:DUE, for the simple reason it is fundamentally vulnerable to Confirmation Bias. In an example above, an editor attempts to measure the weight sources attach to a group of Jewish settlers from Cordoba moving to Gibraltar in 1474 (keywords "Cordoba" and "1474"). This produces 1 hits [39]. My search (Keywords Jews, Gibraltar, 1474) produces 211 hits [40]. On this basis I reject bibliometry as I see it as fundamentally flawed it can be manipulated either consciously or sub-consciously to produce any desired result. Another editor has suggested I'm simply criticising the method and not discussing how the flaws/imperfections might be fixed. I counter that it is so fundamentally flawed there is no fix. So the focused question I would like community input on: Is Bibliometry an acceptable means of establishing WP:DUE in an objective fashion?

Wee Curry Monster talk 11:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

  Would "yes" be a satisfactorily simple answer? How about we go with that?

  This is the same question you raised below below, and as I said there: every time I have tried to get you to focus on a single question that might be simple enough for a simple answer you revert to a mode of complaining that other questions are being ignored. In other words, you want a "simple" answer for a broad issue, with far-reaching consequences ("we can just forget about" NPOV and various fundamental policies). Sorry, but for all the ground you want to cover there are no simple answers. Though it would be simple enough if you would "simply" accept "yes".

  There is another issue here, where you are ostensibly asking a question (inviting opinions?), but in fact you have already settled on a position: "In my personal opinion, Bibliometry cannot form the basis of establishing WP:DUE, ...." Your "question" is only so in form; it appears you are really wrangling for a negative answer. Your repeated attempts to raise this issue (of "Bibliometry", but at the bottom how it affects the issue of San Roque) is tiresome, even tendentious. If you truly want a simple answer, take "yes" (because that has the fewest onerous consequences), and be done. Otherwise: sorry, there is no simple answer for the broad, and loaded, question that you ask. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

It is a simple matter. I suggest Bibliometry has no role to play in establishing WP:DUE, as you can achieve any result you like.

Example above 1 hit vs 211 hit, simply by varying the search terms. Please stop raising irrelevant matters that I never actually raised. If I'm wrong, address my comment and show me where I'm wrong.

For the record my actual complaint:

a) Imalbornoz asserts here that he uses this as a guide to notability not as an argument for notability. This is untrue. He uses this to argue WP:DUE (evidence diff [41]), or to assert other editors are giving undue weight to less relevant material (evidence diff [42]). It is used to close down discussion not to facilitate it. Its use is destructive and disruptive. I point this out, you don't wish to discuss it.

b) When Bibliometry supports the argument, it is the best thing since sliced bread. When it contradicts it, its ignored. This is whether it is exactly the same method Imalbornoz uses or an alternative. Again this is not a point considered worthy of discussion.

You say I raise multiple issues, that may have something to do with the fact that there is so many things wrong with it. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Closed

Having given this a good try, but seeing no end to it, I am declaring this discussion closed. The "Gibraltar" editors involved here are reminded they are subject to an arbitration enforcement, for which an exception was obtained for this discussion; any further comments here would be in violation. Note also that "bibliometry", as used here, concerns San Roque, and is therefore under the ban. Thank you for your patience in coming this far; perhaps we can go further at some future date. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

No this has nothing to do with San Roque (not an issue I ever raised here), if you no longer wish to discuss I would ask you not to deter others. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

  I am not asking you to desist, I am reminding you that Arbitration has subjected you to a ban. Though I would suggest that you heed that. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Outside opinion on the issue of Bibliometry in establishing WP:DUE would be very welcome indeed. (Again this is the issue, not San Roque nor Gibraltar nor the 2nd gunman on the grassy knoll - for which I have the alibi of not being born at the time). Wee Curry Monster talk 23:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

  WCM, please do not remove or collapse the "Closed" section header. This is not an "argument among involved parties", it is my withdrawal of the exemption by which you (and the other Gibraltar editors) were permitted this discussion under the sanctions imposed by WP:AE.

  I remind you that I am the "outside opinion" that you got, which apparently you have not found welcome. If anyone else wishes to discuss this with you I suggest you start a new discussion. This one needs to be put out of its misery. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Pov entrenchment at Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories

Resolved

 – No POV issue with editors here, just some disagreement over the POV of mainstream sources. Which is not something Wikipedia can fix. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I have edited many controversial articles and BLPs but this is the most difficult in terms of entrenched pov bias (the pov being that this matter's "truth"(that Obama was born in Hawaii) is obvious and must be reflected in the article's title, section titles and general content). This is also the first such article where consensus seems unwaverable for retaining the pov in the title,section titles and content

There are 3 npov issues that I think need addressing;

• 1: Respect for the pov tag. Three different Editors have attempted to place a pov tag on the article 5 different times in the past 12 hours only to have the tag summarily removed. [43][44][45]
• 2: The section title "Release of the birth certificate" is misleading in its povishness and incorrect terminology, yet again, multiple efforts by multiple Editors to correct the title have been quickly reverted. Its really a matter of a single, albeit important, word distinction. The image, and what was released, is a short form,computer generatedcertification; yet the section title keeps getting reverted to misapply the term for the more detailed long form "certificate", which applies to something quite different in the State of Hawaii as shown here:

from the article; source #35[46]"Birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth and Certifications of Live Birth) and Certificates of Hawaiian Birth are the primary documents used to determine native Hawaiian qualification.The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands accepts both Certificates of Live Birth (original birth certificate) and Certifications of Live Birth because they are official government records documenting an individual’s birth. The Certificate of Live Birth generally has more information which is useful for genealogical purposes as compared to the Certification of Live Birth which is a computer-generated printout that provides specific details of a person’s birth. Although original birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth) are preferred for their greater detail, the State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth."

• 3:The article title is inherently pov as our own article on conspiracy theories states the term, "conspiracy theory", is perjorative. Also, it is even more pov because it does not apply as WP:COMMONNAME nor with any sense of logic (who are the alleged conspirators). I am attempting a move to substitute controversy for conspiracy theories but the comments thus far generally and openly display the entrenched close minded pov I am referring to. There are a couple of other Editors trying to pry open the discussion and insert some NPOV into the article but we have been overwhelmed in that regard.

Here are the links o the talk page discussions.

[47][48] Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 13:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

arbitrary break number 1 (responses)

I agree entirely. It's impossible to edit objectively there. There is a group of POV folks there who simply won't allow anything that attempts to neutralize the POV. They take the position that the opposing POV is a fraud and must be identified as such. Any neutral phrasing of any contrary information is immediately reverted (usually on the ground that it was discussed long ago and an agreement reached).

The underlying issue isn't inherently a "conspiracy theory" (as defined in WP) but the entrenched majority insists that it be called such - so that it sounds more dismissive (with no rationale... just that it's the consensus).

I've never seen an article that it more appropriate for NPOV intervention. John2510 (talk) 14:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Wait - Do you acknowledge that claims that Obama isn't a natural born US citizen is a WP:FRINGE theory? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

It's impossible not to notice that you started a request for comment on the talk page yesterday and today the count of heads stands at 12 to 1 against you, or perhaps 14 to 3 if you count comments. The issue is obviously one of very strong consensus. Only when the strong consensus is against one does one ever characterize it as entrenched. Admit that you are in the minority and move on. Binksternet (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Editors should be aware of Wikipedia:General sanctions/Obama article probation. Maybe we need to notify some editors about this. Dougweller (talk) 14:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Notified the OP, others may need to be notified but as the OP has been told by another editor they are getting close to edit warring there is a particular need for the OP to be clear about the probation. Dougweller (talk) 15:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Assuming the OP is acting in good faith and is simply unaware of the history of the matter, but this board is not an appropriate place to deal with this kind of thing. The OP needs to realize that when a bunch of experienced editors advise them not to add POV tags accusing Wikipedia of "liberal bias" for failure to give due credence to false conspiracy claims about the US president, they ought to listen and try to understand the situation instead of jumping to a knee-jerk conclusion that everyone but them is acting in bad faith. The article and subject are a sock / troll magnet as it is, and edit warring to insert POV tags because you don't agree with long term consensus on the article is not going to help. I'll probably avoid participating here b/c as I said it's not the right place, but allowing POV tags to stay up on articles like this has been consistently rejected, and encourages tendentiousness rather than resolution. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, the OP has made what's sometimes called a "perennial proposal" that has the effect of drawing a false distinction between the birth certificate Obama released and a "real" (but nonexistent) form of birth certificate that some conspiracy theorists claim he's hiding. It also attempts to recast the fringe claims as a "controversy" rather than a conspiracy theory. As a content matter both are contradicted by the sources, and have been rejected by a long term consensus of many editors. The Obama articles in particular, and other high traffic articles that are the matter of partisan politics, have seen a lot of "drive by tagging" by disgruntled editors (in many cases, persistent socks and trolls, hence some sensitivity and refusal to be dragged through repeated bureaucratic process on the matter). Language on the tag saying it shouldn't be removed doesn't make it so. The editors have reasonably decided not to allow tags denigrating the article and its editors from those unhappy because consensus runs against them. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I assume I am the OP. I don't think I ever accused anyone of "liberal bias" and challenge Wikidemon to show that diff. I think Wikipedia is an organic and growing entity wherein perennial proposals,especially with the new Arizona legislation and Trump's involvement, are not a reason for dismissal, and the statement, as if it is fact, that a "real" form of birth certificate (which I believe in this case would be the original long form Certificate of Live Birth), is nonexistent is not supported by any of the Reliable Sources that I have read, some of which state that Hawaiian officials have seen such a document. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 20:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The digital short form is today's official version of the long form and is sufficient in Hawaii to establish birth. That makes it a "real" birth certification even though it is demonstrably not a birth certificate of the old long form. Binksternet (talk) 20:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with all of Mr.Grantevans2 claims above, but he is certainly right that there are some WP:OWNERSHIP / entrenched POV issues with this article. A few editors reject every substantive change, citing "long-term consensus", regardless of how many potential editors might come along and disagree. I made what I thought to be a couple pretty reasonable suggestions (as you can see on the talk page), and they were either ignored or rejected immediately. On the requested move, my first comment on the matter included the statement "I understand the desire to not legitimize the topic in the title, but conspiracy theory doesn't really fit", and yet I was dismissed without much thought. Never a "hmmm, yeah, maybe we can come up with somebody better than conspiracy theories that we all agree on". –CWenger (^ • @) 17:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

arbitrary break number 2 (redirect ?)

The entire article should be deleted as a WP:BLP violation and redirect to his bio article. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• Agreed. It's a serious POV fork. The subject is already covered elsewhere and given more than the weight it deserves, which is about 2 sentences. The OP's complaint that Obama's Hawaiian birth is merely a "POV" is disingenuous. He (as well as the other "birthers") are essentially labeling Hawaii's record keepers as liars. That's a BLP violation in wikipedia, and theoretically libelous in the real world if anyone cared to dignify it enough to take action on it. And in fact it's a conspiracy theory... and it's a fact that conspiracy theorists don't like being labeled conspiracy theorists. Nothing new about that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

  I am not a Birther (I just read the definition). I am not a proponent of any theory about Obama's birth and have no opinion about it at all. I actually like Obama. The pov I am referring to is semi-hysterical and name calling reactions to attempts to improve the article, not to mention rapid reverts of tags and content. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 20:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Much of tha "hysteria" is a function of exasperation, due to the birther POV-pushing over the last 2 1/2 years. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
    • If that is the case maybe they should take a wikibreak. –CWenger (^ • @) 23:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
      • I'm sure the lunatic fringe is hoping for that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. It seems necessary to emphasize that the "birther" POV is (as AQFK noted above) WP:FRINGE in terms of facts or truth. But the "birther" phenomena seems real enough, and just as we have articles about flat earth, Moon landing conspiracy theories, etc., an article about the birther theory(?) seems acceptable, and even desireable. But NPOV and WP:WEIGHT would require recognizing and reflecting that it is a fringe view. (Although that probably requires addressing why half (?) of the Republican party can't be wrong.) At any rate, such an article cannot be allowed as a WP:SOAPBOX for championing a fringe POV. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• A redirect could point here. But I'm not convinced that a redirect would be the best way to go. The issue is pretty big, and no other article is devoted exclusively to it. A better approach might be to try and make it NPOV. Some liberal Democrats, such as Chris Matthews, have urged release of the document. But the editors at this article refuse to mention such things, and prefer to suggest instead that there is nothing more to release, that only nutty fringe Republicans seek release, et cetera. Also, as you can see from the potential redirect location that I just suggested, the eligibility issue also involves something unrelated to conspiracies: whether your father has to be a US citizen to qualify you as "natural born" under the original meaning of the Constitution as written in 1787 (I personally think the answer is "no"). My point is that this article is trying to deliberately slime anyone and everyone who has eligibility concerns or who seeks release of documentation, as fringe right-wing conspiracy theorists. There are fringe right-wing conspiracy theorists here, but that's only part of the story..Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

arbitrary break number 3 (comparison with George W. Bush)

• I wonder if editors have the same feelings about George W. Bush military service controversy, i.e. it's a BLP violation and POV fork? –CWenger (^ • @) 20:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by "editors"? There are thousands of editors; I would be stunned if at least some of them didn't think so. Presumably you mean the very specific editors who offered that opinion above.

I'm an editor who doesn't happen to think either article is a BLP violation or a POV fork. They both are about issues that have been covered extensively in the press, thus there are tons of reliable sources, so I don't see how any sourced statement would be a BLP violation.

Clearly, if the article said "Hawaii's record keepers are liars", that would be a BLP violation, but it does not.--NapoliRoma (talk) 23:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Specifically, the editors above that said they think the Obama article is a BLP violation or POV fork. –CWenger (^ • @) 23:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. There is no BLP issue here and it's not an improper fork since it's only tangentially about Obama, and much more about birtherism, IOW about the conspiracy theories of Obama's enemies. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe if it was called "George Bush miltary service conspiracy theory" we'd have some parity in balancing POV. Your example actually proves well the point some of us are trying to make.John2510 (talk) 03:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

arbitrary break number 4 (Living Persons and Reliable Sources)

The only "POV entrenchment" I see on that article is the desire to actually follow Wikipedia policies. People who think it is pushing a POV to not give equal validity to the birthers' fringe views just do not get how encyclopedias work in general. DreamGuy (talk) 00:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think any of the proposed changes would give equal validity to birthers. –CWenger (^ • @) 00:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Certainly several of the comments in this section encourage actions that would have that end result. DreamGuy (talk) 05:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I note that several editors have mentioned that the article is a BLP violation. I would suggest that they haven't a clue what that means. They should reread the WP:BLP policy. Any information, even the most offensive, is not a BLP violation IF PROPERLY SOURCED. There may be other arguments against using such information, but BLP isn't one of them. It must not only be properly sourced, but framed correctly. If framed as a notable opinion, it's still okay. BLP should not be used as an argument for censorship and whitewashing. We're already seeing plenty of that on all the articles related to the Koch brothers, where even articles by notable prize winning journalists published in RS like the LA Times aren't being allowed by certain entrenched tag teaming editors, in violation of NPOV. They too claim anything negative is a BLP violation, so those articles are hagiographies. That mustn't happen here.

As to redirecting, that's not appropriate because this isn't an improper fork. It's more about birtherism (IOW Obama's enemies) than about Obama, and a tweak of the title might be in order for that reason (not sure to what though ). Per FRINGE the phenomena deserves short mention in the Obama article, but that's all. The article deserves its own life as documentation of a very notable political phenomena, just like other ridiculous beliefs that are also documented in RS. It's notable enough that some statistics show that over half of the Republican membership are fooled by it. We can't ignore something that notable. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The BLP violations, aside from those aimed at Obama, are also the ones aimed at the Hawaiian officials. Those officials have stated that a proper BC exists. The birthers are calling them liars. Wikipedia does not need to be in the position of aiding and abetting BLP violations. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Any "unsourced or poorly sourced" addition of such opinions would be a BLP violation. Any "properly sourced" addition that was framed as if it was true would also be a violation of FRINGE and UNDUE. The difference between fact and fiction should be made plain, and there are myriad extremely reliable sources that do so. The fringe POV pushing editors don't understand our policies and one seems to think that just because Trump is pushing the issue gives it more credence. That's a hoot! If anything, that only.....nah, better not say it here.... ! As always, if we stick to RS, we're safe. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

So, using the process of elimination, it seems as if BullRangifertalk is saying that properly sourced additions which are framed simply as having been reported (as opposed to being "true") would be acceptable? The Trump view adds notability to the "questioning" group because he is polling #2 in the Republican party and #1 in the Tea Party. In terms of credibility of the person referenced, I don't think that's for us to deal with as it is another word for path towards "truth" discovery. Its the credibility of the Reliable Source which I think is more important to us? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

In principle and in practice that is often the case. It isn't Wikipedia's job to determine truth. Editors aren't allowed that freedom, because that would violate NPOV by editors taking sides in their edits. They are welcome to have personal opinions, but that mustn't cause them to engage in censorship or whitewashing, either by inclusion or exclusion of RS. We document what RS say, even if the opinion might not be true. We have whole articles devoted to documenting nonsense, such as the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories article. It documents numerous false and libelous statements, but they are properly sourced and the fact they are false is made clear by using other RS. That's how to frame things properly.

One of our most important policies is the WP:Verifiability policy, and it is very clear there that we are concerned with "verifiability, not truth". That doesn't mean we don't care about truth, or don't consider it, but that when we discover something isn't true, we frame it properly by making sure it isn't allowed to stand alone and deceive readers. It's not allowed to stand alone, as that would violate WP:Undue. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• Its clear that there are at least 4 groups covered by Reliable Sources involved in this subject matter. The Birthers who are proponents of the view that Obama was not born in the USA, the "fightthesmears" group itentified in the article who say Obama was clearly born in the USA and the topic is not open for discussion, the agnostic but questioning group, which Donald Trump seems to belong to if one actually listens to his inteview [49]backup[50] on the Today Show, which want more information. And the fourth group, like myself, who don't have an opinion and don't really care whether he was born in the USA or not. Virtually all of the discussion on the article talk page by the more experienced Editors of this article ignores the possibility that Editors may belong to either the 3rd. or 4th.groups and thereby forces on the discussion page a false dichotomy which by the nature of dichotomy leads to non-constructive stalemate and/or bickering.
• And I do not understand why experienced editors would actively edit and vote on articles covering subject matter which they are highly opinionated about? To me it seems to be a direct hindrance to the whole effort of creating NPOV content in Wikipedia. Baseball Bugs comments above about "lunatic fringe" is the kind of opinions I am talking about as well as his assumption that I am a "Birther". If the "probation" designation means anything, it is exactly that type of commenting, if any, which I think should call for sanctions; although I personally am philosophically opposed to these types of article editing differentiations. (except for semi-protect). I personally have the opinion that any support for non-universal health care in any civilized society in 2011 would be coming from a "lunatic fringe" group. So I do not edit articles related to health care. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

That's odd. There's a discussion on the article talk page about this proposal, where it belongs but is opposed by fairly overwhelming consensus, and as I said I do not wish to participate in a process fork here or yet another blustering attempt to accuse editors of bad faith for being resistant to bad / biased birther content about Obama. True, four (or so) positions are reliably sourced, and it is also reliably sourced that one of them is correct, namely that Obama was born in the United States and is a US citizen, eligible for the presidency. Not caring and not being convinced about the accuracy of fringe theories and political smears to the contrary is not an unbiased opinion, it's giving a fringe theory credibility, and neutrality of the encyclopedia does not require that the encyclopedia sit on the fence as to the accuracy of every untruth that gains currency in every corner of the world. Please don't start calling for sanctions against editors you disagree with - we have some memory of that kind of battleground mentality in the articles, one of the reasons for article probation, and it does not make for constructive editing environment. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The entrenched majority at the subject page continue (there and here) to confuse: 1) giving an unbiased description and analysis of the birther position; with 2) giving validty to the position. Mocking it, as opposed to describing it, is not encyclopedic. Cubby-holing it as a "conspiracy theory," etc. contributes nothing to the reader's understanding of the subject. I haven't edited there in a while. I figure it's so blatantly POV that it stands as a monument to the POV reality of Wikipedia when it comes to political subjects. John2510 (talk) 16:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

BTW... I observe that the WP articles on Yeti and Bigfoot are given a much more NPOV than is the subject article. Perhaps the editors find them less threatening... John2510 (talk) 16:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe because almost no one really takes them seriously. The birthers are Grade-A "conspiracy theorists". There is no getting around that. When confronted with statements by Hawaiian public officials, they say it's a lie. If they were shown the actual birth certificate, they would say it was a lie, a fake. The true conspiracy theorist never accepts the facts. It is not wikipedia's place to cater to those looneys. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

John2510: Your point is well-taken. And I agree that it's not encyclopedic to mock a fringe theory (as tempting as it may be). However, I read through the first third of the article (I got bored by the time I got to Campaigners and proponents and quit reading - sorry!) and the article seemed fairly well-balanced all things considered. I thought some of it was a bit redundant so I made a few minor fixes only one of which was reverted and is now being discussed on the article talk page per WP:BRD. What specific part(s) do you think descend into mocking? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs mocks things on talk pages. I think he's just acting in character. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It's like deja vu, as a few years back we had the exact same thing going on at the Apollo hoax page. And it's the same style of fanaticism. It is the conspiracists who are "entrenched", as they will never abandon their viewpoint regardless of any facts presented. They are like the "flat earthers" that way. That's why I call them "looneys"... on talk pages, as you note. I don't edit-war over this nonsense. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you should try refraining from using terminology like "looneys". If I'm able to do it at 9/11 Conspiracy theories, so can you. :) 17:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Or "moon-bats" as they were called at the Apollo hoax page. Predictably, when the recent lunar orbiter transmitted photos that showed the moon landing sites from straight above, the moon-bats said they were fake. Surprise, surprise. And if you were to take the leading "birther", whoever that might be, directly into the state archives and show him the Obama BC, he would declare it a fake. Guarantee ya. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like the article may have been cleaned up a little since I was last there. The term "conspiracy theory" is unduly loaded, dismissive and inherently mocking. I note the article gratuitously uses the term numerous times within the first few paragraphs. As I've argued on the article's talk page, theories about his citizenship (none of which, BTW, I believe) don't necessary involve a "conspiracy" and certainly don't meet the WP definition of a "conspiracy theory" - in that they don't require, "...conspirators of almost superhuman power and cunning." I'm told the use of that term doesn't need to be consistent. I disagree. Simply calling them "theories" and describing the arguments pro and con would allow the reader to draw his own conclusions - which one would assume are that the theories are invalid. If they really are absurd, the appropriate treatment would seem to be to treat the arguments with all due care and deference, and then explain briefly why they are almost certainly false. I note also that the article has grown to a ridiculous size and is poorly structured. John2510 (talk) 18:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

To call them just "theories" without the "conspiracy" qualifier would be misleading. It would give undue weight. If you prefer "fringe theories", maybe. But they are not proper "theories". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Calling something a "theory" or a "claim" doesn't give it any weight - due or otherwise. That's the point. There's nothing good to be gained by slapping on a POV qualifier in front of the label. John2510 (talk) 18:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

IMHO, a reasonable compromise to achieve NPOV in the article as a whole would be to drop the "consipiracy" label, reference them as "fringe" theories in the opening paragraph, and then go on to address the arguments on both sides in as fair a manner as possible. The reader will presumably conclude that the theories are invalid and somewhat kooky... but he'll do that without WP ramming it down his throat. I seem to recall the article used to call them "false claims," which was even worse from an NPOV perspective than the current version. John2510 (talk) 18:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I've always believed in following the sources. If reliable sources call it a "conspiracy theory", then it's proper for Wikipedia to do so as well. OTOH, I have sometimes noticed a tendency towards always inserting the word "conspiracy" before every single mention of the word "theories" which can sometimes become repetitive. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

arbitrary break number 5 (outside opinions of fringiness)

These claims are baseless. The facts are, reliable sources describe the Birther claims as "conspiracy theories"(these just in the last week or two). It is not POV to describe them as such, and there are a plethora of reliable sources that describe them both as conspiracy theories and fringe views. In fact, the claims by the OP and a couple others here that wish to give "equal weight" to fringe views is the real problem. Both by Wikipedia guidelines and reliable sourced reality. I was reading but ignoring this thread, hoping an uninvolved Admin would just close it and the requested move down, because we have to go through these hoops and ladders in what seems like every other month or so. Many times with the same editors chiming in to declare the article POV. Perhaps we need a more detailed FAQ for the page, these claims are made way too often. Dave Dial (talk) 19:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that a detailed FAQ would be helpful. In the RfC, several editors mentioned past arguments but an uninvolved editor will have no idea what those arguments were. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no 'POV Entrenchment', the is a WP:Fringe theory that is not accepted as mainstream consensus and will never be without better evidence to the contrary. It may be a pain to go back in the archives and discover all of this, but that doesn't change this fact. SeanNovack (talk) 19:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

And how many articles describe the theories without using that judgmental label? The fact that some articles choose to make judgment calls doesn't mean WP must or should. A lot of reliable sources say that the New York Yankees are the greateast baseball team ever. Maybe they are, but I don't think WP needs to take a stand on that. As I said, WP seems reasonably objective on the Yeti and Bigfoot. I think it can let the reader draw his own conclusions here. WP tries to set a particularly high standard for objectivity, and there's simply no reason to make an exception here. Some people use FAQ's to intimidate editors and inappropriately suggest that an issue is closed to discussion. What new information would you see being added to "a more detailed FAQ?" John2510 (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The "birthers" are indeed the entrenched POV-pushers. If evidence emerged that Obama was not in fact a natural born citizen, it would be accepted by the mainstrem. So far, no such evidence has emerged. And in the opposite case, if new and further-solid evidence were provided that should satisfy most doubters, the true "birthers" will continue to claim that it's a lie, just as the Apollo moon hoax believers and the flat earth believers do. It is not wikipedia's purpose to aid and abet their crusade. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

John, the bottom line is that we have to follow the sources. If they are calling this a conspiracy theory, then it's against NPOV to call it something else. We don't introduce bias to counter the bias of reliable sources. To answer your question about what I would like to see in the FAQ, in the RfC, several editors mentioned past arguments but an uninvolved editor will have no idea what those arguments were. I'd like to see a good paragraph or two explanation summarizing these past discussions. Can FAQs be misused to stifle debate? Sure. But we're supposed to assume good faith. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Quest, maybe I did it wrong but it looks like "Obama+birth+certificate+controversy" pulls up 973,000 while "Obama+birth+certificate+conspiracy+theory" pulls up 391,000.[51][52] Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 21:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Great minds must think alike, I just did a google hit count for the article talk page, and got 6.8 million hits for "Obama + citizenship". Probably "eligibility" is the most general concept, but not the most used term. The birth certificate is a part of it, but not the whole issue. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

US Google, no sets of terms in quotes unless noted:

• Obama citizenship controversy: 1,960,000
• Obama citizenship conspiracy: 2,110,000
• birther: 3,100,000
• birther controversy: 404,000
• birther conspiracy: 477,000
• "where's the birth certificate" controversy: 297,000
• "where's the birth certificate" conspiracy: 230,000

--NapoliRoma (talk) 23:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Mr.Grantevans2: This is the type of argument that would impress me. However, the problem with Google hits is that it returns web sites that don't qualify as reliable sources. When you limit it to sources which are reliable, I get:

• Obama birth certificate controversy - 383 hits[53]
• Obama birth certificate conspiracy theory - 217 hits[54]

Another metric I like to use is the Google News Archive Search.

• Obama birth certificate controversy - 551 hits[55]
• Obama birth certificate conspiracy theory - 519 hits[56]

NapoliRoma: There's a flaw in your first search string. "Obama citizenship controversy" returns hits on other topics such the controversy over the citizenship of illegal immigrants. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Plus, many of the results from the "Birth certificate controversy" hits are from non-reliable sources concerning this issue. Two of the top hits are from DavidDuke.com and WND. Google News is the search that should matter most, and the results speak for themselves.

• Obama "conspiracy theories" 490 recent results
• Obama "citizenship controversy" 0 recent results
• Obama "conspiracy theories" 3,390 Archive results
• Obama "citizenship controversy" 7 Archive results Dave Dial (talk) 00:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The Google counts vary from minute to minute, but using the above as a model I tested another choice:

• birther 2,216 recent results (2,222 on a rerun)
• birther 3,140 Archive results

Unlike "conspiracy theory", these would not include hits based on religion conspiracy theories, and are less likely to be inflated by hits to the Wikipedia article or its clones and mirrors. It's also more concise, already deemed widespread enough to be a redirect to the present article, and arguably no more POV or deprecatory than the current title. Fat&Happy (talk) 18:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow... This really cuts to the core of WP objectivity and standing behind NPOV. Who officially defines "reliable sources" in your search engine? Sources generally don't support the current POV of the article. We're apparently now getting into weighing "reliability" or, as you would have it, deferring to an oracle of reliablity. Does WP want to trust that source? Doesn't it make more sense to have a free exchange of ideas and let the listener decide? I guess that's a uniquely American and obsolete approach I have. John2510 (talk) 02:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Search engines are a tool but used this way all they can do is show notability and NOT "reliability". There are "tags" you can use to eliminate the garbage. For instance in the books section of google you can use "inpublisher" to limit the search to only know reliable publishers. THis is what is needed to sort the wheat form the schaff--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Received opinion is that Obama was born inside the United States. Deviant opinions should not be presented as if they had parity. TFD (talk) 19:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

John2510 seems to not understand about WP:WEIGHT, especially in regard to fringe theories, and that WP is not a WP:SOAPBOX for the trumpeting of little discredited views. It is a disservice to the readers (listeners) if unequal views are given "equal" status. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

John2510 has received several warnings and advice on his talk page about these matters, and was also informed that the article is under probation, so he's not ignorant about this. If he doesn't change his approach here, then the probationary sanctions may need to be enforced with a topic ban. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Brangifer (talk), with respect, I don't see where John2510 has really done anything wrong here nor has he been as assumptive,ad hominem and combative as Baseball Bugs or Wikidemon,imo, (but I don't think either of them have done anything here to warrant sanctions either); since you bring this sanction matter up, could you please clarify specifically why you think John's approach is more worth mentioning here than Baseball's, for example? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 01:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

That's utterly unwelcome and uncalled for, Mr.Grantevans2. Please desist from broadside attacks on other editors here. We've had a lot of trouble on these articles, and as someone new to this it would be better to jump in on the side of improving the encyclopedia instead of championing the troublemakers. Take a step back, and try to comment on the substance of the conversation or the content of the encyclopedia. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

ok; plus, the more I looked at this, the more I have come to the view that the pov pushing is emanating almost entirely, if not entirely, from the RSs rather than from the Editors. If so, this might negate the existance of a NPOV issue altogether. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 02:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

No reliable source can possibly claim that Obama was born anywhere besides Hawaii. They can, of course, report what the "birthers" are saying. Consider this,[57] from USAToday.com yesterday, which discusses the birther junk and also points out that the full BC that the birthers keep yelping about is confidential and cannot be seen by anyone who's not authorized, not even the person whose BC it is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Nobody can say for sure what RSs are going to claim in the future. I just read the USA article and it just raises more skepticism of the claims being made by Reliable Sources. The main one being that the President himself can not get a copy of his original Certificate of Live Birth; USA Today includes this about the original long form certificate which Hawaii has; "But those documents are state government property that can’t be released to anyone, even the president himself." Most everyone knows that is utter bullshit. The President could do it by executive order, or, much more likely, by picking up the phone and calling the Governor. Then as a source they have a former health director who says, in part; “It should not be an issue, and I think people need to focus on the other bad things going on in our country and in our state and figure out what we’re going to do about those things.” as if the citizens care about the political views of a former state employee. Then, why is the grandparents' address used? Didn't Obama's parents have their own place? Then there is the misleading statement; ... “certification of live birth” released by the Obama campaign three years ago, the only type of birth certificate the state issues". which seems misleading by intent (by leaving out the word "currently" and giving the impression to some Readers that there exists no other type). Then I now see from our BLP on his mother that she appeared in Washington state with Obama when he was 1 month old and did not return to Hawaii for over a year. Anyone who has had a baby knows its unusual to be relocating and travelling that distance within a month of giving birth. All of this is to show why I disagree with Baseball about his view that no reliable source can possibly claim (in the future)that Obama was born anywhere besides Hawaii. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 13:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

My goodness. I think you should just stay away from conspiracy theory articles. There is a conspiracy in every corner for you, and that can't lead to reasonable editing of those types of articles. Dave Dial (talk) 14:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I just know when something is utter bullshit, and for USA Today to say, or give the impression, that the President of the United States can not get a copy of his own original long form Birth Certificate (which currently exists within Hawaii State records) is insulting the intelligence of every one of us, imo. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

So, I don't know or have an opinion whether there is any conspiracy at all regarding this matter; but I do think that its not unreasonable for Trump and others to be asking questions and that it is incompetent and/or biased the way those questions are being dealt with by main stream media. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Lawrence David Kusch said in the NOVA program "The Case of the Bermuda Triangle" that all that is needed for something to get into the mass public mind is to ask the question. Let's face it as far as Occam's razor goes, there is no more credibility to the Obama is not a US citizen claim then where was for Kusch's examples of Rhett Butler living in Ohio somewhere or aliens kidnapping a parrot to teach them human language.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

No reliable source right now can be claiming that Obama was born anywhere in Hawaii, because the only credible evidence says that he was born there. And by what magical authority do you imagine that Obama can override the state laws of Hawaii? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Baseball, you may be correct about "right now".Also, I have concluded that I made an error in judgment by thinking that the article's Editors are being substantially non-neutral in their editing of the article. I don't believe that anymore...if I may borrow an old phrase,bastardize it, and address it to myself : It's not the Editors, "it's the Reliable Sources, Stupid!" Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 01:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, what I'm saying is that if a source seriously believes the birther stuff, then that source is not reliable. Reporting the phenomenon is a different matter. Obviously, plenty of legitimate sources are reporting the fact that there is such a group as "birthers". Like legitimate sources that report on believers of flying saucers, bigfoot, etc. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

ok, I think we are together on the important aspects of this article's development; and in terms of what is a Reliable Source, that,fortunately, is not for me (or you) to determine unilaterally. It will be interesting to me if a copy of his long form, more detailed birth certificate is officially and publicly released(perhaps by Obama himself) sometime and to see what it actually does say. Just from a historical perspective. If you are correct, then it might do a lot to give these types of theories less oxygen in the future. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations to Baseballbugs,Wikidemon,Looneymonkey,Ravensfire etc. You were right all along, both in fact and (in retrospect) in approach. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

arbitrary break number 6 — and closure?

In that this discussion went totally off the rails in regard of any identified NPOV issue, and that publication of the the "long form" certificate seems to have taken some of the wind from the participants, perhaps this would be a good time for closing this discussion? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Thor (film) Idris Elba

We're trying to work out what to do with the Thor (film) page. Basically, there has been some controversy stir about Idris Elba and a very, very small minority of white supremacists threatened at the time to Boycott the film.

• 1 Here is the current version

What I am suggesting is that, it is not neutral, it gives far too much weight to this controversy stir. There is no mention whatsoever of anything except Idris addressing the controversy stir. Compare the character cast to all the others in this article and you can tell that there is something clearly wrong. I have attempted to rectify the issue, but have been unable to get through. I suggest only the following is needed on this section about the controversy stir:

• News of Elba's casting was met by online complaints from some comic book fans and white supremacists who saw it as inappropriate for a Norse deity to be played by a black actor. Kenneth called the controversy stir "daft".

or

• News of Elba's casting was met by online complaints from some comic book fans and white supremacists who saw it as inappropriate for a Norse deity to be played by a black actor. Idris called the controversy stir "ridiculous".

The rest of the article should not address the controversy stir at all, but how Idris felt playing the part, based on WP:NPOV. Therefore the following should be deleted: "In response Elba said, "We have a man [Thor] who has a flying hammer and wears horns on his head. And yet me being an actor of African descent playing a Norse god is unbelievable? I mean, Cleopatra was played by Elizabeth Taylor, and Gandhi was played by Ben Kingsley". At the moment, there is NO mention of how Idris feels, or his thoughts about playing the part. It's all just addressing this blown-out-of-proportion controversy stir. It's too weighty in my opinion. For the past week or so I have tried to get this through but to no avail. And just to clarify what Wikipedia policy says: "To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. " KN→ ^{talk • contribs} 09:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Mention of this controversy stir is even mentioned on the Heimdall (comic) page, which I have left a comment about: see here. KN→ ^{talk • contribs} 11:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I dont want to get into another drawn out discussion here but will offer a single rebuttal to the above and leave it at that. The current version is only two sentences; one stating the boycott and other is Elba's response. This is fair weight. Reducing Elba's response to a single word, unbalances the issue and reduces much of Elba's defense, that he so craftfully articulated. Unfortunately due to the media attention that the boycott has received, Elba statements have been mostly confined to addressing this issue and has not offered much information of any substance regarding the role itself. So any lack of content is not fault of Wikipedia or any bias, we work with what is available. Conficutus did suggest the following comment from Elba, "But Kenneth hadn't even given that a thought. He just needed an actor who has presence and command, and felt that I fitted the bill...It was so refreshing – and a testament to [Kenneth] as an actor and director that his casting was genuinely colour blind. I feel very proud of being part of that movie." Myself and couple of other editors stated that this particular quote offers no insight to the role itself. Elba here is simply stating that he was hired because he was right the person for the job (as is everyone else involved) and expressing his gratitude towards director Kenneth Branagh for hiring him (again not notable). The length of some of the other sections are longer because they do offer more insight (i.e. preparation, inspiration/influence, interpretation, etc.).--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

To me, the issue isn't how to balance opinions about the controversy... the issue is whether to mention this so called "controversy" at all. I think mentioning it in the first place blows the idea that there really is a "controversy" way out of proportion, and gives undue weight to minority opinions. Blueboar (talk) 14:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I thought so too originally, but it has received significant media coverage and is notable per WP:N. This was also discussed on the talk page, others have suggested to create an entire section detailing the "controversy" but we agreed a simple mention in its current location is fair weight.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with Blueboar of course, and disagree with TriiipleThreat. WP:NPOV states "To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute.", which is what exactly what is occuring on this article. In regards TriiipleThreat mentioning of what has been discussed, I disagree. The talk page shows very few and far between talks about this. If, this controversy should get a mention, it should certainly only be restricted to a sentence, or two maximum. As it currently stands, the Idris Elba Heimdall cast section describes nothing about Idris Elba's role and everything about the controversy stir. If that isn't WP:UNDUE, what is? As I wrote on 15:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC) WP:NPOV says: "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views.""An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." and "Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view .". If this has been any other article, it would have recieved a template a long time ago, and no doubt been deleted.
• WP:FILMCAST says: "Background information about the cast and crew should be provided, ideally as well-written prose. There are several ways to provide such information: Halloween contains "Writing", "Casting", "Direction" and "Music" subsections within the "Production" section, which uses well-written prose to describe the casting and staffing decisions made, as well as discussing the reasons behind some of the cast decisions, the thoughts of the actors themselves about their roles, and some brief explorations of their careers before and after the film ". The Idris Elba section completely contradicts this policy. Currently the section is devoted to highlighting a small controversy stir. It's a contradiction of WP:UNDUE and WP:FILMCAST KN→ ^{talk • contribs} 19:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

And just to add, a recent development on the Thor page was a third opinion offered, which resulted in another dead end solution. [58] and of course User:TriiipleThreat's flawed reasoning [59]. KN→ ^{talk • contribs} 19:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I have concluded that if the WP:NPOVN decide that the controversy should be mentioned, it can be addressed in one sentence: ""Online complains about Idris casting for a Norse god were passed off as "daft" by Kenneth and "ridiculous" by Idris." that would be WP:BALANCE and wouldn't be so WP:UNDUE. I would like some input from others on the board though. KN→ ^{talk • contribs} 20:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Despite User:TriiipleThreat's claims of little information to put in the WP:FILMCAST section of Idris, I have compiled this: information suitable for filmcast section I would appreciate opinions, thank you. KN→ ^{talk • contribs} 17:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Since I'm only now seeing that this conversation has begun on the Notice Board, I'd like to weigh in as one of the editors working on Thor (film) and commenting on its talk apge.

First, I want to say that Conflictus, or KN, has been bombarding the talk page for several days and seems unable to accept consensus. He has made unwarranted, easily disprovable accusations of tag-teaming and unclean hands, without backing them up, and has shown bad faith in general. Most recently, he appears to be trying to circumvent consensus by putting his version of the article on the talk page.

The contention here, remarkably, is over a single two-sentence passage. The current page reads: "Elba's casting prompted a boycott by the Council of Conservative Citizens and a debate amongst some comic book fans, insisting it was wrong for a black man to play a Nordic god. In response Elba called the debate, 'ridiculous'.[30][31]" This plainly worded two-sentence passage has nothing WP:UNDUE about it. Conflictus believes we should not name the organization; other editors feel it would be irresponsible not to attribute the issue to a named organization when that organization is publicly known.

Conflictus shows an extremely high level of interest in Elba and in no other aspect of this film, leading me to feel, from past experience with publicists and others who come to Wikipedia and who have behaved in similar manner, that perhaps this interest is professional. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

To me it looks like a relatively minor matter to get all excited about. Still if it was up to me I'd reduce it to a single line or two, one stating the call to boycott and another in response, then add information related to Idris playing the character unrelated to race issues. As it currently stands the wording could be interpreted as much a promotion for being a racial friendly film as white supremacist hate. Also is the film out already? The wording for the boycott is in the present tense. Lambanog (talk) 08:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. This is what I'm saying. Why is the boycott mentioned in present case and why has it stayed this way for months? Well whenever I ask these questions, I get told that I'm going against consensus. ":*News of Elba's casting as a Norse deity caused a small racial controversy which Idris called "ridiculous" and Kenneth called "daft"" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conficutus (talk • contribs) 14:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It was released already in Australia; I think it's this weekend for the U.S. Not sure about anywhere else. From some blogs I follow that have pointed out the controversy, I gather that the race-based objectors are still actively trying to encourage/organize their little boycott so present tense may be appropriate (hard to tell since it's blog tag in sites reacting to the stupid). Millahnna (talk) 23:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The mention of the boycott on the Thor (film) article has been up for one year and yet no boycott has even happened. I am calling for this non-notable issue to be deleted. But TriiipleThreat is still insisting on it being included At the very least delete until we know the legitamacy in this whole thing. It's not the first time the CCC has misled people. KN→ ^{talk • contribs} 10:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Defamatory BLP on Vito Roberto Palazzolo by "Mafia expert" Don Calo

A BLP exists on Roberto Palazzolo, written by Don Calo, which is defamatory. Palazzolo has a case to answer, of which there is no question; aspects of which I have tackled in many places; see at Reliable Sources Noticeboard and Palazzolo Talk and User Talk Fircks and ANI 679 and ANI 684.

It is difficult to know where to go to in Wikipedia to resolve this very urgent matter, and I have made no progress to date. My apologies if I have been barking up the wrong trees, increasingly frustrated, but a few of the editors concerned appear to be more concerned with the letter of the law (Research, or Advocacy or Wikipedia as a court source or Verifiability or What constitutes a legal threat) while forgetting that a living man is being defamed by Wikipedia. And we all know that Wikipedia exists and thrives because it provides, or promises to provide, a Neutral POV. Roberto Palazzolo is anything but neutral. It is scurrilous and, given that I have pointed out it's errors many times, it is dishonest.

The existing BLP fails to note his side of the story, which has been distorted for many reasons, primarily by the Media. There is now a "given" version of his story, promoted by the Media, who then make weak disclaimers like, "Palazzolo denies all allegations". But the fact is that this is a long (running since 1982) and complex story, and Palazzolo claims he is the victim of a conspiracy. So it is not a BLP an amateur can simply churn out, using newspapers for sources. What I am saying therefore is that this article goes against Wikipedia's central tenet, which is to have a Neutral Point of View. This POV is biased.

It has been difficult to get my point across to Wikipedia. Don Calo merely excised my revisions to the article, as well as those put in by one of Palazzolo's lawyers, so an edit war began. Any interventions I made were treated by Wikipedia as if I had broken into someone's house. I came to warn that the house was on fire (one of your BLP's was defamatory) and was treated, in some cases, like a thief. Someone called [Quabar] on 9th Feb 2011 posted my "abuse" to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/fircks and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. See at Ongoing Vandalism.

There has been some ineffectual slander where, because I had posted Palazzolo's lawyer's presentation to Wikipedia (at http://www.vrpalazzolo.com/?page_id=1983), which was ignored, I must also be a "Mafia guy". Whoever wrote this paragraph failed to sign, with good reason: I'd also like to add that this mafia guy doensn't make the fact that he isnt happy with this article a secret ( see http://www.vrpalazzolo.com/?page_id=1983 ). Id like to point out that the IP (41.182.20.179) that helped vandalize this article is from namibia, and fircks claims that he is a 'friend' of palazzolo. In my opinion there is a big possibility that both firks and the ip are sockpuppets of palazozolo. ill look into the history of the article and see what else i can find. 109.160.184.79 (talk) 11:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Meanwhile, Don Calo's defamation continued.

Suffice it to say that I went to the ANI, where you will see that I was advised on many aspects of Wikipedia law including Wikipedia as a Court source. Which was helpful to a degree but what I needed was to research is Wikipedia using court docs as a source (i.e. primary sources). Not the other way around. Palazzolo's case rests on what the judges in 4 countries have said about him, over nearly 30 years. His case does NOT rest on what the newspapers ascribe to him. Least of all the tabloid press. Hence my enquiry, again: Why would someone allow newspapers as the source for a BLP, but not a High Court judge or an internationally acclaimed lawyer? All that anyone can tell me is, in effect, "those are the rules". Allow me to draw your attention to Ignore All Rules, which is the 5th of Wikipedia's 5 pillars, filled with wisdom such as: "Don't follow written instructions mindlessly, but rather, consider how the encyclopedia is improved or damaged by each edit." etc

Well, there is a BLP out there, written by a man who knows nothing about Palazzolo except what he reads in the Mail & Guardian in South Africa. Therefore it is heavily slanted and, given that often the courts have said the opposite, highly defamatory.

I look forward to bringing Palazzolo's case to you. Not his innocence, which will be established in good time in court, if he is innocent, but his side of the story, which is not only compelling but will raise issues that will resonate for many years to come. All he must be allowed to do is match the charge or allegation with the explanation and the court judgement.

This is where everything to date has been written: Vito Roberto Palazzolo; and Reliable Sources Noticeboard and Fircks and Archive 679 and ANI re: Palazzolo

Thank you for your kind attention in this matter.

Fircks (talk) 11:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC) Fircks (talk) 17:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi there - what happen's now? Will someone look at this and adjudicate? Thanks - Fircks (talk) 11:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I wrote this article 10 days ago, hoping that wikipedia will stop to consider both sides of a BLP. Any news? --Fircks (talk) 11:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Julia Goerges

In the article about women's tennis player Julia Goerges, the title misspells her last name as "Gorges", with an umlaut above the "o". This should be changed immediately if not sooner, as Goerges is the actual spelling of the woman's name. Also, anytime "Gorges" is used inside the article, it should be changed to reflect the correct spelling. There are many sources that can be used to verify the correct spelling of her last name, including her own website, so I won't go into that here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.160.47 (talk) 21:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Julia Görges#Move? for the previous discussion. You can use the Requested Moves process if you wish to start a new discussion. -- œ^™ 12:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Just looked at this article for the first time. First of all the title does not misspell her last name as "Görges", that is clearly the correct spelling, as contrary to the claim, it (not Goerges) is what is used throughout her official website.[60] The only exception there is in the domain name, which is understandable as international domain name support is still not widespread. I suspect starting a new move discussion (barely a few months after the old) would be a waste of time, nevertheless still an option if you choose --Icerat (talk) 14:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Kurt Russell

In an article about the actor Kurt Russell, I added several factual sentences about his minor-league baseball career, most of which is verified by BaseballReference.com, but the content was deleted. In editing the article, I noticed that several facts already in there used BaseballReference.com to back up their content. If the editor(s) had bothered to check the information for Russell in BaseballReference.com, they'd have noticed that I was correct and factual about the added content and it should not have been deleted. My additions included the fact that Russell played for the team that his father, Bing, owned (from 1973-1977), called the Portland (Ore.) Mavericks, a single-A short-season Northwest League independent team (no major league affiliation). Wikipedia even verifies the fact that Bing Russell owned the team in its own article about Bing, which means that deletion of that was highly inappropriate. I also included a fact about a story he told on "Late Night with David Letterman" regarding his days in Portland as a player, a fact that could easily be checked by contacting Letterman's production company, WorldWidePants, but editors failed to do so. Rather than simply deleting the accurate passages from the articles, the editors shouldn't have checked Bing Russell's article, BaseballReference.com and contacted WorldWidePants first to confirm whether they were true. This to me, was lazy and irresponsible editing. Wikipedia's editors must do a much better job in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.160.47 (talk) 22:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I looked at both edits and agree that a blanket revert is a bit heavy handed, however it appears that the text you added was not sourced. Is that correct? Remember that unsourced content on a BLP can be challenged and removed. All of that said, I think you should post something on the talk page and discuss the issue with the other editor. I have a feeling that with some discussion you could come to a compromise and a summarized version of the content you proposed could be added back in with proper sourcing. good luck!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed on it being heavy handed, but as noted you failed to provide any sources for the claims. It's not up to other editors to go and research and try and find where the information came from, it's up to you to include the sourcing information in your edits. See WP:CITE for help on how to do this. With proper sourcing I think there's a fair chance a version of your edits would be accepted --Icerat (talk) 14:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Evolutionism

1. Evolutionism

2. diff

3. Some users insist on describing evolutionism through the term "belief". I tried to replace it because the term has religious connotations, being used in this way in the well known creationism-evolutionism disputes. The second phrase is "The belief was extended to include cultural evolution and social evolution" which implies that cultural and social evolution are also beliefs, so the first two phrases sound ridiculously and are obviously biased. This specifically breaks WP:LABEL. Also the article in it's whole focuses on the use of the word in the English language by religious groups, a rather irrelevant aspect which is inexistent in all of the top dictionaries in different languages that I have consulted, while the main meaning of the word and topic is almost ignored. This breaks the rule that articles should have a global point of view.

4. Talk:Evolutionism#Evolution.3Dbelief.3F --ANDROBETA 22:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I see serious problems with this article as it fails to clarify the process itself (heritable changes in a population spread over many generations) with methods of that process.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Binksternet & Abortion / Pro-Life Articles

Over the past few days it has come to my attention that Binksternet has been deeply involved in Pro-Choice POV pushing in a number of Abortion / Pro-Life Articles primarily through elaborate gaming the system. I have seen this on both the Pro-life feminism and Susan B. Anthony abortion dispute articles. It primarily involves writing information in such away as it intentionally casts all any pro-life view in a negative or unscholarly light, removing sourced information that would cast it in a positive light, and removing page tags that would alert anyone to ongoing problems in the article. Any attempts at making the article more neutral are thwarted until interested editors just go away. I realize he is a very involved editor and administrator and his positive contributions are nearly countless but sometimes bias is present on a particular topic. POV runs high in these types of articles and it my hope that perhaps at least some neutrality can prevail with more involved working on behalf of neutrality. Personally I think I may be getting a bit too frustrated with it to continue. PeRshGo (talk) 10:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

No pro-choice advocacy from me, I'm afraid. What has been recently upsetting to PeRshGo is that the opinions of pro-life activists have not measured up to the findings of scholars on the subject, and it does not seem fair from the viewpoint of the pro-life people. Per WP:NPOV, we do not give parity to sources that are unequal. Since the scholarly view about Susan B. Anthony and pro-life feminism is the mainstream one, and the pro-life view is unsupported by any scholars at all, it does not deserve parity. Far from it! Presenting the pro-life opinion as equal to the scholarly opinion would violate NPOV. The NPOV guideline is being followed in spirit and to the letter. Binksternet (talk) 22:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I cast my eye over some of Binksternet's edits on Susan B. Anthony abortion dispute. I can't really see anything I'd call blatant POV pushing. PeRshGo, can you provide specific examples? NickCT (talk) 16:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Most of it is subtle, and looking over this noticeboard it does seem that this is the place for actions far more blatant but this has been going on long enough to significantly change the article's tone, and turn it into a very lopsided article. He isn't doing things like removing sources, as much as subtle things like adding a picture of Sarah Palin to the article which if anyone is honest with themselves will realize does little more than add “guilt by association” to the article. The best place to look would be the talk page, where I feel it can be clearly seen that any attempt at consensus has been thwarted, and a “my way or the highway” approach has been taken. But at this point I do wonder if attempts to clean up the articles are even worth the effort. He has more people on his side, and anyone who still cares has been long run off. PeRshGo (talk) 17:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Palin is in the article because of her outspoken support for SBA List, so that photo was first and foremost about the topic of the article. Palin's connection is celebrated by many pro-life feminists, making the image a positive one for those who like Palin and pro-life feminism and a negative one for people who do not like Palin for whatever reason. I don't care so much one way or another whether an image of Palin is in the article, but I put it in originally because it was pertinent—because it supported relevant article text—not because I was trying to skew opinion one way or another.

The only thing frustrating to other editors is my insistence that the scholarly view trumps the politically motivated view which is not at all supported by scholars. Any in the latter camp are "run off" not by meanness or spite but by sticking to Wikipedia guidelines regarding reliable sources. Sorry you have not been satisfied. Binksternet (talk) 17:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

New Century Foundation

I'd like other comments on this organisation's article, in particular the opening sentence "The New Century Foundation describes itself as "a 501(c)(3) organization founded in 1994 to study immigration and race relations so as to better understand the consequences of America's increasing diversity. It sponsors publications and books, and holds occasional conferences."[1] From 1994 to 1999 its activities received considerable funding by the Pioneer Fund.[1][2][3]" and the reversion of the category Category:White supremacist groups in the United States for which I can find several sources in Google Books [61] [62] [63] and many in Google News [64]. American Renaissance (magazine) may also be relevant here. Dougweller (talk) 13:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Amway Australia

I'd appreciate some third+ opinions on the Amway Australia article. WP:STRUCTURE indicates that "controversy" sections should be avoided as they can be inherently POV. In my view that's exactly what is occurring here, with two issues which engendered pretty much no "controversy" at all in their sources, and one having no secondary sources at all, being labelled as "controversy" in the article. I rewrote the article by "folding in to the narrative" as the policy suggests, however another editor Financeguy222 disputes this approach. Diff of the versions here.--Icerat (talk) 16:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Where's the Birth Certificate?

I have some concerns that the new article Where's the Birth Certificate? does not reflect a neutral point of view, in its claims relating to Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories - as the book has not been published, and due to concerns regarding sourcing that I've stated on the talk page. I think it would benefit from more people checking it over.  Chzz  ►  06:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

For a start, it makes this claim as fact: "The book also notes that that Obama spent millions in legal fees to avoid having to provide a long-form birth certificate to the courts". I also note that the reference is to an 'overview', not a 'publisher review' (the publisher is WorldNetDaily, not Barnes & Noble, in any case). Dougweller (talk) 07:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

RE: Dougweller's comments: I agree that the sentence beginning "The book also notes that..." can be better worded -but must note that it was and is a new article, and that language had not been pointed out to me by Chzz as POV, or by anyone at the time you made this remark here on the NPOV noticeboard. I see now the verb has been changed from "notes" to a more neutral "claims". I am not sure who changed it or when, and the change is all right with me. IOW, there was and is no dispute here. Further balance can be added or might be needed, which is something I can see now that this has been pointed out to me for the first time. I thought article development was supposed to be a collaborative effort, but apparently that may not be the case here. As for your comment about a reference being titled "Overview" rather than a "Publisher review", at best that is a small factual error in the references section that anyone could correct by changing just one word - and it does not affect NPOV. Further, the reference was used only once. Someone, I think Fat & Happy, substituted another reference with no objection from me or anyone, so this is all moot anyway. It seems to me that the main thing going on here that is non neutral is the nitpicking or a new article. I would also like to note that Doug completely and mistakenly accused me of some sort of violation of copying rules on the same day and regarding this same article - he later apologized, apology accepted. KeptSouth (talk) 20:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Changed "notes" to "claims".Griswaldo (talk) 11:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm worried that a lot of the referencing actually originates from the publisher (when you dig down), and hence it really is promotion for a yet-to-be-released book.  Chzz  ►  10:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I started this article and I am responding to Chzz's initial complaint about 2 days after he started it here because I just learned of it on May 6. I do not believe I was given notice by him until May 6. At the point he began this post here, there were about 10 references in the article as well as text which established notability. Since that time, though I did not know of his complaint here, I have added approx 5 more references to unimpeachably reliable publications such as the Daily Mail, NBC News, the Washington Post, the Daily Beast, Fox News, and Time magazine. The sources in the article are both in favor of the book and critical of it, so I do not see how they could be "actually originat[ing] from the publisher"...and hence really a promtion" as Chzz claims here.KeptSouth (talk) 20:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the NPOV complaint, Chzz never, let me emphasize, never, raised this issue with me on the article talk page, on my talk page or in an edit summary. Nor did he ever add a NPOV tag to the top of the article or any section of it. I believe in good faith this is a violation of dispute procedures to raise this in a noticeboard for the first time - if it is not, it should be.

I will provide, when I have time later, convenient links to the sections where I discussed other issues Chzz is raising here; and/or a summary of the discussion and response. But for now, I would like note that I gave numerous on point responses to his concerns and in return usually received a non answer or a very vague and indirect response. KeptSouth (talk) 20:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

One specific issue: The article claims that it was/is on the list of Amazon 'best-sellers' before it actually goes on sale. That is supported by refs, [65] [66]. However, looking on Amazon itself, the book does not appear on their list [67]. Therefore, I removed the claim [68] but my edit was reverted [69].  Chzz  ►  12:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I started the article and was never informed until today, 2 days later, that Chzz, had started a noticeboard complain. Amazing. However, in the meantime, I had much discussion with Chzz on his talk page, and on the article page. I also provided detailed edit summaries. In response to Chzz's issue with the book being on Amazon.com's bestseller list, I had posted one RS that said it was, then added one more following his expression of concern that the RS was wrong, and recently added a third, because I perceived from my discussion with him and his vague indirect answers, that he still might be disputing this. I do not have more time for this now, but will respond more fully tomorrow, if this is complaint is not closed by then for lack of merit. I certainly hope it is, because for one thing, I don't see how it was necessary, and I do not believe off hand that Chzz followed proper dispute resolution procedures. KeptSouth (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Summary and Request to Close—This claim should be closed. NPOV was never discussed on the TALK page itself prior to Chzz starting this claim. The claim is stated in very general terms by Chzz with no diffs linked, as suggested by the directions "Before posting a question". The questions stated by Chzz here are mainly not NPOV issues. The result, after four days on this board, is that one editor, an experienced admin, Dougweller, has found just one word that he thought was not NPOV. That does not mean the article is perfect, of course, but it certainly does show that NPOV issues can be handled on the talk page itself and that a non specific posting on this venue was and is unneeded. Therefore I am asking that this claim be closed. KeptSouth (talk) 06:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

We don't formally "close" discussions on this noticeboard, we simply let them die out for lack of further participation (at which point they will slide into the archives after a few days). Your summary is helpful however. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 17:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I would greatly appreciate any others assisting with this. Above, KeptSouth wrote,I do not believe off hand that Chzz followed proper dispute resolution procedures - I'm worried by that, and if I have done anything at all wrong, I would like to know what, so that I do not make similar errors in the future.

I'm finding it very challenging to discuss any of this with KeptSouth, so perhaps input from others might help. Best,  Chzz  ►  21:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Fractional reserve banking

This method is being misrepresented by Wiki in the opening sentences. Changes to remedy this are being constantly reverted. Editors are either clueless or have an agenda. As for example a reversion for the same change with these three comments

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fractional-reserve_banking&diff=428548788&oldid=428547389

• "money borrowed by the bank is not "the bank's property"
• "Confusing and unclear way of saying the same thing"
• "Please try not to add misleading phrasing"

It is just simple accounting that the customer money becomes the banks asset and it would be fraud to say otherwise. The ordinary depositors are unsecured creditors in a private firm who are last in line behind higher ranking more knowledgeable investors.

Additionally, the relending model of fractional reserve banking is presented on the page with paragraphs highlighting limitations in how banks can create money. Meanwhile I have provided endless citations from central bankers and specialist economists who say this idea of limitations is false.

Which famous economists support the idea in the simplistic mechanical fashion shown by wiki? Surely a reliable economist has heard of the expression 'extend credit'? Or has heard of lending and borrowing of excess reserves at LIBOR? None of these basic things can be explained on the page because they have been described as being fringe beliefs that do not support the relending model. As a result, the Wiki page is misrepresenting how banks really operate.

Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd

It is stated Wikipedia policy that peer reviewed journal papers trump textbooks. Yet on the FRB main page, acres of coverage is devoted to ideas with textbook references only. Views that contradict the "textbook" description, backed up by higher quality references, are being repeatedly undone/removed/suppressed. Why is this? Reissgo (talk) 17:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I have not looked at the desired edits, so this is a question rather than an accusation ... but could one reason be that the way the views have been expressed constitute original research? For example, is an editor trying to include their own analysis or conclusions based upon what the journals say... something not overtly stated by the journals themselves? Blueboar (talk) 00:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

No. The desired edits have been exactly described by the federal reserve and others since at least the 1960's Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 13:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd

The issue of views expressed in peer reviewed journals being rejected in favour of textbook descriptions was discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard here. At that time there seemed to be a consensus the the quantity and quality of papers was not quite sufficient to win the day. The situation now is completely different. andrewedwardjudd has compiled a formidable collection of very high quality references to support his intended edits. His detractors have come up with nothing at all to counter his references other than to repeatedly insist that if his views are not in the textbooks then they are not mainstream and therefore do not deserve space on the FRB page.

What would be extremely useful is if a neutral editor could comment on what weight should be given to competing views if peer reviewed papers contradict textbooks. Reissgo (talk) 10:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, Reissgo is being disingenuous that his papers "trump" the references of the current article. Academic references have been provided.

Perhaps more importantly, NO ONE in the economics community has any mistaken illusions about the viewpoint being tendentiously pushed by User:Andrewedwardjudd. It is WELL-ACCEPTED that the viewpoint in his edits has NOT been widely accepted in the academic economics community --- even his own sources indicate the the viewpoint is meant to challenge the vastly more prominent view.

As they are the editors attempting to add information into the article, User:Reissgo and User:Andrewedwardjudd have taken on a burden of proof. They have been invited to meet the burden of proof. They insist on granting nearly equal validity to the viewpoint described in their edits, so they have been asked to provide reliable sources that "document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community. If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance".

They have NOT met this burden (nor provided anything persuasive that their view is outside of a small minority), so their attempt to radically rewrite the article from a different point of view has been opposed by numerous editors. BigK HeX (talk) 13:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

That text in yellow is a typical piece of gamesmanship by this editor. Large numbers of high quality citations have been produced.

The page has been written to distort what the available references are actually saying. The page has paragraph after paragraph talking about limitations to money creation and all attempts to get a truer record of the references has been reverted. Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 14:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd

User:Andrewedwardjudd has been informed on numerous occasions that people may not continue to engage him, so long as he persists in his presumptions of bad faith at every opportunity. To wit, see how he framed the issue in his mediation request: WP:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2011-04-12/fractional_reserve_banking#Who_is_involved.3F (talk) 13:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Readers will note that this editor keeps repeating how people have failed to satisfy him, and yet has provided zero references to counter the views expressed in my references that banks extend credit rather then relend existing money.[User:Andrewedwardjudd|Andrewedwardjudd]] (talk) 14:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd

Re: "If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance". We could pose this question the other way round. Where is the evidence that the views you support are "accepted"? Given that fact that there is a sizeable collection of very high quality peer reviewed papers plus a collection of opinions of extremely senior central bankers suggesting that your position is plain wrong, then surely there should exist somewhere a document saying words to the effect of "Those people attacking our textbook view are wrong and here's why." The fact that no such document appears to exist would suggest that the textbook description is known to be just a simplified "teaching aid", like "electron shells" in chemistry. You would never expect to find a peer reviewed paper stating "It is widely accepted that the behavior of electrons is governed by the laws of quantum mechanics but a description involving electron shells is used as a teaching aid in chemistry", so why are you insisting I find the equivalent with regard FRB? I actually emailed the author of an unpublished paper which denounced the textbook FRB view and he told me it got rejected by a journal on the grounds that everyone knows it already!

Re: "Firstly, Reissgo is being disingenuous that his papers 'trump' the references of the current article. Academic references have been provided.". Please give a single example of a reference used to support the textbook description which isn't simply a textbook itself.

Re: "It is WELL-ACCEPTED that the viewpoint in his edits has NOT been widely accepted in the academic economics community --- even his own sources indicate the the viewpoint is meant to challenge the vastly more prominent view." - IIRC this was simply a case of an expert on money stating that amongst non-experts its is widely held that.... I would suggest that amongst experts on money (e.g. central bankers, and specialist monetary economists), the views being put forth by andrewwardjudd and myself are the majority. Reissgo (talk) 15:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

FWIW I've been researching in this area for the last 3 years, said research having been partially instigated by the wide variety of opinions being expressed in the Talk page. What follows is strictly imho. The textbook presentation (which is essentially the wiki page), is certainly misleading, but only if it is taken as a general example of the entire system. I don't think it was ever intended to be that. At this time though there is no accepted replacement for that description though, and I doubt there will be for many years. I personally like the mild act of subversion of showing actual monetary statistics next to a model that predicts asymptotic convergence, and its nice to have the link to the original Macmillan report as well.

There is no consensus currently, central bank or otherwise on what the actual behaviour of the system is, nor has there ever been an accurate one. This is a complex system, and Economics hasn't really put the whole thing together yet. You can find a lot of papers pointing out individual issues with it - the problem is sorting out the subset of papers that provides the correct set of issues - some of the academic papers are wildly inaccurate even on the basics. I think a large part of the problem too is that there isn't a single fractional reserve system. Historically there have been multiple regulatory frameworks, quite often substantially different from each other, and with widely differing behaviours. For example, a lot of people assume that the gold standard successfully regulated bank deposit expansion, but there's actually no evidence that it did. The textbook example is itself a highly simplified model purely of the deposit expansion process, it doesn't included lending or loan default, nor does it include capital requirements which appear to have often acted as a regulatory factor in conjunction with reserve requirements, and in most Basel regulated systems have completely replaced them.

Some of Andrewedwardjudd comments are correct for a Basel regulated system for example, but incorrect for the gold standard/reserve regulated system which appears to be the context Andrewedwardjudd uses. The question of whether banks extend credit rather than recycle existing money for example, I would personally say is tautologous within a strict interpretation of the textbook system, might be somewhat useful in a system that allows banks to sell loans to non-banking entities (securitization), and in a gold reserve based system to some extent reflects the issue that economists of that era did not regard bank deposits as money. It is a complex system - and there is a huge amount of confusion about it - viz the talk page.

Where that leaves Wiki I don't know, since original research clearly isn't part of the mandate, and that is unfortunately what a lot of commentators are de facto trying to do whether they realize it or not. Perhaps a summary should be added specifically addressing known issues with the textbook model, and a summary of the research that is currently being conducted into it. A common misconceptions in FRB wouldn't be a bad idea either come to that. Mischling (talk) 18:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Mischling, I do not know what you mean by your suggestion I am getting confused between Basel and the gold standard. If you want we can resolve this using high quality references on the talk page. Please do not confuse original research with well documented banking practices Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 07:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Are there "well documented banking practices?" Isn't one of the problems that the different banking systems don't document their regulatory frameworks very well, if at all? Wrt to the Basel comment - gold standard systems had required reserves, most current Basel regulated systems do not have reserve requirements or have minimal reserve requirements. This is because the Basel framework shifted loan regulation to capital controls. Mischling (talk) 00:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: "Perhaps a summary should be added specifically addressing known issues with the textbook model". I'd be much happier with that rather than the current state which is presenting the textbook model as fact and presenting the known issues as fringe. Reissgo (talk) 11:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

It think it might be the best approach. It's very easy (imho - and obDisclaimer - i'm presenting a paper on this next month) to demonstrate that the textbook model's failure to include loan defaults, loan repayments and inter-bank lending makes it less than adequate to its task shall we say. Then creating a section where different current theories could be detailed would be very beneficial to researchers, although possibly stretching wiki's mandate a little.Mischling (talk) 00:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Amina Bokhary

Amina Bokhary was speedied for being an attack page. The article has been userfied by the deleting admin for rework, and is now in my userspace. I would appreciate any ideas/help for cleaning it up. One idea I have is to transform the article into one about the incident causing the 2010 controversy. Some elements appear insane, but I believe this is more of a reflection of the rather unhealthy body politic of Hong Kong and the tabloid nature of the press than a deliberate attempt to attack the subject. The attacks are at a political and societal level, and I feel the article reflects the sentiment on the ground. That is not to say the article cannot be improved. Most of the sources used in the article are reliable conventional sources. There are no "tabloid" citations. Any help or suggestions would be most appreciated. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• Gsh, I'm really gutted by the underwhelming response.... Anyhow, I've reworked and retitled it. Would anyone care to read the article as it now stands and tell me what a wonderful job (or crap job) I've done on it? ;-) please... pretty please--Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 16:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Looks good! --Deryck C. 03:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks for all your help, Deryck! --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Article now moved back to main space (Amina Bokhary controversy) and the draft article was deleted by another admin. Please ignore the red links above. --Deryck C. 09:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Western betrayal

Title NPOV issue. We should surely be using a more neutral title here, even if this is a term some parties use to discuss the matter. Eyeballs? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

That's a bad title. it's very parochial. I tried working out which particular betrayal it meant before going there, it was on the list of possibilities but it would be better as the Yalta betrayal I'd have thought. Dmcq (talk) 11:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree with FT2 and Dmcq. Needs better title.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily. We're just supposed to use the most common name in English. If "Western betrayal" is the most common name used in English, then it doesn't matter whether it's neutral. Proper names which incorporate non-neutral terms - such as Boston massacre, Tea Pot Dome scandal, Reign of Terror, Bataan Death March, Intolerable Acts, Great Leap Forward, etc. are all legitimate article titles. Try finding some standard reference history texts which cover this subject. If they're calling it "western betrayal", we should to. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I did a newspaper search for the term "western betrayal" -- major papers in the US & Britain and worldwide -- and I did not get any kind of sense that the term western betrayal had some coherent meaning. Rather, it sometimes referred to criticism of foreign policy actions of nations such as Britain and France towards eastern Europe on the eve of WW2; but there were many other senses too -- it's been applied towards policy towards Afghanistan in recent years, Iraq. The time frame -- 1919 to 1968 -- too huge. You see, Bataan Death March refers to a specific event; ditto your other choices above. But Western betrayal is so vague that, in my view, is practically meaningless, and may be a catch-all term for original research. My sense is the article has major issues, including the title; perhaps it should be broken up into separate articles about foreign policy?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• RFC requested. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:43, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Lia Looveer

The following claims have been made in the article talk page:

We had a discussion on the WWII talk page and came to a conclusion that "Nazi Germany" is more common in English literature than Third Reich. "Nazi Germany" is as common as, e.g. "Soviet Russia". To use just "Germany" is somewhat confusing and may be uncomfortable for German audience.

However, taking into account that this radio station was located in the Nazi Germany occupied Gdansk, it was natural to suggest that that station (as well as all mass media in the totalitarian Nazi Germany) was under a strict control of the Goebbels' ministry, and the propaganda was the Nazi propaganda. If that was the case, then it should be said. However, if Looveer's work was purely technical one (and the latter is highly likely) than it would be quite sufficient to write "worked on the German radio", because, independently of the language of the broadcasting, the radio was German both geographically and physically. The opposite was simply impossible in the totalitarian society, which strictly controls mass media.

If a person moved to Nazi Germany and worked for the radio station there, one can speak about collaboration with Nazi Germany independently of legality or illegality of some Soviet actions.

All this arose as I noted that "Nazi Germany" should not be used to deliberately attaint any person as being a "Nazi collaborator" (the person initially had asserted that "Nazi Germany" was the actual name of Germany -- "Nazi" is quite relevant. It is the name of this country during that period , but appeared to back down and now just asserts that moving to Nazi Germany should be noted as making the person a collaborator. No source aserts that Louveer was a Nazi, by the way. Is use of "Nazi Germany" in order to promote the implication of any person as a Nazi Collaborator in line with WP:NPOV? Lastly, is all this subject to Digwuren sanctions? Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I've never heard of this person, but what do the majority of sources say in reference to this person? Do they say "Germany" or "Nazi Germany"? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The actual sources say "Germany." One editor says the "agreement" on WWII articles is that the country name is "Nazi Germany." I suggested that consensus there can not affect what is done on other articles. He did, moreover, state on the article talk page: However, if you do not want some details to appear in the biography of a person who worked in Nazi Germany during WWII, do not dig deeper, because that may reveal not only the details you want to show, but also something you want to hide. which, for some odd reason, I found a tad insulting. Collect (talk) 21:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

@ Collect. It does not matter how the sources about Looveer describe Germany. The more important question is what majority sources say about this country. The name of this country during this period is the Third Reich or, less officially, Nazi Germany (similar to "The USSR" and "Soviet Russia"). Therefore, to write "Nazi Germany" is completely correct. In connection to that, since we discuss the war time events, that have a direct relation to the history of Nazi Germany, not simply "Germany", it is desirable to use a full name, although I do not see a need to repeat it every time in the article. BTW, by saying that I do not "back down", as someone thinks, but simply explain my position. In future, please, be more careful in your interpretations of the viewpoint of others.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Paul -- the question was asked. I answered the exact question posed. That you feel the wording used in the source is irrelevant appears to be your opinion only. The "name" of Germany was never "Third Reich". The name at the League of Nations was .... get this .... Germany. The US declaration of war was against ... get this .... Germany. When a source does not use a phrase - it is an interesting reversal of WP policy to say the wording in the source is what should be ignored <g>. The proper terms for the USSR are, indeed, USSR or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (hence "Soviet Union"), "Soviet Russia" was not a country name - although "Russia" is certainly correct (one of three UN members - the others being historically Byelorussia and Ukraine). I wonder just what WP policies you are thinking of to make the assertions you make. Collect (talk) 22:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wasn't Gdansk (Looveer's first broadcasting stop where the Estonians had set up a radio station) Nazi-Germany occupied Poland? Prior edits at the article had POV-stated Looveer "defected" (i.e., Soviet defector to the ranks of the Nazi enemy as Estonia had been annexed by the Soviet Union and then occupied by Nazi Germany at the time Looveer and tens of thousands of others fled the Baltics to escape Soviet re-occupation)—hence the source of Collect's concern, that any Baltic refugee fleeing the Soviet onslaught to "Nazi Germany" is made out to be a sympathizer, after all, they prefer Nazis to the anti-fascist heroes of the Great Patriotic War come to "liberate" the Baltic states. If they could not be fingered as a Nazi accomplice, they wouldn't need to flee, etc., etc. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

{EC}IMHO, if the sources say "Germany", then we should say Germany. I don't think it makes sense for the consensus reached at the WWII article to be enforced on a mostly unrelated article. Sure, if this were the Battle of Stalingrad article, then it makes sense. But it doesn't sound like her life was defined by the part that happened to occur while the National Socialists controlled Germany. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

@ Collect. Yes, it wasn't, and the official name of Britain was never "The United Kingdom" too. However, the "Nazi Germany" was the most common colloquial name of this state during 1933-45, similar to the "United States" for the USA, "Soviet Union" (or "Soviet Russia") for the USSR, etc. To write "moved to Nazi Germany" instead of "moved to Germany" is as correct as to write "moved to Soviet Russia" instead of "moved to Russia", or "moved to the United States" instead of "moved to America". Re "Soviet Russia", this term is used extremely widely.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

@ A Quest For Knowledge. Taking into account that she worked for German radio in the German occupied city, I am not sure the word "Nazi" is completely irrelevant. --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

@ Peters. To say that someone escaped to the Nazi Germany does not automatically mean that he was a Nazi supporter. However, although the fact that he was not a Nazi supporter does not change the fact that this person voluntarily moved to the Nazi Germany and stayed there until German defeat. The word "Nazi" is relevant here.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Nation name is actually "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland." The name is not "Great Britain." The name as used at the UN for normal purposes is, indeed, "United Kingdom." When correcting folks, try to be correct <g>. That you aver a term is "used widely" does not mean it can be substituted for the term used in the reference given. Wikipedia uses the words used in the source, not what we know the source ought to have said. We use the cards that are there, now what we wish the source said. BTW, try Google scholar -- "Soviet Russia" has 87K hits, "Soviet Union" has 1.2megahits. The UN name for Russia was, and is, "Russia." (The seat holder is "Russian Federation" currently.) Collect (talk) 20:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear. UK is a state, not a nation. The nationality is British and of course the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland includes four nations. To the extent that "race" has any validity, it can be used for any of these five nationalities, but of course we're a mongrel breed, and all Jock Tamson's Bairns. . . dave souza, talk

Neat cavil - but the UN calls it a "nation." BTW, the UK also includes some most odd pieces which are not part of the four nations - such as the Channel Islands and Isle of Man, etc. Moreover calling a person from Northern Ireland "British" might be a problem. The point, moreover, is clear - the "correction", wasn't. <g> Collect (talk) 21:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

These furriners, don't get things right. Probably a majority of people from Norn Iron are "British" and identify as such as well as being Irish, a large minority only identify themselves as Irish. Calling a Catholic from there "British" might cause a stushie. As for the main point, if the best sources say "Nazi Germany" or "the Third Reich" we can go along with that, but emphasising the Nazi connection if that's not in the sources would be synthesis and a Bad Thing. If it's contentious and unclear, we could always just say "Danzig in the Reichsgau Danzig-West Prussia" and let curious readers follow the link. A diplomatic outcome? If we really want to follow sources saying "Germany", unfortunately Germany links to the Bundesrepublik Deutschland, so a piped link to Germany would be appropriate. . . dave souza, talk 21:43, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

• If our article on the Free City of Danzig is correct, she couldn't have escaped there in 1944 as it ceased to exist in 1939, when it became Danzig in the Reichsgau Danzig-West Prussia. That article refers to it as a Nazi German Reichsgau, Third Reich is a redirect to Nazi Germany so a piped link would be needed if sources or delicacy suggest that is better, haven't checked out naming conventions. . . dave souza, talk 22:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

@ Paul "@ Peters. To say that someone escaped to the Nazi Germany does not automatically mean that he was a Nazi supporter. However, although the fact that he was not a Nazi supporter does not change the fact that this person voluntarily moved to the Nazi Germany and stayed there until German defeat. The word "Nazi" is relevant here.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC"

There you go, using "voluntarily" as if people had a choice. The only two places boats were going were Sweden and Germany, and the only place where Latvians would know the local language and have a better chance of fending for themselves was Germany, most educated Latvians being polyglots (Latvian plus either Russian or German, or both). To characterize becoming a refugee, fleeing likely deportation if not death by Soviet hands, as "voluntarily" fleeing to Germany (and as if there were more choices!) is both provocative and grossly offensive. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

"Voluntarily" means "not by force". If you believe that was not true, feel free to report me. This person made a choice between two totalitarian regimes, and this choice was made absolutely voluntary. In addition, if she preferred the totalitarian (Nazi German) regime over the democratic (Swedish) regime just because of the language barriers, that also speaks for itself. I do not want, however, to discuss all of that, because we simply have no reliable sources on this subject. However, the fact was that Lia Looveer escaped to Nazi Germany, lived there relatively comfortably and worked for the radio station that was affiliated with Nazi German radio. I believe you will not question the fact that all mass-media in Nazi Germany were under strict control of the Goebbels' ministry of propaganda, therefore, had Looveer worked as a doctor, or as a nurse, or as a postmaster, etc, we would have no reason to speak about her in a context of Nazism. However, by virtue of her profession (work in mass media), Looveer simply cannot be mentioned not in a context of Nazi Germany (I mean the period of 1944-45).--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you asserting that a person had the simple ability to flee to Sweden in 1944? I did not see any source making any such claim at all. I did find a non-RS source for 72,000 Estonians fleeing to Sweden and Germany combined in 1944, but that does not indicate how Sweden determined who would be allowed in. The WP article on Estonian SSR says 80,000 fled by sea to Sweden and Finland. "Finlandization" was the result of the armistice with the USSR (1944-1945 war), and I suspect many who fled the USSR's occupation of the Baltic States likely left Finland as well. [70] says 3% of the Estonian population fled to Sweden - which would be somewhere on the order of 30,000. Which implies that most Estonians actually fled to Germany as being the easiest and safest route away from the USSR armies. Still nothing to indicate that Looveer had any real choice in the matter, however, as many of those going by sea to Sweden lived in fishing areas with access to boats. [71] indicates that 40,000 went to Germany in 1944. And again I note your unfounded assertion that she worked for "Nazi radio" and elide that fact that all workers in "Nazi Germany" were not "Nazis" by any stretch of the imagination. This smacks more of "she fled the USSR, and must perforce be a Nazi if she went to Germany" sort of argument which is wildly afoul of ArbCom decisions. In short - your cavils have remarkably little weight in this discussion. Collect (talk) 12:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

@Paul and "This person made a choice between two totalitarian regimes, and this choice was made absolutely voluntary." No it was not. Because of the Nazi Germany invasion a week after the first Soviet mass deportations, the next Soviet wave of mass deportations was interrupted. Those deportation lists were left behind. My mother was warned not to go home and avoided deportation with the rest of her family; however, both my mother and father were listed for subsequent deportation. Staying and not fleeing would mean definite deportation and likely death to stay. Of course Looveer was forced to flee. Your contention of "absolutely voluntary" choice between two evils is uninformed and insulting. Really, have you not yet scraped the bottom of the barrel in tarring Looveer? As for the choice of where, there were far fewer boats heading to Sweden, many were also small and many lives were lost in the crossing. When the Soviets are coming to take you away, you don't ask where the boat is heading as long as it's away. You get on the first boat you can and leave and hope the Soviet bombs dropping all around you don't sink your boat. (In Looveer's case the last boat to get out of Tallinn before the Soviets retook the city and ripped down the Estonian flag.) I'm disgusted by your morally grotesque "preferring the Nazis to the Soviets" line of reasoning. You should not be allowed to participate at any articles having to do with Soviet or Nazi actions or legacies regarding WWII in the Baltics.PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that by telling about Looveer's achievements you will inevitably have to say something that tars her. Therefore, the less you tell about some details of her biography the better. For instance, to write:

"Escaped to Nazi Germany occupied Danzig."

would be quite neutral, and has neither negative nor positive connotations.

However, if you want to tell anything about the essence of her duties during the WWII (for which she got an award from the President of Estonia), it will be absolutely necessary to write that she worked for radio in Nazi Germany occupied Estonia and then for the Balti Raadio, which was a Nazi German radio affiliated radio station. That is necessary to say, because the Balti Raadio content was obviously approved by the Nazi Ministry of propaganda, and it would be incorrect to ignore the connection with Nazi regime in this case.

I am not insisting on the second option, my choice is #1: to tell as little as possible about Looveer during the WWII. What I oppose against is to tell about her as about the national liberation activist, and to simultaneously carefully avoid any mention of Nazism.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

This discussion makes my head hurt. If you want an uninvolved opinion (which should be the reason this was brought to NPOV/N), I think we should just follow the source. Much of the arguments above seem to be based on original research, The Truth and the desire to set things right. The bottom line is that we should be following reliable sources. If the source doesn't see a need to specify "Nazi" before "Germany", then neither should we. I'd also like to add that this dispute is rather WP:LAME. The average reader is never going to give a second thought as to whether the article says "Germany" or "Nazi Germany". It will never cross their mind. You guys are veteran editors and you're wasting too much time on this. And if you don't like my advice, how about we just flip a coin and move on? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

You're missing the morally grotesque part about "absolutely voluntarily" choosing Nazi (occupation) over Soviet (occupation) as if it wasn't clear what the Soviets were going to do to the peoples of the Baltic states upon reinvading—that is, once again unleash a campaign of terror, murder, and mass deportations of innocent civilians. This isn't about who occupied Danzig/Gdansk at the time. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• In a spirit of tact and diplomacy, I've looked at the one online source (in Estonian) which doesn't seem to mention Germany, just Danzig, and not having access to the cited book (in Estonian) had a look for better sources. Oh look. That follows the English language source, while using piped links to be historically correct. So this is what readers see. Let the wild rumpus commence :-/ . . . dave souza, talk 18:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh woe, having implemented this sensible compromise, I now find Paul Siebert trying to argue that it's ok to have synthesis to push in his wording about German occupation. The discussion is at Talk:Lia Looveer#I would like anyone to explain me what is wrong with this so wiser counsel would be appreciated. Bedtime here now. . . dave souza, talk 23:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Is Bibliometry an acceptable means of assessing Due Weight and Notability?

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

Collapsed as possible violation of arbitration enforcement

Can Bibliometry establish due weight and notability objectively? The essay WP:Google searches and numbers suggests not One of the biggest fallacies in determining notability of a subject is the results of a Google search using the title or keywords of an article or subject, essentially known as a "Google test." Instead of a Google search, can structured searches in Google Books establish due weight and notability? Could this be the basis of an objective means of establishing notability? In my personal opinion, Bibliometry cannot form the basis of establishing WP:DUE, for the simple reason it is fundamentally vulnerable to Confirmation Bias. In an example above, an editor attempts to measure the weight sources attach to a group of Jewish settlers from Cordoba moving to Gibraltar in 1474 (keywords "Cordoba" and "1474"). This produces 1 hits [72]. My search (Keywords Jews, Gibraltar, 1474) produces 211 hits [73]. On this basis I reject bibliometry as I see it as fundamentall flawed it can be manipulated either consciously or sub-consciously to produce any desired result. Another editor has suggested I'm simply criticising the method and not discussing how the flaws/imperfections might be fixed. So the focused question I would like community input on: Is Bibliometry an acceptable means of establishing WP:DUE in an objective fashion? Wee Curry Monster talk 23:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Wee Curry Monster apparently has forgotten that he is subject to an arbitration enforcement, and is thereby "banned from starting or participating in any discussion concerning any events, occurrences, or incidents that occurred between 1600 AD and 1900 AD, if such event, occurrence, or incident took place in, or is otherwise related to, Gibraltar, broadly construed." This section here is an outgrowth of a discussion above (#Due weight and numbers of sources, which was exempted from the ban, under limitations) regarding certain aspects of the Gibraltar issue. Initiation of this section is part of pattern by WCM to raise the issue repeatedly. My recommendation is that this fresh outbreak be closed, and the editor advised to participate in the existing discussion, or avoid the topic entirely. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 17:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

A) If I've inadvertently breached this restriction that was unintentional, for which I apologise and I'll withdraw it.

B) There is no pattern of raising the issue repeatedly, again we see you blaiming an editor, whilst at the same time claiming to be neutral and objective. This is why I have no confidence in the process going anywhere. Which brings me onto my next point.

C) The thread above seems to be dissolving into group therapy and going precisely nowhere. It was started to ask a pretty basic question, either Bibliometry is an acceptable way of establishing due weight, in which case we can just forget about WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:V and WP:CON, or it doesn't and it can be eliminated from discussions for the disruptive way it is being used. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

  a) If the comments above (collapsed) re Gibraltar are not pursued I think they should be deemed as an unintentional, for which no consequences should ensue.

  b) There is a pattern of raising the issue repeatedly. I am not inclined to dig out a whole list, but this discussion springs from #Due weight and numbers of sources above, with the same issue being raised here and here (lenghty) and here.

  c) Wee Curry Monster has repeatedly demanded a "simple answer" (and currently at #Simple matter, simple question, above), but every time I have tried to get him to focus on a single question that might be simple enough for a simple answer he reverts to a mode of complaining that other questions are being ignored. In other words, he wants a "simple" answer for a broad issue, with far-reaching consequences ("we can just forget about" various fundamental policies). And as he is already decided on an answer ("In my personal opinion, Bibliometry cannot form the basis of establishing WP:DUE...."), he is not raising a question for discussion, but advocating a position which prior history shows little chance of resolution. As the issue raised here is repetitive, stuck, and unlikely to make any progress in the current circumstances, I am going to be bold and close it. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I really don't see how blaming an editor for trying to get focused outside opinion to resolve a dispute is helpful and it seems clear that you are no longer approaching this in an objective manner.

No there isn't a pattern of raising the issue repeatedly, show me on any of those threads where the question is addressed and not derailed by red herrings and multiple irrelevant issues to swamp the discussion.

Are you saying that I'm wrong? Do you really advocate establishing weight on the basis of Google searches? Wee Curry Monster talk 21:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

  WCM: 1) You are misrepresenting both what I said and the methodology in issue; these are violations of the WP:Talk page guidelines. This is part of why it has been so difficult discuss this issue.

  2) The "red herrings and multiple irrelevant issues to swamp the discussion" is exactly what you trying to do here. This section itself is part of the pattern.

  3) The issue you raise here ("bibliometry") is in the context of Gibraltar; I remind you once again of User_talk:Wee Curry Monster#Notice of sanctions related to Gibraltar. Your initiation and continuation of this discussion is a likely violation of those sanctions. Don't complain that I didn't warn you. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Pure blood theory in Korea or Korean ethnic nationalism?

There is continuing controversy on whether the title Pure blood theory in Korea is appropriate. The disagreement is whether the title Pure blood theory in Korea is NPOV, and whether the reliable sources referenced in the article cover this subject under the term Pure blood theory or ethnic nationalism. In my opinion, the current title is offensive and keeps many editors, including myself, from providing constructive contributions to the subject matter, and much of the article's contents were written by a selective group of editors with a history of anti-Korean bias, and should the current title be maintained, it will remain so for the foreseeable future. The current debate is largely limited to a few non-neutral editors, so I'd like to ask neutral editors to drop in their opinions on this matter to put in some fresh perspective. Cydevil38 (talk) 23:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Racism in Korea would be in line with Racism in the United Kingdom, Racism in the United States, etc. Notions of "purity" are common in racism and xenophobia throughout the world. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:Due weight and Feminism

Does WP:due weight mean that there should be more coverage on Wikipedia of American feminism than feminism in other countries, because American feminism is written about more often in English sources? Should American feminism be given more prominence and space in English articles about worldwide feminism because of this? (For example, History of feminism) --Aronoel (talk) 18:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at Template Talk:Rescue

You are invited to join the discussion at Template Talk:Rescue. Rescue Tag guidelines are often not followed. Do the instructions for the Rescue Tag need to change, or does the wording for the tag need to change? Avanu (talk) 13:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})

Discussion should take place at Template Talk:Rescue, not here.

There's nothing about this request that's actually relevant to the purpose of this board: suggest archiving. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC) Unlike your shooting down of this at Village Pump, which may or may not apply, it is *very* relevant here, Sarek. The archives and current use of the tag suggest it is being used as an 'uber-Keep' vote, rather than tagging and providing an improvement plan, as per the tag's own guidelines. This means that it is being used in a way that is not neutral, and therefore a notice appropriately belongs here. -- Avanu (talk) 18:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC) The tag itself doesn't have a neutrality problem -- your issue is editor conduct, which is not within the remit of this board. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC) This board isn't about attacking other editors either, Sarek. Specifically, the tag says "flagged for rescue". The wording is crafted to sound urgent and important. Additionally, rather than simply directing people to the AfD, it says "Please review the deletion discussion and help improve". This is phrased as an "imperative sentence" rather than a "declarative sentence", which also indicates it is not neutral. I have suggested minor changes that would address these points, and editor Sarek has generally been in opposition. For any further discussion, I suggest it be placed at Template Talk:Rescue. -- Avanu (talk) 18:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC) This board is about the neutrality of articles, not tags. It says so at the top. Also, your claim of it attracting uber keep votes has no evidence to back it up. And your claim that The wording is crafted to sound urgent and important is absolutely ridiculous. Since this isn't an article but a tag we're discussing, I don't believe this should be mentioned here at all. Dream Focus 19:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC) This noticeboard deals with neutral language, and as such, it seemed appropriate given the concerns. The editors here might help in proposing neutral language or improvements. Incidentally, I never said the tag *attracts* uber-Keep votes. I said it is being used as such, a cursory look at its use in articles will show that it is being used outside of its own guidelines and many times, a person who !votes Keep will add the rescue tag, but not provide the 'rescue plan' as requested in the tag guidelines. This is why I characterize it as uber-Keep, because it attracts other editors who are more likely to vote for Keep. -- Avanu (talk) 20:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT and proposed changes to Reliability of Wikipedia

History2007 has proposed changes to Reliability of Wikipedia in an attempt to promote the improvement of Wikipedia articles. History2007 has, for example, proposed an expansion of the discussion of reliability tools in Reliability of Wikipedia. I have argued against this expansion, saying (1) these tools get little coverage in reliable sources, (2) WP:WEIGHT says that the coverage of tools in Reliability of Wikipedia should be limited to the coverage they receive in reliable sources and (3) WP:WEIGHT is part of NPOV, which is non negotiable. History2007 has given various reasons why s/he thinks that WP:WEIGHT should not apply here, such as these

Statements made about Wikipedia in WP:RS sources may have become outdated by the time they are published, given the dynamic nature of the online encyclopedia.

the fact that there are very few tools used to measure the reliability of Wikipedia gets little coverage because there are so few. So that issue is simple: there are very few tools (as I said below one just started a larger trial). So that glaring fact is not going to get coverage

The article needs more focus on what Wikpedia is doing about reliability, while mentioning historical items such Nature study as part of the past. So: more focus on what is being done about the future, less about the past.

Most of the discussion has taken place in Talk:Reliability of Wikipedia#Article takes at face value antiquated conception of reliability, but there's also some discussion in Talk:Reliability of Wikipedia#Article feedback tool and Talk:Wikipedia#Reliability).

I would appreciate any feedback from people on the noticeboard about this issue. Thanks. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually I do not have any immediate changes planned - I am beginning to explore and figure out the issues in the next month or two, as I said there. But I would like to see more coverage of what is being done today, rather than what Nature wrote years ago. The content of the article should be about the title, i.e. "reliability" not about the "history of reliability". I think the Article Feedback Tool, is at long last, a nice and necessary step by Wikipedia towards assessing reliability. I do not see why it should not be mentioned in the article. But it will take me a month or two to figure out how to present these items. I just started Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia reliability and would like to get that in better shape before chatting about it for ever. When the issues take shape there, I will propose specific changes to the article in question. And now let me plug that project and invite everyone here to join it and provide ideas there.

By the way, where and when did I say "I think WP:WEIGHT should not apply here"? I must have typed that one in invisible ink I guess.

Now that we are here: why is there an NPOV flag on that article already? What needs to happen to remove it? History2007 (talk) 08:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's stick to the subject of this section before discussing a different topic (the NPOV tag). Here is the answer to your question about where and when you said WP:WEIGHT shouldn't apply. These quotations come from Talk:Reliability of Wikipedia#Article takes at face value antiquated conception of reliability:

"Now how about planning a good sized section on what Wikipedia is doing to assess its own reliability? That is where the tools will come in. I must say that I was surprised when the DYK of Wiki-Watch received only 4,000 hits. I had expected it to be a lot more. So there is significant need for increasing awareness of reliability measures within Wikipedia. History2007 (talk) 07:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)"

"... WP:WEIGHT determines what size the tools discussion can be in the article. Again, do tools really get enough coverage in reliable sources to justify a significant change in focus toward tools? -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)"

"No, I do not agree with your characterization of the situation. ... History2007 (talk) 06:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)"

Seems pretty clear to me, but in case it's not, let me ask you this.

Yes or no, do you think that the amount of coverage of reliability tools in the Reliability of Wikipedia article should be limited based on the amount of coverage in realible sources as WP:WEIGHT requires? -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, we do not seem to agree even on a framework for discussion, or your characterization of it. There is an article with an NPOV flag at the top, you want to ignore that and then talk about a talk page discussion? Go figure.... So when I have finished my homework on the topic, and start to edit the article I may spend time to discuss it - no point in spending time here on this. Until, then, keep cool and try to fix the NPOV flag problems first. History2007 (talk) 14:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I find it interesting that you won't answer a simple yes or no question about a core Wikipedia policy. It sounds like you do not intend to follow WP:WEIGHT and the frameworks and characterizations will be your rationalization for doing so. If so, we might be back here on this noticeboard in a month or two. The rest of the discussion will have to wait.

Now that we've covered the first issue, I can talk about the NPOV flag. That's a separate issue. Per WP:DISPUTE and WP:CONSENSUS, please discuss that issue on the article's talk page before discussing on a noticeboard. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

RFC: NPOV dispute for National Broadband Network

Main page: Talk:National Broadband Network § RFC: NPOV dispute for National Broadband Network

RFC was called about the NPOV dispute for National Broadband Network. —[d'oh] 06:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Acupuncture: aggressive skeptics pushing POV

There appears to be an (ongoing) problem with the Acupuncture page.

Militant skeptics have substantially hijacked the page, negating, criticizing, or qualifying much of the content -- this should instead be moved to a separate page.

There is clear, highly biased POV:

1) Acupuncture safety/ deaths are presented as a problem. US figures for deaths due to medical error are 250,000 per year; with harmful side-effects of prescription drugs, and pain-killer addiction, also being very major problems.

2) Many studies, by reputable Western institutes, find clear benefits/ advantages to acupuncture. Yet certain studies or reviews, eliminating Asian publications & not finding benefits, are seized upon as "authoritative". Search PubMED for acupuncture examples -- there are over 16,000 publications in this database alone.

3) Discussion has degenerated into argument, about trivial technicalities -- skeptics happily arguing, about how to & how much, acupuncture has been disproved.

4) Aggressive skepticism being pushed, has discouraged & driven off any of the genuine Chinese contributors & actual "domain experts" -- people who know acupuncture, are being literally driven off from contributing.

5) Claims of "publication bias" used to reject positive Chinese evidence, are not matched by consideration of very major "funding bias" -- present in much so-called "evidence", for Western medicine. Western medicine, and the claim of impeccable science, are vastly weighted by pharmaceutical & medical-devcie funding. Publication bias in this field, is also well established.

6) Attempts to discuss this on the Talk:;Acupuncture page, have been rejected and wiped.

7) Attempts to propose & write more neutral (factualyl correct) content, have been reverted.

8) The page has been taken over by 'Skeptics' -- who are attempting to push their POV. Users such as Usertalk:OrangeMarlin explicitly state a pre-assumption on their page, that "Alternative Medicine is bullshit". This is a gross logical error, and a violation of scientific principles -- science is meant to be about genuine inquiry, rather than attempting to prove pre-formed assumptions.

Diffs of neutral content, and reversion

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Acupuncture&action=historysubmit&oldid=429176041&diff=428574416

Section on talk page

This article is inappropriately negative. It's meant to be about Acupuncture, not 'Acupuncture Skepticism'.

Acupuncture is a long-established form of treatment, coming from a pre-scientific background. The fact of this background does not in way, prove it is not effective or does not work -- that is a logical fallacy.

It is inappropriate for this page, intended to be about Acupuncture, to be hijacked to convey a clear skeptical POV. This page should be removed from the purview of the 'Skepticism Project'. They can write a counter-page if they want.

Acupuncture has been of significant scientific interest, for a long time. With many studies ongoing. It is unlikely it would be of such interest, in finding the means, if there were no effect.

Many current studies, appear to find it useful for Cardiology, Anasthesia as well as Musculo-Skeletal and other conditions.

Here are just a very few studies:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15078586 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9330670 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18452622 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12528093 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12528093

There are dozens or hundreds more, searching PubMed alone. (Published under auspices of the US Government NIH).

If acupuncture were any empty phenomenon, there would not be this level of scientific investigation (16,457 published papers). This is a subject, which is receiving genuine & substantial amounts of investigation -- to uncover why it appears to be efefctive.

However, acupuncture is the primary phenomenon -- not the partial and limited understanding of it, yet gleaned by science. *That* should not be the topic, or focus, of this article.

I also challenge the objectivity & neutrality of skeptics -- very few surgical procedures have been validated by double-blind trials, and 'medical error' is a leading cause of death in industrialized countries.

195,000 deaths from errors in hospitals, per year in US: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/11856.php http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/deadbymistake/6555095.html

up to 780,000 deaths from wider medical errors, per year in US: http://www.ourcivilisation.com/medicine/usamed/deaths.htm

[Iatrogenesis] [26] $19.5 billion cost per year, from medical errors in US http://www.soa.org/news-and-publications/newsroom/press-releases/2010-08-09-med-errors.aspx

Where are the skeptics defacing pages, on surgery & Western medicine? I'm a supporter myself, but this a clear embedded bias which the skeptics seem too irrational & uninformed to acknowledge.

It is unnecessary -- and outright incorrect -- to garnish every single statement about acupuncture, with criticisms or negatives based on a limited & skeptical understanding and 'selective viewing' of evidence.

By comparison with Western medicine, acupuncture is safe. Article on gardening, do not immediately focus on legionella deaths from planting mix -- articles on rocketry, do not immediately focus on rocket explosions -- articles on Western medicine, cover the 'positive purpose & benefit' with little mention of the 20% - 33% rate of hospital complications and 250,000 deaths per year (in the US).

Yet the supposed 'rationalism' of skeptics -- actually, a *logically false* and erroneously argumentative form of criticism -- comes from a weak & limited understanding of their own 'embedded mindset' and accepted background. Things considered to be 'normal' or 'accustomed' practice, by them, are not equally considered or subjected to such criticism.

Such 'skepticism' is logically false, and should not be the major feature in this article. This is exceptionally hostile, exceptionally POV, and both exceptionally weak & arrogant -- to assume that a raft of selective minor criticisms, should assume first-class status & take over the article.

I call upon the editor to remove this page from the purview of the skeptic's group -- and to edit the page, so it provides a genuine neutral view of Acupuncture rather than this negatively biased POV.

Furthermore, I'd like and expect this discussion of 'purpose', 'bias' and 'criticism' to REMAIN IN THIS TALK PAGE -- until such time as it becomes unnecessary, or a better and more comprehensive NEUTRAL DISCUSSION succeeds it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twhitmore.nz (talk • contribs)