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

Endocrine disruption

FellGleaming (talk · contribs) has written the following over at endocrine disruption:

The theory of endocrine disruption has been dismissed as junk science by some scientists, and there is no consensus that the concept is valid.[1]

However, that is not what the source FellGleaming quoted said. The source examined and presented both sides of the debate, not one side as Fell just did. The New York Times article wrote:

Where science has left a void, politics and marketing have rushed in. A fierce debate has resulted, with one side dismissing the whole idea of endocrine disruptors as junk science and the other regarding BPA as part of a chemical stew that threatens public health.[2]

The article goes into more detail about both sides, and it is neither neutral nor accurate to summarize the source in the way it is presented in the article by FellGleaming. I've asked Fell to revisit the source and fix it, but he refuses. Viriditas (talk) 11:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment by FellGleaming.

Viriditas has posted me to three different messageboards in the past 4 days, as well as following me to various articles and filling talk pages with threats and personal attacks. I'll save that for an upcoming harassment case if it continues.

To respond to this particular edit, the diff is here [3]. I reverted out an edit by Islandeden, restoring the article to its original state. Why? His text removed a text that stated there was valid scientific dispute, replacing it with a source that purports to claim "scientific consensus", basing this off a single paper. He provided no link in the cite, but I went looking for it and found it here, at the advocacy site "endocrinedisruption.net": [4]. As everyone knows, primary sources like this can be difficult to use properly, as they require more interpretation than a secondary source. And in this case, the editor's interpretation was severely flawed. The paper claimed no consensus among scientists in general, but simply consensus among the participants in this particular workshop. I thus reverted out the change as unsupported by the source.

The material Viriditas is referring to above was added to the article by a previous editor; my revert simply restored it. If Viriditas truly believed it was problematic, he could fix it himself. Instead, he is demanding I acknowledge I "misrepresented sources", as he says he is "building a case against me". Viriditas is, by the way, being discussed for sanctions on the climate change message board for battleground mentality tactics. In fact, it was my posting an opinion against him there that led to his retaliation here. Fell Gleaming^talk 17:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

First of all, a summary statement from an expert panel, synthesizing available literature, is a secondary source, not a primary source. The interpretation of existing data has already been performed by the experts on the panel, and our responsibility is to accurately convey their conclusions. I agree that "scientific consensus" is probably an overstatement based on this one expert body statement, but this is nonetheless a secondary source and probably worthy of discussion and inclusion in the proper context.

Secondly, regardless of who added the material, this is pretty clearly an inappropriate, slanted, and cherry-picked summary of this New York Times article. It seems FellGleaming accepts this point, maybe - at least he isn't defending the edit content, saying only that he reverted on general principles, I guess. So maybe the involved editors could work out a more suitable and neutral representation of the New York Times source on the article talk page, ideally with a minimum of posturing. MastCell ^Talk 19:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

A minor point perhaps, since Mastcell agrees the source was represented incorrectly, but an expert panel that doesn't cite or analyze any research or other primary source, but simply states the current opinions of the panel members, is probably best characterized as itself being a primary source. It's no different than had one or more of those experts directly written an article on the subject. I would be happy to work with Viriditas on this page, but I fear he's more concerned with his retaliatory efforts than improving the content for any of the six article's he's currently trying to report me for. Fell Gleaming^talk 19:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

FellGleaming, please revisit the article and represent the source accurately, without introducing bias. I've already asked you to do this on the talk page, and you have refused, saying " I simply reverted a problematic change; I wasn't specifically restoring that claim. However, I don't see that the claim (which was already in the article btw) is inaccurate at all. One side does dismiss it as junk science, and -- given there are two sides to the scientific debate -- no consensus exist.". This is the same response you give whenever a problem is raised with the way you use sources. You deny there is a problem, and you refuse to fix it. I've already used the talk page, which is why I'm posting at this noticeboard. Viriditas (talk) 19:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The idea that endocrine disrupting chemicals don't exist is a fringe (and inaccurate) viewpoint. The New York Times gives this and other fringe viewpoints (e.g. climate change denial) equal weight in the name of "balance", because the same investors that own the corporations most responsible for climate change and toxic chemical production also own the New York Times (or are large marketing clients of it). They are simply protecting their other financial holdings such as petrochemical corporations. This is why we shouldn't use corporate newspapers, with a clear conflict of interest, to report on scientific topics. There has been plenty of high quality scholarly literature written on this, so we should use that rather than corporate press propaganda. The scientific consensus is that endocrine disrupting chemicals do exist, and the only debate is about which chemicals are endocrine disruptors. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 14:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

P.S. FellGleaming -- These are the types of sources you should use for well known scientific topics such as this. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 14:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

- Rabbi Yishayahu Yosef Pinto - Help in reviewing ? Far from neutral

Labour Party (UK)

Labour Party (UK) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

OK, I'll state upfront that - unlike the issue above - this is an article I could reasonably be said to being "involved" at. I can't recall how, I suspect through WP:RFPP (I've certainly protected the article before now), but I've had the article watchlisted for some time now and I've previously raised an issue at ANI.

There has for sometime been "genre-warring" over this political party's ideology. The party itself claims to be "democratic socialist". Historically (back in the dim past of October 2009) the article listed "democratic socialism", "social democracy" and "third way". This was changed by Riversider2008 (talk) to include "neoliberalism". This was removed at some point (after, I think May 2010). As of today the article only includes "democratic socialism", so - obviously - "social democracy" and "third way" have been removed at some point. They don't, however, feature much in this report.

For the past few months there has been an up-tick in edit warring over the "ideology" field in the infobox, mostly with IPs adding uncited ideologies, however to be fair all additions could probably be cited from historical versions of the article. More recently, following semi-protection by your 'umble servant, a discussion has started on the article's talkpage. Riversider2008 has referred to several archived discussions in which sources of varying degrees of reliability had been provided in support of "neoliberalism".

I remain unconvinced by Riversider2008's arguments for inclusion, as I believe "neoliberalism" is an extraordinary claim, requiring extraordinary sources. However, Riversider2008 does make the argument that "democratic socialism" has only ever been sourced to the party itself.

So... what ideologies should be included in the infobox? TFOWR 16:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Just democratic socialist. It was described as a socialist party in Klaus von Beyme's party categories. While sources say it has adopted neoliberal polices, as have all major Western parties, there are no sources that claim it is a mainstream view that they are now a neoliberal party. TFD (talk) 17:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, the infobox that I am arguing for does NOT baldly state that Labour has a neoliberal ideology or is a neoliberal party, rather the much softer position that neoliberalism is one of several ideological currents within the party. TFD is correct that very few sources state that Labour has become an entirely neoliberal party, but many point to a strong neoliberal trend within its leadership, which the infobox should reflect. Other UK political parties (like the Conservative Party) articles list a number of ideological trends or influences, so this is not unusual or 'extraordinary'. Simply listing 'democratic socialism' is a gross oversimplification of the more complex reality that the published literature points to, and by oversimplifying becomes POV. I'd request that editors spend a little time studying the weight and breadth of sources cited in the discussion before reaching their conclusions. Riversider (talk) 22:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Most western parties of any orientation have to varying degrees adopted neo-liberal economic policies. This was true of the Blair years and the fact should be included in the main body of the article. It is not however an ideology, and we are anyway past the "new Labour" period, post the banking crash etc. etc. The information box needs to place a party where it sits in the political spectrum, more detailed analysis and description belongs in the main body of the article. --Snowded ^TALK 05:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Clause IV does indeed say "democratic socialist" (and I went to check), but the privatisation bent they went on betrays that somewhat. Still, they are seen as reasonably left-wing by their base, and indeed by most of the public. Sure, the Trotskyists aren't too pleased they moved closer to the centre, but there you go. That said, we could do well to add more than one ideology to reflect the factions: Conservative Party (UK) has 5 and Liberal Democrats 2. Sure, Blair and Brown aren't in charge of the party, but you still have people like David Miliband or Peter Mandelson, who continue the party's Third Way credentials. Sceptre ^(talk) 07:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Or we could but those two down, information boxes are not really places for list of policies and practices; the article can provide context for those --Snowded ^TALK 07:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think that, although it's designed to serve a useful and needed purpose, "ideology" shouldn't be in the InfoBox for political parties; in most cases, it's just too hard to compress the reality into a few words. A brief summary of a party's main ideological currents belongs in the introductory paragraphs. See a parallel edit war (or series of skirmishes) at Socialist Party USA and earlier ones at Social Democrats USA, both of which are as tadpoles to the whales of the SPD and the Labour Party. And at least all these parties, whatever their later evolutions, came out of a common heritage in the Second International. For a historically and consciously non-ideological party like the U.S. Democratic and Republican Parties, or the various Gaullist and Giscardien parties of the French Fifth Republic, the only label that would fit would be sui generis. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

See Von Beyme's classification of parties in left-right politics. The Labour party is socialist, while the Republican and Democratic parties are liberal. Also, some Americans have started to call themselves "right-wing" which in the rest of the world means fascist. Do you think that articles about them should call them "democratic right-wing"? TFD (talk) 05:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Born2cycle and Libertarianism

In the midst of extended debate about the scope of this article, Born2cycle reveals that his intent is to limit the scope of the article to those views espoused by the US Libertarian Party, which of course has its own article. Are there any editors here who could comment on this proposal? See this section and this section on the talk page. Yworo (talk) 18:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

This post mis-characterizes my view in two ways. First, I don't even mention the US Libertarian Party in any comments in those sections. Second, my intent is not about limiting views at all. It's about limiting content that is out of scope with respect to what is meant by the term libertarianism (unqualified) in English reliable source today. There is a huge difference. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

See this comment where Born2cycle states "this article should associate the topic of this article with the political ideology of the U.S. Libertarian Party". Yworo (talk) 21:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I think Born2cycle's point in the diff is that the article scope reflects the political ideology of the U.S. Libertarian Party. I infer Born2cycle to mean that therefore the article lead should say as much, and that disputes about content of the article ignoring the (implicit) scope of the article are rather pointless. My suggestion would be that perhaps the page name of the article should spell out that scope. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 01:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not correct at all. The article doesn't and shouldn't reflect the political ideology of the U.S. Libertarian Party, so you are completely off-base here, 69. Yworo (talk) 23:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The Four Major Rivers Project

A disagreement has been rumbling on The Four Major Rivers Project article. It seems this project is quite controversial in South Korea. Some editors have been accused of pushing government propoganda and other editors have replaced the article content with a different wording that seems to be entirely critical of the project; neither view is referenced. And so it goes back and forth for the last couple of months. I have tried to remind both sides of Wikipedia's NPOV policy and suggested there is room for both the official line and the criticism in the article. Maybe someone else can take a look at the slow-paced discussion on the talk page and make better suggestions (or correct me if I am the one in error), especially since I might soon be less able to visit Wikipedia as often as I have. Thanks. Astronaut (talk) 11:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I've suggested that the involved parties start by gathering some sources. As it stands now, neither version contains any citations. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Messianic Judaism has to be called "idolatrous" three times in the main article?

The above article currently contains the word "idolatrous" as a description of Messianic Jews three times. This is because one group of outsiders to the movement, mainstream Jews, see the MJs as being this. I personally think the word probably falls within words to avoid as per WP:AVOID, and certainly I cannot see why the word has to be repeated three times in the article, particularly considering that it is the opinion of only one other outside group. I would appreciate any responses. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 23:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

For starters, the claim is very poorly sourced. In the first instance it is used there is no source, and in the second and third it is sourced to this which is a website of a yeshiva in Jerusalem, Ohr Somayach, Jerusalem. Hardly an RS. If this is considered "idolatrous" then the first step is to get some better sources here. After that I would suggest toning it down, but without good sourcing it should be removed altogether.Griswaldo (talk) 23:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I brought a source to the Talk page. Bus stop (talk) 23:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you're objections are solid. As an aside, you have your work cut out for you on trying to balance that article. Good luck. Sol (talk) 17:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

There do seem to be serious problems with the article, but as I mentioned on that article's talk page, the word "idolatrous" does seem to properly denote the mainstream Jewish view of the Trinity, especially as per some sourcing that has been provided. However, there does seem to be a lot of repeating of criticisms in different sections of the article, which may suggest NPOV problems. Kansan (talk) 17:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

There are a lot of problems with the article. One of them is the fact that "idolatrous" denotes the Jewish opinion of pretty much every trinitarian Christian group as well, so there might even be a bit of a repetition factor involved. I'm going to try to consult the various religious encyclopediae I have available to determine how to balance it, but it does look to be a bit of a tough one. John Carter (talk) 18:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Racism in the Palestinian territories

After devolving into personal attacks and non-responses (see, for example Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_17#Racism_in_the_Palestinian_territories), the discussion of the scope of Racism in the Palestinian territories has resumed at Talk:Racism in the Palestinian territories. At issue is whether acts and attitudes of racism by Israeli settlers and soldiers in the West Bank and Gaza Strip belong within the scope of the article. Please join the discussion there.--Carwil (talk) 18:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a dreadful article and I'm embarrassed that a post at WikiProject Discrimination generated no responses. Racism in the United Kingdom, Racism in the United States are not great articles by any means. But at least we are sure they cover topics that have received a great deal of attention. I'm not at all sure that an article on Racism in the Palestinian Territories is needed. We already have a great number of articles on Israeli-Palestinian relations, and on aspects of antisemitism. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you Judith, but it's survived an AfD.

The effort to get editors' opinions on the "settlers and soldiers" question has generated almost unanimous support for their inclusion, but policy issues are raised by the one dissenter, who hasn't responded to a long list of questions. Maybe an outside editor can help with bringing the discussion to a close over the coming week.--Carwil (talk) 12:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Question on UNDUE at Wuxia

In the wuxia article, I've added information about the word's being derived from the Japanese term bukyo, a claim made by Stephen Teo in his Chinese Martial Arts Cinema: the Wuxia Tradition. Teo is a professionally published film scholar and academic who has contributed significant work on the wuxia genre, and thus should qualify as a reliable source, and as there doesn't appear to be anything contradicting Teo's claim, said etymology should be uncontroversial. However, editor Mythsearcher has deleted the claim, saying that as he can find no sources opposing the claim or apparently discussing etymology at all, that the etymology therefore falls under UNDUE. This seems to me to be the exact opposite of what Undue is meant to cover. Other arguments of Mythsearcher's (in Talk:Wuxia) rely upon his consulting unnamed dictionaries, his personal unfamiliarity with bukyo as a genre label, or insinuating ethnic bias on Teo's part, which I feel to be bordering on OR or NPOV. Ergative rlt (talk) 20:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I would assume, naively perhaps, that a Chinese dictionary would be a better source for the etymology of Chinese: 武俠 than a film scholar. Whether that's true or not, it should certainly be possible to get more than just the one opinion on the origins of the word. What we can be sure of is that one source will not produce a neutral point of view. Perhaps better suited to a different noticeboard? But the easiest way to resolve this will be to find more sources. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Changing template display titles according to article placement

Short version:

Due to disputes like the British Isles naming dispute, does WP:NPOV allow the title of a navigation template like Template:British Isles to be changed using code, based on which article it is placed on, i.e., when placed on United Kingdom, it is called "The British Isles" (and linked to the article), but when placed on the Republic of Ireland, it is called "British-Irish Council area" (and not linked). I think this is a pretty obvious violation of NPOV, which calls for uniform neutral presentation of content on all articles for all readers, rather than changing what is presented to the reader on the flawed assumption that readers of particular articles hold particular views, and should be presented with a particular world view.

Long version:

Recently, after a discussion on the talk page of Template:British Isles, the coding of that template was altered, so that the diplayed title of the template changes if you put it on certain articles such as Ireland. Obviously, this is counter to the normal practice, the template's 'home' article is British Isles, which should be linked and displayed in the title bar on all pages where it is used.

This change is based on the dubious idea that the Ireland article is the property of Irish readers, and due to the British Isles naming dispute (which is itself a disputed article, of dubious accuracy or even reality), it was asserted that NPOV mandates that we present a different world view on those articles, one more palatable to the readers who supposedly make up the majority of readers of those article, rather than keep to the standard method, which is used on the majority of other articles the template is used. This is patently not neutral, and makes several faulty assumptions.

Nobody supporting this change wanted to prove their view was not a violation of NPOV by using outside input or any actual reference to the principles of NPOV, and instead just rehashed the actual naming dispute on the talk page, while in general, the supporting arguments given for the change were pretty weak, for example, that it had been like this for a long time, or that it should be like this otherwise people will make a fuss/remove it from 'Irish articles', or that the proposed alternate name(s) of the British Isles used in Ireland is an issue of WP:ENGVAR, like color and colour.

These weak arguments certainly do not outweigh the fact the template as is now violates NPOV, which does not mandate altering what the pedia says based on what article people are reading. (c.f. the NPOV resolution of disputes like what to call the city of Derry/Londonderry, which was that the city article is presented as Derry on all articles, and the county is presented as County Londonderry on all articles. Similarly, where there is risk of confusion, Republic of Ireland is presented as such on all articles, and where there is no risk of confusion, it is presented as Ireland on all articles.)

This is because the neutral point of view ensures that all articles are neutral, and instead of pandering to the controversy, it teaches the controversy, while presenting a consistent outlook based on logic, not emotion. This is already more than adequately acheived through the existence of the already aforementioned 'dispute' article, and its inclusion on the template. Writing from the NPOV quite obviously would not support a position where Irish readers reeading Irish articles will be presented with one world view, and presumably like that, and British readers reading British articles will be presented with another, and also presumably like that. And when reversed, Irish readers reading British articles, or vice versa, will then be presumably outraged. That's not the sign of a neutral reference work is it?

And while it cannot be disputed that some Irish people object to the term, they at least understand its current meaning outside of Ireland, even if they don't accept it, and there really is no commonly accepted alternative that could be used as a well understood universal replacement term for the displayed title of the template, that would best assist all readers in knowing what main article the template serves. (Not to delve too deeply into the dispute, but the commonly offered alternative of just 'Britain and Ireland' is not good at all - it is easily confused to mean 'UK and (Republic of) Ireland', rather than 'Great Britain and Ireland', and the fact that the entity of the 'British Isles' does infact encompass more territories, states, and topics, than just 'Great Britain and Ireland'.) And of course, the fact that article is actualy still called British Isles too makes it the obvious choice.

Before posting here, due to the fact this change could not apparently be reversed, therefore, according to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Reasons to delete a template number 4, violation of NPOV, I put the template up for deletion. That was less than succesful, due to the fact I think most of the people misunderstood the nomination, and presumed I was asking to rename the template, which I am pretty obviously not proposing. Many of the rest believe that it can be solved through further discussion. Some thought there was no issue, but I think that is wholy wrong, based on all the above. So, here I am, seeking more feedback on its appropriateness w.r.t WP:NPOV.

In my view, NPOV does not allow this coding, and if the template cannot be deleted and is thus still to being used, it should follow the principle of least surprise, and follow the format used on all other templates - the title should be displayed as "British Isles" on all articles where the template is used.

MickMacNee (talk) 01:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Where as being able to adjust a templates look with the use of inputs is without doubt highly useful, the way it is utilised here is a case of pushing a point of view. Outside a very small group, namely the government of ROI and people wishing to remain politically correct the group of islands are known by the vast majority English speaking population of the planet as the British Isles. The only change to the title that to me is acceptable is the suggestion made by TFOWR, in that after the heading "British Isles" the optional parameter could add "- also known as X when Y applies". Codf1977 (talk) 18:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

When will these attempts to win a content dispute through the backdoor end? A template is just a method for putting text on an article. It is not a vehicle for overriding the local consensus at an article. If you want specific words to appear on the Ireland article, you must go to Talk:Ireland and argue for it there. Or are you banned from that talk page? It's just about time for a few blocks for continued disruption spread over many project pages. Hans Adler 18:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not be in the business of kissing up to special interest groups. If you think this is contentious, check the article history on Muhammad and learn about the constant complaints having to do with including thousand-year-old, primitive depictions of Muhammad. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that article is also a problem. As is Jesus. There are currently 18 depictions of Jesus in the article, making the thing look like a Catholic church. Such depictions would make sense in the two sections Jesus#Historical views and Jesus#Legacy and influence. However, these two sections have no images at all. Most of the images are purely ornamental. The Muhammad article has similar problems with ornamental images (7 of which show Muhammad), but in that case it's worse because it offends a lot of people and the images are transparently being pressed into the article by Christian bigots. (See here for some scientific research into the phenomenon of bigotry and its causes.) There is a point to be made for one image depicting Muhammad in Muhammad#Muslim views, and maybe there is a good reason for a second picture elsewhere. But the existence of a full 7 such pictures in the article cannot plausibly be explained with anything but the most dastardly motives. If that article were using one or two Muhammad images for encyclopedic reasons there would of course still be morons complaining about them, but probably not as many as now that the images are abused in the same spirit in which Guantanamo guardians have been reported to abuse the Quran. Hans Adler 08:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I haven't got a clue what Hans is on about to be honest. This is an NPOV issue, and this is the NPOV noticeboard. It's the perfectly logical place to discuss it. MickMacNee (talk) 14:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is an NPOV issue. But your approach is totally counter-productive. Templates are a technique for keeping material on several pages uniform if that is desired by the local consensus on the pages on which they are used. They are obviously not a vehicle for overriding consensus at an article. If you don't like the way the British Isles template is used on Ireland-related articles you can discuss that on the talk pages of the articles in question or possibly in more central locations (such as here). What is not going to work is the short cut you are trying: Simply assuming as a supposedly undeniable fact that the same formulation must be used on all articles using the template, and that the only question is which one to use. The British Isles are a very weird political territory with confusing terminology that tends to change its meanings and connotations substantially when moving from one context to another, very similar and closely related context. That's precisely why we have WP:GS/BI. You are moving on very thin ice. Hans Adler 16:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The issue is adherance to NPOV, not template practice. No local consensus can ever choose to ignore NPOV, a core, immutable policy - that's just not going to happen. And the way these templates are used is accepted universally, except here. Arguing for the supremacy of a local consensus in that regard aswell, is also not convincing. If that were true, the Manual of Style etc would soon fall apart. MickMacNee (talk) 19:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

There are many valid ways for attempting to get a global consensus that the British Isles may be referred to only as the British Isles, no other terms allowed in special contexts such as Ireland-related articles. Participation in WP:BITASK is the most obvious and potentially the most effective path for that. Attacking a technical feature of a template is just about the least acceptable and most disruptive approach. Hans Adler 19:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Better than the NPOV noticeboard? I doubt it. There is a clear disparity in numbers of participants for a start. MickMacNee (talk) 21:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Park51 (the so called "Ground Zero Mosque"). Is first use of the word "mosque" appropriate without reflecting that the designation "mosque" is itself POV?

A dispute has arisen at the article Park51 as to how Wikipedia should designate the building neutrally. At issue is the first use of the term "mosque" within the article. Can it be used on first use as though the prayer space within the building IS "a mosque" (and only later expand on the controversy over the use of the the term "mosque"). Or should the article be more neutral and reflect immediately the fact that some claim that it IS NOT, in fact, "a mosque"?

An edit war of sorts has unfortunately broken out over this with some editors adamant that "mosque" is appropriate on first without reference to the disputed appropriateness of the term.

Opinion at the Talk page for the article is divided. Clearly many elements in the press have used "Ground Zero mosque" as a label for the controversy and by this they are clearly referring to the prayer space within and following the lead of the critics. But others in the press are clearly willing to point out the hypocrisy in referring to it in this way (for example this from The Guardian)

The "Ground Zero mosque" is a genuine proposal, but it's slightly less provocative than its critics' nickname makes it sound. For one thing, it's not at Ground Zero. Also, it isn't a mosque.. Wait, it gets duller. It's not being built by extremists either. Cordoba House, as it's known, is a proposed Islamic cultural centre, which, in addition to a prayer room, will include a basketball court, restaurant, and swimming pool. Its aim is to improve inter-faith relations. It'll probably also have comfy chairs and people who smile at you when you walk in, the monsters. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/aug/23/charlie-brooker-ground-zero-mosque)

and this piece from the Huffington Post

This Community Center plans to house a culinary school, an auditorium, a swimming pool, a basketball court, and yes, space for prayer. But it is not a mosque, so we all need to stop calling it that. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anushay-hossain/park-51-the-ground-zero-m_b_686950.html)

and this from the MSNBC journalist Keith Olbermann

A mosque is "a place built for the purpose of gathering for prayer and worship in Islam," whereas the building that is going to be built near (not on) Ground Zero is an Islamic Community Center called "Park 51" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZpT2Muxoo0)

The Economist always keeps the term "Ground Zero Mosque" in quote marks.

The project planners themselves describe the building as "a community center" and say that it contains a "prayer space for Muslims" along with a host of other things. They do not say that the building will be "a mosque" or even that it contains "a mosque". In fact they say that strictly speaking it CANNOT be termed "a mosque".

Q Why are you building “a mosque near Ground zero?”

A Strictly speaking, it will not be a “mosque,” although it would have a prayer space on one of its 15 floors.

(http://www.cordobainitiative.org/?q=content/frequently-asked-questions)

One WP editor claims that the project web site did at one time use the word "mosque" but only later changed it to the term "prayer space". Others have been more partisan allowing their clearly negative inclination towards the project to influence their view of the rights and wrongs of Wikipedia's presentation.

I wish to make it clear that editors are NOT arguing that the word "mosque" cannot be used in the article space. That would clearly not be reflective of the project and the controversy surrounding it and they are NOT disputing that a mosque is a building designated for Muslim prayer; but there is a dispute as to whether a building that is NOT wholly designated for prayer can legitimately be termed "a mosque" by Wikipedia itself. The term "mosque" appears more than 100 times in the article and that is no surprise and is NOT in dispute. The issue I am referring to is specifically Wikipedia's designation of the building and its contents and the POV or otherwise that conveys.

Personally, I think it is clear. A hospital or an airport may contain a chapel but nobody in their right mind would then call the hospital or the airport a church. And as another editor pointed out, neither are YMCAs or JCCs designated as "churches" or "synagogues" even though parts of these bodies may be used for religious prayer. There is a redirect from Ground Zero Mosque to the article Park51 so nobody looking for the article about the controversy can be in any doubt that the two are not connected.

This is a tricky problem which has aroused impassioned argument on the Talk page and in the article space with no resolution in sight. The assistance of other editors is called for. So the question I would like assistance with is this. Which is more NPOV appropriate? First reference to mosque without immediate mention of the dispute over the use of the word "mosque", or first reference with mention of the dispute ? In other words, should the Park51 article merely describe the center as "a community center and a mosque" or should it be more circumspect and describe it as community center containing a prayer space which some have controversially termed as the "Ground Zero Mosque" (with the word "controversially" tagged with one or more of the references that I have cited above)?--Hauskalainen (talk) 05:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I upped the protection level, as this isn't going to go away. I'll leave it to the talk page to decide whether the 'ground zero mosque' appellation belongs in the first line or not, but if it does stay, it should be pointed out that it is inaccurate. — kwami (talk) 05:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The Muslim community's apparent inability to properly manage the public relations around this building is not wikipedia's concern. If the media all call it the "Ground Zero Mosque", then that fact has to be acknowledged in the article, while at the same time reporting what its real name is. Vaguely similar, from an editing standpoint, is the obviously erroneous term "spill" in connection with the Gulf of Mexico disaster. It wasn't a "spill", it was a "leak" (to put it mildly). However, all the media (including the new issue of National Geographic) called it a "spill", so "that's what it is". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes but the difference between "spill" and "leak" do not provoke impassioned and serious POV concerns. The question I ask myself is "Does the name affect perception?" In this case I think it does. It is also a name given by others. Other things being equal what one names oneself is preferred. It is also the name given by others that is provocative. This isn't a case of people drawing attention to themselves by naming themselves provocatively. All the arguments can be contained in the article and the fact that a redirect from "Ground Zero Mosque" means people aren't being impeded from finding it. In such a case one usually goes with the most neutral term. So Park 51 it should be. Lambanog (talk) 05:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, if Park 51 is its name, then that's what the article should be called, with Ground Zero Mosque as a redirect. The article itself should just not shy away from the controversy. A lot of Americans think that the Muslims are "all in this together", i.e. the terror war, and that building it so close to the 9/11 site is kind of like if we had set up a World War II souvenirs stand in Hiroshima. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

"Ground Zero Mosque" is a propaganda term, and that must be clear when it is introduced. Wikipedia is not in the propaganda business, even if it is the propaganda of a large part of American society against a minority. Hans Adler 08:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Tell that to the ones with relatives killed on 9/11/01. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not just for the relatives of the 3,000 innocent people who died in the 9/11 attacks. It is also for the relatives of the 14,000-34,000 mostly innocent people who died in Bush's Afghanistan crusade and the relatives of the roughly 100,000 innocent unarmed people who were killed in the crusade against Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11 but must be mentioned in this context because that was used as a pretext. Hans Adler 08:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

All of that stuff came about because of 9/11, one way or another. In any case, you need to understand why many Americans are alarmed about this place. Many Americans consider it to be highly offensive and basically an "up yours" to America from the Muslim community (though I do not necessarily agree with that automatically). All I'm saying is that the article has to acknowledge the issues that have been raised by locating there. To not do so would be propaganda of another sort. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

You are rationalising the propaganda. Wikipedia is not the place for spreading propaganda. Period. Hans Adler 08:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's a nice, eloquent statement in WSJ, from Mayor Bloomberg, defending the mosque:[5] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

And calling it propaganda, is also propaganda. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The point being that if the usage of "Ground Zero Mosque" is widespread, then wikipedia has to acknowledge that fact, whether it's fair or not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The term "Ground Zero Mosque" clearly falls under the technical definition of propaganda. Correctly pointing this out is not propaganda. (The first sentence of the article propaganda is misleading because it lacks an important qualification that follows starting in the second sentence.) Wikipedia must of course mention this widespread propaganda term, but it cannot endorse it by introducing it without comment. Hans Adler 09:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

At the moment, the first sentence starts out, "Park51, originally named Cordoba House and controversially referred to as the "Ground Zero mosque"..." Seems fair to me. Covers all the bases in one sentence. And just because you think it's "propaganda" doesn't really matter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem with this version, but note this. Hans Adler 09:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

"By some" is weaselly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

No matter how times Anwar al-Awlaki is called a "terror imam" by the media, it's not appropriate for Wikipedia to bold the term in his article. The fact that people have heard of "the Ground Zero Mosque" and not Park51, is best handled by taking the term out of the voice of the encyclopedia. Perhaps the clearest solution is saying: and at the center of the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque" controversy. At some point, this article may outgrow being primarily about said controversy (a large community center in a major city might have other notable features and events over time), and we can birth a separate article under the latter name.--Carwil (talk) 13:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

{It is not wikipedia's place to try to "politically-correct" the public. We go by sources. If the sources primarily call it the "Ground Zero Mosque", then that's what it is, whether you like it or not. Although the article title should still be Park51, since that's its official name. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

You are not even contributing to building this encyclopedia, so it's not clear at all to me what you think gives you the right to fight for it to become a propaganda tool. Hans Adler 15:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Here[6] is an editorial by a writer for something called the Arab News. He refers to it as the Ground Zero Mosque. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Why do you think a letter to the editor is at all relevant to this discussion? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's an outside view. I don't have any sympathy for the "ground zero mosque" terminology. It's inaccurate and annoying, and probably is propaganda too. But since there is a redirect for it, and since readers may have come across it somewhere, I think it should be in the lede. And not with "controversial" attached either. "Sometimes referred to as the 'ground zero mosque' or "often referred to as the 'ground zero mosque', whichever best reflects the prominence in the media. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The term "Ground Zero mosque" is currently being introduced in the first sentence in the following form:

Park51, [...] controversially referred to as the "Ground Zero mosque", is [...].

That seems to be appropriate. The term is highly notable, the project's real name is much less known, and readers might be confused if we don't mention the propaganda term in the first sentence. "Controversially referred to" makes it clear that this is not a neutral term and warns the readers sufficiently that it may be misleading. What I think is more problematic is that the entire lead is written under the assumption that this project is really a project to build a mosque, and much of the article continues in this way. The First Baptist Church in the City of New York looks like a mosque on first sight. The artist's rendering of Park51 does not look like a mosque at all. Planning a mosque that looks like a mosque in this location could reasonably be seen as a provocation. Conversely, planning an Islamic cultural centre complete with sports facilities and a concept for interfaith dialogue is a priori a reconciliation project that tries to undo part of the damage that the terrorists have done to the US. Hans Adler 16:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• IMPORTANT NOTE TO COMMENTORS

The discussions above have strayed (sometimes wildly) away from very specific question that I have posed. I am not questioning whether "Ground Zero Mosque" is a loaded term. The point of contention is that the some editors want the article to say that the building IS or CONTAINS a "mosque" when that itself is a controversial statement. What is not controversial is that it contains a space for Muslim prayer. But saying that it IS "a mosque" is surely wrong (IMHO) if numerous people and the developers themselves claim that the use of the term "mosque" for a space within a space is inaccurate. Here is what I regard as WP presenting a POV view inapproriately http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Park51&diff=next&oldid=388812512. The use of the word "mosque" to describe the prayer space is highly POV and the text as it now stands which says

"Park51, originally named Cordoba House and controversially referred to as the "Ground Zero mosque", is a planned 13-story multi-faith[5] community center and mosque to be located...

is POV because first use of the word "mosque" is in the non neutral term "Ground Zero mosque" and because the term I where I underlined it implies that the prayer space IS a mosque. The presence of the word "controversially" where it is muddies the issue as to whether the project is controversial or the use of language to describe it is controversial. Given that the use of language is controversial Wikipedia ought not to use one form of language in preference to another.This is why I find the current edit so unacceptable. I believe that the first use should be the neutral term "Muslim prayer space" as a description of the content (it is on only one of 15 floors) and only then mention that it is this prayer space that has been controversially dubbed as "the Ground Zero Mosque", with the word controversially expanded in the notes with reference to the fact that it is not precisely located at Ground Zero and that it is not, stricly speaking, a mosque"

Here is an example of how I had tried to present it more neutrally - but others have simply reverted it.

Park51, originally named Cordoba House, is a planned 13-story multi-faith[5] community center in Lower Manhattan. It would replace an existing 1850s Italianate-style building damaged in the September 11, 2001 attacks. The proposed facility's design includes a 500-seat auditorium, theater, performing arts center, fitness center, swimming pool, basketball court, childcare area, bookstore, culinary school, art studio, food court, September 11 memorial, and a prayer space for Muslims that could accommodate 1,000–2,000 people.[6][7] This presence of a prayer space about two blocks from the World Trade Center site[6][8] has led some to refer to it as the "Ground Zero Mosque", though others have strongly objected to this. [9]

Although "Ground Zero mosque" appears a little later I do not think this very significant given that most people reaching the article will probably have got here from the redirect at Ground Zero mosque. It is better to stay accurate and neutral than for Wikipedia to a adopt a non-neutral tone early on for no good reason. The reason given for reverting it was " Wording should reflect reliable sources, not how project backers spin it" . a POV statement if ever there was given that three different journalists had been cited and not the backers. This is why I posed the question very precisely. Is first use of the word "mosque" appropriate without reflecting that the designation "mosque" is itself POV? Please address THAT precise question.--Hauskalainen (talk) 01:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't fault your proposed wording. It reads, quite appropriately, like a lede of an article about a building development. You should have bold text for Cordoba House and also for Ground Zero Mosque as alternate titles. I would link Lower Manhattan, Italianate architecture, Islam|Muslims, September 11, World Trade Center - some might argue that's overlinking, but it's not a big deal anyway. The other wording, "Community center and mosque" is not appropriate unless it is uncontrovertible that the plans included a mosque rather than a prayer space. If there's any doubt about which sources are appropriate, you could take that to the reliable sources noticeboard. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

While I am very concerned about the way the article currently assumes it is a mosque, I think your proposal goes a bit too far in the other direction. Only from the third sentence onwards is there any indication that this is primarily a project by and for Muslims. This is a key factor of the project's notability and belongs in the first sentence. I don't think "multi-faith" is spin, but we have no way of knowing now whether the centre will be accepted by people of all faiths. The primary purpose of the project is evidently to provide prayer space for Masjid Manhattan, a liberal Muslim group that is currently using nearby amenities that are way too small. Thinking big and creating an interfaith reconciliation project with prayer space is a perfectly rational and constructive decision under the circumstances, but presumably it started with the idea "we need a [bigger] mosque", which must still be a major motivating factor.

The problem isn't so much calling the project a mosque, the problem is reducing it to that as the article currently does. If this were a Christian project we would probably speak of a chapel inside a community centre, not of a church. The equivalent distinction for Muslim places of worship seems to be prayer room vs. mosque, but I cannot judge whether "prayer room" is completely correct given that there will presumably be all the basic facilities of a mosque inside the building. Hans Adler 09:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The need for additional prayer space for Muslims in Lower Manhattan is not in doubt. But I respectfully disagree that the issue is not about the word mosque BY WIKIPEDIA. It is precisely about this. --Hauskalainen (talk) 12:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe these two questions should be asked: "Is the article about the building or the controversy?" and "Do they deserve separate articles?" Lambanog (talk) 21:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

If it's not a mosque (and everything I've read seems to indicate that it is not) and we introduce it as a mosque without pointing out that the use of the term is blatant propaganda, then we have quite clearly failed the 'Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia' part of the Five Pillars. A note that it is frequently called that would be fine, but repeating a verifiably false statement as a blanket assertion is pretty clearly not our business. We're here to spread knowledge, not repeat (as we used to say here) something someone made up in school one day. -- ۩ Mask 22:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

On that note, the proposed wording above looks perfect. -- ۩ Mask 22:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the NY Times' wording of "Muslim community center" works, and it avoids the issue of whether the space is literally a "mosque". Perhaps "Muslim–multifaith community center", in light of the outreach program? — kwami (talk) 22:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding proposed wording - multi-faith goes too far in the other direction. "Muslim community center" seems much better. I would move the reference to the prayer space to the front of the list of contents, since this is the most significant aspect in a number of ways. Other than that, the wording looks good. Generally, if good sources can be found for "Muslim community centre, frequently, although incorrectly referred to as a Mosque, ..." then I'd go with something like that. ‒ Jaymax✍ 06:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

You don't understand, it is _both_ a community center and a mosque; we should not call the whole project one or the other, and we don't. It is to contain a space dedicated for up to 2,000 Muslims to worship, which is widely and reasonably (though not ubiquitously) referred to as a mosque. This mosque, _not_ the community center part, and the controversy surrounding the mosque, is why the project is notable, and we cannot tip-toe around this fact in the lede because it makes Hauskalainen uncomfortable . Fletcher (talk) 02:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

No, you are mistaken. By definition, it is not a mosque. The Sistine Chapel is not a church, and it would be incorrect to describe it as such. The prayer space within the community centre is likewise not a Mosque - just because people might 'reasonably' use an incorrect term, does not mean Wikipedia should sacrifice accuracy, ever. I can't even find anything to suggest is will have a minaret (although I may be wrong) - and therefore it simply cannot be accurately described as a mosque. See wiktionary.

Interesting that you rely on Wiktionary rather than referencing Wikipedia's mosque article, which says only that minarets are a common feature, but doesn't say they are required. No worries: I have fixed the Wiktionary entry (which is what you get for relying on user-generated content :-). From what I have read, the word mosque may be used strictly, but it is often used more loosely, essentially referring to any space dedicated for Muslim prayer. The word means "a place of prostration". See for example the New York Times, which describes two existing mosques not far from the World Trade Center. One, Masjid Manhattan, it describes as a "narrow basement with bare pipes snaking along the ceiling"; doubtful it has a minaret. The other, Masjid al Farah, run by Iman Rauf (who is also behind the Park51 project), seems to be a proper building, but as you can see on Google Street Maps (requires flash), it's a plain looking rowhouse type building, no minaret. Also consider, if your argument were true, the Swiss ban on minarets in new mosque constructions would have been seen as a ban on new mosques altogether, but no one said anything of the kind. I think it's particularly important we not censor the word mosque because it's precisely the perception (among some) that mosques are threatening that has led to the controversy, and thus the notability of the article. I observe those spinning it as a "prayer space" are the project organizers and their sympathizers. It violates NPOV to adopt their language to describe the project. I'm only saying our description should reflect the prevailing usage in most reliable sources, which is usually something like "community center and mosque." Here for example is an October 14 Associated Press article which describes it as an "Islamic center and mosque". Fletcher (talk) 23:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Fletcher, I use wiktionary, simply as it is the formal containter of definitions within the wider project. I dispute your challenge that the use of 'prayer space' is 'spinning', because in both NZ and the UK, "Muslim prayer spaces" are not uncommon, (eg: at universities) and are never referred to as Mosques. There is no contention around this usage. Therefore, it seems to me that the 'muslim prayer space' term is actually the normal english, and that it could equally be those who push 'mosque' who are actually either misinformed, or 'spinning' the language. It is equally NPOV to adopt the language of critics, instead of what appears to me to be the normal, correct English terminology. Incidentally, a google search for 'university muslim prayer space' suggets to me that 'muslim prayer room' may be more common in the US. I take your point on minarets. Having said all that, it occurs to me that a significant distinction between the prayer space at Park 51 and other prayer spaces and prayer rooms, is the presence of an Imam to be it's leader. This is sufficient to throw the question into doubt for me, so I will be disengaging. ‒ Jaymax✍ 03:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the proposed wording is superior on NPOV grounds to the current text, although it should read "the presence" on grammatical/style grounds. It would also be acceptable, although not necessary, to say "The presence of a Muslim prayer space..." Good work!--Carwil (talk) 12:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

We currently just say it's a "multi-faith" center, which is inaccurate. But it isn't entirely Muslim either. Also, I think the prayer space comment is extraneous, as you can hardly have a Muslim center without a prayer space. Muslim just-about-anything would have a prayer space. But perhaps that needs to be pointed out to our audience? — kwami (talk) 13:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, the proposed project has two separate aspects: the community center (which is open to the public, i.e., people of any or no faith), and the mosque (which is reserved space for Muslims). It is the proposed mosque (and the reaction to it) that is the article's main source of notability. The article is not neutral if it hides from the reader the main reason the project is important, the fact that a mosque will be constructed very close to the World Trade Center site. Fletcher (talk) 23:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you to all editors who have taken the time to consider this issue. There seems to be a consensus that WP should not refer to "mosque" without first explaining why that is controversial. I have reinstated the text at the page together with a note reminding of the NPOV issue re "mosque". The change is currently pending revision by an editor with appropriate authority. I did not change "multi-faith" or define it as a "Muslim community center" because that has a good reference against that which says that the organizing board is 50% non muslim and that the center will be open to all New Yorkers in much the same way as a YMCA and JCC would be. The only bit dedicated for a Muslim purpose will be the prayer space and that is just one floor of 15 in total. --Hauskalainen (talk) 11:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Hauskalainen, you jumped the gun a little with this edit. Unfortunately we must include the phrase "Ground Zero Mosque" because it is such a commonly used term for referring to the "cultural center" or "prayer space" or whatever you want to call it. Personally I believe that GZM is a pejoritive misnomer, but unfortunately it is a pejoritive misnomer that is so common that it bears mentioning in the lead. To not do so would simply equate to WP:CENSORship.

I appreciate that you don't like the term. Neither do I. But WP is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND, and we shouldn't use it censor termonology we don't like. NickCT (talk) 11:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Crikey, NickCT, the new text in the diff you posted includes Ground Zero Mosque, just after an explanation of its inaccuracy. The entire above discussion centers on that issue, and resulted in approval for Hauskalainen's text. The term "bears mentioning in the lead" and is mentioned. Is there some new issue not discussed here?--Carwil (talk) 12:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Crikey indeed! GZM is a WP:COMMONNAME for this place, if not the most WP:COMMONNAME and as such it should be in the first sentence with other alternative names along with some minor qualification. Shifting it down and basicly saying "this is an invalid name" is an attempt to bury the term.

I see no consensus above. Can you point to a poll/RfC on this issue? NickCT (talk) 13:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The first sentence is not some magical space. Per Wikipedia:Article titles#Treatment of alternative names:

By the design of Wikipedia's software, an article can only have one title. When this title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph (see Lead section). These may include alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historical names, significant names in other languages, etc. There is also no reason why alternative names cannot be used in article text, in contexts where they are more appropriate than the name used as the title of the article. For example, the city now called Gdańsk is referred to as Danzig in historical contexts to which that name is more suited (e.g. when it was part of Germany or a Free City).

Here on NPOV/N, issues with NPOV policy about putting in GZM without explanation were raised, and a proposal was advanced to put GZM in the lead with an explanation. Since GZM is a reaction to a Muslim prayer space in Park51, that seems like a context that is more appropriate. Bolded, I'm sure there's no doubt everyone will see it; the third sentence is hardly "burying".--Carwil (talk) 15:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Nice reference to policy. Quick note re "usually in the first sentence or paragraph". I think you'll grant me that in practice "the first sentence" is the norm.

The thing is that we mention "Cordoba House" (i.e. the other alternative name) in the first sentence, so shifting GZM down seems like it is demphasizing GZM. Given that GZM is the most WP:COMMONNAME (and hence arguably the correct title of the article), GZM should if anything have the most emphasis. I'd agree that shifting it to the third sentence isn't burying it, but not providing GZM with the appropriate emphasis raises WP:UNDUE issues.

We already "qualify" GZM by saying "controversially referred to as", and by surrounding it with quotation marks, which is what most reliable sources do. If Hauskalainen wants to "give context" to GZM (i.e. WP:SOAPBOX about why he doesn't like the name) he can do so further down in the article. NickCT (talk) 16:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Nick, your arguments are entirely devoid of content. We have a consensus for the version being used, unless you can point to a newer consensus to use a different phrasing you're being more then a little pointy -- ۩ Mask 17:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

 ۩ AKMask - Thanks for a logic based argument (note sarcasm). Obviously now I see that your point is correct (note copious sarcasm). Either RfC this or draw up somekind of poll. This issue was previously discussed on the Park51 talkpage and we settled on the original wording. When Hauskalainen lost the debate on Talk:Park51 he turned to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard in a pretty obvious example of WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Now I acknowledge consensus can change, but I want to see it clearly demonstrated. Thanks, NickCT (talk) 18:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Have to concur with Nick here (disclosure: I've been an editor at Park51). The article has been fairly stable recently except for Hauskalainen's edit warring. The wording we have settled on reflects the predominant usage in reliable sources, and we have extensively discussed the pros and cons of alternate wordings on the talk page. Hauskalainen did not invite us on the talk page to participate in this discussion here, and I oppose any suggestion that those of us working on the article have to defer to a "consensus" reached in discussions we haven't been invited to, among people who haven't even been working on the article. Fletcher (talk) 22:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Nick, your sarcasm, while a valiant attempt, doesnt mean you get to declare what consensus is valid. And Fletcher, i apologize that he did not inform you. I wholeheartedly agree your voice should be heard, and welcome you to the discussion, but you cant declare it void because you worked on the article. See WP:OWN. -- ۩ Mask 01:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

You're right. I can't declare what consensus is valid. Can you?

Re WP:OWN - I think if you look at the edit history for the page you'll note that I've made relatively few edits to the page. So I'm not sure I'm WP:OWNing it. Additionally, from reading the talk page, you'll note I'm not the only one expressing this opinion. NickCT (talk) 02:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I also never said I WP:OWN the article. Only that some discussion on a noticeboard, which excludes those of us who have worked on the article and discussed on the talk page, can't be used by one editor to bully his POV into the article. I frankly have never heard of this noticeboard and don't know what it's supposed to be, but it's ludicrous to think someone can come here and override the normal Wikipedia process. Fletcher (talk) 02:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Fletcher. Hauskalainen was trying to "bully" here by WP:FORUMSHOPPING and  ۩ M and Carwil fell for it. NickCT (talk) 02:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Bringing POV disputes to the NPOV noticeboard to get objective, uninvolved input is very much a PART of "the normal Wikipedia process". Involving more people without canvassing from places where you are guaranteed support (which is what happens here) goes to build a more solid consensus. If you feel that the uninvolved editors here are helping someone to push their POV, then that should suggest to you that perhaps their POV is closer to the broader consensus. This noticeboard can be very good at finding the middle way between arguing parties, frequently leading neither to be fully satisfied, but to a better encyclopaedia. ‒ Jaymax✍ 09:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

In my defense here I would like to say that the POV issue had been discussed ad nauseum at the TALK page and I had said that the only way to resolve it was to take it to dispute resolution. In bringing the discussion here I did do my best to summarize all the arguments that had been made at TALK, both for and against. The idea of bringing it here was not to by-pass people who had engaged in discussions at TALK, but rather to get help from others on the important issue of the neutrality of Wikipedia in the use of language. It is wrong to say (as people have above recently) that I was taking "Ground Zero Mosque" out of the lede. It was still there and, as I have said, we have a redirect from Ground Zero Mosque to this article so most people seeking information will not be confused. The issue as to whether "Ground Zero Mosque" should be in bold was discussed at TALK and the concensus was that Park51 and GZM are not strictly synonymous. As User:Fletcher admits, Park 51 is not the "mosque" but rather a cultural center containing (what he and some others call) "a mosque". WP rules are clear that "Ground Zero Mosque" should not be in bold because it is not synonymous. Personally I would be relaxed about the matter, but only if the term is used in a context which makes it clear that some people do not regard the prayer space as a mosque because that is a building dedicated to Islamic prayer which this is not. --Hauskalainen (talk) 11:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Jaymax's understanding of what this forum is for concurs with my own. So, NicktCT and other editors, you should have been involved here, and should have been notified of this disucussion, but maybe we can proceed to have an enlarged discussion with you here. The current text and the proposed text by Hauskalainen have been compared above, and NPOV objections to the current text seem to be addressed by the new text. Tell us either why those concerns are unimportant or how they could be better addressed.--Carwil (talk) 12:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok a couple points

@Jaymax✍ re "Involving more people without canvassing ...... closer to the broader consensus." - There's an important difference between Wikipedia:Canvassing (i.e. asking people who agree with you to join a debate) and FORUMSHOPPING (i.e. raising the same topic in multiple places in hopes of finding a group that agrees with you). I said nothing about Wikipedia:Canvassing, but I maintain the discussion above was clearly WP:FORUMSHOPPING.

@Carwil re "maybe we can proceed to have an enlarged discussion with you here. " - Frankly, I think we ought to take this back to Talk:Park51, preferably in the form of an RfC.

To clarify my initial point, I'm only concerned that the very common name (i.e. GZM) remains prominently in the lead. WP:COMMONNAME trumps WP:NPOV, and even if the term GZM is not neutral (which I happen to believe it isn't), it should still be in the first sentence.

I personally am not concerned about actually including the word "mosque" later on in the lead, so I actually don't object to Jaymax✍'s most rececent revision. I still think we should probably have this discussion on Talk:Park51, but I would personally settle on this revision of the lede if it stopped all the bickering. NickCT (talk) 15:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. The wording should reflect the usage in reliable sources; no need to censor the article by deleting it.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by "deleting it"? This is not about deleting anything. Its about how we INTRODUCE the controversial term "mosque" into the article.--Hauskalainen (talk) 06:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• Observation Too many people are straying off topic (including the following subsection on "forumshopping and suggestion of RfCs). Can we please please stick to the issue that I raised? The possible answers are

first use allowed without prior explanation of dispute is not POV or

first use allowed without prior explanation of dispute is POV

By all means add a comment after the preferred alternative but it would help if people answered simply one way or the other.--Hauskalainen (talk) 06:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

You missed first used allowed if dispute is acknowledged (ie: 'controversially') ‒ Jaymax✍ 08:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

No I did not, but I did accidentally miss out the word "prior" before "explanation". I have just re-edited that back in so they now read "prior explanation", so thanks for bringing this to my attention.

There are only two options. It either is POV or it is not POV. Editors need to consider the POV issue first and only later think how the article should read. If you are implying that the current wording is neutral i.e. "and controversially referred to as ..." I would say that this is ambiguous as to what is meant by "controversially". Many people reading that may immediate associate "controversially" with the fuss over the presence of a "mosque" close to Ground Zero, when it really is supposed to be making it clear that the word "controversially" is referring explicitly to the use of the word "mosque". As far as I and many others are concerned, a prayer space in a community center no more makes it a "mosque" than a chapel in a hospital or airport makes that building a "church". Whenever attempts have been made to present the fact clearly, various editors have simply wiped that away. For example here and here (where the explanation came later and User:Fletcher pre-epmts the explanantion, and here and here andhere. This back and forth editing is the dispute has come to the NPOV Noticeboard in the way that it has. Once we are clear whether or not it POV to use "mosque" BEFORE proper explanation of why this is a POV position we can go on to discuss how best to word it. --Hauskalainen (talk) 15:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Question: This notice has been rising up the order on this noticeboard but I am not clear how the situation is ever resolved. Is there a group of NPOV reviewers who are qualified to give an authoritative opinion one way or another? Many of the comments here seem to be from people who are already on one side or other of the argument that has been raging on the article TALK page and have commented on what they think the article lede should say and not the main issue that I have raised. I do not believe that there has been a concusion reached as yet. Either it is POV or it isn't to refer to "mosque" in the first instance without making clear that many (including the developers) do not regard the "prayer space" to be a "mosque" at all. Do the opinions of those arguing at the article talk page have equal weight in this resoultion process to those who presumably specialize in handling POV disputes? I had thought that only the comments of expert POV reviewers would be relevent in resolving this dispute. Comments please ONLY from those who have NOT discussed this matter at the Park51 talk page (i.e. I am looking for specialist POV reviewers to comment).--Hauskalainen (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Forumshopping

Comment - Regarding WP:FORUMSHOPPING, I'd like to voice my concern about how several editors here are trying to abuse the guideline. Was this the 3rd, 4th, or 5th venue outside the talk page that the editor in question brought this issue to after having received unsatisfactory answers elsewhere? Was it even the second venue outside the article talk page? Article talk pages can contain very insulated discourses. The whole point of these noticeboards is to bring in fresh insights from uninvolved parties. I agree that if this is one of several forums utilized by one editor because they don't like what they are hearing in others then it is forum shopping, but if this is the first attempt to get uninvolved people to comment on the issue then it's just sound Wikipedia practice and in fact others should be encouraged to do this more often.Griswaldo (talk) 15:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

2 points

First, why does it matter if this is the 3rd or 4th time he forum shopped? Isn't once bad enough?

Second, this page was innappropriately used to try and settle a content dispute. Read "This is not the place for content disputes which should be directed to the article talk page or associated WikiProject." from above. It is entirely irrelevent what "consensus" developed here. NickCT (talk) 18:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

We're operating with different ideas about what a "content dispute" is. This page is nothing if not a place for discussing NPOV issues. A content dispute would concern facts that are discussed in the article, like whether there is or is not a prayer space at Park51. That doesn't belong here, but the presentation (i.e., the wording) of the relevant facts does.

The WP:COMMONNAME vs. official name issue (should the article be called "Ground Zero mosque" or "Park51") seems to have been worked out on the page. I at least don't dispute whether one of the following should be an alternate name: Ground Zero mosque, Ground Zero mosque controversy or "Ground Zero mosque" controversy. Unlike H, I think they should be bolded given the redirect.

There's no clear reason not to pursue an RfC. Just make sure that the above discussion is included in the background along with the discussion on Talk:Park51.--Carwil (talk) 18:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

@Carwil - Agree w/ bolding. Perhaps you should be BOLD (pun intended) and make the change.

Re "content dispute" - Discussing NPOV issues and asking questions about NPOV policy is what this noticeboard is for. But when it comes to changing "content" (i.e. the actual wording of an article), the place to go is the article talk page. NickCT (talk) 18:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

@ Nick -- 1) It absolutely matters. The whole point of the guideline is to prevent people from going from forum to forum to forum, etc. and disrupting the encyclopedia just because they're not getting their way at previous forums. It is not however meant to prevent people from seeking outside input. Going to one noticeboard to seek outside input is good practice. Was this the wrong noticeboard? If so then please WP:AGF and redirect the conversation to an appropriate venue. Don't abuse WP:FORUMSHOPPING just because you think one editor is up to no good.

2) I'm not entirely sure that this was the correct venue to seek outside input from, but a NPOV dispute is a content dispute. I understand that you are quoting some rather misleading language at the top of the page. If you continue reading you'll see "Editors can post questions here about whether article content is compliant with the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy ..." What the board isn't for are content disputes that do not relate to NPOV policy. Whether or not something fits this criteria is a subjective judgement and when editors on the noticeboard start discussing something and don't dismiss it as not applicable to the noticeboard then you have your judgement. Wikilawyering a claim that because you think it has nothing to do with this venue then any consensus found here is "illegitimate" seems to me to fly in the face of Wikipedia's core principles. If editors are discussing an issue, no matter where they are discussing it, they can form a legitimate consensus. Please show me where policy states otherwise? A consensus is a consensus. If you really think this needs to go back to the talk page then ask people to go there, but don't stifle outside input just because you don't like it.Griswaldo (talk) 19:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Re "It is not however meant to prevent people from seeking outside input." - You may certainly seek outside input by posting here and then asking people to comment on the Talk:PARK51 page. You may seek consensus for content change.

Re "Don't abuse WP:FORUMSHOPPING just " - I'm not. I'm simply explaining to you what WP:FORUMSHOPPING is and why it applies here.

Re "Editors can post questions " - Exactly. Editors can post questions. Not discuss content changes.

Re "some rather misleading language at the top of the page" - Perhaps you feel it is misleading b/c it doesn't reflect what you think this page should be for?

Re "Please show me where policy states otherwise?" - See WP:DR. It's self-evident that there are appropriate and innappropriate places to discuss content disputes. NickCT (talk) 19:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

You're not quoting policy just referring to it by linking to entire policy pages like WP:DR and claiming that they support your arguments. I'm sorry but that's not good enough. What you claim is forum shopping, for instance doesn't actually match the description on the guideline page -- see for instance "Some editors will raise an issue at numerous Wikipedia locations ...". Regarding "asking questions" I'm sorry to see more word mincing and wiki-lawyering. What happens when editors ask questions about content vis-a-vis policy? Duh. Other editors who think it doesn't conform to policy start suggesting ways that the content would actually conform to policy. Nothing out of the ordinary there. Did you think people may ask questions about content but other editors may not answer their questions? I guess this noticeboard should just be a yes or no vote in every response. I'll have to remember that. I felt the language at the top was "misleading" because all NPOV disputes are content disputes, and the more precise language below the statement portrays this fact. What, please do tell me, qualifies as a content dispute and what does not? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia filled with content, and disagreements (about NPOV, about notability, about RS, etc.) all relate to content. However, only content related issues pertaining to specific policies and guidelines are appropriate to discuss at specific noticeboards. That's the point. Do you really disagree with that? Do you really think it isn't appropriate to discuss content, because in that case none of these noticeboards are of any use at all. Let's just pack them up and move on.Griswaldo (talk) 19:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Griswaldo - Look Gris. I just don't think you're getting it. Hauskalainen discussed this issue on Talk:Park51. The consensus was against his POV, so he posted here to see if he could get a different answer. If that's not WP:FORUMSHOPPING, what is?

I'm not going to get into this silly "content" dispute with you. The language spelled out at the top of this page is very clear. I suggest if you don't like it you try to get consensus to change it. Until then, changes to the actual content of articles should be discussed on that article's talkpage.

The content dispute here seems to have resolved. Unless there are further objections, and think we can probably cease this conversation. NickCT (talk) 20:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Please. Just. Stop. I've posted the proposed new version on Talk:Park51#Lead section discussion. I think it's an improvement to the article. So do other editors who are not even vaguely accused of WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Discuss at will. RfC if desired. Just stop pointless rehashing of meta-arguments about policy and debate.--Carwil (talk) 01:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

An RfC would be an excellent idea. More voices would help hammer out this content dispute. -- ۩ Mask 13:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I am fully in support of an RfC and/or other means of bringing outside viewpoints to this matter, but that was probably clear already.Griswaldo (talk) 13:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Yep. RfC. Good idea. Note I suggested it a while ago. NickCT (talk) 13:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

On the article talk page i've begun some preperation for an rfc, would one of you like to work on a response from the other side? I've gone through one of these with Griswaldo before while disagreeing, im sure he can vouch for the fact that im fairly painless :) -- ۩ Mask 13:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Less painful than I am at least :).Griswaldo (talk) 13:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I started a neutrally toned RfC. If you want me to edit it please shoot a message to my talk page. I'm going to cease reading/posting to the NPOV noticeboard and keep all my comments on Talk:Park51. Thanks, NickCT (talk) 14:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

No No No No No! I absolutely dispute that this was "forum shopping". And THIS PLACE is the right place to raise the issue. It is an issue of NPOV. I tried several times to eradicate a first reference to the word "mosque" because I knew that this was disputed. My feeling was that it was wrong for first use mention of that word to be qualified by the fact that many people dispute the tag. There are clearly two opposing views. One is that usage is so great that "mosque" is appropriate and justified and the other is an NPOV perspective that WP itself should be neutral. My attempts (and those of others) to argue the NPOV side of the argument was being drowned out by a small group of editors opposing this. And I indicated that this was an issue to go to some form of dispute resolution. What better place to resolve a dispute about NPOV than on this page? The ONLY place that I brought this dispute to was THIS page on THE SPECIFIC issue of first use of the word "mosque". It seems to me that not me but someone else is now seeking to forum shop by taking the argument elsewhere.... THAT is forum shopping. If you think that an RfC is the MORE appropriate route, can we at least have an explanation of WHY? --Hauskalainen (talk) 06:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

You should, however, have linked to here from the articles talk page. ‒ Jaymax✍ 07:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I should indeed and for that I was in error. But I was acting in good faith and I believe I fairly represented the range of opinions in my summary of the lengthy section at the TALK page. --Hauskalainen (talk) 15:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Summary of positions regarding "POV of first use of term mosque" without prior POV warning

The above is a lot to read so I thought I'd summarize the positions.

As I read the responses this is how I see the position. I count about 8 or 9 editors in favor of WP being neutral and NOT referring to "mosque" without an an explanation first of all that this referring to it as "a mosque" is highly POV and about 4 editors taking the opposite view.

For brevity I have not included all the arguments or tried to interpret the views of users such as Griswaldo who intervened to (I presume) defend me against the allegation that I was forum shopping.

Favoring a call of POV on the issue raised

1 Hauskalainen (editor calling POV) "There are references for journalists and the developers disputing the term "mosque" and "Ground zero mosque" citing that it is not a mosque and it is not at Ground Zero. Its also a distortion of normal language. A chapel inside a hospital does not make the hospital a church" (summary of position)

2 kwami (talk) 05:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)"if it (=GZM) does stay (in the first line), it should be pointed out that it is inaccurate."

3 Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC) - "I agree (with Kwame above)"

4 Hans Adler 08:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC) "Ground Zero Mosque" is a propaganda term, and that must be clear when it is introduced. Wikipedia is not in the propaganda business, even if it is the propaganda of a large part of American society against a minority. "

5 Carwil (talk) 13:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)"No matter how times Anwar al-Awlaki is called a "terror imam" by the media, it's not appropriate for Wikipedia to bold the term in his article. The fact that people have heard of "the Ground Zero Mosque" and not Park51, is best handled by taking the term out of the voice of the encyclopedia. Perhaps the clearest solution is saying: and at the center of the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque" controversy."

6. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC) "The other wording, "Community center and mosque" is not appropriate unless it is uncontrovertible that the plans included a mosque rather than a prayer space. If there's any doubt about which sources are appropriate, you could take that to the reliable sources noticeboard. "

7. Mask 22:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC) "If it's not a mosque (and everything I've read seems to indicate that it is not) and we introduce it as a mosque without pointing out that the use of the term is blatant propaganda, then we have quite clearly failed the 'Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia' part of the Five Pillars. A note that it is frequently called that would be fine, but repeating a verifiably false statement as a blanket assertion is pretty clearly not our business."

8 Lambanog (talk) 05:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC) - answering Baseball Bugs (see below) "Does the name affect perception? In this case I think it does. It is also a name given by others. Other things being equal what one names oneself is preferred. It is also the name given by others that is provocative. "

9 Jaymax✍ 06:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC) "I would move the reference to the prayer space to the front of the list of contents, since this is the most significant aspect in a number of ways. Other than that, the wording looks good. Generally, if good sources can be found for "Muslim community centre, frequently, although incorrectly referred to as a Mosque, ..." then I'd go with something like that."

Favoring NOT calling POV on the issue raised

1. Fletcher (talk) 02:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC) "It is to contain a space dedicated for up to 2,000 Muslims to worship, which is widely and reasonably (though not ubiquitously) referred to as a mosque. This mosque, _not_ the community center part, and the controversy surrounding the mosque, is why the project is notable, and we cannot tip-toe around this fact in the lede because it makes Hauskalainen uncomfortable ."

2. NickCT (talk) 11:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC) "Personally I believe that GZM is a pejoritive misnomer, but unfortunately it is a pejoritive misnomer that is so common that it bears mentioning in the lead. To not do so would simply equate to WP:CENSORship. "

3. Epeefleche (talk) 23:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC) "The wording should reflect the usage in reliable sources; no need to censor the article by deleting it."

4. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC) "The Muslim community's apparent inability to properly manage the public relations around this building is not wikipedia's concern"

I hope that the above is a useful summary to readers.--Hauskalainen (talk) 23:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

99ers

Is a neologism, and a very new article, and the article thereon has been marked as having POV concerns. It contains, frankly, very strong partisan language, and needs to be overseen by others lest it become a battleground. It likely should either be AfDd as a neologism, or pruned back to statements of fact, rather than lists of "good stuff" from Democrats and "evil stuff" from Republicans. Republicans Don't Like the Unemployed for example. Collect (talk) 14:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems to have been pared back since the above post, and seems fine at this point.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

removing NPOV flag when the editor who posted it no longer participates

This is prompted by the NPOV comment posted in 2007 on this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Return_on_Investment

The editor's concerns seem to have been addressed but the NPOV flag hasn't been removed. The editor who posted it no longer replies. (Perhaps he's no longer with us?) How can the NPOV be removed in this case?

Thanks. Sara —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smolsensf (talk • contribs) 00:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the banners. Given the general lack of activity and absence of discussion on the talk page. I don't expect it to be a controversial removal. Lambanog (talk) 06:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Sara -- See WP:BOLD. In the future, just go ahead and remove it, if you think it's appropriate. If they come back later, and disagree, then you can discuss it. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I didn't know how to remove so I appreciate you doing so- I am rather new to editing! I appreciate your support and help. Sara —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smolsensf (talk • contribs) 00:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Should the Main Page be subject to NPOV?

As the Main Page is not really encyclopedic, should the NPOV principle be applied to it? One issue that leads to this question is whether to use a disclaimer warning before the appearance of controversial content (pictures of genitals, images of Muhammad, plot spoilers) on the Main Page. The main reason disclaimers aren't used is that whatever is controversial depends on the editor's point of view, and therefore adding a disclaimer violates NPOV, and so it cannot be used in an article.

Which brings us to the initial question: should the Main Page be subject to NPOV? Why? Why not?

The question can also be extended to censorship on the Main Page -- given the non-encyclopedic status of the Main Page, is it necessary to keep open the possibility of displaying a vagina on the Main Page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabiteodoru (talk • contribs) 03:54, 13 October 2010

Every page is subject to policies, including WP:NPOV, and WP:NOTCENSORED applies everywhere (however, note that the latter does not say that anything goes; it says that if material is needed for its encyclopedic value, we do not omit the material because of concerns regarding offense). Nothing helpful would be achieved by speculating here about what may or may not be desirable on the main page. Johnuniq (talk) 04:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

NPOV dispute at 1977 Moscow bombings

After long discussions at talk User:Quantum666 deleted [7] previously added info from the reliable sources as he believes only in official version of events by Soviet KGB, while he is sure Nobel Peace Prize laureate Andrei Sakharov is not a neutral source [8]. He deleted not only Sakharov's opinion about the events, but also the part about Moscow Helsinki Group official statement, information from Memorial's official site and reliable sources printed in USA (see [9], [10], [11]), as he believes noone of them made official investigations like KGB done. Another dubios edit with "Some people believe September 11 attacks were arranged by CIA" editsum [12], to support the version by KGB, while human rights activists in contrary made parralels between the 1977 Moscow bombings and the Burning of the Reichstag [13]. Quantum666 made dubious statements like "We can mention this information later but according to WP:WEIGHT we should leave only the major opinions summarizing the article. They are the official version and Moscow Helsinki Group statement which represents most of the dissidents" (later he deleted MHG statement too), see [14]). An uninvolved admin's help is appreciated. Andranikpasha (talk) 06:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• Quantum666 comment

After long discussions at talk User:Quantum666 deleted [15] previously added info - this adding was disputed and after the dispute was stopped I returned the original version according to BOLD-REVERT-DISCUSS

he believes only in official version of events by Soviet KGB - I am really surprised.

he is sure Nobel Peace Prize laureate Andrei Sakharov is not a neutral source [16] - there is no relation between being neutral and being laureate

He deleted not only Sakharov's opinion about the events, but also the part about Moscow Helsinki Group official statement, information from Memorial's official site and reliable sources printed in USA, as he believes noone of them made official investigations like KGB done. - I deleted none of them. Andranikpasha is misleading again.

Also Andranikpasha deleted text about Sakharov's opinion which is not as simple as Andranikpasha tries to show. --Quantum666 (talk) 06:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Nicosia and Northern Cyprus - the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC)

I've protected Nicosia because of a dispute as to whether it should mention/have the flag of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC).. The argument against (copied from an editor's comments at my talk page) is that ". The TRNC is not a legal entity as far as the United Nations and all nations in the world are concerned (and according to international law). The only country that recognises the TRNC as a state is Turkey itself. Therefore, the flag of the TRNC should be removed from the article as this is in violation of international law and UN decisions. If one wishes to refer to the population statistics in the nothern part of the island he should refer to it in the following way: occupied territory/ nothern sector occupied by Turkey/ nothern sector not controlled by the sole internationally recognised government of the island which is the Republic of Cyprus." This dispute raises its head every few months. I'd appreciate comments here and/or the article talk page. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

If the TRNC (1) is a government (internationally recognized or not), (2) has a flag, and (3) we customarily display the flag of governments, then it would seem to follow we would display the flag in the article, while acknowledging in the appropriate place that its legitimate status is disputed (perhaps a footnote could be added to the infobox). As a point of wiki-logic, we go by what reliable sources say about the topic; we don't defer to authorities such as the UN or amateur interpretations of international law (such as the dubious notion that international law regulates Wikipedia, which is protected by the First Amendment). If reliable sources indicate the TRNC is indeed the de facto government of part of Nicosia, it should be covered in the article. Recognizing the TRNC government's existence is not the same as endorsing its legitimacy. Fletcher (talk) 23:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The only issue is what flag one will find flying on government buildings in the city. The "flag of 'Red China'" was the flag of "Red China" (PRC) whether the UN recognized it or not. Collect (talk) 23:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

We on Wikipedia do not take sides in international disputes. We list the TRNC on the List of sovereign states although, it is also on the List of states with limited recognition. It is recognized that the TRNC is de facto independent and partially recognized. This pits an argument between the two main camps in international politics; those who support the Declarative theory of statehood and the Constitutive theory of statehood. Extensive discussion has already taken place on this subject; the fact that it is a de facto sovereign state negates any argument that because of it's partially recognized status (POV editors would argue that it is "illegal" and such), it should be excluded. We give equal representation on our pages, without taking sides. I strongly recommend leaving a note at Talk:List of states with limited recognition as well as Talk:List of sovereign states if further discussion here is to take place. I myself am currently involved in a mediation that concerns the incorporation of states with limited recognition into the project, albeit an unrelated state. I agree with User:Fletcher; by recognizing that a state exists, as the academic community does, we're not endorsing it. Outback the koala (talk) 06:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the foregoing and would like to further emphasize that instead of deleting interesting facts, we should present the issue as a dispute, identifying the point of dispute and the main proponents of each side (in this case, it sounds like the international community vs. Turkey). Of course, this should all be backed up with high-quality sources which probably aren't difficult to find. --Dailycare (talk) 20:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no need to minimize the lack of international legitimacy. The Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section) says the lead should summarize the most important points — including any notable controversies. harlan (talk) 13:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Given this, can we move from full protection to semi-protection to allow editors to continue to make non-controversial edits to the page that improve it. Now there is a discussion open and edit warring is unlikely to start again, but if it does, than I would support fully-protecting the page. Outback the koala (talk) 05:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I realise this might have cause some degree of up raw, and many debate on the various aspects of this article, as of course they do with many geopolitical situations. But the facts should remain. Wikipedia endeavours to promote pure facts and nothing more. I bring reference to the following phrase (and any subsequent phrases containing the name):

Nicosia (IPA: /ˌnɪkəˈsiːə/, NIK-ə-SEE-ə), known locally as Lefkosia (Greek: Λευκωσία, Turkish: Lefkoşa), is the capital and largest city of both Cyprus and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.

Should be more accurate and indeed consistent with other Wiki articles to present like so:

is the capital and largest city of Cyprus

Or, as an added option:

is the capital and largest city of both the Republic of Cyprus and the separate Turkish Cypriot political entity in the north

No International organisation or NGO makes reference to the entity in the north as a “Republic”, neither the UN, NATO or the EU. I am sure Wikipedia should adopt a similar position, remain neutral until the situation is resolved and uphold its integrity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikettg (talk • contribs) 16:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Climate change denial

Hi! Before I stop editing this article (due to it being overly contentious for a me to be allowed to assist) I wanted to post a note on the neutrality of this article. It seems to be locked in a stalemate of sorts, with a single group of editors including (User:Hans Adler) keeping it from being improved. Now, I don't know all the circumstances or reasons behind all this, but what I perceive (and attempted to fix) was a strong WP:Systemic Bias against the subject in question. I would like the community to take a look at this article and see if it could be cleaned up and neutralized substantially. I am personally going to stop editing it, because certain editors involved felt that my efforts were to contentious, and I am currently dealing with an ANI report on my history and prior user accounts due to my interference in the "status quo". Good luck to all the editors who really desire to improve this article, and I hope it works out...--Novus Orator 04:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I think these kinds of controversial articles are doomed to forever be a battleground between opposing viewpoints. I don't know if we'll ever get a totally neutral and comprehensive article out of this as long as editors have their own viewpoints. -- œ^™ 06:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I think he missed the four month ArbCom case on climate change articles which just ended. :-) Dougweller (talk) 13:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Article on White Male is offensive and racist

Upon researching the term "white male" I came across this very interesting Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_male

The article on the white male focuses solely on "monopoly" in American government and on his income. This is tantamount to equating the black male with having food stamps and fatherless children. I find it incredibly offensive and completely lacking in neutrality.

First of all, the word choice is completely biased and demonstrates a lack of sensitivity to issues facing white males. For example, the word "monopoly" is used to refer to the white male majority in the Congress. This is clearly negative language and does not reflect the true reality, which is that majority rules.

Secondly, it gives reference to white male income as the second heading. This would imply that the only importance of the white male to society is an analysis of his income as it compares to the rest of society. This would be like equating the importance of women to their ability to clean the house and give birth to children.

Obviously this article was written by an extremely biased and hateful person with no racial sensitivity whatsoever and I think it should be deleted entirely unless the author changes it entirely to depict a more well-rounded view of the white man, including the man's accomplishments in recent history such as the atonment of social injustices.

Until this society begins to show respect to the white male for more than just what's in his pocket, there will be no justice for all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbvann (talk • contribs) 21:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this is a very silly article. It's correctly tagged as US centric. Probably needs to be merged into White people? Itsmejudith (talk) 21:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The article is extremely silly – until you realise it's a sociology stub. Based on the one sociology book that I have ever (partially) read (something about dynasties of medical doctors by Bourdieu, written in impenetrable French), I think it's probably more or less OK. But merging into white people or elsewhere is probably a good idea anyway, to prevent misunderstandings. Hans Adler 22:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Good, because Bourdieu's not cited here, and I'm not sure that you could produce a good article on "the white male" on Bourdieu alone - there's more recent scholarship. B's French is only difficult if you read it too carefully. If you skim through for the gist and remember that his main purpose was to open up areas for sociological enquiry it's usually fine. La Distinction and Les Heritiers are good reads. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, if we want to keep this article, we probably want to make it clearer that it's an argument made in sociological debates. However, we might consider merging it into white privilege, which has a similar theme. --Ludwigs2 00:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it should even go through a proper discussion at AfD.. that's about the best way to get anything done about a bad article these days.. -- œ^™ 06:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Artical is being used to attack an individual and promote weblinks

Hello a wikipedia artical is being used to attack a living individual, notes have been made and suggestions have been given but the articial in question has not been cleaned up to give a neutral point of view, also a particular editor of the artical has been using this artical as a personal page to promote external web links and use them to attack the individual, why does wikipedia permit such behaviour, there must be a legal point to be considered upon the listed lack of neutral editing and personal attacks through defamation False_titles_of_nobility this artical needs to be cleaned up can someone help in making wikipedia a more friendly and neutral place to read and edit, thanks.Johnkennedy58 (talk) 23:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Quack quack. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Fathers' rights movement

I'd very much appreciate some input on the Fathers' rights movement article. In particularity this version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fathers%27_rights_movement&oldid=391552210 is what a user tends to revert the page to. It has significant and long standing POV problems. Some months ago User:67.170.133.232 using the name "CS" raised serious concerns in the talk section of the Father's Right article. Few of the concerns have been addressed since and other editors share the same view. CS states: "the FRM article is biased and doesn't have a neutral point of view. It seems like most paragraphs have a comment or citation from someone opposed to the FRM. Good examples are the "political and social views" section, and "Beliefs and Activities". More than half the paragraphs are peppered with attacks or comments about associations with violence and disorderly conduct (which is based on the actions of a few individuals that claim membership in the group). Honestly, in the "Demographics - Political and social view" section, do you really think it's appropriate to start a paragraph about transcending gender roles with "The movement has been described as part of a gender war in response to increasing female power in Western society", for example? This statement is used deceptively. It's source is an article in the Guardian that mentions that the idea was speculated in a book by Susan Faludi. Ultimately, when you track the statement down through these sources, it is purely the speculation of a Ms. Faladi. This is preposterously non-neutral editing. Every section contains mentions of the FRM's ideas followed by criticism and attacks, many of which are tenuous and from sources of dubious credibility. Another example is the section "Shared parenting" with the comment "Feminist groups state that if shared parenting were ordered, fathers would not provide their share of the daily care for the children". Who on earth considers this scholarly? I can find feminist authors that assert that any heterosexual sex between men and women is sexual assault (Andrea Dworkin) or that maleness is a birth-defect comparable to blindness, that men are a 'biological accident' and the male sex should be destroyed (Valerie Solanas). In any other article, most of these criticisms would be included toward the end of the article in a seperate "Criticism" section, instead of being used to undermine the fair presentation of FRM's position in almost every paragraph."

Others have also noted the article is an attack piece in many sections and is "a coatrack for criticisms of the FRM" I agree with these views, certain sections of the article are especially problematic. My additional concerns are as follows:

• A focus on activities of non notable, short-lived, extremist, non-notable fringe groups that no longer exist. E.g. The Blackshirts in Australia has one member who was convicted of stalking. The implication is that their conduct is indicative of the behaviour of all such groups when in most high profile cases Fathers Rights groups are peaceful or don't even protest at all. even those who do go on trial are usually acquitted of any charges therefore suggeitng they are peaceful and law abiding. This same focus on unknown/fringe Australian groups is also used to create the impression that all fathers' rights groups are fragmented, selfish and members leave as soon as they have achieved custody for themselves.
• The piece suggested that Michael Flood was a supporter of father's Rights when in terms of academics writing on the subject he is surely most extreme critic of of the movement. It is also perhaps problematic to cite the most extreme critic of a movement to the extent that occurs in the article.
• Attempts to downplay the roles of women and liberals within such groups. The piece goes out of it's way to criticise groups for emphasising the small number of female members they have. Anyone reading the piece couldn't possibly believe that the likes of Fathers4Justice Canada (a very visible and successful group) was run by a woman. Similarly the involvement of grandparents and children in the groups is ignored. The effect is to suggest the groups are highly undiverse whereas I don't recall feminist articles emphasising their total ban on men in many such groups.
• An absence of positive material/quotes complimenting the movement and it's achievements.
• A further extremist view attributed to FR groups is "if a man does not wish to become a father, he should be able to require a woman to have an abortion". This comment is attributed to one source and one person namely "Michael Newdow" rather than any group and he fact didn't even go as far as saying it, merely implying the idea. To suggest it might be some sort of fairly widespread belief is ridiculous. Even more so given the way the article implies that most Fathers Rights campaigners are Conservative and therefore anti-abortion. Even the source itself states "that the belief in a man's right to compel a woman to have an abortion is not widely held".
• An attempt to simplify and polarise the movement into good liberals and bad conservatives., with an implication that only those who believe gender is down to nurture can be in favour of equality. I.e no recognition of the more usual "equal but different" stance a typical Conservative might have and no recognition that the nature/nurture argument isn't necessarily an either/or issue.

I should add that I haven't yet identified who has added all the problematic material or issed any guidance. Others have attempted to make changes but these have mostly been reverted by user/administrator User:Slp1. She has contributed extensively to the piece and acknowledged one or two concerns but generally problems have been dismissed in the talk page with the defence that they're "cited to scholarly, academic books about the topic". As yet I haven't attempted any edits due to the attitude of denial of the problem in the talk page. Sorry this is so long and many thanks for your help.--Shakehandsman (talk) 07:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Every so often supporters of the FRM come to this article and are surprised to find that it isn't doesn't represent their personal views of the subject. In fact a few years ago, FR activist meatpuppets were asked to come to WP to do the job.[17]. They would like to remove the views/opinions/actions of FR activists that they don't personally agree with, despite the fact that these have been widely reported in academic and other mainstream media. They would like to insert large chunks of opinion, sourced to their particular guru (note how Stephen Baskerville's personal opinions are spread liberally throughout the article.) Other editors also complain that the article seems to be bias towards the FRM and it seems written by supporters.[18]. Shakehandsman makes several inaccurate claims above, but he is right that I believe the key is to rewrite the article using the highest quality sources about the FRM, per policy. But as can be seen there are already attempts by another editor to discount a scholarly text,[19], published by a University Press, because various FR activists don't like it. According to this editor, only members of the FR movement should be considered "reliable source for the goals of the movement".[20] Many of Shakehandsman complaints are also about material sourced to scholarly texts, but not all, and I agree that in a rewrite some of the material (for example about the Blackshirts, should probably go). But many of the specific complaints above are inaccurate; e.g. the sentence about the the fact that fathers' rights groups are unstable and shortlived is actually sourced to scholars in several countries, including Australia, Britain and the US. --Slp1 (talk) 12:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Have you considered that people are almost certainly coming into the article and actually been surprised that several section have constituted an attack piece for at least four months? If the sections even slightly balanced the types of articles complaining about the bias which you cite almost certainly wouldn't even exist, yet you just dismiss all critics instead. I don't doubt that perhaps some editors might be adding unsourced opinions too and there is are too much Stephen Baskerville but these are tiny issues and a total smokescreen when numerous sections are so fundamentally flawed. There are blatant breaches so many Wikipedia polices such as NPOV, coatracking, notability, and even content when the source contradicts the claim. Despite this you still refuse to acknowledge these issues and make the assumption that because an attack is sourced it is somehow ok. I think this truly illustrates the scale of the problem.--Shakehandsman (talk) 17:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

You have grossly mis-characterized my statements on the book "Defiant Dads." What I objected to about that text and others, was the intellectual dishonesty inherit in using it and works by authors like Michael Flood as sources for the putative goals and beliefs of the FRM. These books, and the authors generally, are both critical of the FRM and are both criticized by it for likewise mis-characterizing its goals. Every Ivy League school in the world can publish scholary texts on what I want to have for lunch but the only definitive source for what I want to eat is me. It's one thing when these works criticize the methods, demographics, rhetoric or achievements of advocates of fatherhood and father's rights, it's quite another when they purport to define what their "true" goals are. Even worse is when, as I stated on talk, critics of fatherhood and the FRM are cited without attributing and clarifying that they are, in fact, critics. Flood is a vociferous critics of the FRM who was clearly identified in the article as a "notable supporter" and significant writer for the movement. Not only does Flood criticize the FRM, but he also denigrates the importance of fatherhood and the broader movement for men's rights.

Going back to your aspersions on Stephen Baskerville for the moment, he is widely well-regarded and respected by the FRM. He holds a PHD in Political Science, was the president of a respected non-profit organization on father's rights and sits on the board of many others. He has probably written more about father's rights than any other single author alive and is, himself, a father who, like many father's rights activists, feels that his rights and those of his children were violated by the existing legal and social structures. It is extremely telling that you hold up as doctrinaire a "scholary text" by a women's studies professor on the FRM who is criticized by FR activists while delegating the work of Stephen Baskerville to being "personal opinion" that may or may not actually correlate to the believes of that movement because his books weren't published by Cornell.--Cybermud (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry that you think I have mis-characterized your comments. But I don't actually think I have; you are still arguing that we should use FR sources only for the goals and beliefs of the FRM, which is simply not the case. We need to use the highest quality secondary sources available. You'll understand the practical problem when you consider the differences between these groups; whose goals do we highlight? You correctly state that Baskerville has written extensively on FR issues; and I agree that he is certainly a good source for his own view. But are his views held by other FR activists? You say yes, but would activists from other countries agree? How do we find out and confirm this? Luckily for us, Crowley researched the FR movement and its members for years, has written extensively on the subject, and has published the results in a scholarly book that has been well-reviewed in multiple journals [21], [22], [23][24][25][26]. Crowley has done precisely what we need, and has made a synthesis and summary of the movement. That FR activists on blogs and Amazon book reviews don't like everything she has written is beside the point.

I agree that Flood should not have been listed as a supporter. He is, however, a prominent writer about the movement. I tried to fix the problem by changing the heading level so that is wasn't a subheading under notable supporters.[27] However, you just deleted the correction and removed Flood's name again.[28] Now only supporters are listed. Not a very NPOV action in my view.--Slp1 (talk) 00:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

There can be no doubt that the article is biased toward the FRM movement. And the article has the same problems as other articles about men's and fathers' rights. Fathers' rights activists show up in great numbers and revert all edits by experienced editors. Slp1 and another editor have made almost heroic efforts to respond with research and reason to several editors who are intent on deleting all incriminating material about the FRM. There are far more credible sources that are critical of the FRM than supportive. Editors like Shakehandsman and Cybermud have a history of reverting perfectly justified edits.

Shakehandsman, when 80% of all available credible sources "attack" the FRM, then it follows logically that the article should represent that. Descriptions of other very controversial movements (tea party movement, white-supremacy movement, certain religious movements) include so may "attacks" because this is what sources tell us.

The article needs a rewrite. Fathers' rights activists must accept that they can't delete information based on their wish to present the FRM as an entirely benevolent force.Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Cybermud's comment examplifies the problem. He demands that all critics of the FRM be silenced (thereby silencing about 80% of all commentary) and argues that fathers' rights activists are more reliable than credible sources ("Every Ivy League school in the world can publish scholar[l]y texts on what I want to have for lunch but the only definitive source for what I want to eat is me").

Cybermud, please, there is no reason to attack Susan Faludi and other "women's studies professor." You've already conducted a character assassination of Anderea Dworkin and ranted about her "politically motivated rape" and how her victimization deserves to be met with suspicion because she is "nasty" and resembles Jabba the Hutt[29]. Enough. The point is that Ron Hubbard has probably written more about scientology than any other single author alive and is, himself, a scientologist who, like many scientologists, feels that his rights and those of his fellow scientologists were violated by the existing legal and social structures which bans scientology in many countries. But his expertise doesn't mean that we let him write an article about scientology. Where would that leave NPOV? Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, Sonicyouth86. I actually don't agree that 80% of the available secondary literature is negative to the FRM, though concur that there is some. I suggest that interested editors actually look at the article. In fact, 53/121 references currently come from FRM writers/websites. There is only a very small criticism section compared to the length of the article. I find it telling that two FR supporters think it is biased against FR while another editor who may oppose the movement thinks it is biased towards them. Personally I think it is fairly balanced given the sources, but hope we can get some opinions from uninvolved editors too.--Slp1 (talk) 00:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

SonicYouth didn't even read the article, just jumped in to disagree with me. I have opened an SPI for him and you should really consider his support of you as meaningless at best.

Anyway, I object to you repeatedly calling me, and people who disagree with you, "father's rights supporters" while referring to yourself and my sockpuppetering wikihound as "editors" -- all while hypocritically talking about NPOV.--Cybermud (talk) 04:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

People are missing the bigger picture here. Quite simply it is not acceptable to focus on extreme fringe non existent organisations, delete mentions of well established groups nor is it acceptable to cite sources in a misleading way when they actually refute the POV which the editor is trying to impose. It is not have extremist views listed which aren't even attributable to one single person. All these things taken together means the article constitutes a clear attack piece and these needs to stop. Most sources I know of tend to be very supportive of the father's rights movement as do the general public and the fact you're comparing such a movement to racist extremist groups such as the tea party movement, white-supremacy movement, certain religious movements really suggests a staggering amount of bias. There is nothing remotely controversial about a good many established fathers rights organisations such as families need fathers and the article isn't' reflecting this fact--Shakehandsman (talk) 21:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Still with the ad hominem attacks against me Sonicyouth86? Is it now also wikihounding too? Who are you a sock-puppet for? You have come to WP with no edit history exhibiting an amazing alacrity for wikilawyering and an uncommon willingness for hostility towards people you disagree with. As I stated in the talk page for Dworkin your characterizations of my comments are disingenuous nonsense. Anyone interested in this diatribe, by someone interested only in disagreeing with me, and who has never edited the FRM article, or even, by their own edit history, edited WP, can continue to pay attention to Sonicyouth86. I'll be ignoring him until he exhibits a willingness to discuss articles above and beyond attacking me personally (won't hold my breath though.) Here's a novel idea SonicSpoof, how about we make this debate about the article and not about Cybermud and his "agenda"?--Cybermud (talk) 21:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally like all your analogies the Scientology example is specious but, in this case, also illustrative. L. Ron. Hubbard certainly is the definitive source for the doctrine of his own religion. It's not for others to say what the religions ostensible aims are (or in this case holy texts) even if others can criticize it for being poorly founded using dishonest rhetoric or methods or just being bogus, they can't define what its goals truly are. Some might take issue with your comparing FRM to a religion and Baskerville to its prophet (but since User:Slp1 called him a FRM preferred "guru" I suspect he/she is not one of them.) To take this, silly, example further, I would also object if critics of Scientology were being cast as, simultaneously, believers and sympathizers whose opinions were not coming from a critical standpoint based on religious views that are fundamentally opposed to the core foundations of that belief. (we're also talking about sources, not authors btw... it's Baskerville as a source vs. your "Hubbard as author of Scientology article.)--Cybermud (talk) 21:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I already told you once that you should familiarize yourself with the concept of ad hominem.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Andrea_Dworkin&diff=391239980&oldid=391160250 This way you might learn the difference between focusing on a comment and focusing on a person. I have been doing the former. You, on the other hand, have called me a vandal, troll, and "spoof" because I pointed out to you that talk pages are not to be used as outlets for your unsubstantiated theories about "politically motivated rape" and your diatribe about how mean the world is to you with all its "blatant misandry" and "all men are rapists" and "politically motivated rape" (yes, those are the things Cybermud keeps ranting about on talk pages). Okay? Learn the difference. Everything is possible. Notice how this user writes "SonicSpoof" at the end and displays his tendency to insult other users because they point out his misconduct.

If someone let Hubbard write the majority of the article about Scientology, the result would be more than non-neutral. It would be a farce. Hubbard would depict Scientology as a wonderful thing through and through. The problem with that is that the majority of credible sources don't agree with Hubbard's view of Scientology. They are very critical of Scientology. The same goes for the fathers' rights movement. This is the reason we can't let Stephen Baskerville write the majority of the Wikipedia article about the fathers' rights movement. It's the same reason why articles about the tea party movement, for example, can't be written exclusively by supporters. Because they will say that the tea party movement is the best thing that's happened to mankind while sources like the New York Times say that it's just a conservative and populist outlet for collective discontent. Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Last time I checked the bulk of your first post here consisted of lauding Slp1's supposedly "heroic" efforts in editing the Fathers' Rights article whilst deriding myself and Cybermud as having "a history of reverting perfectly justified edits." That's at least twice as bad as anything you've accused Cybermud of as you're focusing on the personalities on both sides of the argument. On top of that almost all your claims are entirely false too.--Shakehandsman (talk) 05:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Help Required With Source

Hello. I am a new editor and I'm not all that familiar with practices yet. I've previously posted a request here but if you read it you can see that I'm not happy with the logic which is being displayed.

The issue is this: the article [Ulster Defence Regiment] contains a substantial number of references to Major John Potter, the author of "A Testament To Courage (The Regimental History of the Ulster Defence Regiment)". Although these references are attributed there is nothing in the article to suggest to a reader why this author has the authority to comment or state facts about the regiment. I wish to change this by reducing the number of comments attributed as opinion to the man and placing an informative paragraph to tell readers of the article why he (Potter) is qualified to make factual statements on the grounds that:

1. He compiled the official history of the regiment which is now held at the British Ministry of Defence under a time dependent release policy. 2. His book was vetted by and approved (although not endorsed - as is common) by the British Ministry of Defence. 3. His invitation by the Colonels Commandant to compile the official history entitles him to be referred to as "Official Historian". 4. His own extensive experience with the British Army and the Ulster Defence Regiment (22 years with the latter) and his rank of Major make him a qualified person to comment on aspects of the regiment's history as an informed and reliable source.

I am aware that in his own preface he informs readers that some of his opinions are his own and are unsupported elsewhere, although his text does contain many third party references. I believe I am sensible enough to avoid using his personal opinion as more than just that and properly attributing the opinion to him.

I need to advise anyone who wishes to assist that there is a long, detailed and at times very daunting, archive of previous discussion where the same names keep occuring over several years. This appears to have resulted in some people being banned from Wikipedia and others leaving. The article has been the result of at least one arbitration and is currently on editing restriction. I personally do not want to get drawn into the horrible and counterproductive bickering which seems to be associated with this (and other) articles on the Irish Troubles but I do think that sensible editing could improve the (already excellent) article.

I am also posting this request at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Help_Required_With_Source to try and get as many neutral opinions as possible and avoid doing anything which is going to look as if I am trying to ram a point home and cause upset. All sensible comments appreciated. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Something to consider... we do not require that our sources be neutral... we require that we maintain a neutral point of view in reporting what they say. So... there is nothing wrong with using Major Potter to present a particular view on the regiment and the Troubles... but if there are contrary views (and given the subject I would expect there are) we should present them as well. Blueboar (talk) 16:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

John Potter is not a historian, official or otherwise. The book he wrote is a completely separate project to the work he did on behalf of the Colonels Commandant. This is simply forum shopping because the first answer was not acceptable. What was that answer? Generally it was reliable for uncontested points, but not usually for anything self-serving, disputed or contentious. O Fenian (talk) 16:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

While the book was not published by an academic publishing company, and therefore does not meet the highest standards for historical sources, it is nonetheless a reliable source for this article and there is no need to attribute facts in the text, rather than in footnotes. For example, the sentence: "According to John Potter, 25% of the new recruits in 1970 had no previous military or Special Constabulary experience." That is a fact, not an opinion and if it is wrong or in dispute then other sources are required to show that. TFD (talk) 17:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe some of the "according to Potter"s in the article are merited at present. But that seems to be a separate issue to what is currently being argued. Things like that do not need attributing, but anything sourced to Potter would need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis rather than a blanket "no attribution needed". O Fenian (talk) 17:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I feel this is getting somewhere. Some of my own points are highlighted here, particulary the over attribution of Potter when he quotes facts. What I would like to do is remove those attributions where relevant and to include wording which attributes the compilation of the official history to Potter but which points out that the book is a NOT that official history. To me the sensible thing is to call Potter the "Official Historian" or "compiler of the official history". Am I on the right track? SonofSetanta (talk) 14:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

When we use a source we make a judgment on its reliability and should not have a separate section questioning this. If you think his facts are wrong then find a source that proves this. If you think any of his opinions have been given undue weight, then correct this. TFD (talk) 15:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Google scholar results as a measure of the most common term used by scholars.

During the dispute on the Communist terrorism talk page many editors argued that in actuality the article tells mostly about Left wing terrorist groups, therefore, the article name should be changed to the more general Leftist terrorism (which currently is just a redirect page). Their opponents argued that the term "Communist terrorism" is frequently used by various authors. To check what term is more frequently applied to the terrorist groups described in the article I made a systematic google scholar search for each article's topic. I found that the words "left wing terrorism" are applied much more frequently to these groups than the words "Communist terrorism" (for details, see [30]: I demonstrated that much more articles use the words "Left wing terrorism" and do not use the words "Communist terrorism" to describe leftist terrorist groups, whereas the amount of the articles that use the words "Communist terrorism" and do not use the words "Left wing terrorism" in the same context is much smaller)). Obviously, this my activity cannot constitute original research because I do not propose to create a new content, just to find out what terminology is the most common among the scholars.
Obviously, the search result demonstrate that the article's name does not reflect the opinion of majority scholars, and therefore is not neutral. The neutrality issue can be easily fixed by switching redirects (instead of Leftist terrorism -> Communist terrorism to do vice versa). In connection to that, do I need to wait for consensus to rename the article, or, per WP:NEUTRAL the consensus cannot take precedence over neutrality requirements?--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

In fact reliable sources say that "Left-wing terrorism" is the term most commonly used for "Marxist-Leninist terrorism", while few academic sources use the term "Communist/communist terrorism", and even those that do primarily use the term "Left-wing terrorism". TFD (talk) 15:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

WP does not use google to decide on article titles. Collect (talk) 16:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

No but Wikipedia does use WP:UCN, and google scholar is one of the useful tools at our disposal to help understand what the most common name of something is.Griswaldo (talk) 17:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Endorse this non-controversial statement. --Tenmei (talk) 21:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Correct. The policy states: "When a subject or topic has a single common name (as evidenced through usage in a significant proportion of English-language reliable sources), Wikipedia should follow the sources and use that name as our article title (subject to the other naming criteria)." Using google scholar I have demonstrated that a significant proportion of English-language reliable sources use the name Left wing terrorism for terrorist groups discussed in this article, and noone has demonstrated so far that that the search was done incorrectly, or that this name is not common according to other neutral criteria. In connection to that, I do not think we need consensus for renaming of the article, because the policy takes precedence over consensus.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Is this bland restatement helpful?

WP:Five Pillars takes precedence over a straw poll ≠ Consensus? --Tenmei (talk) 21:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Polyandry among Nairs in Nair article

Issue: discussion about the practice of polyandry by Nairs in Nair article. The issue is no coverage versus moderate coverage.
My argument: Not discussing the ancient practice of polyandry adequately and/or providing a link to Polyandry among Nairs at the appropriate place in the article is a violation of NPOV.
Evidence: abundant. please see here for some articles i have listed from JSTOR. google books, Nair polyandry in Google scholar, Nayar polyandry in Google scholar
Previous outside discussions: I have sought ouside opinion at ANI. User:DGG, User:EdJohnston, User:TFOWR and User:Silver seren have already commented before. I have listed their comments here for convenience. User:DGG, User:TFOWR and User:Silver seren support a moderate coverage. User:EdJohnston recommended WP:RFC.
Other side: Shannon1488 (talk · contribs · count), Thankappan Pillai (talk · contribs · count), Vekramaditya (talk · contribs · count), Pulayan Punchapadam (talk · contribs · count) and Suresh.Varma.123 (talk · contribs · count). All of them have no edits outside Nair and larger section Kshatriya related articles. Some socks have been blocked. --CarTick (talk) 01:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

To Admins: This issue is already discussed 4-5 times in the past month in the ANI and other places. Users like Cartick are wasting everyone else's time due to his own personal ego. Last week, a compromise was reached in ANI and everything seemed fine. But just after a week, Cartick is again trying to push his propaganda / hatred. Despite what he says, the admins who reviewed it stated that the issue is complex and needs expert opinion. Only one of the admins agreed with Cartick (Take a look at ANI archive). If you want to allow Cartick to use the wikipedia as a tool for spreading propaganda and anti-Nair fanaticism, then ban all of the other users and allow only CarTick to edit these articles. Atleast a dozen users have voiced their opposition to disruptive edits by Cartick and their voices are not heard. Whatever I had to say about this, I have written in the ANI. I am not going to waste any of my time on this.Shannon1488 (talk) 04:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Shannon, could you please explain, why saying that Nairs practiced polyandry is hate speech? Would it be worse if I said Nairs were homosexuals? What exactly are the sexual practices you find so objectionable? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 13:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't care whether you want to portray all Nairs as homosexuals or not. But wikipedia should not be used as a propaganda tool. CarTick had an argument with a Nair editor one month ago in the Nadar article. Right after he went for a wiki break, this guy started vandalizing Nair articles. Almost all the Nadar related articles in Wikipedia are full of POV and loaded with anti-Nair hatred. And here is the reason why Polyandry is not relevant to the Nair article:

• Primary practitioners of polyandry were not Nairs, but Kammalars and other artisan castes.
• Polyandry, although very rare was last practiced among Nairs during the 19th century.
• Most of the reliable research done on Nairs, including the works by CJ Fuller and Thurston contains no mention to polyandry, which means they disagreed on whether the practice is polyandry or not.
• Even some of the research works Cartick quoted, states the inaccuracy like "Although I have never met a Nayar woman whom I have definitely known to be polyandrous, I heard, from Nayar, of several cases of non-fraternal polyandry in recent times both from Walluvanad and from the Trichur taluk of Cochin".
• Cartick's edit's like "Under Nair polyandry, the only conceivable blood-relationship could be ascertained through females." smells of hatred.

We have voiced our concerns. If you want to side with Cartick, do it. Unfortunately there is not much I could do about jealousy and inferiority complex. Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) 02:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

BC/AD and BCE/CE and bias/neutrality

BC and AD have been accepted abbreviations to refer to periods of time before and after the birth of Christ for hundreds of years. Proponents of the absurd BCE/CE, which supposedly stands for 'before the common era' (common to whom we may ask) and 'of the common era' may claim that they are being 'neutral'. However, the decision to introduce these abbreviations is in itself biased as it makes a huge departure from accepted convention.

Where now does the argument of 'neutrality' lie?

Incidentally, these abbreviations can equally mean 'before the Christian era' and 'of the Christian era', hardly an escape into political correctness. If we wanted to be culturally neutral, we would have to introduce a new term with unambiguous abbreviations, such as OTR (older time reference) and MTR (modern time reference). See how that catches on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by T A Francis (talk • contribs) 22:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Please see the very extensive recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Archive 130#BCE/CE vs BC/AD. This can be argued, but it's not to my mind a question of Neutral Point of View, since BCE and CE (Common Era) are now very common in scholarly literature, although little known outside academic and religious contexts. —— Shakescene (talk) 22:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Let me also point out that the structure of the argument is peculiar. Compare However, the decision to abolish slavery is in itself biased as it makes a huge departure from accepted convention. At you leisure, substitute "introduce female suffrage", "abolish child labour", "introduce a written constitution"... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

He's posted to my talk page - I'm not sure what this means: "This is tosh. You can't for a start 'revert' an edit. You can 'reverse' it though. Is it not, then, a pre-qualification of the Wikipedia police that they are educated and can write correct English? T A Francis(talk) 9:58 pm, Yesterday (UTC+1)" Somehow I don't think we are going to replace 'revert' with 'reverse' however. My only contact with him was last March when I left a notice on his talk page about using article talk pages as a forum. I guess it could be a response to something at the top of my talk page that says "Coming here to ask why I reverted your edit?" Dougweller (talk) 20:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Academic bias

[We should not] unreasonably make mainstream academic opinion the highest authority and set it above all other criteria such as moral and ethical considerations.... (1) mainstream scholarly opinion in the 19th century allowed itself to be dominated by racist theories, and (2) in the 20th century, scholarly opinion allowed itself to be dominated by socialist (pro-Marxist) theories just as previously it had allowed itself to be dominated by racist ones. This demonstrates that the objectivity of mainstream scholarly opinion cannot always be assumed.

Could editors please comment whether the above statement, which is part of the discussion at Talk:Communist terrorism, fairly represents the policy of neutrality. TFD (talk) 14:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I would add that in the early and mid 20thC mainstream accademia often allowed itself to be dominated by racist theories. So yes I think itsd a fair statment.Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

WP policy says: "While currently accepted scientific paradigms may later be rejected, and hypotheses previously held to be controversial or incorrect sometimes become accepted by the scientific community, it is not the place of Wikipedia to venture such projections." In other words, if in "the 20th century, scholarly opinion allowed itself to be dominated by socialist (pro-Marxist) theories", then the only neutral way to write an article is to follow this "bias". The situation may change in future, however, noone can predict the direction of this change. One way or the another, it is not our goal to predict this change. The only thing we can do is to follow the opinion of scholars' community.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the argument is about the idea that scholerly spooures have some special level of authority that make them superior to all other sources. O)ften justified by the arguent that none accademic sources refect bias, which is no different to many scholerly sources themselves.Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The question is not in the bias of academic sources but in the superiority of "moral and ethical considerations". The scholarly sources are superior to all other sources simply per WP policy, and if they are biased, than WP should follow this bias. Re moral considerations, let me point out that XIX century moral was also dominated by racist views...--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The scientific community is not equivalent to the scholarly community. There is also something called editorial judgment. The Milgram experiment might be something to remember. Yes there is a good side to WP:IAR. Lambanog (talk) 15:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: "The scientific community is not equivalent to the scholarly community" Yes, because "scientific" refers mostly to exact and natural sciences. Re editorial judgement, please, can you be more specific? Why concretely IAR can be applied here (by contrast to overwhelming majority cases) and how concretely will it lead to improvement of Wikipedia? Why moral consideration of some WP editors should dominate over the opinion of scholarly community in this particular case?--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Commenting in general Paul should it be necessary. In this specific case brought up regarding Communist terrorism? Don't know. Probably not, but the social sciences cast a wide net and journalists and politicians with less academic experience may be suitable sources as well. Lambanog (talk) 15:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Note that an RfC was instituted and almost immediately removed (due to answers obtained there?) by the person asking here. See also [31], [32] etc., [33] is particularly apt. The number of edits on the article talk page is getting absurd at this point as well, with only two editors accounting for over 420 edits to the talk page, it is time to simply say "basta". There is really a limit as to the number of forums used for essentially the same issues. Collect (talk) 15:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Could you please be more specific? Do you support the idea that the opinion of a scholarly community (which theoretically can be biased) should not be set above moral considerations (which also change with time, and, sometimes also justify quite weird things like slavery)?--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Posing such questions is non-utile as the issue is the use of this board catenated with multiple other forums regarding the existence of an article, and a section therein. I specifically suggest that it is not up to editors to "know the truth" about anything, but rather to simply report what is in reliable sources (using the WP definition thereof). Collect (talk) 16:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

In other words, you support the idea that if majority reliable sources seem to be pro-Marxist biased, that cannot be a reason for rejecting what they say?--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

So, you're asking (basically) if most scholarly sources present a view that you consider to be pro-Marxist (obviously they just consider it to be the established norm), you want to reject the established norm as pro-Marxist, and (assumedly) use something else? On what grounds would we do that, and how does that benefit the encyclopedia? --Ludwigs2 19:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I am stating that if most scholarly sources present a view that someone considers to be pro-Marxist one has to accept that fact, and not to claim that, since scholarly may be biased, its opinion should not be taken into account in this particular case.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, this sounds suspiciously like you are claiming that a mainstream viewpoint has to be labeled or contextualized in a way that it does not label or contextualize itself, in order to satisfy your personal understanding of the issue. obviously, if there is a notable source that labels the mainstream view in this way, then it should be included with proper attribution (assuming it passes wp:undue), but we do not present mainstream views as anything other than mainstream views.

Since this is a historical issue, of course, you may find modern sources that express the viewpoint you're expressing as a historical fact. If those modern sources are the modern mainstream view, then obviously we want to include that. But we need to include them as a historical perspective, not as a fact about the material itself.

I'll add, the term 'Pro-Marxist' is polemical and ambiguous. Scholars are rarely 'Pro-' anything. There was certainly a lot of Marxist ideation in US academic circles from the turn of the century, but that would be Marxist theory (not Marxist ideology or Marxist politics, which are very different birds), and there was a lot of that theory floating around because it was (and is) a very effective and fruitful theory for explanations of certain kinds of social phenomena. One doesn't say that a physicist is 'Pro-Newtonian'; physicists simply use Newton's theories. likewise... --Ludwigs2 20:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

You seem not to understand my point. The initial issue was with the position of another user, who claimed that scholarly sources "whitewash Marxism" and therefore are "apologists of terrorism". He further argued that, since, as "mainstream scholarly opinion in the 19th century allowed itself to be dominated by racist theories", it may equally be wrong now regarding Marxism, which implied that the scholarly opinion could be rejected in this particular case. Obviously, I myself do not share this POV.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know what the original problem was (that wasn't discussed here). I'll I was working with was your description of the abstract problem. Are you still having difficulty with that particular silliness, because I can put that to rest in short order, if you like (that's just obvious OR). --Ludwigs2 21:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Some editors insist on interpreting writings by Marx concerning his views of terrorism - all the terrorist groups in the article are post WW2 - rather than rely on secondary sources. Also, while all the academic sources classify these groups as "Left-wing", they insist on calling them "Communist/communist". The implication in Justus Maximus's view is that we cannot rely on modern scholars of terrorism, because they are all pro-Marxist, and must therefore compensate for that by making our own analyses. TFD (talk) 21:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

well, that sounds ludicrous to me, but there's no point discussing it here if it's article specific. let me look over the conversation there. --Ludwigs2 22:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Please allow me to point out that the reason that we give scholarly sources a higher level of credibility is not because scholarly sources are right, but because scholarly sources (unlike most of the rest of the world) are self-reflective, reasonable, and cautious. Yes, scholarly sources in the early twentieth century had some decided racist qualities - but they learned better. yes scholarly sources in the mid twentieth century had socialist leanings - but they have progressively eliminated the radical, unsupported elements of marxist theory and refined the useful elements of it into better theories. Scholarship is marked by the willingness to advance an opinion while retaining an open mind. I don't know what the conflict here is, but with anything in the 'socialism' topic area, one needs to very, very carefully distinguish between scholarly theory and the problematical uses that scholarly theories get put to by others. the classic example of this, of course, is the fact that Marx never advocated for revolution. He merely stated that he thought revolution would be an inevitable outcome of the capitalist system (as it was practiced in his time). other people read that and decided that if revolution were inevitable they might as well go and start one. People are inane. If you present the theory for what it is and separate out the politics of it, things should be less confusing. --Ludwigs2 18:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Rabbi Pinto

Please assist cleanup of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yishayahu_Yosef_Pinto Propoganda and other useless materials - Whitewash many negative truths. His role in the death of Obstfeld not mentioned despite countless media references Lebron paid $1 Million for meeting - Whitewashed Users are solely joining WIki for this purpose and should be banned

American Academy of Financial Management

This dispute concerns an article in the Wall Street Journal a few days ago that discusses the American Academy of Financial Management.[34] It accused the AAFM of being a credentials mills. Some editors think that if this article is included, then all articles from the WSJ that mention the article should be included.[35] They also insist that a number of statement that I have removed were well-sourced; they did have citations, but the citations say nothing to the point (e.g., having the address listed in government directory to support that only the US version AAFM can grant certain credentials). The two different versions of the article this and this.

Some background. This article has a long history of COI, NPOV, ARTSPAM, and SOCK problems. The article was originally an advertisement that survived an AfD. I trimmed the advertising puffery and removed the advert template. Then there was a dispute within the AAFM that got fought out on this page (some members thought it had become a credentials mill and formed the International Academy of Financial Management, both sides claiming to be the "real" voice of the organization and thus lay claim to ownership of the page). In the meantime, the puffery that I had removed crept back in. The person who initially added the WSJ criticism of the AAFM was almost certainly part of the splinter IAFM, happy to embarrass his former colleagues, but the source was reliable and the criticism notable. This article needs regular policing, and I would appreciate some help. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 16:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The WSJ article appears easily WP:RS so the views it contains should as far as I can see be presented in the article to comply with neutrality. The views should be presented with accurate paraphrasing, naturally. --Dailycare (talk) 16:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, but I am dealing with a tendentious editor who wishes to push a POV. He is not going to say that he thinks he is presenting the article in violation of Wikipedia policy. Reverting tendentious or spam edits is still considered edit warring, so I really do need help here; otherwise it is just the two of us going back and forth. I was hoping to get an opinion on what the application of the policy in this case is. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 17:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Greg Hicks

If any of you have the time and the inclination would you please take a quick look at this article. It has been tagged as having POV issues and, for the life of me, I can find no POV on the entire page. Per the conversation on the talk page Talk:Greg Hicks a claim is being made that the article is purely promotional, but, to me it looks like most actor articles that are stubs. I think a fresh set of eyes might clear things up. My thanks ahead of time to any editor who can assist in this matter. MarnetteD | Talk 22:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing about the article that violates NPOV. Your interlocutor is making WikiDrama. I don't know if it is disruption to make a point or just social awkwardness, but anyone whose first reaction to your remarks is to direct you to WP:WQA (not for your remarks, but for their behavior) knows enough about Wikipedia to ought to know better. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 23:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to check into this RJC. The POV tag was replaced with an Advert tag but another editor has removed that also. Again I appreciate your efforts and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 16:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Heartlight Ministries

Hi. A question about "Philosophy" sections in school and org. articles. Are these sections appropriate, especially when unsourced (as in above article)? Just wanted some other opinions before making an attempt to edit. Thanks, The Interior(Talk) 19:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

My opinion would be not appropriate. But frankly I think a larger issue is that the entire article is in pretty blatant contravention of WP:NOTADVERTISING. NickCT (talk) 20:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Following this comment, I wanted to clarify. Re "Are these sections appropriate, especially when unsourced (as in above article)?" - My opinion is that those sections are not appropriate. Thank you. NickCT (talk) 20:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, my bad. "Would not be", "Would be not" = me reading too fast for my own good. Thanks for the clarification. The Interior(Talk) 20:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

microdermabrasion

Article in question: Microdermabrasion

Problem: The article is (and has been in all previous edits), no more than an ad for microdermabrasion, a cosmetic procedure. There is no information on potential risks or drawbacks of the procedure. Title headings are things like "How microdermabrasion renews the skin" - that is, non-facts stated as facts. This type of language is not tolerated on other sites e.g. plastic surgery, body cleansing, etc, and should not be tolerated here.

Discussion: Talk:Microdermabrasion Other users have pointed out this problem, and a few of the more egrigious claims (acne removal, scar reduction, etc) have been removed. However, the main issue of Neutral PoV remains in the article proper. One user defended the article saying:

Utter rubbish, yes there are quacks doing this but true professionals get good and even excellent results. It is one of the most popular treatments of the last few years so I doubt it would be that popular if it did not get the results!

Which again fails several tests of bias (it's hearsay, and something being popular doesn't mean it effective, see body cleansing) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jozieg (talk • contribs) 13:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a recommendation what to do about the issue? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 21:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Zecharia Sitchin

Thanos5150 (talk · contribs) insists on removing any criticism of Zecharia Sitchin from the lead section, and burying it farther down in the article. I see this as a violation of both WP:NPOV and MOS:LEAD. Additional experienced opinions welcome, probably better on Talk:Zecharia Sitchin than here. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Zecharia Sitchin request for POV check

There is an article that is having POV issues and I have to admit that it is a little on the WP:FRINGE side, but there is WP:UNDUE weight towards debunking instead of being neutral. There is an article Here in regards to Zecharia Sitchin and it was right away squashed as not WP:RS. There are a number of editors and Admins who verge on the WP:OWN regulations and police it without consensuses. Opinion? - Pmedema (talk) 07:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

A little while ago, on the talk page an IP suggested that this be used as a source, and one other editor said it shouldn't be used. The IP was 216.191.219.194 (talk · contribs), apparently Pmedema logged out from what I can tell at [36]. I sympathise with the editor who said it shouldn't be used. The reporter describes his/her article as " a very condensed form of Sitchin’s writings and researches" and we can use Sitchin himself. As for WP:UNDUE and the article not being 'neutral', I think Pmedema misunderstands what NPOV requires here. Dougweller (talk) 05:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, by accident I was logged out when I posted the suggestion and no, I don't "misunderstand" NPOV. By all means, there is plenty of debunking of Zecharia Stichin articles and some that are cited with questionable sources, but there is an WP:UNDUE weight to the debunking. Yes Zecharia Sitchin, in my opinion, is a crack pot, but articles should be balanced. The WP:POV is not what is written into the article but in the way that it is policed (sometimes rudly) when attempts to repair the WP:UNDUE are conducted. - Pmedema (talk) 06:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Controversial Edits at Conservatism in the United States

I'm having a bit of a disagreement with a couple of editors on the Conservatism in the United States article. Rjensen originated and The Four Deuces has perpetuated these changes. I'll copy a portion of my objections from the talk page:

I object to this language on two counts:

1) It is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV to label the Tea Party as "angry conservatives". Certainly we don't see this sort of language at the Tea Party movement article or references to "angry liberals" at Opposition to the Iraq War. While anger is perhaps a socially appropriate emotion in certain contexts, labeling a political movement as "angry" is biased and demeaning.

2) The sources do not support the notion that the Tea Party is universally angry, nor do they support the notion that the Tea Party has "paid little attention to foreign policy". Being split on something and ignoring something are two entirely different concepts. The Tea Party has not ignored foreign policy and the sources do not indicate that they have.

Can I get a POV check on these edits? My primary concern is the lack of multiple, reliable sources to support broad and sweeping assertions. Uncle Dick (talk) 05:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

A term like "angry conservatives" is not an objective characterization. POV declarations like that should be attributed to a noteworthy source, something like "X has described the groups as 'angry conservatives'." As for the other issue, in general we focus on what a person or group has focused on rather than what they have not. Rather than saying they've ignored foreign policy, it might be better to say that they've focused on domestic issues.   Will Beback  talk  05:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Uncle Dick neglected mention that the foreign policy assertion is based on a New York Times citation that "a review of the Web sites of many Tea Party candidates suggests that they have not spent much time exploring foreign policy specifics. Many do little more than offer blanket promises to keep America safe." It seems reasonably sourced to me.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

While some Tea Party candidates have been coy about their foreign policy views, others (like Ron Paul and Marc Rubio) have been outspoken. I don't think there is enough evidence in either direction to make the sweeping generalization that the Tea Party has "paid little attention to foreign policy". Some candidates have and some haven't. Uncle Dick (talk) 05:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

If that's what you believe, then you should find some sources the describe the Tea Party as having a viable foreign policy outlook or a non-angry viewpoint and include them in the article for balance. Otherwise you're just doing original research. Keep in mind, however, that the Tea Party movement is (at best) only a couple of years old. Political movements often (I'm tempted to say 'always') begin as relatively thoughtless expressions of outrage over some failed policy or another. It will probably take the Tea Party another five to ten years before it begins to have an explicit, consistent, and properly theorized set of platforms, assuming it survives that long. And even then, the question is whether it's going to survive as a major party or dwindle into 3rd-party purgatory. It's base (so it seems to me) lies in midwestern 'home-town' conservatism, which is more concerned with values - morality, fiscal responsibility, protection of individual rights - than with nation. That's been the uneasy alliance in the Republican party for the last few decades: capitalist-nationalists (big-business advocates with foreign economic and military concerns) working with right-of center moralists (small-business advocates and religious conservatives who are largely isolationist). That's one of the problems with two-party systems: you actually have three major interest blocks in this country - capitalist-nationalists, moral conservatives, and democratic-progressives (along with a couple of major minor perspectives such as the libertarians). it's all going to boil down to whether the TP can (a) organize successfully, and (b) draw off moderate conservatives from the DP and CN groups in sufficient numbers to supplant one of the other parties (most likely the Republicans). --Ludwigs2 16:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

SAQ RfC-NPOV issues

An RfC is in process here, the purpose of which is to decide which version best fulfills this directive in terms of Wikipedia policies and standards. Version 1 Version 2

Comments are solicited from participants of this noticeboard.. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

MPIR wiki link in the GMP page

On the GNU_Multi-Precision_Library article there is one anonymous user from Stockholm ( 90.132.75.8, 81.225.14.148, 130.237.222.220, 81.225.10.223 , 83.185.6.75, 130.237.222.220 ) that is repeatedly removing, without giving sound justifications, a wiki link to MPIR, a fork of GMP.

The line that is repeatedly removed is the following one:

• MPIR - a LGPL fork of GNU MP with fully compatible interface which (among other goals) aims to provide MSVC-based compilation system for Windows platforms.

Main argument for keeping it as given by a couple of users (ALoopingIcon and MTarini):

MPIR it is a legitimate LGPL fork of GMP. Fork of open source projects are usually included in the main page (see for example the Forks section of Mindmapper)

Main argument for not having MPIR cited in the GMP article:

A link moves away the from the focus of the article

Given the fact that MPIR is a legitimate fork, and that the knowledge of this fork can be useful to a variety of user of the library (e.g. the ones that require compiling GMP using microsoft compilers, something that the GMP community actively does not support) I would ask to keep the link. I have stopped reverting the removal of the anonymous user to not incur in the WP:3RR. I could be wrong, but googling around it seems that the MPIR fork was not a smooth one, so there could be some NPOV issues in the anonymous user's steady will of continuously removing MPIR references. ALoopingIcon (talk) 11:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Arthur Alan Wolk

This article reads like a press release. If you google Arthur Wolk, the top links are about his unsuccessful libel lawsuits; he has sued over thirty different people or organizations for libel, and has never won a libel case in court. I looked up the Wolk article after reading about his threat to sue Reason for writing about his libel lawsuits, and found that the article was nothing but advertising. Two editors (one of whom who has said he is drafting this article on Wolk's behalf) keep deleting my attempt to add well-sourced discussion of his libel lawsuits, which are notable and have received press coverage in multiple sources. They argue that I cite to primary sources (though I cite to secondary sources, too), but the article is full of primary sources and mentions of cases that don't have any secondary sources. I have classes and work and my edits get deleted as soon as I make them by editors who have all day to spend on Wikipedia, so I will drop the issue, but it seems unfair that someone can use Wikipedia to advertise like that. (Note: Boo is a single-purpose account because I don't want Arthur Wolk to sue me for my regular account and Wolk threatens to sue anyone who writes about him.[37] I got accused of a conflict of interest, but the other editor who has done nothing but write about Wolk on Wolk's behalf hasn't. I'll stop using this account.) Boo the puppy (talk) 12:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Rabbi Pinto

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

Comparison of web browsers with U.S. bias

A summary of this issue is available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Usage_share_of_web_browsers#Vote_again_-_about_removing_regional_stats_in_summary .   Again in summary editors agree there is bias. One group of editors wish to remove sources that have obvious bias for browser usage share statistics, summary, and intro reporting. Another group claims that all sources have bias and prefer to add more sources as to mitigate the bias. Would appreciate your thoughts and comments on this issue. Because of the controversy I deleted the summary statistics in the summary table. But there remains an issue of which source(s) to use in the wp:lead.   Thanks, Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 21:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Questioning Neutrality of Article it appears to be Scandal Mongering and POV I think the sources are being misrepresented

DavidR2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Ott jeff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
72.39.98.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The Article in question is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MonaVie

After reading the source articles I think that this could possibly be an attack attempt on the company. Could we have it checked for misrepresenting sources,fact finding and Neutrality please?

Some notes to consider:

The issue is not at all about whether the sources are reliable or not.

The website that the FDA Warned was www.acai-berry.com which is not created or run by the company of MonaVie.

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2008/0811/050.html Is a review of Orrin Woodwards Organization called TEAM and not a review of the Company of MonaVie.

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2005/10/nbty.shtm I am unsure what connection this source article is to the company of MonaVie.

I cant find any proof in the sources of the CEO being involved in any false health claims other than he had a senior post and quit a year before the FDA shut that company down. Possible Scandal Mongering?

Monavie Talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:MonaVie

Thanks DavidR2010 (talk) 13:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010DavidR2010 (talk) 13:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Jonathon A H explained much of this and your statement looks like a WP:IDHT of about every point he raised. Point 89 and 93 of the "Quixtar Inc. Plaintiff, vs. MonaVie, Inc., MonaVie LLC, John Brigham and Lita Hart, Jason and Carrie Lyons, Lou Niles, Farid Zarif, John Does 1-10," document pretty much spell out the CEO has issues with the FDA.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I think I understand now so you are saying that it is mainly this PDF this is the main source of what is written in the wikipedia article about MonaVie? DavidR2010 (talk) 04:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010DavidR2010 (talk) 04:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

If this is the final conclusion then leave no reply and I will take these findings back to the talk page in order to attempt to achieve consensus. DavidR2010 (talk) 05:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010DavidR2010 (talk) 05:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

No, what I am saying is that Jonathon A H addressed the points you are raising and there is nothing here that shows anything counter to what he or 65.95.238.137 pointed out.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty convinced something fishy is going on here there is quite a bit of slander of that company in that article with little proof to back it up. This source here http://www.amquix.info/pdfs/monavie/2-08-cv-00209-db-02.pdf is merely a complaint made by attorneys of a competing company how can that even be a reliable source. Yeah those guys didn't raise any good points either are you friends with them? I think you are a WP:IDHT Thank you. DavidR2010 (talk) 06:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010DavidR2010 (talk) 06:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of fishy things, the ANI discussion[38] alleges that the SPA David is a sock of another user who is known for being a MonaView cheerleader. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Paul Robeson and related articles

A single editor is responsible for adding considerable content to Paul Robeson and creating related articles, including Paul Robeson and the labor movement, Paul Robeson and Jackie Robinson, and Paul Robeson and communism. Together with considerable positive content, she has left an incredible amount of POV in those articles, and attempts to discuss the issue with her at Talk:Paul Robeson have been fruitless.

Can some fresh eyes take a look at the articles and chime in. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The sub-articles don't seem to be the right way to deal with the length of the bio. There's an enormous amount of bad faith on the talk page, with people going into the rights and wrongs of the bio subject's beliefs. Everyone needs to be more disciplined, perhaps collapsing talk page posts when they go right off topic. In a quick trawl around for parallels, I saw that Malcolm X is a featured article. There's no reason in principle why Paul Robeson shouldn't also be taken to that standard, since there are plenty of reliable sources already cited. Would the editor who is adding all this material be interested in taking the article forward on those lines? Itsmejudith (talk) 23:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

"attempts to discuss the issue with her at Talk:Paul Robeson have been fruitless."

I appreciate this forum and the time you are giving the article but that above assessment is a tad biased and I feel you know this Malik. I have not only gone into articles and removed as much POV as possible (please see the changes made in the past few weeks) I am not responsible for all of it! I was faced with a very short article about a very complex and hugely world famous 20th century figure mired in pov and editing conflicts and who's life spanned the era when black children's parents had been former slaves up until 1976. I did the best I could and still really want to improve what is there and make it much, much better than it is while working with others.

There are numerous urban myths and conflicting accounts surrounding key parts of his life. Much of what I see as an issue is stemming from the fact that this was a once an immensely famous international figure who has been mostly written out of history so therefore one has to explain: 1.Why he was one of the most famous Americans of his time 2.Why he was is unknown now 3.Why he was once considered a threat to the power structure on two continents 4.Why he was considered a Communist sympathizer

all without any povs and taking into consideration that Robeson's opinions/writings should ideally be quoted as often as possible. Robeson stayed silent on many of his views towards the end of the red scare but in tandem maintained his opinions in his autobiography had never changed. Regarding the CP/USSR which seems to be the flash point for everyone, I think there DOES need to be a separate article. It is a huge source of controversy with lies propagated by both sides of the spectrum. I have added to both articles, cited sections that feature many of his views and actions regarding the USSR/CP that the Left wants sanitized but many conservatives are still very upset. My solution is that we offer the reader a very well cited section of the article with abbreviated theories about his Communist views by the far right, right, liberal, left, far left historians and all of his major biographers. This can edited in a similar fashion to this article (much more brief of course): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination_conspiracy_theories

As stated before, if someone of minute historical stature like Jessica Simpson warrants a portal and numerous sub articles, it is ludicrous to not have an in-depth availability of Robeson study in a similar fashion for his massive work with Labour unions in the US and abroad and the incident with Jackie Robinson. It is also saddening that he is invisible on all the Civil Rights portals and articles and has no portal and project of his own, he was active in Civil Rights his entire life. Catherine Huebscher (talk) 8:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Catherine, it is great that you want to develop a good biography of Robeson, who was, as you say, a very well known figure in his day. You will find it useful to look at some biographies that are featured articles for comparison. Harvey Milk might be of interest. It isn't necessary to quote biography subjects frequently, by the way. You need to work closely with the best published biographies. This is only an encyclopedia article, at the end of the day. People will use it as a first stage for further research. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

I am one of the editors who clashed with Catherine. My one attempt to remove POV pushing from the very long intro - I hadn't looked at the further text - was immediately reverted by Catherine, who apparently thinks herself the owner of the article. After that, I have began to overhauling the entire article elsewhere but due to real life commitments this only proceeds slowly. But I think I will be able to present the result soon.

Her POV pushing consists not so much of hiding facts but of an overly laudatory language towards everything Mr Robeson ever did, an equally condemning language towards his opponents, who are constantly imputed the most vile motivations (such as racism, being anti-civil rights etc.) never any reasonable concerns, such as a concern about Communist activities. (And that's not to say that Robeson had trouble with racist bigots or discrimination - only it is not the whole story). The recent changes Catherine has made have been minute compared to the problem.

Oh, and the way she treats Robeson's opponents, she treats her "opponents" as well, repeatedly imputing either racism or ignorance of the - indeed horrible - plight of blacks in American history. Repeatedly does she insist that the U.S. 1950s (or even today's America) was/is no better than Stalin's Soviet Union. That is what has dominated the talk page discussions. No one has attempted, as she claimed, to turn the article into a hit piece on Robeson (and I have even expressed understanding for how he got to his more problematic opinions). It is not WP's role to either laud or condemn Robeson's actions - but we must truthfully report them and the reactions.

Another issue is her insistence that Robeson is such a great man (and a great man he was indeed) that he deserves not just one article but several. She has repeatedly compared this to more recent celebrities such as Madonna or, as I see now, Jessica Simpson. No matter what anyone thinks of these women's importance, they are (for some reason) notable and thus have their articles. However, nowhere - and Catherine has provided a supposed list of how Madonna has many more extra articles (these actually were different people, groups, places, events somehow linked to the singer) - have I thus far found a string of articles that merely cover the subject's relation to this and that, there is Paul Robeson and the labor movement (which is basically a list of activities over a long period of time) but nowhere, let's say, Madonna and sex. The various extra article's topic can easily be covered in the main article, if concise language is employed and endless repition is avoided. Most of these articles through their topic only concern a short span of events (so far as really notable activities are concerned), so that they can be subsumed under this or that period of his life. The worst in that regard is Paul Robeson and Jackie Robinson, which concerns only a single event in both man's life and which doesn't even have a proper title to subsume what it's about. (For instance, no one would think of a Madonna and Sean Penn article.)

One exception among the extra articles is Paul Robeson and communism, which is a valid topic since it is the main controversy of his life and a topic that stretches across many time periods. I'm in favour of keeping it, though it suffers from the aforementioned POV problems.

The four questions asked by Catherine above are all valid ones and must be explained (though not necessarily in a "He is now unknown because ..." format) - however even in her questions she gives evidence of her POV pushing - though she talks about "without any povs and", making Robeson merely the victim of being "considered a threat to the power structure on two continents" - what about the power structure he supported?

I also disagree with her view that "Robeson's opinions/writings should ideally be quoted as often as possible" - his views should be given comprehensively and, if that best serves that purpose, he should be quoted. But we need not include a quote on everything, certainly not repetitive quotes or mere attacks.

Among editors, there never was a dispute whether Robeson changed. That he didn't should be noted. But just as much as I wouldn't have the article condemn him for "obstinately sticking to his support of a totalitarian regime", neither should the article laud him for his "unwavering" position. However, that is what Catherine's version is doing.

Str1977 ^(talk) 11:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Catherine, without going over what has happened in the past, do you want to work with other editors on improving the article in a way that's consistent with policy - NPOV, avoiding WP:QUOTEFARM, quality rather than quantity, working from sources? If you do, could you please enter into discussion on the talk page. Working together to draw up a to-do list for the article could be really effective, as could asking for the article to be reviewed in relation to Good Article criteria. In relation to subarticles, some of them will need to be merged back. I'm not at all sure about Paul Robeson and communism, even, because his political views were such an intrinsic part of his life events. Robeson and the House Committe on Un-American Activities, perhaps, if that constitutes a series of events with a beginning and some kind of end. Again, keep looking at how other biographies are treated and when subarticles are used. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I hope such a cooperation is possible.

My point about the communism article is: the overhaul I am working on and which I have in mind more rigorously follows a more chronological approach and thus mentions many items relating to PR and Communism in different places a) because this improves an understanding of the context of this or that development, and b) because they were relevant to others things too - as opposed to the current version which basically puts everything into one section (with subsections). But I thought maybe the extra article could then present these items in a more thematic way (it already does this, but then the PR main article would not).

That doesn't mean that I would object to the disappearence of the communism article. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

itsmeudith, Hi thanks for your feedback. I will take your advice.

Str1977: Anyone can go read what I wrote for themselves and see you are false. "The Belgian Congo does not approach the scope of Stalin"s horror" you say? Had their never been western European conservative right wing Christian/Catholic lust for slavery and imperialism and a ruthless monarchy (which was buttressed by the former) there never would have been a Stalin or a Marx. Do realize that when I moved material to the PR and CP sub-article that much of that NOT mine. I moved it, cited it and tried to flesh it out. Once again, so much is unproven conjecture. Even I wrote, with no sound scholarly proof other than his son's claim (which could be easily called bias and thrown out) that he was "aware of state sponsored murder by the USSR" I put that in so bias can I be? You just seem to want him put in the "convenient idiot box" and it can't be done.

As for the power structure Robeson supported that would first and foremost always be the United States. Post war II when that same power structure failed to end the systematic apartheid and wholesale genocide of blacks and even merrily lauded it (John Rankin added: "After all, the KKK is an old American institution.") Even then he still supported pro-American domestic causes like civil rights and trade unions. He also WAS a threat to the USSR in speaking out about Feffer in Tchaikovsky Hall. I said TWO continents. First and foremost , Robeson wanted PEACE with the USSR and globally. He did not want the USA to be telling other countries how to govern themselves. Catherine Huebscher (talk) 7:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad that the advice may have been helpful. If I may add one further one point, please resist the temptation to discuss the substantive points of the article with people on the talk page. People can write really good biographies about people whose views they agree with, disagree with, or are undecided about. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Itsmejudith, I absolutely agree. It is not one's opinion of the subject that counts (mine regarding Robeson is mixed, with a note of sadness) but one goes about writing the article. For Catherine, it seems, there (UNFORTUNATELY AND THUS FAR) is only praise of Robeson and condemnation for his opponents possible - this also shows in her postings here, which a) totally misrepresents my points (e.g. re: the Congo), b) thinks anecodotal evidence makes her case, c) actually distorts Robeson's views (who clearly said, he wanted peace with Stalin and Mao because their regimes were decent).

But, as you, Judith, said this is not the place to discuss the article's issues aside from the POV factor. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Weston Price and "The Charles Darwin of Nutrition"

I have been trying to put in a piece correcting a very common misconception that Weston Price was called "The Charles Darwin of Nutrition". However I have hit a snag with two editors. One doesn't seem to understand that is to correct an already existing problem (Talk:Weston_Price) and the other is hung up on the quality of the second source ignoring the fact it is basically parroting the higher quality first source

Here is the latest version of the piece:

However, an article in the 1950 edition of American Otological Society's journal The Laryngoscope stated the opinion that "Dr. Price might well be called "The Charles Darwin of Nutrition" and this was repeated nearly word for word in Modern nutrition the publication of American Academy of Nutrition who Price had had given his complete nutrition library to shortly before his death.((1950) The Laryngoscope, Volume 60; American Otological Society)((1951) Modern nutrition: Volumes 4-7; American Academy of Nutrition; pg 32). This statement of opinion would be presented as fact many decades later.

Given:

• Laryngoscope is published these days by Wiley and is the "Official Journal of The American Laryngological Association"
• Modern nutrition was (and is) published by the somewhat questionable American Academy of Nutrition
• The "Dr. Price was a Cleveland dentist, who has been called the Charles Darwin of Nutrition" mistake is everywhere even on amazon

My questions to my fellow editors are:

1. Does this in any reasonable form violate WP:PEACOCK?
2. How can something clearly labeled as an opinion be read as as statement of fact?
3. Given the circumstances wouldn't leaving this out be problematic?--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

As the "Editor who does not understand...", I have been trying to explain to Bruce that placing this passage in the article in this form (or one of the numerous other incarnations that he's tried) actually tends to imply that Price is considered the Charles Darwin of Nutrition - a fairly drastic misrepresentation of Price's place in history - and would tend to confuse relatively uninformed readers, who would have a hard time understanding why someone on Charles Darwin's level of significance is actually only a minor theorist who advocated a now-refuted theory of dental medicine. The passage is not used with proper historical context. It's fairly clear to me that the original context of the phrase has more to do with the fact that Price did cross-regional research (comparing western/'civilized' nutritional intake with tribal/'natural' nutritional intake, similar to Darwin's work) than with any belief that Price's research was groundbreaking or extra-significant, but that nuance is not brought out in the way Bruce keeps using this phrase.

I'm not averse to the phrase, mind you, if it could be properly contextualized. But Bruce just keeps pumping in variations of the same material without really engaging any of our discussions or critiques. anyone else want to give it a shot? --Ludwigs2 03:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

(Note: I'm the other editor mentioned by Bruce.) I'm not sure we should give any significant weight to an opinion in an article published in 1950 in a specialty journal for otolaryngology (ENT) about how this man is viewed in the field of nutrition (which is way outside their usual purview). The article itself spends more time talking about Price's theory about nutrition and pregnancy than it does anything remotely related to the field of otolaryngology.

As a context, we have contemporaneous book reviews that give rather tepid positive reviews of Price's book as rather pedestrian in its nutritional advice - hardly a Darwin-like achievement in the field as far as prominence goes. Unless we give proper context, the comparison with Darwin would certainly be misleading to any reader. (I'll leave aside Bruce's biased peacocked wording of naming the journal's associated society, implying the opinion made by authors of one if its articles is somehow the official position of the society itself.) The second source used probably isn't a reliable source (see discussion here) so using it as a way to prop up the other citation seems disingenuous at best. Yobol (talk) 04:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

"The passage is not used with proper historical context." SAY WHAT?!? It says right there it is from 1950, shows who made it, states it was their opinion, states it was reprinted the next year by a group Price gave his collection to and this opinion is being presented as fact many decades later. Just what more "proper historical context" do we need?!?--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The context which shows that this was a momentary linguistic fad that didn't last into the 1960's, maybe? Or maybe the part which explains in what way he was like Charles Darwin, and what ways he was not? or maybe the part that shows what the general opinion about him actually was (i.e. a well-regarded but not particularly exceptional academic researcher)? either he was literally being compared to Darwin (in which case we should explain what about his work drew that kind of high praise), or he was rhetorically compared to Darwin for some reason (in which case the phrase is excessive and misleading). even you don't think he was 'literally' being compared to Darwin, so why are you so determined to point this phrase out in the article? --Ludwigs2 06:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

This theorizing of yours is nothing more than WP:OR at the end of the day. Let me be blunt here; is there anything factually wrong with what I have posted?--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Can I see if I've got this straight? The argument is over whether the article should include the statement that "Weston Price has been called the Charles Darwin of nutrition", (compare Lizst as "the Paganini of the piano"), and sourced primarily to the academic journal Laryngoscope. Is that right?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The argument is actually this:

1. Price shortly before his death make a sizable donation to the somewhat questionable American Academy of Nutrition
2. academic journal Laryngoscope makes the opinionated statement "Dr. Price might well be called "The Charles Darwin of Nutrition."" in 1950
3. Modern nutrition (published by said American Academy of Nutrition) prints a near copy of the Laryngoscope statement
4. Decades later the opinion turns into the statement "Dr. Price was a Cleveland dentist, who has been called the Charles Darwin of Nutrition."

Effort is to show where this idea came form, what the idea actually was, and how (without going into WP:OR) that statement is being used (or rather in this case misuse would be a better term) today.

Original: "Dr. Price might well be called "The Charles Darwin of Nutrition."

Current: "Weston Price has been called the Charles Darwin of nutrition"

See the key difference between what Laryngoscope actually said and the way it is being mistated today?--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to appear slow about this - does that contradict the basic formulation I put above? (Do you mean there is a promise of more modern sourcing to show contemporary usage?). To make a judgement, I need to know what the editor wants to do, separately from the arguments about whether it's a good idea. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps my explainination on the Talk:Weston_Price was crappy.

1. There is 5,300 plus hit parade on google effectively proclaiming "Weston Price has been called the Charles Darwin of nutrition". This is duplicated in several books including the 6th edition of Price's own work.
2. Laryngoscope actually said he might be called that not that he was called that.
3. I am trying to correct the mammoth amount of misinformation out there by showing just what was actually said, who said it, when it was said, and hint (can't do WP:OR remember) as to why it likely has changed.

Does this help?--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Bruce, if I understand what you said above, you are trying to correct "misinformation" that's present in sources by quoting a somewhat more mild statement of the same assertion. However, you are doing this without any mention of the fact that there is any "misinformation" to be corrected. This does nothing to correct the misinformation, and simply informs people who know nothing about Price that he might have been considered a Darwinesque figure. It's a bit like trying to counter Tea Party arguments that 'Obama was born in Kenya' by saying instead that 'Obama may have been born in Kenya'. would you consider that an effective approach?

Honestly, the more I listen to your arguments, the more difficulty I have with AGF. I cannot imagine that anyone would seriously suggest that one can counter a perceived misinformation by restating the misinformation without further explanation. How is that supposed to work, exactly? If I say "the moon might be made of green cheese", do you consider that a resounding refutation of the idea that the moon is actually made of green cheese? is that what you're trying to suggest? --Ludwigs2 09:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, it would be really helpful if one of you could provide a concise description of the editing action that is in dispute. That is, the text and the sourcing, without a commentary attached telling outside editors what you think of it. It's very difficult to give input when it's not clear what the specific edit action proposed is. To be honest, my immediate impression is that you don't agree on what that edit action is, so let's work on that first. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• I was asked to comment. I haven't read this full discussion, but in response to the original question I have two comments. 1) The existence of an opinion an be a fact. "According to Smith, the peasants were angry". "Jones called the painting 'inspired'". "Thorndike has been called the 'father of plate tectonics'". Those are all opinions which are presented factually. 2) The posted text seems to over-analyze the situation, and appears to contain on original research. One middle-length sentence would seem like sufficient weight. "He has been called the 'Darwin of Nutrition' by several writers". If readers want to see the details they can look at the footnotes.   Will Beback  talk  11:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it does over-analyze the situation but that is just because I am trying to avoid WP:SYN and be as accurate to the sources as possible.

On your point 1 perhaps I'm being a little dense here but I don't see any real difference between your examples and "an article in the 1950 edition of American Otological Society's journal The Laryngoscope stated the opinion that "Dr. Price might well be called "The Charles Darwin of Nutrition""

On the "He has been called the 'Darwin of Nutrition' by several writers" idea there are two major problems with that version: 1) that is NOT what The Laryngoscope article says and more importantly 2) the sources that do say that do not seem to qualify under WP:RS I mean look as what a google books search of "The Charles Darwin of Nutrition" with the quotes produces: three Yoga Journal articles, five nutrition books of unknown value, Modern nutrition: Volumes 4-7, and The Laryngoscope: Volume 60. The Laryngoscope is clearly the most WP:RS of the bunch so why not go with it being the main source instead of what the first five say especially as their WP:RS is really shaky at the moment?--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Bruce, I have to say that I'm leaning more in Ludwigs' direction on this now, namely because I was under the impression that you wanted these opinions factually attributed for historical context--to show that Price was called the C.D. of N. But now that you're explaining you merely want to counteract a misconception, I think that you should consider if this accomplishes that; and if it does, place the information in the modern section related to Fringe proponents of Price rather than the historical one about his critical reception.

Putting a refutation of modern (false) beliefs in the historical section makes it seem as if there was a rational basis for the modern beliefs when in fact you are [trying to show that the however false modern beliefs were rationally based on a false basis?] I'm just not sure what the purpose of that is. If you want to go back to regular old critical reception, plainly stated as such, I'll look through it again. Ocaasi (talk) 16:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Gospel of Luke

An editor named Leadwind is deleting a lot of cited material off of Gospel of Luke and with it pushing a heavily skewed POV. He is deleting material because he says the publishers are "sectarian" even though they are some of the largest and most recognzied publishers in the world. Unfortunately I am outnumbered and cannot do a whole lot, but his reasons for deleting "sectarian" material certainly go against wikipedia policy. Will some editors go over there and look at some of his edits as well as the talk page?RomanHistorian (talk) 15:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)