Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

Editors can post questions here about whether article content is compliant with the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy, and editors interested in neutrality issues will give their opinion. If you are satisfied with a response, please tag your thread at the top with {{resolved}}.

For general questions about the NPOV policy, please go to the Neutral Point of View talk page.

Guidance on how to make articles conform to Wikipedia's neutrality policy can be found on pages listed in Category:Wikipedia neutral point of view, primarily the policy pages Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ. For a list of articles that have been marked as potentially containing a NPOV problem, see Category:NPOV disputes

If your question is about whether material constitutes original research, please use the No original research noticeboard. For review of whether a source is reliable, go to the Reliable sources noticeboard.

See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Neutrality and Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias whether these would be better venues for the issues you're trying to address.

Click here to post a new topic or discussion. NOTE: This noticeboard is intended for advice concerning specific NPOV issues. Please be concise. Post what is wrong with what content where, what you think it should say, and why. This board is intended for NPOV inquiries of a simple nature. For complex issues, please consider an article RFC or mediation. Be sure to provide evidence--links to sources, passages, etc.

Edward Jones Investments

The listing has been hijacked by someone inside the company. First they eliminated any controversial history from the company, now a week later they are back writing up a press release. Don't want to get into an edit war with insider, but hoping someone here knows how to control this behaviour.

StopLoss

The last section of the Stop Loss article about topics in the media is biased. It needs to be edited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.183.100.9 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 20 Mar 2008

2008 Kosovo Declaration of Independence

Someone has used the "Political background" section to post his own views about the Serbia/Kosovo conflict. It is blatantly not NPOV and must be removed - but I'm not well-researched enough on the topic to know what to replace it with. This abuse has not been noted on the Talk page.

The offending section begins with: "Lets not forget the real reason why Kosovo is now independent" and ends with: "As evidenced by the recognition of Kosovo by top world powers such as the US, UK, France, Germany and Canada, its not hard to see why this region deserved its full independence and recognition." It includes various typographical errors in addition to the non-NPOV content. The section was authored by user:SmartPolitics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.166.10.216 (talk • contribs) 04:32, 20 Mar 2008

Anniston Eastern Bypass

The brief article on the Anniston Eastern Bypass in northeastern Alabama seems to be presented from a particular point of view, condemming alleged "land-grabs" and demonizing the local newspaper.

Not a big issue, neccesarilly, just one I found today.

iTunes article is not neutral and group of editors is blocking any edits they don't like.

The problem is that iTunes article is written like and advertisement or brochure and is not neutral. Any edits making it more neutral (like adding criticisms section) are reverted by apple fans. This problem persists for a long time already and is described on the Talk:ITunes by me and other editors. If you take a look on the edit history you will see that criticisms section as well as warning boxes were added and removed many times.
Criticisms section is currently in place, but any additions are promtly deleted. I've offered these additions at bottom of the Talk:ITunes page. Please read Talk:ITunes#Advertisement and Talk:ITunes#Criticisms.3F first. --Varnav (talk) 16:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

And as you've been told multiple times, you can't add your personal gripes to the article. If you could source someone who is actually making criticisms no-one would be objecting. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 18:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not talking about myself. There is a long history of edits reversal, many people are unhappy with not neutral point of view in the article, and many complain that any edits to make this article more neutral are promptly reversed. See Talk:ITunes#Advertisement and other topics on discussion page. --Varnav (talk) 19:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I haven't checked but I think you'll find that most of the edits were removed because they weren't following Wikipedia policy. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 22:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Varnav. AlistairMcMillan is not neutral in this respect. --BBird (talk) 21:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Safety of the Large Hadron Collider

The article "Safety of the Large Hadron Collider" focuses primarily on the possibility that operation of the Large Hadron Collider could create micro black holes that might be capable of destroying our planet Earth, and how strong the safety arguments are. A lawsuit is currently before US Federal Court in Hawaii seeking to require reasonable proof of safety before operations begin. CERN is currently in default before the US Federal Court and editors including employees of CERN are acting in concert to remove opposition view points that have been part of the article for months.

The safety opposition seeks only to present references to published peer reviewed papers containing main stream science by Professors and PHDs of Math, Physics and other theoretical sciences that dispute or question CERN's safety arguments.

The following statements and references have been removed and efforts to restore them are being blocked:

A concern of some physicists is that Hawking radiation is not an experimentally-tested or naturally observed phenomenon, and might not exist at all. Professor V.A. Belinski argues that Hawking Radiation does not exit.

Reference details:

Adam D. Helfer, "Do black holes radiate?", arxiv, (2003) arXiv:gr-qc/0304042 "Until then, no compelling theoretical case for or against radiation by black holes is likely to be made."

William G. Unruh1,2 and Ralf Sch¨utzhold, "On the Universality of the Hawking Effect", arxiv, (2004) arXiv:gr-qc/pdf/0408/0408009v2 "Therefore, whether real black holes emit Hawking radiation remains an open question and could give non-trivial information about Planckian physics."

V.A. Belinski, "On the existence of quantum evaporation of a black hole", Physics Letters A, Volume 209, Number 1, (1995) , pp. 13-20(8) Elsevier "A conjecture is made that the standard derivation of the black hole evaporation effect which uses infinite frequency wave modes is inadequate to describe black hole physics. The proposed resolution is that the problem is not due to the absence of the as yet unknown “correct” derivation but rather that the effect does not exist."

The other removed statement which has been part of the article for months (in one wording or another) is the following:

Otto E. Rössler, professor of theoretical biochemistry at the University of Tübingen, calculates that Earth accretion by a micro black hole could take as little as 50 months.

Reference detail:

O.E. Rössler, "Abraham-Solution to Schwarzschild Metric Implies That CERN Miniblack Holes Pose a Planetary Risk", (2008) www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/OttoRoesslerMiniBlackHole.pdf

O.E. Rössler, "Interview: Chaos, Verschwörung, schwarze Löcher ", (2008) Chaos, conspiracy, black holes in German

O.E. Rössler, "Chaos, conspiracy, black holes", (2008) Translation from German

About the references:

V.A. Belinski's work was published by Elsevier in Physics Letters A, Volume 209, Number 1, (1995) , pp. 13-20(8). Dr. Helfer's work is well known and discussed on physics sites such as "Back-Reaction" and others, and William G. Unruh and Ralf Sch¨utzhold work has been referenced in at least one major news article. Also, CERN's 2008 LSAG Safety Study directly addressed Dr. Rossler's theory that micro black holes might be capable of holding magnetic charges and extended this theory to cosmic rays which Dr. Rossler did not.

--Jtankers (talk) 02:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

My objections to Otto E. Rössler's material are laid out in full at Talk:Safety of the Large Hadron Collider#Otto E. Rössler. I believe his references are not credible and do not satisfy standard WP:VERI & WP:SOURCE standards. In summary:

• He appears to be a senior faculty person at a reputable German university. His primary field is chemistry, which is close enough that his claims cannot be dismissed out of hand.
• It is not clear that he has any standing in quantum field theory, elementary particle physics, or general relativity, which are the central physics disciplines involved in the debate. All are highly technical and specialized, with really only a few thousand or even a few hundred workers really qualified to pass judgment on their content.
• Rössler has made claims, repeatedly inserted in the article, to the effect that black holes (BHs) created at CERN are likely to result in the destruction of the Earth in as little as 50 months. These are said to be the result of his calculations, but no calculations are presented for examination, only hand-waving. None of the references given are to bonafide publications in refereed publications. Thus there is nothing that can even be criticized.
• All the references by Rössler that I have seen presented to us are to be ca 2008, and appear on web sites that seek to halt the operation of the LHC, one of which is overseen by Jtankers. Rössler states that his papers have been submitted to Science, Nature, and a German Zeitschrift, but are not yet accepted.

By contrast, CERN's most recent safety review, nearly a hundred pages long, presents explicit and detailed calculations showing that BHs, if they are produced at all, and if they are stable, will still not affect the Earth for millions or billions of years; and/or would have resulted in the destruction of commonly observed objects (Earth, stars, and especially neutron stars) in cosmically short times due to the effects of cosmic rays with energies many orders of magnitude higher than the maximum LHC energy.

Several of the references Jtankers cites, notably those by Adam Helfer, Belinski, and Unruh, are in my opinion acceptable, but they address only the question of the reality of Hawking radiation (which Rössler lately announces that "he alone" knows how to disprove! -- see the discussion on the talk page). But BH evaporation is only a small part of the safety debate, sufficient but not necessary to the argument. To date the only sources that address the entire safety issue in a comprehensive way are those from CERN.

Re. Jtankers's plaint that Rössler's references have been there for long: indeed they have. We have been going around in circles about all this for many weeks in the LHC discussion page, largely about the maintaining reasonable balance within that article. Now that we at last have a separate article focused on the safety issue, I believe we can and must be much more careful than heretofore about the details of the WP:OR, WP:VERI, WP:SYN, etc. issues. There is much to criticize on both sides of the argument in those respects, and I have tried to point some of those out, on both sides, for discussion, and to give notice and warning that these core Wiki issues cannot be deferred indefinitely. I think there are likely to be many further disputes of this kind now that we are unstuck from the balance issue. I hope that a fair and useful article will result. Thanks, Wwheaton (talk) 08:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

"None of the references given are to bonafide publications in refereed publications", by that standard, all of CERN's scientific work would be questionable, as none of it has been given to bonafide refereed publications, they are all self published and self validated by scientists selected by CERN. Double standard. --Jtankers (talk) 11:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

"Now that we at last have a separate article focused on the safety issue, I believe we can and must be much more careful" The coalition fighting for more safety review has opposed removing the safety content from the main Large Hadron Collider article because we believed it was an attempt to hide the safety concerns. The argument for moving the safety content to a new article was so that the safety issues could be covered in more detail. But the safety argument is now covered in less detail and is less balanced. --Jtankers (talk) 11:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

"the only sources that address the entire safety issue in a comprehensive way are those from CERN" CERN has exactly zero arguments accepted by bonafide refereed publications. Who are you to censor what arguments are worthy, this violates WP:VERIFY and WP:NPOV and tends to indicate possible NP:COIN. --Jtankers (talk) 11:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

"appear on web sites that seek to halt the operation of the LHC" LHCFacts.org contains references to all articles on both sides, unlike the wikipedia safety article as of the last two days. And the webe site does not seek to halt operation of the LHC, it seeks to delay operation until after safety can be reasonably proven and reasonably verified by scientists not directly selected by CERN. This process is currently in progress, and papers are forethcoming detailing flaws in CERN's safety argument (my understanding is that it is based on unverified properties identified by CERN's own Scientific Safety Committee and extremely strong magnetic fields around white dwarfs and neutron stars that were not properly accounted for in the safety report). But I suspect that including such a report will require neutral 3rd party dispute resolution when it is available. --Jtankers (talk) 11:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

See this for a centralized location. Editor is Forum shopping here. ThuranX (talk) 19:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The discussion was (quickly) archived at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive446. A consensus was for inclusion of concerns raised in the media, as detailed by llywrch (talk)

"Jtankers has a point here, after a fashion: the article lacks any explanation for why the people who filed an injunction think that the LHC is a potential danger. It doesn't matter whether their reasoning is based on a Ouiji board, or that a mistake was in CERN's rationale by an undeniable expert (think Klaatu or Sheldon Cooper :). A sentence or two in the proper paragraph ought to meet that need. And please note carefully: doing this does not give undue weight to a fringe theory, it is explaining the motivation for one group's actions. Thus writing more than the amount I suggest, IMHO, would give undue weight. -- llywrch (talk) 18:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)"

However, efforts have been renewed to censor descent. My last argument at Talk:Safety_of_the_Large_Hadron_Collider is below:

What part is undue weight? This just feels like censorship of concerns from the general public and from credible PHD level scientists. The conflict of interest could not be more clear. I have nothing to gain that I do not share with the defendants (safety of Earth), CERN has potential Nobel prizes, future employment, fame and fortune, potentially at the cost of Earth 50 months to 50 years from now. The debate could not be more relevant now and could not affect more people. To bury the concerns another link level deeper would certainly be better than completely censoring the concerns, and I can accept the solution. But I think the undue weight is given to the concerns of CERN and they will not be satisfied until the article appears to suggest that there is no conceivable danger, when in fact safety arguments are no more substantial than unverified original research. CERN's safety analysis is original research that has not been accepted by peer reviewed journal for publication, only approved by a 4/5 majority internal assessment which called some major argument unverified and peer review of the self published work is still in progress. A CERN employee editor has even had links to published peer reviewed papers that challenge the primary safety argument, the probability that Hawking Radiation exists removed against editor consensus. How can that be justified? According to Professor Dr. Otto Rössler the results of CERN's actions could result in the greatest crime against humanity imaginable. Dr. Rossler is arguably among the world's most eminent living contributors to theoretical sciences, a former university visiting professor of theoretical physics (a fact suspiciously removed from Dr. Rossler's Wikipedia bio June 2, 2008 without prior discussion) and founded a new field of theoretical physics in collaboration with MIT Physics Professor David_Finkelstein who is historically significant for his contribution to black hole theory. The public and other scientists have the right to know that scientific consensus is credibly challenged by multiple credible PHD level theoretical scientists. More importantly, we deserve credible concerns to be addressed before collisions begin. Wikipedia should not be a public relation tool to influence public opinion and limit information to other physicists by censoring descent. This is a very significant issue. --Jtankers (talk) 16:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

United States Superpower

I'm having a dispute with User:UKPhoenix79 at Great power / Talk:Great power. In the article we have a map of great powers, that presents the United States as superpower. And in a list of great powers that includes other countries, a mention that it is referred to as superpower. I don't dispute the latter, but belief that the current presentation doesn't reflect all significant views, while it should according to WP:NPOV. The two versions are in this diff.

Most of the talk is at Talk:Great_power#Reference to Superpowers and Talk:Great_power#Reference to Superpowers 2.0

I belief instead of this:

• United States (also referred to as a superpower)

We should have this:

• United States (also referred to as a superpower , although it is a matter of debate if it is losing its superpower status , and was most recently described as no longer a superpower by scholars.)

With as optional extra sources for "described as no longer a superpower": 123

We previously had a third opinion on that, that proposed sidestepping the issue of superpowers in the great power article.

Thanks in advance to anyone willing to look at this. =Species8473= ^(talk) 12:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the consensus view is that the USA is still a superpower. The alternative views should not be given equal billing. I prefer the first of the options you propose. Could you mention add the dissenting sources to the footnote? Itsmejudith (talk) 11:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Oink (water buffalo)

Could I get some extra eyes on this page. It's a well sourced page on a rather odd subject. And apparently there is some real life controversy over it that is spilling over onto the project. A number of times the page has been edited to add a very POV slant to it. Not only are the edits POV, they are unsourced, unlike the rest of the page. This has gotten the page's author to a very frustrated state, where he has requested speedy deletion of the article a couple of times because of the vandalism. I've declined that speedy, and there is enough other editing that IMHO G7 is no longer valid. The article still is well enough sourced that I at least think it deserves to stay. More eyes on it may help to keep the POV out of it, or if the POV pusher can come up with sources, to get their side of things worked in within a NPOV way. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD is the place for this. DGG (talk) 23:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

And now it's been G3 deleted as vandalism. I've protested the deletion at the deleting admin's talk page, as whether the article should remain or not, it is not IMHO subject to G3 speedy deletion. The article was the target of vandalism, but was not vandalism itself. Sigh. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleting admin reverted himself. It's back to AFD, and I'm back to having to decide if I !vote delete or keep, as I see point for both sides. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Executed Russian Royal Family

User:Bookworm857158367 and User:Nunh-huh are repeatedly adding unsourced claims on the Russian Royal Family articles that they were "murdered". --81.79.158.57 (talk) 01:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand NPOV. If sources widely describe their killings as murders, we can say they were murdered. There is no need for a conviction in a court of law. Seeing as such a thing is often hampered by silly things like politics, and uh, revolutions, it would be something of an utterly rediculous requirement. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Anti-communists are not the arbiters of truth. It is a blatant propaganda statement and unbecoming of a neutral encylopedia. The Russian Royal Family brought untold misery to the Russian people and to Jews in particular. It was not surprising therefore that the chief executioner Yakov Yurovsky was Jewish himself. His article establishes that he acted as an officer of his government and was not a murderer. --62.136.16.134 (talk) 12:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

You also don't understand it, or you're the same person and still don't understand it. NPOV is about accurately representing the opinions of reliable sources. Personal opinions based on personal biases against various groups are inherently POV. And one's own analysis of an event is equally unacceptable. Arguments based on either hold no weight at Wikipedia. The only valid viewpoints to portray are those that are promulgated by reliable sources. If you dispute the characterization of a person's death, back up your preferred characterization with sources before a change is even possible. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Please stop your obfuscations. Execution is the neutral term to describe it, as it can be applied to both lawful and unlawful killing. The Soviet government regarded it as a lawful execution. --90.241.58.137 (talk) 22:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

And who says the Soviet POV is the neutral POV? And there is nothing obscure about this. Sourcing trumps personal opinions, and you're not going to get anywhere if you don't understand that. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

"And who says the Soviet POV is the neutral POV?" I didn't, the Soviet government is clearly not a neutral source on this issue. However, no sensible observer would regard a bunch of reactionary monarchist writers whining "murder" as neutral either. As I said, "execution" describes both lawful and unlawful killing - that is surely a compromise here. --90.241.58.137 (talk) 23:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The word "murder" implies that a crime was committed. Since the action was performed at the behest of the government in power at the time, and the people who did it were never accused in a court of law, the situation is somewhat ambiguous, and it's better to use a neutral term. You can say, "many people saw this as murder", if you can provide references to support that claim.Looie496 (talk) 22:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

"Annexation" - is this a loaded term?

At the Gibraltar article the following sentence is being argued over:

“ The British Government has stated it is committed to respecting the wishes of the Gibraltarians, who strongly oppose the idea of annexation along with any proposal for shared sovereignty with Spain. ”

I see a big problem with the term "annexation". It is being insisted upon by a (proud) Gibraltarian Wikipedian who has been in de facto control of the article for many years now (User:Gibnews). Whilst he does good stuff fending off the idiots who vandalise the article, sometimes he can't see past his political views and can put a political slant on the article, which is what I believe is happening here. Therefore, I would appreciate others' views at Talk:Gibraltar on whether "annexation" is an acceptable term to describe what I would say can be replaced with the 100% neutral "Spanish sovereignty".

“ The British Government has stated it is committed to respecting the wishes of the Gibraltarians, who strongly oppose the idea of Spanish sovereignty along with any proposal for shared sovereignty. ”

Thanks.

The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 11:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

This report is way, way premature. Both User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick and User:Gibnews have a long history of tendentious arguments on this article. Dragging in others at this stage is utterly ridiculous, particularly in view of the fact that a consensus is not that far away on the talk page. Justin talk 11:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see why asking for others' input is a problem. As you reverted my change within seconds and are yet to contribute to the discussion, I'd like to see you do that there rather than sniping here. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 11:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Starting a dispute resolution process, when a consensus is not that far away is simply being pointy. Your actions are more designed to escalate the dispute than diffuse it. Justin talk 12:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this noticeboard begins with the following instructions: "Editors can post questions here about whether article content is compliant with the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy, and editors interested in neutrality issues will give their opinion." I am using this noticeboard for its intended purpose. You've made your point, now please let me get the opinions of others. Thankyou. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 12:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any problem. Annexsation is used most often in the context of municipal politics. It's just when one political jurisdiction incorporates the territory of a second but the political, administrative structure of the first is retained, as opposed to amalgamation. If I say "In 1912, the city of Toronto annexed the town of North Toronto", this is a factual, neutral statement. But context may be important. What term do most sources use? WilyD 15:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Neither of the official Government of Gibraltar websites (gibraltar.gov.gi, gibraltar.gov.uk) uses the term "annexation" in the context of the sovereignty issue, according to google: [1] [2]
• Uses of "sovereignty" abound on both sites: [3] [4]
• Searching the Website of the Gibraltar Chronicle, one of the oldest English-language newspapers in the world, I found a total of 107 matches for "sovereignty", and just 3 matches for annexation (two of which are opinion pieces). This would seem to indicate that even in the Gibraltarian press, references to "annexation" are the exception rather than the rule. As per WP:DUE, we should give prominence to mainstream rather than minority terms, especially in the lede. Jayen466 11:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Holodomor & related articles

Nicholas Werth a well known historian writes: “The question of whether the 1932-33 famine constitutes a genocide is a matter of disagreement among historians studying the calamity, whether Russians, Ukrainians, or their Western counterparts. There are basically two schools of thought.

1. Some historians see the famine as an artificially organized phenomenon, planned since 1930 by the Stalinist regime to break the particularly strong resistance of Ukrainian peasants to the kolkhoz system. In addition, this plan sought to destroy the Ukrainian nation, at its “national-peasant” core, which constituted a serious obstacle to the transformation of the USSR into a new imperial state dominated by Russia. According to this view, the famine was a genocide.
2. At the other end of the analytical spectrum are scholars who recognize the criminal nature of the Stalinist policies, but believe that it is necessary to assess all of the famines that took place between 1931-33 (in Kazakhstan, Ukraine, western Siberia and Volga regions) as part of a complex phenomenon shaped by numerous factors, from the geopolitical context to the demands of an accelerated industrialization and modernization drive, in addition to Stalin’s “imperial objectives. From this perspective, the 1932-33 famine in Ukraine and the Kuban was not a genocide.”

Many Wikipedia editors for the Holodomor and related articles endorse the second POV however constantly delete or block well referenced material that supports the first POV. Neutrality tags are summarily removed often with uncivil comments. This editting clearly violates the NPOV policy for Wikipedia.

Tags to initiate a NPOV discussion are immediately deleted. Bobanni (talk) 08:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Flag of Dorset

Article is being accused of 'Corporate Vanity', although the article is trying to reflect that there are two unofficial flags available to the general populace of Dorset, England. An editor keeps removing one of the flags(Dorset Cross), citing POV, SOAP and Corporate Vanity - but the Dorset Cross should be included as it began the whole thing and is a real tangible flag, sold to people in Dorset AS a flag of Dorset, the same as the other flag. White43 (talk) 14:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this original reserch?

Are the three following statments too POV and OR?

"During this period the Broncos had only two losing seasons, were AFC champions five times and Super Bowl champions for two consecutive years".

"They did not make the playoffs and had only two winning seasons".

"They also experienced their two worst seasons ever, winning only two of fourteen games in both 1963 and 1964". Buc (talk) 18:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

No. Easily verifiable and quite appropriate.Looie496 (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Penny Pritzker

Pritzker was the subject of a long article today in the Wall Street Journal about her association with a major bank failure in 2001. Surprisingly, her article had nothing about it, so I added a new section.

Pritzker's the chief fundraiser for the Obama campaign; as I looked over her article's history, I noticed a recurring problem with "peacock terms". I'm going out of Internet range for a week -- can someone keep an eye on this? The story of Pritzker's involvement in the bank is complex and nuanced; I'd hate to see that get lost by either POV-editing from either direction. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

A related article, Superior Bank of Chicago, could also bear watching. Thanks, --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

National Autistic Society

The National Autistic Society article appears biased. The General Public Help section appears to be written like an advertisement too. There isn't any coverage on opinions of the press as well, or third opinions if applicable. Telephone numbers and email address are not supposed to be put into an article too. I think it may need complete revision as it has multiple issues which I have explained here. --Marianian (talk) 14:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I cleaned it up a bit, although it could use more. A subject matter expert (but not a marketing executive) is needed there as well. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I did a bit more. I wasn't sure if the organisation runs the schools directly. If so, that should be spelt out. Probably on the website if someone has time to check. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Property is theft!

A dispute among three of us over whether a certain criticism is described in proportion to its importance or whether it is given undue weight. Edit-warred and discussed on the talk page with little movement. Suggestions welcome. --EmbraceParadox (talk) 15:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Druze, Al-Hakim bi Amr Allah

Edit war started at Druze and spreading now to Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah‎. User:GreenEcho is warring with me and refuses to "come to the table", so to speak, and has been rather cold and hostile from the start (as an IP addy). He admits to having followed my edits on other pages and starting trouble. I don't know how to get him talking rather than just reverting (his last 3RR missed the window by three minutes). I've asked for compromise: ignored.

Another user, User:Hiram111 has been involved in a spreading edit war with him as well; I am not entangled with that issue although it also started at Druze. Naahid بنت الغلان ^{Click to talk} 22:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I haven't tried to figure out the ramifications of the edit war, but just looking at the page for the first time, it appears to be written in an unnecessarily provocative way. It looks like the rather common story of people trying to balance against a viewpoint they consider fringe but going overboard. I am referring to a sentence in the lead that reads, He was killed by his servants, but the Druze maintain that he disappeared and went into occultation. This is not neutrally worded, and no source is given. Things like this look bad to neutral readers (such as me), and are bound to make "believers" furious.Looie496 (talk) 01:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Those edits were made by User:GreenEcho... older versions of the page stated that, as is factual, no-one knows what happened to Hakim. He disappeared. Suspicion fell on a female relative but the Druze say he went into Occultation. GreenEcho changed it to "He was killed by his servants"... you can check the logs and see. I am not a Druze, but I think we need to respect their beliefs, and I will go and provide a cite now for the occultation view. This basic attitude is the problem I have with the wording about Hakim's alleged role as God, which is shirk "idolatry" and particularly detestable to the Druze. Naahid بنت الغلان ^{Click to talk} 04:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

We don't necessarily need to respect the beliefs of a religious group, if they contradict the consensus of reputable sources (as often happens), but that doesn't seem to be the case here. We do need to stick to verifiable statements that are neutrally worded. What is needed is not so much a source for the "occulatation" view, as a source for the basic "disappeared, cause unclear" fact. Anyway, you won't be able to edit the Druze page until the protection is removed, but it helps to have a reasonable plan.Looie496 (talk) 16:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Russia

Hello!
User:Miyokan Is constantly reverting any criticism from that article. [5] After time he asked another user to help with that [6]. And now they are trying to push theirs view through constant reverting. Discussion with them seem to be stuck. Please see talk page for details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.110.13.68 (talk • contribs)

It seems like everybody involved is trying to push their views through constant reverting. Mikoyan's views seem as reasonable as yours, and the things he is reverting are poorly written, if nothing else. Also, people who have properly registered tend to get more sympathy than people who work from anonymous IP, all else being equal.Looie496 (talk) 01:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'll try to look into it. The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is a serious problem here. Even a slightest attempt to bring this article in line with WP:NPOV requirements brings personal offenses and immediate reverts from a group of users. I tried to edit this article a couple of times but gave up.Biophys (talk) 02:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

For example, I just have removed a ridiculous nationalistic claim in this article - and see what had happened.Biophys (talk) 16:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Nationalistic claim? That's a fact, Stalin was indeed Georgian. Britannica says he's of "Georgian -not Russian- origins". This anonymous IP has been refuted a number of times yet continues to repeat the same old arguments while revert warring. Not a recipe for success. The user Biophies has been known for wiki-stalking and harassing anyone who contributes anything positive, or even just not anti-Russian, to Russia related articles (in fact Miyokan was one of his victims), so it's kind of ironic that he's posting on a board called "neutral point of view".. Krawndawg (talk) 21:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Stalin's "ethnicity" is completely irrelevant in this context, as obvious from the diff. This might be only relevant if someone is trying to "prove" that it were "Georgians" and other minorities who accomplished genocide of Russians. But such nationalistic nonsense do not belong to wikipedia.Biophys (talk) 21:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Dick Latvala, music archivist, undue weight of anti-Semitism claims

This guy was the Grateful Dead music archivist (deceased 1999). He held this job for 15 years. He archived and released approx 20 albums of music, and posted 100s of pages of notes and internet posts.

Latvala wrote all sorts of crazy stuff online including one post that was construed by some, as being anti-Semitic. At the same time, the post condemned all racism.

This one "anti Semitic" post is repeated in its entirety in the wiki biography. I just think it is way out of proportion. He had no notable anti-Semitic leanings. This was one internet post, and quite ambiguous. As I said, his public record includes dozens of writings all on the topic of music (his notability).

I think one user on wikipedia is grinding an axe by maintaining this anti-Semite rant thing as hugely notable. I have deleted it 3x but the user keeps putting it back, and I get the feeling he is masturbating about the power he gets from doing this to somebody's grave. Please help.--Jangles1 (talk) 22:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the offending content since there is no demonstration that reliable sources have mentioned this. Even if it can be demonstrated that he made the posts, information has to be demonstrably significant or notable to make it onto Wikipedia; that fact that it's verifiable is necessary but not sufficient for inclusion. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Excessive praise? "Support" section vs. "Criticism" section in American_Task_Force_on_Palestine

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

The (currently) fifth section of this article, "Support for ATFP", seems to me to be at best excessive and at worst blatant advertising. Any topic related to Israel/Palestine has the potential to blow up (har har) into a big mess, so I'm not editing it myself. Also I am not sure of Wikipedia's stance on this kind of section; obviously "Criticism" is an important section for many articles, and is appropriate, so maybe a reasonable "Support" section is also appropriate? I leave that to more experienced editors.

That being said, eleven substantial quotes praising the group about which the article was written is hardly neutral. Furthermore, it seems to me that none of these quotes are at all informative in the way that Wikipedia is supposed to be informative. This is the kind of stuff you get from the organization's own web site, not from an encyclopedia. Even if a "Support" section is appropriate to balance a "Criticism" section, this one needs significant pruning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.94.14.70 (talk • contribs)

Go for it. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 17:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Lebanon

I have a concern about the neutrality of the following section in the entry on Lebanon:

In 2006 however, the Israeli army attacked Lebanon with intense airstrikes and artillery fire alongside numerous ground incursions by Israeli forces - the extensive attacks were in response to a single incident of rocket fire in which two Israeli soldiers were taken prisoner by Hezbollah. The month long conflict caused significant civilian loss of life and serious damage to Lebanon's civil infrastructure (including Beirut's airport). The conflict lasted from July 12, 2006 until a cessation of hostilities call, by the UN Security Council, went into effect on August 14, 2006,[9][6] the country's economy is still struggling to recover.

In particular, the assertion that the Israeli attack was in response to a single incident of rocket fire. My understanding and recollection is that there had been repeated, continuous incidents of rocket fire from south Lebanon into Israel, and the Israeli soldiers were not taken prisoner in a rocket attack, but in an armed incursion into Israel by Hezbollah.

Past life regression

I've written this article to improve the quality, provide a balanced view from both the sceptics and promoters view and provide multiple references from acceptable sources. As a professional and author working in this area I believe that this new article now warrants the removal of the neutrality and clean up flags put in place by the Wikipedia editors. Can you please advise? Andy Tomlinson (talk) 10:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Your changes were mostly improvements, but it still reads largely like a puff piece. I've just done an edit to turn it into my conception of a properly written Wikipedia article. Note that it is considered improper to use a Wikipedia article to promote your own book, as the lead was doing. (btw the word is "skeptic", not "sceptic") Looie496 (talk) 18:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

OK. Can the neutrality and clean up flags be removed now. 82.26.16.3 (talk) 10:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)