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.

Alternative Theory Critiques Need a more Neutral Stance to prevent violation of Wiki Policies

Meaning of the term "conspiracy theory"

Note: Copied from Controlled Demo page: I wholeheartedly agree that this article should be retitled. The additon of the word "conspiracy" only serves to make the article anything but neutral. The title of this article is in clear violation of Wiki's policy of a neutral point of view. An adequate title to remedy the situation might be : "World Trade Center Controlled Demolition Theory" or something to that effect.(Peterbadgely (talk) 21:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)) peterbadgely

I have reviewed the messages below this, and since one of the editors referred to "controlled demolition proponents" rather than using the word conspiracy, I feel that "proponents" may be an adequate remedy to the above violation of neutrality rules. Note that the word proponent was promoted by a detractor of the banned editor. There must be a more adult manner to deal with these alternative theories. Note that Wikipedia will be read centuries from now, so much the better if we look upon all sound (or arguable) theories with a neutral and inquisitive mind in the present day (2009).(Peterbadgely (talk) 21:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)) peterbadgely —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterbadgely (talk • contribs) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterbadgely (talk • Just a note regarding your term sock puppet. before I just clicked on the term and read it's meaning I had no idea what it meant. I can assure you, that I am not that. I will update my personal page for clarification. thanks.contribs)

Unless the proponent believe in spontaneous detonation of explosives that just happened to be there for a benign reason, and it was all a huge coincidence, then they must believe in a conspiracy. No OR, just application of definitions. Now I don't believe that proponents of this "theory" do believe it was an accident or coincidence, and hence the article is correctly named. It is also correctly named per WP:COMMONNAME, and other guidelines, while not being in conflict with any wikipedia policies. It is neutral, and moving it towards the conspiracy POV would move it away from neutrality, not make it "more neutral". Verbal chat 08:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with Verbal, you can't have a CD w/o a conspiracy. Soxwon (talk) 09:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Which seems pretty obvious. The article is correctly named. Dougweller (talk) 10:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory promoters are pushing the idea that their conspiracy theories are something more substantial. Conspiracy theory is accurate terminology. We even have Category:Conspiracy theories. Jehochman ^Talk 14:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Disagreeing with Verbal, I quote:

:::like many other people who have read and misinterpreted [the essay There Are No Conspiracies], you are obviously confusing conspiracy theories with actual civil conspiracies, criminal conspiracies and political conspiracies, such the ones you mentioned. Domhoff isn't arguing that the latter don't exist (since that would be absurd), he is arguing that "conspiracy theory" has come to be defined as a theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators, such as a "secret team" or "shadow government", which contradicts institutional analysis. --Loremaster (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

As Richard Gage, the foremost promoter of the controlled demolition hypothesis, points out, he has no idea who planted the explosives, and he refuses to speculate because he is not a conspiracy theorist. He merely points out that a crime has been committed. That's documented in his CBS interview, which is archived. Therefore you can have a controlled demolition hypothesis without a conspiracy theory. So, we have four options. We can change the title of the article to make it honest, or we can Wikilink after we eliminate the social science references from the Conspiracy Theory article and replace them with social epistemology references to make that article honest, or we can eliminate Richard Gage from the present article, which leaves it dishonest, given his prominence, or we continue with the present BLP violation, which violates WP:Honesty about as much as is humanly possible. Wowest (talk) 16:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Richard Gage is not a reliable source. No person is considered a reliable source. Only third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy are considered reliable sources and in this case, they refer to this as a conspiracy theory. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course you forgot to add that the NPOV academic sources such as NIST and Bazant et. al. that are used for all the 911 articles are excluded from your definition of reliable sources because they use the term hypothesis instead of conspiracy theory or is there another reason for ignoring them that I overlooked. Wayne (talk) 18:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

No one has referred to Richard Gage as a source here. --Cs32en (talk) 17:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I quote "As Richard Gage, the foremost promoter of the controlled demolition hypothesis, points out, he has no idea who planted the explosives, and he refuses to speculate because he is not a conspiracy theorist. He merely points out that a crime has been committed.". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thats an observation about Richard Gage, with CBS given as the source. It's included in a comment by a Wikipedia editor, not in a Wikipedia article. — Cs32en (talk) 20:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theory-noun: a belief that some covert but influential organization is responsible for an unexplained event.
Hypothesis-noun: a tentative theory; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena.
It is clear that the article content is more applicable to the second definition (what could have happened) than the first (who did it).
To use newspaper instead of encyclopedic terminology is POV and inappropriate in this instance. The Nist uses several phrases in ther reports when talking of controlled demolition. 1: Controlled demolition hypothesis (which is the most common term they use), 2: Controlled demolition theory, 3: Controlled demolition event and 4: an alternative hypothesis. Many books by academics debunking CD such as We See Conspiracies That Don't Exist The Physics of 911 and The Absurdity of Controlled Demolition also use the term Controlled Demolition Hypothesis instead of Conspiracy Theory. Based on their own comments I suspect that many editors supporting the current name do so solely because it is POV. Wayne (talk) 16:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The term "conspiracy theory" is generally intended to convey the impression that the proponents of the theory would think that all other people would conspire against them, covering things up etc. Thus, the pejorative meaning of the term is that the mindset of the proponents of such theories would be in some way identical or similar to that of people suffering from paranoia, a mental condition. Referring to a possible alternative meaning of "conspiracy theory", i.e. a theory about a conspiracy, obscures the primary intention with which the term is actually being used. The term is not a neutral expression and thus should not be used in an encyclopedia, except when attributing it to a notable person or institution that uses it. — Cs32en (talk) 17:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Policy advises not regimented aping of outside names, but rather the same thoughtful naming of any scholarly publication. I see Common Sense in WP:Words to avoid which warns us about words that editorialize and words with multiple meanings. Ponder the given negative examples of WP:Words to avoid, namely cult and fundamentalism , whose problematic nature is not hard to see. The same problems are found in the phrase CT, and this is evident in Conspiracy Theory itself.

The pejorative aspects of the term CT might be warranted for movements defined by unscholarly viral slander (not a match to our source selection). Again, CT might be warranted for movements whose sources focus dominantly on (a) theory (not evidence), and (b) recklessly slandering the "guilty" . Again, neither of these fit the selections of primary scholars-sources, which can help guide the title. Thus, The name (using CT) is falsifying. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 07:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

RE: S & D: The statement that CT is intrinsically necessary to the topic Controlled Demolition ("you can't have x without y"), is evidently being presented as a claim about the what the title here must be. This is flawed. There are countless things that might be automatically entailed in the phrase "Controlled Demolition" (you can't have it without people, time, physics), and the same goes for most or all WP topics. That anything is entailed in the term is not an argument that they are entailed in the title ("people time physics conspiracy theory?"). The entry for wp:cat is not called "cat animal meowing-thing". This was raised and perhaps missed. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 07:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

For context see

Connotation and WP:_homonyms and WP:_polysemes and Loaded words and

Code words redundancy -- Ihaveabutt (talk) 07:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Related problems with the term conspiracy in the title are

here -------------- Ihaveabutt (talk) 05:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

You mean...

I know a term w/-connotations is open to POV pushing.--Ms dos mode (talk) 04:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources

If reliable sources such as The New York Times[1], The Washington Post[2], US News and World Report[3], USA Today[4], The Guardian[5], BBC News[6], Popular Mechanics[7], etc. all use the term conspiracy theory, then that's what we use. It's not our place as Wikipedia editors to say that they are wrong. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

"The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources." (WP:NPOV). This does refer to perspectives that are reported by those sources, it does not refer to how those sources present them. There is a reason why WP:NPOV uses the term "evidenced", which is not casual language. "It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively."

"Coverage on Wikipedia should not make a fringe theory appear more notable than it actually is. [...] Furthermore, one may not be able to write about a fringe theory in a neutral manner if there are no independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality about it." (WP:FRINGE) This does not mean: "You must write in a non-neutral way!" It means: "You may be unable to write in a non-neutral way." However, there are enough reliable sources on what the controlled demolition hypothesis is about, so there is nothing that would prevent us to present it an encyclopedic, neutral way. And of course we should report that it is a minority viewpoint and that most media refer to it as a fringe theory. — Cs32en (talk) 17:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

"The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources." It is evidenced here: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14].

For article titles, see WP:COMMONAME which says "Determine the most common name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly.......but which reliable sources? The arguably POV media or the supposedly NPOV academic ones? No matter how many times this is brought up you completely ignore it and keep falsly including NIST in the sources using "conspiracy theory". Please address this. Wayne (talk) 18:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

"Exactly.......but which reliable sources? The arguably POV media or the supposedly NPOV academic ones?" We have a Reliable Sources Noticeboard. If you honestly think that The New York Times, The Washington Post, US News and World Report, USA Today, The Guardian, BBC News, and Popular Mechanics aren't reliable sources, then raise your concerns there.

"No matter how many times this is brought up you completely ignore it and keep falsly including NIST in the sources using 'conspiracy theory'. Please address this." I didn't include the NIST in the above list of sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

My apologies as I was not specifically refering to the "list" above but to one of your replies on the article talk page and the fact that you generalise about what RS are which includes it. Wayne (talk) 19:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

You call subjects by the name, not by the attribute. Wikipedia:COMMONAME: "What word would the average user of Wikipedia put into the search engine?" You don't suppose anyone would look for "World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories", do you? If you google this, you get exactly 18 links at this moment, most of which point to Wikipedia content. So it is clear that "conspiracy theories" is not part of the commonly used name, while it may be an attribute used in connection with the topic. Attributes should, of course, not be part of encyclopedic lemmata. — Cs32en (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Your 1st link support a more NPV

• NY TIMESThe controlled-demolition theory is the sine qua non of the 9/11 movement — its basic claim and, in some sense, the one upon which all others rest. It is, of course, directly contradicted by the 10,000-page investigation by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which held that jet-fuel fires distressed the towers' structure, which eventually collapsed.

So does your third.

• US NewsIn the paper, Jones does not make specific accusations about who brought about the towers' collapse and avoids the casual finger-pointing that characterizes much of the movement. But when pressed, he cautiously blames the supposed demolition on Bush administration officials eager to sow war in the Middle East.

In fact none of them use the phrase "controlled demolition conspiracy theory" so I fail to see how you can argue WP:COMMONAME. I agree that the majority of main stream media is dismissive if not hostile to controlled demolition proponents and we should say that. Tony0937 (talk) 19:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Tony: You raise a good point and I've been concerned about this as well. Just to give you some background, the article used to be named "World Trade Center controlled demolition hypothesis". But the word "hypothesis" was disputed since reliable sources rarely use this term. So a couple weeks ago (or so) the article was renamed "World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theory". So for the past two weeks, the debate on that page has been whether the article should be "World Trade Center controlled demolition hypothesis" or "World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theory". If memory serves correctly, those were the only two suggestions for the article's title. Between those two choices, I voted for the later on the following basis:

"I did several Google searches on 'Controlled demolition hypothesis' and the vast majority of hits come from 9/11 conspiracy Web sites, none of which qualify as WP:RS. If you ignore the conspiracy Web sites (as we should) and only look at reliable sources, the term 'Controlled demolition hypothesis' is hardly ever used. The overwhelming majority of reliable sources refer to the "controlled demolition" of the World Trade Center as a conspiracy theory."

Obviously, I speak for myself and not any of the other editors, but that was my thinking. (How "World Trade Center" got prepended to the article's title, I don't know. I'm a relatively new editor.)

So really, the most commonly used name is simply "Controlled Demolition" but we can't use that since that's already taken for controlled demolition. How about "Controlled demolition (conspiracy theory)" for disambiguation purposes? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

That would not indicate that the article would have anything to do with the World trade center. We can assume that people who look for this topic would look for "WTC ...", "World Trade Center ...", "9/11 ...", "September 11 ...". And the article is not about controlled demolition (a well known concept), but about the hypothesis that such a controlled demolition occured (a notable minority viewpoint). So, actually, hypothesis (or theory) is the basic term that needs to be in the article's name. — Cs32en (talk) 21:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice WP:OR, but we're supposed to be following WP:RS. As I've already said, most (but not all) reliable sources don't use the word "hypothesis" in regards to the controlled demolition conspiracy theory. I've already provided seven cites to reliable sources - none of which use the term "hypothesis". I can provide more if need be. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Most of the sources that you have presented don't use any name for the subject of the article, and those that do are calling it hypothesis or theory. Your inference that they would call it conspiracy theory just because you can find the term "conspiracy theory" somewhere else in the articles that you present is WP:OR on your part. — Cs32en (talk) 00:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I've looked again at the sources that were given:

• The New York Times calls it the "controlled-demolition theory"
• The Washington Post article and the Guardian article do not contain any name for it.
• The U.S. News and World Report does not contain a name but says that Steven Jones promotes conspiracy theories, and that he "suggests the towers were felled by a controlled demolition".
• USA Today does not contain a name but says: "[Seven WTC] has been the subject of a wide range of conspiracy theories [because of the suspicion] that someone intentionally blew up the building in a controlled demolition." For USA Today, controlled demolition may be one of several conspiracy theories. However, subsuming is not naming, and the Wikipedia article Dog is not called Dog animal. The wording of the BBC article is similar.
• The Popular Mechanics article does not even contain the word "controlled demolition".

However, the U.S. government agency NIST refers three times to controlled demolition hypothesis and once to controlled demolition theory [15].

So the only two sources that actually use a name (NYT and NIST) are using controlled demolition hypothesis or controlled demolition theory. — Cs32en (talk) 20:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, try this link.[16] "Controlled demolition" is mentioned 5 times. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. It's a bit the same as with USA Today. But as they have chosen the title "Debunking the 9/11 Myths", why don't we call the article "World Trade Center controlled demolition myth"? — Cs32en (talk) 00:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

TIME magazine calls it an explanation (Note: "explanation" does not mean "correct explanation" in this context): "There are two competing explanations for these puffs of dust: 1) the force of the collapsing upper floors raised the air pressure in the lower ones so dramatically that it actually blew out the windows. And 2) the towers did not collapse from the impact of two Boeing 767s and the ensuing fires. They were destroyed in a planned, controlled demolition." — Cs32en (talk) 02:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The word "conspiracy" used to describe this theory is inappropriate unless it is referring to Conspiracy(crime) (which it is not). Common sense and general awareness of the subject matter lead one (even after a cursory glance at the sources) to realize that the word is not neutral in this context. If Wiki desires to take a non-neutral stance regarding the issue, then this is another matter all together. However, since the so-called reliable sources use conspiracy to describe controlled demolition in a biased, negative, demeaning, and inappropriate way, can those reliable sources be used as a source for a word in a non-neutral title? It seems that an easy remedy would be for Wiki (as an encyclopedia) to distance itself from the biased information and simply rename the article. Can information which is not neutral be used in a title to a Wiki article as long as the slanted, biased, non-neutral term is from a reliable source? Is there a cost benefit analysis between reliable source and the policy of neutrality? (68.14.146.78 (talk) 22:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)) peterbadgely

OK, here are 20 reliable sources none of which even use the word "hypothesis" in reference to controlled demolition conspiracy theories. These are cites from major publications with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy such as Time Magazine, New York Times, and BBC News. All of these would pass muster on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. How long should we keep beating this dead horse? [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Some of those sources even use "conspiracy theory" in their titles. You're right that "hypothesis" is not used at all by reliable sources. It is a neologism contrived by those who promote fringe views. Jehochman ^Talk 02:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The only dead horse I see being beaten here is the assumption that anyone would doubt that these sources are reliable sources. The government agency NIST uses the terms "controlled demolition hypothesis" and "controlled demolition theory", and it's certainly not involved in contrieving language to promote fringe views. — Cs32en (talk) 02:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

{EC} Thank you. As Cs32en has pointed out, there are a few that do use the term "hypothesis", but these are a minority. The majority of reliable sources don't use this term at all. BTW, I also researched "myth" and while it's used by some reliable sources, most do not. "Conspiracy theory" is the term that is most commonly used by reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Most reliable sources do not use any name that refers to the topic of the article. Those that do are using the terms controlled demolition theory or controlled demolition hypothesis (NIST, NYT), while Popular Mechanics may implicitly use conspiracy theory, as its text is one of the few that address specifically the topic of our article and not some wider issue, such as the 9/11 Truth Movement in general. — Cs32en (talk) 03:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Most reliable sources simply use the name "controlled demolition" and describe it as a conspiracy theory, which is why I suggested "Controlled Demolition (Conspiracy Theory)" for disambiguation purposes. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

With regard to the formal aspects of the naming issue, that would be a possible entry for a disambiguation page, as such entries are based on the principle of subsumption, and there are WP:RS sources that do such a subsumption with regard to the subject of the article (see my comments above). It would still not address the WP:NPOV problem. Newspaper language is different from encyclopedic language. The other problem is that the name itself would then be "controlled demolition", while people would search for something that has "World Trade Center" as part of the name. — Cs32en (talk) 03:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments on the legitimacy of this discussion

• Could an administrator please apply WP:ARB9/11#Discretionary sanctions to the single purpose accounts that are disrupting this thread with their WP:ICANTHEARYOU games? We've discussed these issues many times before. Jehochman ^Talk 22:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: Under the Controlled demolition page, there was a section which linked to this discussion of Neutrality page. There is NO attempt to purposefully disrupt or violate repetition rules. Peterbadgely has been a member for less than a week and is becoming accustomed to the process and rules. Peterbadgely respectfully requests that Jehochman consider this before requesting that sanctions be applied for unfounded and unsubstantiated accusations. Not only will peterbadgely branch out to other historical subject matter, but peterbadgely will improve the neutrality application of Wikipedia in general. (Peterbadgely (talk) 22:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC))

Further note: Is there a way that members can receive copy of another members lobbying efforts to get one sanctioned, so that a member can respond before a sanction is considered? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterbadgely (talk • contribs) 22:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

You can stalk my contributions: Jehochman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Jehochman ^Talk 22:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I just wanted to understand your personality. If the administrators at Wiki are as intelligent as I think they are, then I believe they understand as well. Thank you. (Peterbadgely (talk) 22:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC))

The discussion that took place before the article was renamed started at 03:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC) and ended at 03:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC). 5 editors have participated in the discussion. This is probably not the appropriate way to proceed when dealing with a controversial topic. As the scope of the prior discussion was clearly insufficient for consensus building, I see this discussion here as legitimate. Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with bringing up the issue before the community if involved editors are unable to achieve consensus or if there are concerns that a given action is inconsistent with established Wikipedia policies, if this is not done repeatedly during a short period of time or in an otherwise distractive way. — Cs32en (talk) 02:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The request to rename the page was posted at 03:46 on 5 April. Three editors supported the change and one opposed over the next six hours before Jehochman assumed consensus and changed the name. Two of the three supporters lied to justify their support by stating NO RS uses the term hypothesis. None of the three supporters replied to the concern raised by the opposing editor. These actions are a violation of WP policy and policy requires the original name be reinstated pending consensus. This was requested at 08:02 on 6 April and denied, basically on the grounds that conspiracy theorists do not get a say. Several editors then restarted the section with suggestions for an alternative name without using either hypothesis or conspiracy theory to which a single editor replied (the only reply given) that only New York media "has any legitimacy" and all other media is "likely to be quite dubious". The discussion restarted again on 26 April with three editors for and three against. The next logical step is here as it is obvious there is not only no consensus but not even a legitimate willingness to debate on the part of supporters for the current name. When debate fails WP:ARB9/11#Discretionary sanctions are invoked and all opponents are accused of disruption which seems to be an increasingly common tactic. This issue is quite important to WP as it goes directly to the heart of WP's legitimacy as an encyclopedia. Is there someone in WP in a higher position than admin that can review the issues raised here? I apologise if I offend anyone but I have no faith that a popularly elected admin has the skills to mediate in this particlar case. Wayne (talk) 14:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

<- Could we have a summary of where we are at now? Unomi (talk) 14:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems that this discussion never reached any final conclusion. From what I could gather 'World trade center controlled demolition conspiracy theories' failed WP:COMMONNAME ? Unomi (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe "9/11 Controlled Demolition Conspiracy Theory" might be a better name but I don't think we'll get concensus on any renaming of the article. At least it's better than before. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

What as it before? Unomi (talk) 06:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Has this discussion been abandoned? If so what was its conclusion? Unomi (talk) 21:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Crickets. Unomi (talk) 19:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Persecution of Falun Gong

I have previously made several cases [37], [38] [39] [40] questioning the use of the word "persecution" in the article's heading. I feel that the previous discussions with the involved parties produced little result, and would like to see if any third-party editors would be interested in mediating the dispute.

Basically, I feel that naming the ban of Falun Gong "persecution" signifies that Wikipedia endorses the view that the PRC politicians are criminals and that they have been found guilty of the crime. The term "persecution" is largely used by Falun Gong interest groups to describe their ordeal in the PRC eg CIPFG, while in the PRC, the ban is considered legitimate under the law. No third party eg United Nations HRC, Amnesty etc endoersed the term "persecution" or even have a set term on the FLG situation. The Chinese Wikipedia article [41] simply referred the situation as a "ban". Per WP:Naming conventions, article titles should be neutral and should not give bias towards one party.--PCPP (talk) 15:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

"Persecution" is definitely non-neutral. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I would consider the term The Genocide against Falun Gong in the PRC as a viable alternative because it does fall under it's definition in wikipedia of "Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.". --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Please note that The Encarta defines the term persecution as "Determined effort of a government to punish, silence, or bring into obedience, usually in violation of normal moral and legal restrictions. Minority groups, especially religious ones, are a frequent target of persecution." There is nothing inherently POV about the term. All reliable sources we have refer to the human rights crisis in China a large scale persecution.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 16:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree - persecution seems the appropriate term here. Contrary to the OP's suggestion, the word 'persecution' says nothing wrt legality or criminality. --Jaymax (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

WT:WTA says to avoid terms that label, which is exactly what using a non-neutral term is trying to accomplish.--PCPP (talk) 13:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Schechter, Ownby, US Congress Resolutions, Amnesty International Reports, HRW Reports, Kilgour Matas all clearly and unequivocally state what is happening in China is a large scale persecution. Just to point out few instances from The Congressional Executive Commission on China, 2008 Annual Report:

The central government intensified its nine-year campaign of persecution against Falun Gong practitioners in the months leading up to the 2008 Beijing Summer Olympic Games.

Chinese government persecution of Falun Gong practitioners contravenes the standards in Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights..

Publicly available documents detail the central role of the 6-10 Office in the persecution of Falun Gong.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 15:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

House Concurrent Resolution 304, House Resolution 530, House Concurrent Resolution 188, House Concurrent Resolution 218 and House Concurrent Resolution 217 all clearly state the crisis is a nationwide persecution of innocents. Dilip rajeev (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The "U.N. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide" (in article 2) defines genocide as:

"...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:(a) Killing members of the group;(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

So i don't know about the term persecution, but according to the just mentioned definition given by the "U.N. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide", it certainly fits in the term genocide - i don't think even The Communist Party can deny that - as a matter of fact they don't even try to as they openly state that they would have to "wipe out Falun Gong". And YES Genocide IS a crime even by chinese law - as China signed the convention. So i guess that covers the term persecution as well. --Hoerth (talk) 18:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

This was discussed before see here: Talk:Persecution_of_Falun_Gong/Archive_1#Suppression_-.3E_Persecution --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Several references called the ban a crackdown, repression, suppression etc. [42][43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48][49] --PCPP (talk) 04:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't have time to check all your sources, so I only checked the first one http://www.usembassy.it/pdf/other/RL33437.pdf and this states:

• "In the 109th Congress, H.Res. 608, agreed to in the House on June 12, 2006, condemns the “escalating levels of religious persecution” in China, including the “brutal campaign to eradicate Falun Gong.” H.Res. 794, passed by the House on June 12, 2006, calls upon the PRC to end its most egregious human rights abuses, including the persecution of Falun Gong."
• "For six consecutive years (1999- 2004), the U.S. Department of State has designated China a “country of particular concern” for “particularly severe violations of religious freedom,” including its persecution of Falun Gong. An ongoing ban on the export of crime control and detection instruments and equipment to China satisfies the requirements of P.L. 105- 292, the Freedom from Religious Persecution Act of 1998, which authorizes the President to impose sanctions upon countries that violate religious freedom."

If anyone else have time please check the other sources too. Thank You! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 08:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The same source also states:

• Since 2003, Falun Gong has been largely suppressed or pushed deep underground in China while it has thrived in overseas Chinese communities and Hong Kong.

• The official crackdown began on July 21, 1999, when Falun Gong was outlawed and an arrest warrant was issued for Li Hongzhi.

• Falun Gong Activities Underground and Overseas and Continued Government Repression. --PCPP (talk) 10:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

There are also countless references calling it a persecution. We don't call ducks flying feathered animals. Wikipedia doesn't bend over itself for political "sensitivies." What's the problem?--Asdfg12345 06:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is and Quoting free speech vs. quoting government resolutions. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 10:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Boo hoo. And there's several sources calling it law enforcement. Just because you think it's a persecution doesn't make it so. This is about what's the best wording for it on wikipedia, not the real life. As for "sensitivities", wikipedia looks for terms that is neutral to all parties, which is why the Kent State massacre is referred as Kent State shootings on wikipedia.--PCPP (talk) 07:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

When you say shooting instead of massacre, that does tell the story. But when you say ban, instead of genocide, that is hiding what is most essential. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 22:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Could everybody please indent for readability, this post is very hard to follow this way. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 10:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

PCPP, could you please say exactly what your concern is in calling a persecution a persecution? Do the namespaces Persecution of Christians, Persecution of Jews, Persecution of Muslims, Persecution of Hindus, Persecution of Bahá'ís, Persecution of atheists, Religious persecution, Ethnic persecution all bother you? Also could you tell us what exact issues you find with the term - which is defined as :"Determined effort of a government to punish, silence, or bring into obedience, usually in violation of normal moral and legal restrictions. Minority groups, especially religious ones, are a frequent target of persecution." (Encarta); "unfair or cruel treatment over a long period of time because of race, religion, or political beliefs " ( Cambridge); "persecute • verb 1 subject to prolonged hostility and ill-treatment... — Derivatives: persecution"(Oxford).

And also your claim in your first note is factually wrong - you may want to correct it in view of the links posted and statements pointed out above. Amnesty, HRW, US Congress, David Ownby, Kilgour Matas all refer to the crisis, unequivocally, as a large scale persecution and major violation of human-rights. Dilip rajeev (talk) 01:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Falun Gong also fits the dictionary definition of "cult", but we do not label them as such in wikipedia. WP:TITLE "An article's title should not be used as a precedent for the naming of any other articles". WP:NPOV "The neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints." By calling it a persecution, you're endorsing the viewpoint that the PRC is committing a crime, however justified.--PCPP (talk) 05:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Under no definition does 'persecution' equate to 'committing a crime' - I have no real interest in this other than semantics, but this argument is nonsense.--Jaymax (talk) 06:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

"Persecution" might not be a neutral word, but, as far as I have seen, it's the term most often used in the RS, so it's the term we should be using. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with others that "persecution" is fine, as the most widely used term in reliable sources. It also has a wider meaning than something like "ban" or "outlawing", allowing us to discuss other alleged incidents of persecution beyond it simply being illegal in China.--Danaman5 (talk) 16:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

So are the terms "suppress", "crackdown", "ban" etc which are used interchangeably by the forementioned sources. WP:WTA clearly states to avoid non-neutral terms that label, which "persecution" is trying to express: an anti-Chinese bias. Furthermore the article was originally named "Suppression of FLG" until it was renamed by the pro-FLG editors following the ban of a FLG critic, whereas the Chinese wikipedia refer the FLG situation as "suppression" And the PRC's description of the anti-FLG campaign is "取缔", which translates to ban/outlaw/suppress, NOT persecute. The term "迫害" which is translated to "persecution" is widely used by FLG and its associated groups. The article should be renamed to Falun Gong in the People's Republic of China to avoid these labelling words.--PCPP (talk) 13:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The sources listed above didn't even agree on a single term to describe the ordeal, and it's mainly the FLG camp and their supporters trying to push the the view that the PRC is "persecuting" FLG, establishing several groups such as the Coalition Investigating the Persecution of FLG and World Organization Investigating the Persecution of FLG. By instating the term "persecution" you're trying to introduce systematic anti-PRC bias into the articles.--PCPP (talk) 13:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

So in your opinion there is no genocide going on, that is a "deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group."? See Appendix 7. Statements of the Government of China, Appendix 9. Physical Persecution of Falun Gong, Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, etc ... --HappyInGeneral (talk) 23:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Stop trying to push a point. According to the PRC government the ban is perfectly within legal rights [50]. And none of your sources claimed the ordeal of FLG was "genocide"--PCPP (talk) 03:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

"Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal." [51]. I read quite a few articles, I spoke with enough people, so I know that there is a genocide going on. I will insert the word genocide into articles only together with it's source. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Hitler's actions is widely acknowledged and studied, which cannot be said about FLG. Hell there are arguments for "genocide" for every political power in historical existance. Wikipedia is not a place to spread things you made up yourself --PCPP (talk) 05:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• You are not making sense. At one point you are saying that genocide is done by every political power and second you are saying that I'm making things up. Please see WP:NPA and WP:GOODFAITH. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 15:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Regarding what you said that "Hitler's actions is widely acknowledged and studied", this is true as it is true that the crimes against Falun Gong are also very well documented, see the links above and also see the 3rd party links in the Persecution of Falun Gong article. Also please note that there still are people who deny that the holocaust took place. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 15:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You said I read quite a few articles, I spoke with enough people, so I know that there is a genocide going on. which is the original research you described. Second of all FLG's situation is still ongoing, and the extent of the ordeal is still disputed, so it's ridiculous to jump to conclusions for the reader, especially the article is written entirely from Western sources while all Chinese sources (which were once in the article but deleted) are systematically dismissed as "propaganda"--PCPP (talk) 14:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you completely missed this part of the user's comment: " I will insert the word genocide into articles only together with it's source." And that is what makes it not OR.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 19:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources - HRW, Amnesty, US Congress,( all major Human Rights organizations and governments, according to David Ownby), Kilgour-Matas, Danny Schechter, Ian Johnson all unambiguously state there is a large scale, nationwide persecution going on in China. There is nothing of an OR nature here. You can find a lot of Reliable sources linked to in this discussion as well. Remember, the persecutors' propaganda of disinformation, the curtain under which they manage to commit these most heinous crimes in China, is what you attempt to characterize as "chinese sources." There are several Chinese language sources - including from the Taiwanese Government which strongly criticize ccp's persecution of practitioners of Falun Gong.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 19:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

So? HappyInGeneral said that HE thinks there's a genocide, which is the OR I described, not to mention that few sources support the term, which pushes even more to POV territory than "persecution". Making up your own conclusions based on unsupported arguments also violates WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. The sources you described are simply expressing a view, and the PRC government is also expressing a view. As to your claim of Chinese sources being "persecutors' propaganda of disinformation", I stress again, it's up to the reader to decide what is truth and what is propaganda.--PCPP (talk) 13:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

What I think might be WP:POV or WP:OR as you say. However if a source is properly added to what I say then it's WP:RS a valuable edition to Wikipedia. Again, please see WP:NPA and WP:GOODFAITH, simply because you are pushing an agenda against me with half truths. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 12:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It's laughable that you accuse me of pushing agendas, when your userpage is nothing but blalant FLG promotional material. And WP:RS doesn't mean the sources can be used to draw your own conclusions.--PCPP (talk) 12:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

PCPP, although you lambaste another editor in this thread for what you consider Original Research (incorrectly, it seems), you have said that you "feel" that calling this situation "persecution" is equal to finding the PRC "guilty of the crime". Yet the Encarta definition quoted above points out that this is not always the case ("usually in violation of normal moral and legal restrictions"). If you are making that leap, is it not you who is making the OR presumption that this situation is a crime on the part of the PRC? You persist in noting that the Chinese language Wikipedia doesn't call it persecution, with no sense of irony. It seems par for the course that the entity participating in or codifying or condoning a policy of persecution is not going to admit it to be such while it is ongoing. Yet that doesn't mean that objective observers free from propagandizing one way or the other have to remain in similar denial about what is going on. The article for Waterboarding begins "Waterboarding is a form of torture..." Despite what one (or more?) U.S. administrations have to say about it, or neglect to say about it, or merely say about it, that does not change the definition throughout history, in textbooks, or here at Wikipedia. Will anybody be "found guilty of the crime" of waterboarding? That should be irrelevant to a clear-eyed and honest presentation of the subject here as multiply supported by notable, reliable sources. Such a word as torture shouldn't be construed as anti-American any more than this word persecution should be construed as anti-Chinese. Definitions are not indictments. (Would that it were so.) Only a legal system can indict someone for "the crime". Abrazame (talk) 15:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah? And the Nuremberg Principles state that "The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:... (c)Crimes against humanity: Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime. "

First of all, I'm within my right to call out WP:OR to an activist user trying to change the phrase to "genocide", a term not used by any of the mentioned sources. Secondly, the Chinese wikipedia is largely blocked within mainland China, and most of its editors and from Taiwan/HK. Within Wikipedia, the term "persecution" indeed carry a negative tone, and has no place in articles already having a large number of disputes. As I said before, the phrase "persecution" is largely used by FLG and its supporters in the West, by their sub-organizations such as the Coalition Investigating the Persecution of FLG and World Organization Investigating the Persecution of FLG etc. Persecution is no way a neutral word, and the sources I mentioned above all carried "persecution", "suppression", "crackdown" pretty much interchangedly, whereas FLG sources pretty much use "persecution" exclusively. The term "persecution" can be right by dictionary definitions and still violates WP:NPOV, just as FLG could be labelled a "cult" based on dictionary definitions, yet referring to them as such at WP would violate WP:NPOV. To label the articles "persecution" is endorsing FLG's viewpoints, however justified. Per WP:NCON, "A descriptive article title should describe the subject without passing judgment, implicitly or explicitly, on the subject."--PCPP (talk) 04:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I 100% concur. Persecution is most certainly not a neutral word. Nor is it necessarily an accurate one to describe the position of FLG within China. As a counter example [52] uses words including words beginning with "persecu" a total of 0 times. Considering that in both cases you have an alternative religious group who have come into legal conflict with the state in which they originated, leading to a disputed series of events, I believe the comparisson is apt. Frankly the FLG has been very successful at spreading propaghanda and misinformation in north america and europe by enflaming anti-communist sentiments with claims of unverifiable "attrocities". I think that a neutral approach to this group is fundamental. Considering FLG activism it will also be difficult to achieve.Simonm223 (talk) 15:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Having reviewed it I have to say that the FLG material on wikipedia is, in general, some of the least neutral in the entire project. Can we please get some more eyes on this and get it cleaned up once and for all?Simonm223 (talk) 16:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Urban Heat Island Bias

I'm sure there is quite a bit in this article, but, this deals with one specific edit that I attempted to make. As far as I'm concerned, and perhaps I'm wrong, but this issue couldn't be any clearer. I attempted to remove the sentence:

"However, these views are mainly presented in "popular literature" and there are no known scientific peer-reviewed papers holding this view."

Which referred to the views of anti-AGW advocates, that view (which also needs correction) being, "much of the temperature increase seen in land based thermometers could be due to an increase in urbanisation and the siting of measurement stations in urban areas."

Obviously, even disregarding the science, the "popular literature" jab is obviously POV and an attempt denigrate the views of non-AGW advocates. Even if someone can't agree on that assertion, which is subjective, my main point is completely objective and, according to NASA, unless their research papers are now "popular literature," that assertion is completely false.

My source [53], makes this very clear with several statements:

"Hansen and Imhoff are making a special effort to minimize any distortion of the record caused by urban heat-island effects as they research global warming. It is recognized that recorded temperatures at many weather stations are warmer than they should be because of human developments around the station. Hansen and Imhoff used satellite images of nighttime lights to identify stations where urbanization was most likely to contaminate the weather records."

"We find larger warming at urban stations on average," said Hansen, "so we use the rural stations to adjust the urban records, thus obtaining a better measure of the true climate change."

"Evidence of a slight, local human influence is found even in small towns and it is probably impossible to totally eliminate in the global analyses."

Obviously, NASA has identified the problem of UHI contamination of weather stations - and while they have attempted to correct for it they admit that it still plays a part is altering the records. Again, I don't see how this could be any clearer to any objective person.

On a final note, this exact sentence has come over scrutiny a few times before (for different and similar reasons) [[54]][[55]] - until the usual suspects, pa trolling these types of articles, tire out the less "dedicated" editors until they quit. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I could really use some help here - the other parties, with a very bad track record in this field, won't even allow a NPOV tag in the offending section. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Gun violence - removal of data indicating % of all homicides committed with a firearm

The article Gun violence included a table giving one indication of the level of gun violence in a list of countries. The table listed the homicides with a firearm per 100 000 of population. The data is sourced from a United Nations body. Included in the table until recently were statistics giving an indication of how significant gun homicides were in relation to the overall level of homicides in each country. It did this by giving alngside the overall homicide rate (irrespective of whether a firearm was the cause of death). This data was contained in the same source. The percentage of all homicides was also tabluated, which is derived data.

The editor User:Anastrophe has removed 3 related columns of data which showed the reader how significant the level of gun homicides is relative to total homicides in the countries concerned.

His justification for removing each was as follows

1. % homicides with firearms' (this implies that there's a percentage not committed with firearms, and as has been pointed out, that's irrelevant to a discussion of gun violence)
2. Non-firearms homicide rate per 100K (same rationale, this article isn't about non-firearm homicides)
3. overall homicide rate per 100K (same rationale, since all other discussion in the article of general crime, violence, homicide are being scrubbed).

the references to earlier edits are his objections to earlier deletions of POV editing in earlier edits. This earlier discussion began to be discussed here and the disucssion in that section later turned to the deletion of the information in the table.

One other editor has supported the deletion and has reverted attempts to re-insert the deleted data. Three other editors, myself included, have objected. The two editors supporting the deletion are editors who are clearly, from their contributions, in the pro-gun lobby. There is nothing wrong with this of course, provided their edits are such that conform with WP:NPOV or that any POV content is properly contained within the discussion of POVs on the subject.

My position, and it has been expressed also by others, is that it is useful and sensible to see the gun homcide levels contextualized, i.e. seen in the context of the level of all gun homicides.

The removal seems to be POV because the table reveals that gun homicides in the United States account for 67% of all homicides, one of the highest percentages of all the countries listed and the editor removing this data is a pro-gun supporter.--Hauskalainen (talk) 05:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

hey, it's the McCarthy Hearings! am i now supposed to deny that i'm in "the pro-gun lobby", just as american citizens were asked to deny that they had ever been a member of the communist party? and if i don't deny it - well then, i must be? nice smear, hauskalainen. and to think i retracted my personalized characterization of you from the talk page, at your request, just an hour or so ago. nice. but i digress.

the material editor hauskalainen scrubbed from the article was sourced material describing, among other things, that the rate of homicide in the US fell for a decade while it was rising in the UK, and also described how a significant proportion of homicides in the US occurred in just four large cities, each of which had (and still have) virtual prohibitions on guns. the rationale was that those discussions, because they invoked overall homicide rates and not gun homicide rates, was off-topic. if that is the measure of on-topic vs off-topic, it's not without precedent, as many article scrub material that digresses from the exacting topic at hand. i have merely applied this same strict measure to other material in the article, using the same rationale. if discussion of overall homicide rates is to be removed from the article as POV, then certainly - whether reliably sourced or not - a chart of statistics that includes a column on overall homicide rates certainly suffers the same problem, as does including a column displaying the percentage of firearms homicides out of that total - if the topic is gun violence, then the resultant non-gun homicide percentage isn't relevant to a strict interpretation of this topic.

as i've said on the talk page and now say here, you can't have it both ways - claiming that discussion of non-gun violence is off-topic and POV in one instance, than insisting on its inclusion in other instances betrays a POV push in the other direction. eliminating both solves this problem. Anastrophe (talk) 06:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I could respond to this misrepresentation here but I will let my words at the talk page do this for me. It is best that the NPOV reviewer sees things as they really are and not how Anastrophe would wish to protray them.--Hauskalainen (talk) 06:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

nice. okay, i'll go the route you did on the talk page. but i'll do it without all-caps: please withdraw your personalized attack and mischaracterizations that i'm in "the pro-gun lobby". please apologize for making this grossly uncivil and unsupported claim. thanks! Anastrophe (talk) 15:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

This data is clearly relevant to the topic, from a WP:RS, and should be included. The edit warring and WP:TE needs to stop. Verbal chat 17:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. This now seems to have been resolved amicably.--Hauskalainen (talk) 11:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no, I don't think it is resolved. The RfC Consensus version agreed to by Hauskalainen was reverted (see talk page for Gun violence). Have put a new RfC tag back onto the the article. Hauskalainen's removal of the RfC tag made in good faith was apparently premature. Yaf (talk) 18:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Nochnoy Dozor

This is about to get ugly: Talk:Nochnoy Dozor (pressure group). Two cents from anyone uninvoled with the usualy crowd, please? ;-) PasswordUsername (talk) 08:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Could an admin with interest in disambiguation and article (re)naming please stop by here. It's been renamed six times today so far --Jaymax (talk) 15:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

NPOV check please

Boy racer (subculture) was nominated as violating NPOV long, long ago. Your thoughts? I would like to work on removing all the banners actually. Barfnz (talk) 02:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

1421: The Year China Discovered the World

A friend of mind just lent me this book and after perusing it, I went to see what Wikipedia had to say about it. Knowing how Wikipedia strives to keep articles neutral, I was horrified to see its referenced article 1421:_The_Year_China_Discovered_the_World, wherein the book itself is attacked in the first paragraph, tossed off as "pseudohistory" genre in the description, and even noted as a "controversial book" in the disambiguation for the term 1421.

This does not seem right at all to me, whether anyone agrees with the premise of the book or not. Isn't that why we have "Criticism" subheads? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidfiedler (talk • contribs) 00:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe your concerns are covered on WP:Undue weight--LexCorp (talk) 19:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I know this somewhat old, but thought I'd stress what was said before. There's no way we could have accurately covered that book by encyclopedic standards without pointing out that no respected historian takes it seriously. NPOV does not mean "pretend something universally panned might be OK and limit the criticism to a small subsection." The fact that it is a controversial book is actually the being overly polite version of describing it, and the pseudohistory label is both well documented and accurate. DreamGuy (talk) 17:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Some of Menzies' information with regard to anomalous objects on the west (pacific) coast may have merit. Furthermore Chinese exploration of the Indian ocean is well documented. The rest is mostly nonsense. Simonm223 (talk) 15:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Salt therapy

This is a WP:FRINGE medical therapy, and a number of maintenance tags relating to NPOV issues have been placed on the articl. User:Colonel Warden keeps removing said tags, and reverting my other MOSDAB-edits and efforts to make it more neutral in tone, rather than credulously accepting of extraordinary claims. Could some other folks look at this one? --Orange Mike | Talk 13:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me the final two sections need to be removed entirely and the aritcle turned into a stub. Once actual reliable sources for the claims made in the final two sections are provided, the information can be re-added but only in a NPOV manner. The current wording of the article sounds like an advertisement. I also find it convenient that the only claim backed up by a non-popular press article uses a drug along with the saline nebulizer, which seems to negate the "natural remedy" claim the article is making. The Seeker 4 Talk 15:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Seeker 4 Talk--LexCorp (talk) 15:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the last two sections as a blatant copyright infringement from [56]. The actual version is down, so this is the cached version. Not only did is sound like an advertisement, it is an advertisement!!!--Slp1 (talk) 20:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Not that it would make the inclusion of an advertisement more acceptable, but I noticed an OTRS message on the talk page. Unfortunately it doesn't say to which section of the text it refers. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I templated the Colonel, and in addition to "don't template the regulars", he replied (on his talk page) with WP:TAGBOMB and WP:INSPECTOR. I concede his point on the templating, but would like others to join in the conversation as to the other two aspects, since he seems to feel I lack a NPOV myself. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

This article seems to mix a bit of fringe with mostly non-fringe in such a way that it looks like total fringe. The saltpipe sounded like fringe to me at first, but after reading the article it seems that it works with the natural humidity of exhaled air to get salt into the air and ultimately on the mucous. The section entitled salt water aerosol has an odd focus on cystic fibrosis, but given my own experience with salty air I would be surprised if its effect on all sorts of conditions of the respiratory system hadn't been proved in clinical studies. Purported benefits is apparently copied from somewhere and doesn't really fit into this article. Similarly for mechanism of action. What this article does not mention, but could, is the Salinarium in Bad Dürkheim, and of course the time-honoured practice of sending sick people to the sea-side. I am not sure how salty the air in an old salt mine is, but it might serve as a substitute.

The Kluterthöhle, however, is a cave that does not seem to have anything to do with salt. There is an association of 12 German communities having radon therapeutic(?)/healing(?) galleries, the Deutscher Heilstollenverband. There are also several such institutions in Austria; at least one of them (the one in Berchtesgaden [57]) has a decidedly fringy website (typical new age stuff, oscillations, magnetism, yoga and singing bowls). I suppose this is consumer oriented, while the Germans say they try to get the public health system to pay for them. As for the sea-side, the main benefit of these galleries may well be that the air is free of allergens.

Altogether, while the article is in a sad state I guess that it has enough potential that an Uncle G job could turn it into something quite good with not too much fringe, and that properly contextualised. That would probably necessitate widening its scope to something like climate and respiratory system. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not advocating for deletion of the article, or labeling everything as bunk that is in it, but the large sections I pointed out above are definitely fringe and/or synthesis pushing of a viewpoint that I seriously doubt can be cited with sources that meet MEDRS. The Seeker 4 Talk 23:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

IMHO the article as it stands now relies on WP:synthesis statements thinly supported from a bunch of citations (or not at all as in citation number 1) that do not seem to treat the subject matter at hand further than as a news filler. The citation number 6 has more credibility but I can't see any link in the abstract to relate it to salt therapy apart form the use of salt. It is doubtful its authors consider the treatment being tested as "salt therapy". For these reasons it is clear that

1. This is Fringe Science at best.

2. The article needs a lot of work for it to remain in Wikipedia as a notable subject.

3. Stub tag should be used until a more mature article develops and WP should be relaxed to allow some time for active editors to improve the article.

4. Warning Tags are appropriate until a more mature article develops.

5. If no active editor emerges a request for deletion should be considered.--LexCorp (talk) 22:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Just out of curiosity, did anyone let Colonel Warden know about this thread? Since he is an obviously interested party he may have something to add to the discussion. The Seeker 4 Talk 23:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I left a note at his talk page just in case. It does seem that User:Orangemike did not notify him about the discussion.--LexCorp (talk) 00:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Lex is right; my bad. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Strikeforce

Sea888 (talk · contribs) is insisting that the lead in the Strikeforce article should say "Strikeforce is a world class [...] promotion" (emphasis mine) as opposed to the (IMO) NPOV "an U.S.-based [...] promotion" on the basis that "they have many ranked fighters, and fighters from all over the world" and a press release from Strikeforce. Input appreciated.

There's also another issue in the article related to naming two fighters the concensus two best in the world (see my post at WT:MMA if interested), but let's stick to one issue at the time. Cheers, --aktsu ^(t / c) 21:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It's fine, the lead says it's based in San Jose California.Sea888 (talk) 22:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The issue is not about conveing if it's US-based or not. The problem is calling it "world class" which is not consisted with our neutral point of view policy. --aktsu ^(t / c) 22:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Neutral to what? It is a world class organization, that is a fact, and does not specifically state that it is the ONLY one. It has highly ranked fighters from all over the world.Sea888 (talk) 22:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

No, that is not a fact -- that is an opinion. I can consider Strikeforce to be an awful promotion (not that I do) and it would be a just as valid opinion. --aktsu ^(t / c) 22:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

World class as in having highly ranked fighters in MAJORITY of mma rankings consisting of fighters world wide = FACT. Is it the only one, of course not. It doesn't say that.Sea888 (talk) 22:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

That they have many fighters in the top-tens is true. But that does not directly translate to the opinion that they are "world class" (which can mean a number of things) being a fact. I have no problem whatsoever with stating this fact in the lead to establish notability for the promotion (as it is a verifiable thruth, though we'd still need a reliable source stating it -- not you and me). See Wikipedia:NPOV#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves --aktsu ^(t / c) 22:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

(de-indent) I think any statement put into the article that a promotion (in this case Strikeforce) is "world class" it had better be backed up by "reliable, third-party, published sources" (from WP:RS). The only source for that statement currently is a press release put out jointly by Strikeforce and Showtime; that would not be a third-party source. If User:Sea888 can come up with other sources that prove that claim, then great. If no other sources can be found, then it should be removed and Strikeforce simply be referred to as a "US based promotion" of which there is no doubt. This description would also put it in line with other MMA promotion articles, such as UFC. --TreyGeek (talk) 00:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Even if backed by sources it should still not be presented as fact IMO. No matter who many agree with it, it's still an opinion and should be presented as such. In the same way WP:NPOV#Let the facts speak for themselve says the article on Hitler should not start with "Hitler was a bad man", the article on Strikeforce should not start with "Strikeforce is a HYPER-MEGA-AWESOME world class promotion". Even "Strikforce is considered to be one of the top promotions in the US" is not totally OK IMO . We should instead be presenting statements about their attendance, viewership and TV-deals in comparison with other promotions etc. --aktsu ^(t / c) 00:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

World class as in a CLASS not by itself but among the premier. I've provided third party sources. It should be o.k. Sea888 (talk) 01:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Golan Heights

In addition to being the subject of an ongoing Golan Heights RfC, (in which some have questioned if WP:SPA, WP:MEAT and WP:Canvass are being used to influence the outcome of the RfC) there seem to be a number of recent edits by several of editors, where the NPOV of the content has been questioned: Example of edits in question... A review of whether or not the recent edits and comply with NPOV would be appreciated. --Nsaum75 (talk) 21:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

1953 Iran coup

There's a dispute going on at 1953 Iranian coup d'état. User:Skywriter has made some large revisions to this rather sensitive article in the past two weeks that are under dispute. I'm not qualified to talk too much about the article body changes - there's debate on that on the talk page as well - but I can say that his version of the lede reads to me as extremely unsatisfactory. As in, I was hoping that some "third opinion on writing style" noticeboard existed, which I would have gone to in preference to this, for my complaints about the style of the lede section. Still, there are some neutrality issues there as well, so this is somewhat relevant.

Details are at Talk:1953_Iranian_coup_d'état#Lede_paragraph . Any input would be appreciated. SnowFire (talk) 06:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

University of Dhaka

I came upon this article while addressing copyright problems in a related article. Poor sourcing and promotional language undermine the apparent neutrality of this article. As a few examples, "the oldest, largest and the best university in Bangladesh", "worked hard to build up an outstanding record of academic achievement, earning for itself the reputation for being the 'Oxford of the East'. The university contributed to the emergence of a generation of leaders" and "the University of Dhaka has been a place for many great scholars and scientists." It also has unsourced negative text: "Although the university has a proud history today it has lost most of its glory." It could really use a thorough scouring if anybody has time. I'm back to copyright problems, but wanted to point it here. I've also tagged the article, so if nobody here gets to it, maybe the tag will attract an interested (and otherwise unoccupied) editor. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Race, Evolution, and Behavior

The article on J. Philippe Rushton's book Race, Evolution, and Behavior seems to have morphed into a collection of criticisms of this book, with several times more space devoted to criticism than is given to the book itself. Admittedly, the book is highly controversial, so discussing the ways that other researchers have criticized it is definitely necessary. But when there are also numerous well-regarded researchers such as Arthur Jensen and E. O. Wilson who have agreed with Rushton’s findings, and have argued in favored of the book’s conclusions, the fact that the article contains almost nothing but criticism of this book is definitely a NPOV violation.

This has been pointed out numerous times on the article’s discussion page. I’ll quote one comment there which provides a good summary of the issue:

I'm beginning to realise that there is a concerted effort to suppress this work and its findings. I'm not saying for a moment that it is rock-solid thesis, but I have never seen any article on Wikipedia that takes such an aggressive politically-correct stance (compare it to something truly ridiculous such as Mein Kampf, if you don't believe me). If one looks down the list of criticisms in this article, many of them aren't even valid and could be easily dismissed with a simple sentence. Perhaps it is because those who have shaped this article are afraid of the possibility that there may actually be substantial reality contained within the thesis. I do not intend to enter into a war with you people, but it gives me the heebie-jeebies to see how overwhelmingly an article can be throttled if there are enough people on Wikipedia trying to further a particular agenda. In short, the first casualty in "truth-by-consensus" is truth.

This comment and others like it have been ignored, and every time anyone has attempted to edit the article to make it more balanced, the edits are immediately reverted by the group of editors who are trying to propagate their own viewpoints about Rushton’s theories. I haven’t been directly involved in the edit wars over this article, but I’ve been watching them, and some assistance would definitely be helpful here. Captain Occam (talk) 17:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The only people who support Rushton's "theories" are racists. It is a racist book.Simonm223 (talk) 15:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:SOAP. It doesn't matter if you are right, or Rushton is right. What matters is WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. The book should be presented in a neutral fashion, with a WP:MOS compliant criticism section. The article is a horrible quotefarm of criticism which is non-encyclopedic. Re-write the article to paraphrase the notable claims/sections of the book and then have a relatively short (certainly no longer than the summary section) section of criticism, including only the most notable critiques and maybe one or two quotes of a sentence or two each. The article as it is written looks like the authors found every quote about the book they could and included them all in the article. The Seeker 4 Talk 16:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that would be a major improvement over the article's current state, and the people who left comments on the discussion page like the one I quoted would probably feel the same way.

I'd also add that as long as the article is covering how other people have reacted to Rushton's book, it should cover the opinions of prominent scientists who view the book in favorable terms, such as E. O. Wilson and Arthur Jensen. In its current state it mentions these researchers, but they're given less than one-fifth of the space that's given to the book's detractors.

Is someone actually going to fix these problems with the article now? As I said before, people have attempted make changes like this to it in the past, but generally had their edits reverted right away.

Captain Occam (talk) 20:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Suspicious edits: User:Tigermetal

The edits surrounding Jerry Del Colliano and his companies have started to look a lot like the work of a PR firm --in particular the work of User:Tigermetal (contribs). I'm having difficulty determining whether he or his companies were over notable. Can someone take a look? --Bobak (talk) 14:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Paroxetine and Duloxetine

The articles stated above seemingly lean towards the disparagement of the two drugs. Though the articles are relatively well cited, they read as if we are taking a position against their use. There have been discussions on the talk pages of both articles noting the immense amount of POV issues with the article. For Paroxetine, here are some examples of other concerned editors: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Though some of those concerns were brought up by the now blocked Mwalla, I do believe they serve a point here (to say how unstable the article is). For Duloxetine, here are some examples of other concerned editors: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. The links, by themselves, are mentioned for two purposes; one to show the history and development of the article, and two, how those edits vibrate to the current article. If possible, I'd like to obtain comments from other editors on the articles and how they feel about wording, citations, criticisms, etc. ^blurred_peace ☮ 04:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Blurred Peace has made some good points. Whilst Mwalla is a disruptive vandalising sockpuppeteer who has been banned for life for using sockpuppets to distort what refs said and vandalising talk page comments to make them say the opposite there is bias against paroxetine and duloxetine. I have taken onboard blurred Peace's comments and have made a start at adding more of the benefits of paroxetine and duloxetine. These are important evidence based and in some cases life saving therapeutics effective in both the short and long term. The articles should reflect this and follow the peer reviewed evidence base. :-)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting Literaturegeek. It's good to know someone else cares about, what I see as, problematic writing. Just reading the lead gives you a strong sense that the articles have a definite bias (I doubt the drugs are that bad if doctors are continuing to prescribe them). –blurpeace ^(talk) 04:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Ireland

I would like to bring the Ireland article to the attention of admins to get outside opinions on how WP:NPOV or not this article is, as I find the article to be biased. Thanks Aogouguo (talk) 17:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I think they've been aware of that article. You might want to bring up your specific concerns on the article's talkpage. Soxwon (talk) 17:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Cham Albanians

There is a dispute about the neutrality of a section in Cham Albanians article, which recenty became GA. I and User:Factuarius have presented two different paragraphs for Cham_Albanians#Greek-Italian_War_.281940.E2.80.931941.29 section of that page. User:Factuarius refuses to get the point of wiki policies and NPOV issues. SO, I am reporting it here and I am waiting for resposne from admins and editors.

User:Factuarius version (which he has put in the article without consensus) is:

On June 1940 Daut Hoxha was killed in a fight with two shepherds after a quarrel over some sheep. He was in fact a notorious bandit sought by the Greek police for murders that he had committed many years before[76]. Italian propaganda officially described him as “an Albanian from Chameria animated by great patriotic spirit” murdered from Greek spies inside Albania, declaring the imminent liberation of Chameria.[77] Rome's propaganda machine hurled fabricated accusations at Athens conserning the “oppression” of Albanian nationals in the Greek Epirus ([4]p.143). According to British historian Miranda Vickers and to German historian Brendt Fischer, Hoxha was leader of the Cham ressistance during the inter-war years. The Italians urgently started organizing several thousands local Albanians volunteers to participate on the "liberation of Chamuria" creating an army equivalent to a full division of 9 battalions.[78]Many Chams, estimated 2,000-3,500, had secretly crossed the borders in order to compose armed groups.[79] Hoxha`s death was used as the final excuse from fascist Italy in order to attack Greece. The Greco-Italian War started with the Italian military forces launching an invasion of Greece from Albanian territory. The Albanian and Chams battalions took part to the invasion attached to the Italian army, united under the “Chameria Army Corps”.[80] On the eve of the Greco-Italian War, Greek authorities disarmed 1800 Cham conscripts and replaced their active service by labour service on the local roads. On the following month, they seized all Albanian males who had not been mobilized and sent them to camps and islands.[19][81] The initial Greco-Italian conflict continued into 1941, when the forces of Nazi Germany invaded Greece. The country was occupied by German Italian and Bulgarian armies, who divided the country in three distinct occupation zones.

My version is

On June 1940 Daut Hoxha a Cham Albanian was found headless in the village of Vrina in Southern Albania. According to British historian Miranda Vickers and to German historian Brendt Ficher, Hoxha was leader of the Cham ressistance during the inter-war years, leading to him branded as a bandit by Greece.[13][75] According to another British historian, Owen Pearson, Hoxha was a notorious bandit killed in fight by two sheperds.[76] Hoxha`s death was used as the final excuse from fascist Italy in order to attack Greece. Italian propaganda officially described him as “an Albanian from Chameria animated by great patriotic spirit” murdered from Greek spies inside Albania, declaring the imminent liberation of Chameria.[77] As the possibility of an Italian attack on Greece drew nearer, Jacomoni began arming Albanian irregular bands to use against Greece.[78] At the same time, on the eve of the Greco-Italian War, Greek authorities disarmed 1800 Cham conscripts and put them to work on local roads.[19] The Greco-Italian War started with the Italian military forces launching an invasion of Greece from Albanian territory. The invasion force included native Albanians, estimated 2,000-3,500 (including some Chams),[79] in blackshirt battalions attached to the Italian army, united later under “Chameria Army Corps”.[citation needed] Their performance however was distinctly lackluster, as most Albanians, poorly motivated, either deserted or defected. Indeed, the Italian commanders, including Mussolini, would later use the Albanians as scapegoats for the Italian failure.[78]

In November, as the Greek counter-offensive managed to regain Thesprotia, the Greek authorities seized all Albanian males not called up and deported them to concentration camps or to island exile.[19][80] Until the invasion of Greece by the German army, the Muslim Cham population of the region of Chameria was composed of women, child and the elderly. The Muslim Chams would be restored to their land only after fascist Italy got control of the region. In 1941, Greece was occupied by German, Italian and Bulgarian armies, who divided the country in three distinct occupation zones.

The major problem of this point, is that User:Factuarius refuses to use inlines of Fischer and Vickers putting an one-sided version of the story. My objections are: "Factuarius says "On June 1940 Daut Hoxha was killed in a fight with two shepherds after a quarrel over some sheep.", although Fischer, states that he is possibly killed by Greek police. Factuarius says that "He was in fact a notorious bandit sought by the Greek police for murders that he had committed many years before.", although Vickers and Fischer, state that he was a leader of Chams. Factuarius says that "Many Chams, estimated 2,000-3,500, had secretly crossed the borders in order to compose armed groups.", and cite it with Ruches, although Ruches states that there were 3,500 Albanians not Chams." Also he has removed this sentence "Their performance however was distinctly lackluster, as most Albanians, poorly motivated, either deserted or defected. Indeed, the Italian commanders, including Mussolini, would later use the Albanians as scapegoats for the Italian failure.[78]", which is totally sourced, by saying that he cannot find it online in google books, although I showed to him that it is online and that he may read it.

Factuarius response to this concers is that "Between a "possible" source and a certain source we prefer the certain not the possible", and that because Fischer says that Hoxha was "possibly" killed by Greek police, while Piercon does not say that that is "possible". Also he is misciting Ruches source, as I have explained above.

This dispute has more than a week in here; I have tried to contact with uninvolved editors and admins to intermediate in this dispute; but till now nobody has done that. For me, it is impossible to discuss with User:Factuarius, who again and again answers to those concerns with non-wiki arguments, such as "Although I understand that my oppinion is not the only one, but I prefer that from the others", and other like this. I have reworded that section more than 3 times, reaching this point, which I think is the NPOV-ist, but Factuarius keeps reverting every my edit in that page. (I may say that I have not been as civil as I should, due to the refusal of Factiuarius to get the point, and I have asked him sorry, and that I might have been edit-warrig before three days, when I reverted the page 3 times, but it was not intended to get my POV in it, but to get to the NPOV-ist version as I argued, by rewording the section again and again; on the other hand the same problems are with Factuarius which actually has broked 3RR). I need an opinion from admins and editors, about this dispute, because I am not able to discuss any more with Factuarius. Which is the NPOV-ist version of the above? Thanks in advance, Balkanian`s word (talk) 08:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

What I found in that article is the folowing:

Three cases of falsification of sources.

• His original source was completely faked since the page 21 was almost empty and said nothing about, which is true.
• His second offered source was only a sentence said "It was alleged by the Italian-controlled government in Tirana that he had been murdered by Greek secret agents." which is just the sentence explained what the Italians said about, and nothing more, a very well known fact since every author is quoting what the Italian had said about the murder. So the statement "Vickers says..." is a misleading lie.
• And that his reference of Mazower about the sizing of the male Chams population before the war was also a lie since Mazower saying exactly the opposite in his book, in the very page he noted.

Falsification of source nr.4.

• What the source says: 1.4.1.1.4 Αναγκαστικός Νόμος 735/1937 σχετικά με την αναγκαστική απαλλοτρίωση των υπολειπομένων αλβανικών περιουσιών, τα οποία βρίσκονται υπό το Δημόσιο ή την Εθνική Τράπεζα, ως διαχειρίστριας της ανταλλαξίμου μουσουλμανικής περιουσίας, και (β) την αποζημίωση των ιδιοκτητών μετά από γνωμοδότηση της Επιτροπής Απαλλοτριώσεως. Σύμφωνα με μία πηγή, οι καθυστερήσεις στην καταβολή των αποζημιώσεων υπήρξαν προκλητικές. So it was about the properties that the Muslims of the area (Chams) had left behind when they resettled to Turkey during the population exchanges of '20. Compensations provided although according to one source were delayed.
• What was transfering and referenced: "On the core issue of properties, the government led by Metaxas, not only did not compensate the local population for prior confiscations, but adopted a new law, which reduced the properties of Muslim Chams. The final law that nationalized the entire property of Chams and other Albanian nationals in Greece was passed in 1937. This law confiscated all properties of Albanians in Greece, except the primary homes and the small farms inside the villages, while the compensations provided for were delayed, something which was seen as a provocation, by Chams."

Falsification of source nr.5.

• The sentence in the article: The Greek government saw this as the perfect opportunity to get rid of Muslim Albanians, as Orthodox Chams could be easily assimilated. The reference: Petzopoulos The Balkan Exchange of Minorities and Its Impact on Greece. p.128)
• What the page says: Nothing about. Has two tables of the Ethnological Composition of the Greece and makes some general annotations about --Factuarius (talk) 03:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Falsification of source nr.6.

• The sentence in the article: Prior to 1925, historian Miranda Vickers estimates that another 5,000 Chams had been forced to leave their homeland. reference Vickers, Miranda: The Cham Issue - Where to Now?
• What the source says: "The Turkish goverment agreed to allow the settlement of some 5,000 Chams" and she explain below how the League of Nations intervened and stoped the procedure (p.5&6). Pallis says that only 1,700 resetled to Turkey, the League of Nations 2,993. So firstly Vickers mention only the Greek-Turkish agreement, doesn't makes ANY at all "estimations". And secondly her figure are not for "ANOTHER 5,000" but for the same 1,700 or 2,993 people

This page has a major problem from extented falsification of its sources and I need assistance to double check it all, Regards, --Factuarius (talk) 14:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Page is now fully protected for one week. You've both been edit warring for over a day now (and no doubt far longer than that). Sort it out on the talk page, or seek mediation. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your interviniance and the protection. The problem is that we need somebody to become a mediator, because User:Factuarius refuts to get the point, and thus I cannot put arguments in it.

Now, the current issue is about the paragraph, mentioned in the first point. I have explained to User:Factuarius that I will answer to all his questions, after we finish with the first dispute. That dispute is quite obvious to me. Fischer says that "he was killed by unknown assasins, possibly Greek", while Vickers, as you may see in my proposal does not source to who killed Hoxha, but to the fact that "Hoxha was a leader of Chams" and not a "nontiorious bandit", a position taken also by Fischer; While on Piercon says that Hoxha was a bandit. This is a clear case of POV, not forgeting misciting like Manta and Ruches.Balkanian`s word (talk) 14:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

As it is now you only protecting the version of article with the falsifications (see above). By protect it in such a condition, we only allowed to continue to mislead the readers of the article for a week more and thus rewarding their "work". As an administrator you are in position to alter that. They avoided any discussion about the falsifications of the references never answer a word about although had been asked. Don't rewarding them by protecting them. Regards, --Factuarius (talk) 15:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The version of a protected page, is always the wrong version. The problem is that, you are still not answering the issues about the paragraph you inserted. I explained what Vickers and Fischer says; why are you still keeping it POV?Balkanian`s word (talk) 15:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Three month topic ban to Factuarius

In reviewing this more fully, and in looking over the page history, as well as taking some time to get better informed with the issue being warred over, Factuarius is hereby given a three month topic ban in line with the remedies at WP:ARBMAC. Page protection will be reduced to semi from full protection. Factuarius will be blocked if he continues to edit this article, or the article's talk page for three months. Other involved editors are advised to refrain from engaging in edit wars on this or any other article, and may feel free to report this issue to my talk page directly if further assistance is required. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia Request for Comment

Centralized discussion page set up to decide on a comprehensive naming convention about Macedonia-related naming practices is now inviting comments on a number of competing proposals from the community. This issue relates specifically to WP:NPOV#Article naming and related policies/guidelines. Please register your opinions on the RfC subpages 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Catholic sex abuse cases

Over on the article, there is a user Sturunner and an IP (who I suspect of being one and the same) that are repeatedly changing words like "handling" to "concealing" and "actions" to "malfeasance". Frankly, I think words like "malfeasance" leap over the line into the realm of vandalism, but I tried to talk about it on the talk page anyways. I am, however, being ignored. Can I get input from anyone? Like I said, I consider it outright vandalism, but at the least it's gotta be blatantly non npov, right?

P.S. - this is the corret place for this, right? I'm not used to reporting stuff like this.Farsight001 (talk) 02:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Jonestown

Statement by involved editor

For a year now, a certain editor has continued to delete all mention of the classified documents and conspiracy theories about Jonestown. The classified documents and conspiracy theories are widely discussed in the best reliable sources, and even appear in the sources used in the article, but no mention is allowed. Instead, the user has forked out all of the conspiracy content to Jonestown conspiracy theory but there is not a single word in the main article about this content except for a link buried in the {{Peoples Temple}} template footer. Furthermore, there is no mention of the classified documents that are discussed in most reliable sources on the topic and are ironically blamed for giving rise to the conspiracies. A good overview of this topic can be found in a scholarly article here, and is covered by many news articles, such as this one in the San Francisco Chronicle. The number of reliable sources covering this topic is staggering, yet they are not allowed to even be mentioned in the article. What is incredibly strange and peculiar, is that there are literally dozens of sources about the classified documents and conspiracy theories on the "Alternative Considerations of Jonestown and Peoples Temple" website, sponsored by the Department of Religious Studies at San Diego State University.[58] This website is cited around 70 times in the current article, yet not a single reference appears to these two topics. Could someone help resolve this problem? I have used the talk page to raise this issue, but my questions, proposals, and answers have been ignored. I have added the {{NPOV}} tag, but it continues to get removed. Per NPOV, these significant topics need to be discussed in relation to the topic. Here are some facts that are being deliberately left out of the article:

• "In 1980, the House Select Committee on Intelligence determined that the CIA had no involvement with Peoples Temple and had no advance warning of the mass murder-suicide. A year earlier, the House Foreign Affairs Committee concluded that Jones ``suffered extreme paranoia. The 782-page report also recommended that more studies be done of cults, but the committee kept more than 5,000 pages secret."(San Francisco Chronicle)
• The "failure of federal agencies to release classified information on the organization, gave rise to a body of conspiracy theories which provides alternatives to both popular and scholarly explanations of what happened." (Brown 2000, p.8)
• "conspiracy theorists will continue to spin their tales as long as government documents remain classified." (Brown 2000, p.21)
• "George Berdes, the chief consultant to the committee at the time, said recently that the papers were classified because ``we had to give assurances of confidentiality to sources. ``This way, we were able to get better and more information, he said. But Berdes said that now, ``after 20 years, I think it should be declassified. A committee staff aide said the question of declassifying the papers is being studied. Mary McCormick Maaga, author of a new book, ``Hearing the Voices of Jonestown, said the government's refusal to release the papers ``feeds this conspiracy theory mentality around Jonestown."(San Francisco Chronicle)
• "President Bill Clinton signed a bill into law in the 1990s, mandating the expiration of secrecy in documents after 25 years. It has been nearly 30 years since the mysterious mass deaths in Jonestown. The majority of Jonestown documents remain classified, despite Freedom of Information requests from numerous people over the past three decades"
• "The sheer scale of the event, as well as Jones' socialist leanings, led some to suggest CIA involvement. In 1980 the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence investigated the Jonestown mass suicide and announced that there was no evidence of CIA involvement at Jonestown. Most government documents relating to Jonestown remain classified."

Why are these historical facts prevented from appearing the article? Viriditas (talk) 04:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Response from uninvolved editors

This NPOV incident was filed here to receive a response from a neutral, uninvolved editor. That is, after all, the point of this noticeboard.

uninvolved comment I see no real NPOV issue here. I slightly expanded the paragraph that links to the conspiracy theory, as it didn't fully reflect what that page suggests as the basis for the contention. --Jaymax (talk) 07:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Totally agreed Jaymax, and I was going to do the same and throw in the Moore cite at the end of the clause.
• Also, I totally agree with your statement that "I see no real NPOV issue here", which all three editors had been attempting to demonstrate literally for days now. And I also completely agreed with you keeping the same one sentence description of theJonestown conspiracy theory that I, Wildhartlivie and Yachtsman1 had been attempting to convince Viriditas of for three days now, and your moving that one existing sentence, with the added clause, down to the bottom in the Aftermath section was even more appropriate.
• Also agree with you statement below that "the (correct IMO) point was made repetitively by others that the content under debate best belonged in the conspiracy article - and User:Viriditas refusal to accept that seems to have consumed a lot of effort that could have been better spent improving that article and the short mention of it in the main article" Mosedschurte (talk) 07:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Response to Jaymax

• And the classified documents? Viriditas (talk) 07:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough - The existence of classified documents is fuel for the conspiracy theorists, if nothing else. Only one of the old links I eventually saw (SFGate) are pertinent for the main article I think - the opinions and research of Richardson et al belong in the conspiracy article. Added four words to the paragraph. --Jaymax (talk) 08:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It is most certainly fuel for the conspiracy theorists, but at the same time, it frustrates scholars and researchers.([59][60] old link to CESNUR) If you could add the information about the classified documents to the aftermath section that would help. The aftermath section should mention that the House Committee on Foreign Affairs classified 5000 documents pages related to Jonestown in 1979 and that in 1980, "the House Select Committee on Intelligence determined that the CIA had no involvement with Peoples Temple and had no advance warning of the mass murder-suicide." Moore has additional commentary about this subject here. Viriditas (talk) 08:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the whole para belongs properly in aftermath - so I'll move it there. Note that reference I've see is to 5000 PAGES, not 5000 documents, but I don't see how the volume of classified material is particularly relevant, but if so that can be explored more on the conspiracy page - likewise frustration of scholars and researchers investigating the possibility of conspiracy. Saying 'scholars and researchers are frustrated by secrecy' seems to me an absurdly general tautology. --Jaymax (talk) 08:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Completely agree with the move to the aftermath section and your statement about the classified material (FYI, most of it is actually not "classified" but being withheld for Privacy Act reasons by the FBI, but that's not really important here). I am glad that you did it, as any such action by me would almost certainly have been reverted by the above user.Mosedschurte (talk) 08:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I requested the change, and if I had performed it myself, you would have reverted it. I had previously requested that you add the classified documents back in, but you refused. Jaymax made the change instead and you suddently found it wonderful. Whatever works. Viriditas (talk) 10:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Response from involved editors

• Comment: The consensus on the page from three editors is that the fact this material is not included does not amount to a violation of NPOV as this is found in a separate article, Jonestown conspiracy theory. This appears to be a content dispute at this point, and I don't really see where the nominator wants it to be resolved, even though her points have been discussed extensively. There is also an element of wp:wikihounding going on here. The nominator was banned for a period for edit warring on Human rights in the United States at [[61]] by the main contributor to the article, user:Mosedschurte and then appeared with a laundry-list of concerns in an article where he or she had never made a contribution until the other dispute had heated up on June 25, 2009 [[62]]. The nominator has also been engaged in WP:HUSH, leaving numerous warnings on both my talk page, as well as user:Mosedschurte [[63]], and mine at: [[64]], and here: [[65]]. There is definitely Unclean hands in this case.Yachtsman1 (talk) 22:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • There is no such consensus on the talk page, as my concerns have not been directly addressed by anyone. I posted this query to get a neutral assessment on the matter, an opinion that you cannot provide. You are a tag teaming meatuppet for Mosedchurtre, the editor who refuses to allow a discussion of the classified sources and conspiracy theories in the article, and you are not neutral. You have the same documented NPOV issues as Mosedchurtre. This continuing problem has been discussed extensively on the noticeboard and talk pages, and my attention was drawn to your contributions when I found you both engaging in NPOV violations and plagiarism, which has since been confirmed by the copyright cleanup project. You are welcome at any time to put aside your meatpuppetry role and engage in discussion about the topic. So, why should the existence of classified sources and conspiracy theories not be addressed in the main article? All of the reliable sources on the topic address it, so why not Wikipedia? Please directly answer this question and stop distracting from my query. Viriditas (talk) 23:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Your concerns have been fully addressed on the talk page under the tag "NPOV", and I, in fact, invited you to place this information within the article here: [[66]]. You refused. Add it if you like (I honestly don't care), but the article still meets NPOV requirements without it, as every other editor on the talk page has indicated. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 23:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
      • No single concern about the NPOV issues has been addressed on the talk page, even though I continue to ask for input. This noticeboard query is designed to solicit opinions from neutral third-parties, not non-neutral, involved tag team meatpuppets like yourself. Please stop trying to distract this discussion and let the process take its course. You are welcome, of course, to directly address my concerns above at any time. Viriditas (talk) 23:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
        • While comments are supposed to meet the requirements of WP:CIV, and yours certainly do not. Your concerns have been fully addressed, notwithstanding your present contention. The present discussion needs all of the facts, and your own history with the editor(s) involved is relevant for any neutral editors' consideration in assessing your present contention, as is the fact that you were invited to include the disputed material from the editor you are now personally attacking. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 23:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
          • It's a documented fact that your only involvement in this article is as a tag teaming, edit warring, meatpuppet of Mosedchurtre, and that you have not addressed any NPOV issues I have raised on the talk page of the article or in this noticeboard report. Please do so. Viriditas (talk) 01:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - From the beginning of the involvement of Viriditas on this article, I questioned the ability to neutrally review the article due to the wide range of disputes which I saw have occurred elsewhere and have suggested at least twice that any neutrality/content checking occur by an editor uninvolved with the article or any of the other disputes that have occurred, in order to assure a neutral viewpoint regarding all of this. At least Yachtsman1 agreed with this suggestion but Viriditas argued specifically against that, claiming an ability to do so him/herself. If that is so, then why would it not be true for anyone else? I continue to question how neutrally this editor could possibly evaluate this article, given the assumptions that he/she made regarding Mosedschurte's editing. Mostly my comment was that when one comes into an article new to the editor with preconceived notions, it's highly probable that such notions will be borne out, even if one must reach and reach to support them. The arguments that have ensued only bear this out. For a case in point, this editor has claimed that content from the Time magazine site may have copied text content from Wikipedia and proceeded effectively to demand some sort of proof that it did not. That an article regarding points that occurred well after the events at Jonestown was created as ancillary to the actual article covering the specific Jonestown event does in no way equal NPOV and I find it difficult to accept that viewpoint. Now the NPOV tag has been replaced by a tag challenging the factual accuracy of the article without distinguishing at all what is being challenged as non-factual. This has become beyond ridiculous. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The NPOV tag was removed by the tag team meatpuppet team of Mosedchurte/Yachtsman1, and the disputed tag was added in its place because the article is not factually accurate due to deletion of the classified material and the conspiracy theories. This is also a NPOV issue. My concern about the Time magazine material has been solved on the talk page, and more reliable sources have been proposed in its place. The Time magazine material is nothing more than an anonymous photography caption from a website, not a print issue. We generally do not source statements in Wikipedia articles from anonymous photo captions. I know you are very upset at me because I pointed out that your chosen referencing format was unwieldy and inefficient and I recommended the use of shortened footnotes in its place. You then threatened to leave the article if I changed anything. Please actually try to address the NPOV issue under discussion, namely the inclusion of the classified document material and the discussion of the conspiracy theories, both of which were deleted by Mosedchurtre. Viriditas (talk) 01:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

No, please do not make assumptions about what I feel, you have no basis for drawing such a conclusion. I am upset with you for your continued attacks upon other editors which do not display any modicum of neutrality and for misrepresenting conversations and ignoring points that are responses to your questions while concentrating on personal attacks. That was the issue I raised when you began picking at the article and you absolutely have not shown any indication that counters that concern. I "threatened to leave" if you changed anything? Please show me where I said that. I removed the article from my watchlist because I expected your involvement on the page to create more stress than I can really endure, and you have not proven that wrong. I am less than pleased with your continued attacks upon other editors, such as calling other editors meatpuppets and your picking and choosing what you consider responses and what you ignore. There is no factual inaccuracy because content was spun into a separate article. That the article at Jonestown concentrates on the events at Jonestown in November 1978 and has spun off conspiracy discussion into its own article does not represent inaccuracy and POV. It is bad faith for you to make that assumption. I am also upset that you refused to accept an alternate person to review the article besides yourself and your refusing to respond to that, which I included above, continues. Your personal disputes with the other two editors on that page and the course of the conversation only substantiates my belief that you cannot discuss this without being aggressive and confrontational. Actually, your response above substantiates it as well. Please show me the policy - specifically - which disallows a caption from Time magazine as a source for a statement. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Please directly address the NPOV incident report, namely 1) Why aren't the classified documents discussed in the current version, and 2) why aren't the conspiracy theories mentioned, with a link to their POV fork, and 3) why was this material deleted from the article? To solve this NPOV incident report, simply state that you have no objection to my restoring of these two related items to the article. Previously, the article stated:

• "President Bill Clinton signed a bill into law in the 1990s, mandating the expiration of secrecy in documents after 25 years. It has been nearly 30 years since the mysterious mass deaths in Jonestown. The majority of Jonestown documents remain classified, despite Freedom of Information requests from numerous people over the past three decades"
• "The sheer scale of the event, as well as Jones' socialist leanings, led some to suggest CIA involvement. In 1980 the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence investigated the Jonestown mass suicide and announced that there was no evidence of CIA involvement at Jonestown. Most government documents relating to Jonestown remain classified."

I am open to variations on this theme (and would recommend rewriting and resourcing this material), but the lead should also make mention of the classified documents and the conspiracy theories surrounding the case. As for the rest of your non-incident report related issues, you threatened to leave on the talk page when I asked you questions about your chosen referencing format. You responded with, "I'd rather walk away from the hours I've spent on it than get drawn into what, from what I've seen, has happened across articles" and "I'd rather just walk away from the Jonestown articles and all the work I put in rather than get involved in issues going on from elsewhere." You also said, "I spent hours and hours and hours verifying that the content cited here to pages from the books that I obtained from the library, some from ridiculously complicated interlibrary loan, were accurate for content and page numbering....Have at it....I'm finished with it." So clearly, you are upset, and you have expressed your frustration on the talk page. When I proposed making changes to the format of the references, I explicitly stated, "I think you should reconsider your position about leaving. I have not said that I'm going to implement the referencing proposal without your support, I've merely tried to discuss it with you to find out why you oppose it."

As for the Time magazine discussion, that has since been solved with the presentation of better references. Per WP:RS, "academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources when available," and anonymous photography captions on websites lacking publication info such as author and date, are not more reliable than those that have this information. My concerns with the Time website were clearly expressed on the discussion page. Backwards sourcing due to web scraping is a common phenomenon that appears to be happening more than ever. Since there was no publication or author data available about this photography caption, I questioned whether it was written before the Wikipedia article. As I said in several places, this is no longer an issue, as more reliable sources on the topic have been found. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 03:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for copying my comments here, at no time did I ever say I would leave if you changed anything, and I clearly said that my issues were with your involvement because I was concerned that your ongoing disputes from everywhere else would be taken up on that article. See the article talk page for the diffs where I expressed my concern with your involvement. Those concerns have been supported. Because you chose to ignore that I also responded regarding that content being spun off into a conspiracy articles does not negate that either. I'm sorry, Viriditas, but you cannot force your way on issues by running to noticeboards and making personal attacks, especially when good faith suggestions for a third party reviewer to be asked in or dispute resolution sought were made from nearly the beginning of your posts. You've quite clearly stated above that you are intractable regarding this and you've posted a paste of the content without a link for anyone else to examine what you've posted, which does contain some issues regarding wording and weasel content. That you are demanding return of anything as a condition for your to be satisfied is bad faith and in no way reflects that anything must be included or it is POV. How does the inclusion of conspiracy theories that occurred after the events, or the existence of classified documents that were subject to a 1990 law impact on the events that occurred in 1978? How does any of that equal factual inaccuracy as your latest tag suggests? What is inaccurate in the article as it stands at this moment? Mind you, the question is inaccurate, meaning wrong, mistake, erroneous? What facts are wrong? WP:RS does address reliability of academic and peer-reviewd publications, but you have also claimed that Time magazine content is not reliable because you claim they may have copied content from Wikipedia. Unfounded and a serious issue regarding your POV about this article. Because another source exists does not negate your claim about the magazine and it is something that needs to be addressed, even if you do now feel appeased. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I directly answered these questions above, in particular at 01:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[67] To summarize, it is factually inaccurate to avoid discussing or mentioning the 5000 classified documents and the conspiracy theories. It is also a significant NPOV issue, as significant viewpoints on this topic are not allowed in the article, and a POV fork about conspiracies has been created that does not even link back to the article text. I know you are very upset about the concerns I have raised about NPOV in this article, after all, you have, as you have stated above, put many hours into this article, with 95 edits making you third most active contributor to the page. But, perhaps you can directly address the problem of classified documents and conspiracy theories, and their placement in the literature. After all, you did a lot of research on the topic; Remember all that time you spent at the library? Why haven't you added this material back into the article? Viriditas (talk) 04:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• comment - unfortunately, this is now a fairly openly brazen WP:Wikihounding by Viriditas that has boiled over and intensified after this editor was blocked from editing for 48 hours on another article. Since that time, my mere presence having edited this article, Jonestown, years ago has unfortunately drawn this rather abusive and disruptive editing at this article, which, when confronted by another editor that this was part of a dispute with me, Viriditas actually admitted "yes, my attention was drawn to this article due to the actions of another user who has been active here. Jonestown had been relatively stable for quite some time, including through the 30th anniversary of Jonestown, which included extensive national media coverage, including full 2 hour specials on MSNBC and CNN. The abuse reached fairly comic proportions where Viriditas directly accused me five times in a row of not permitting a source from Dr. Moore, despite warnings and large swaths of text in bold stating that I had zero problem with the source. Or below, where Viriditas repeatedly claimed that Time Magazine had "backward sourced" this article on the most basic point about Jonestown.
• All attempts to explain that the Jonestown conspiracy theory material should go in the Jonestown conspiracy theory article -- hardly a novel concept -- or to explain the difference between WP:Notability and WP:Fringe, and the idea of giving WP:Undue Weight to extended discussions of WP:Fringe theories and their related facs, even if held by many conspiracy theorists, are simply ignored. I have even REPEATEDLY attempted to show the exemplary instance of the Apollo 11 article, where the far more prominent but also WP:Fringe Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories received a link, much like this article were a sentence and link are already provided in this article to the WP:Fringe theories that exist re the Jonestown conspiracy theory. All of this has been repeatedly ignored, with the repetition that sources describe that people believe in the CIA conspiracy theory, the mere existence of which no one disputes (like any notable Fringe theory), and combative and patronizing language to all editors on this page who attempt to address this point.
• To recap, NO EDITOR has disallowed any facts related to the Jonestown conspiracy theory to go in the Jonestown conspiracy theory article, which is already discussed and linked in the Jonestown article. Mosedschurte (talk) 04:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a very simple NPOV incident report concerning the removal of the following information: Why did you delete all mention of the 5000 classified documents on Jonestown, documents that scholars have repeatedly asked to be declassified? Why did you delete all information about the House Select Committee on Intelligence meeting in 1980 that determined that the CIA had no involvement with Peoples Temple and had no advance warning of the mass murder-suicide"? Why doesn't the article describe that the "failure of federal agencies to release classified information on the organization, gave rise to a body of conspiracy theories which provides alternatives to both popular and scholarly explanations of what happened"? And why doesn't the article represent the canon of Jonestown literature in regards to conspiracy theories? Why is there a POV fork to a conspiracy article that is not discussed in the main topic page? These are all violations of NPOV. Please directly address these points, and explain why they are not being added back into the article with the reliable, academic, scholarly, peer-reviewed articles that support their inclusion. Viriditas (talk) 04:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Viriditas, please try to grasp that it is not POV to put the content regarding conspiracy theories and later investigations and inquiries into a separate article, which already exists. It does not make the article factually inaccurate for that content to covered in a separate ancillary article instead of the main article that was developed to describe the actual events that occurred in Guyana in 1978. Examples have been given to you regarding subject topics that exist which are covered in more than one Wikipedia article. There is no mandate or policy compelling that every aspect of an event must be covered in one article, especially when it covers many subtopics. See articles covering Apollo 11, a good article with an ancillary article for the hoax conspiracy theories which does not try to explore later controversies or theories in the main article. That article contains a link to the sub-topic. See articles covering John F. Kennedy or Abraham Lincoln, where separate articles were created to cover conspiracies and later investigations into them. That you keep stating it is POV or factual inaccuracy is your interpretation and that does not make it fact. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Wildhartlivie, please read and understand Wikipedia:NPOV#POV_forks. It is the NPOV policy that compels us to treat the discussion of classified documents and conspiracy theories in one article. In fact it states that "all facts and major points of view on a certain subject are treated in one article." The historical fact is that the Jonestown classified documents exist and make it difficult for any scholar to come to any one conclusion about the topic. This is a signficant POV represented by reliable sources on the subject. There is also significant discussion about why the documents were classified, and the efforts of scholars to get them released. The canon of Jonestown literature also includes conspiracy theories, whose proliferation has been encouraged by secret documents. This opinion is repeated by many reliable sources. Per NPOV, these two significant issues must be treated in one article, and the reliable sources on this subject are abundant and plentiful to do so. It is a NPOV violation not to do so, and the article is factually inaccurate as a result. Viriditas (talk) 07:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• This is one of many REPEATED explanations of the difference between WP:Notability, WP:Fringe, WP:Undue weight and the simple example of other far more notable fringe theories, such as Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories, that are being ignored.
• Likewise, data and rover plans were lost for the Apollo 11, as cited by numerous reliable sources, yet this information is not in the Apollo 11 article, but instead correctly discussed in the Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories. This is hardly some WP:POV concern. This has been repeatedly explained to Viriditas, and ignored thereby.Mosedschurte (talk) 05:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

You have not addressed a single aspect of this NPOV incident. Please explain why you deleted the discussion of classified documents and forked out the conspiracy theories to a separate POV fork, with no discussion of the topic in the main article? Major authors in the field of Jonestown research discuss these two topics in the scholarly literature, and various newspapers and reliable secondary sources widely report on the subject. There is nothing about this that violates notability, fringe, or undue weight, and if there was, you would be able to demonstrate this with evidence. The fact is, the documents were classified, this is covered by every major source on the subject, and the conspiracy literature has been reviewed, discussed, and criticized by the same sources. As Wikipedia editors, are job is to use the best sources to report to assert facts. When we look at what you have been doing, we see that you have been deleting facts and cherry picking opinions from primary sources. You were previously taken to task for this on other articles, including multiple noticeboard complaints and in mediation, so your past history of violating the NPOV policy is a matter of public record. This incident report was filed to get feedback from neutral editors who have expertise on the NPOV policy. Your opinion is already know, and unless you can directly address the questions asked of you, please stop spamming this noticeboard with crud. Viriditas (talk) 07:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

(od)There is not "NPOV incident" and, as many editors have explained to you, of course several "major author and scholars" have discussed the existence of the Jonestown conspiracy theory -- no one HAS EVER disputed the existence of the theory. In fact, it has it's own article Jonestown conspiracy theory, which is already linked and discussed in a sentence in the article now, precisely like the far more notable Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories in the Apollo 11 article. As has been explained SEVERAL TIMES, just because "major author and scholars" discuss the Jonestown conspiracy theory, does not mean that it must be discussed at length in the article Jonestown itself when it has its own article. And the false statements you've made about me and other editors are now so commonplace that no editor even bothers addressing you about them anymore. Much of this is part of the continued WP:Wikihounding campaign that is about to come to an end.Mosedschurte (talk) 07:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I have not received a single, neutral response from an uninovled editor. Instead I have received the typical, tag teaming, edit warring from Yachtsman1/Mosedchurtre, and an angry response from Wildhartlivie, a primary contributor to Jonestown (95 edits). Either address the NPOV issues directly, or stop spamming your crud.

Multiple noticeboards document your cherry picking of sources and POV pushing. Here are just four noticeboard reports filed by other editors, all about Mosedchurtre and his POV pushing on Jim Jones/Peoples Temple related topics: [68], [69], [70], [71]. You have a documented POV pushing history in regards to Jim Jones and People's Temple related articles, and it had to go to mediation in the end. We certainly don't need more POV crud here. We need answers. For example, why did you delete all mention of the classified Jonestown documents and the discussion of the canon of conpsiracy theory literature that is sourced to Moore and other scholars? Viriditas (talk) 07:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Every editor has now addressed REPEATEDLY your questions regarding why the Jonestown conspiracy theory article is linked an discussed for one sentence in Jonestown, with the further discussions in the article Jonestown conspiracy theory. Every editor has told you repeatedly that no one disputes the existence of the Jonestown conspiracy theory or that scholars have recognized the existence of the theory, which is one of the reasons that it has its own article. You have ignored EVERY SINGLE attempt to address your point, and just repeatedly asked why further discussions of the Jonestown conspiracy theory and related document classification issues are not elaborately discussed in the Jonestown article -- a question probably answered now no less than 20 times. In addition, your continued false statemments about other edotrs-- including posting complaints INCLUDING YOUR OWN where not a single action was taken against me (in fact, the third one was resolved amicably) -- are so commonplacet hat no editor even bothers addressing you about them anymore. Much of this is part of the continued WP:Wikihounding campaign that is about to come to an end. And you're not an "uninvoled editor" -- precisely the opposite -- so all such inaccurate labeling of others comments are to be avoided, like the rest of the sections on this noticeboard.Mosedschurte (talk) 07:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Multiple noticeboards document your cherry picking of sources and POV pushing. Here are just four noticeboard reports filed by other editors, all about Mosedchurtre and his POV pushing on Jim Jones/Peoples Temple related topics: [72], [73], [74], [75]. You have a documented POV pushing history in regards to Jim Jones and People's Temple related articles, and it had to go to mediation in the end. These are the facts. I was not involved in any of those reports or disputes. You've been pushing this People's Temple POV for a long time. Viriditas (talk) 07:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• What a joke and the utterly false comment "You have a documented POV pushing history", and a perfect example of how this complaint is really just a continued part of your about to end WP:Wikihounding campaign of me personally, as well as Yachtsman1. NOT A SINGLE NOTICEBOARD ADMIN has ever taken action against me for NPOV, one of those was LAUGHALBY FILED BY YOURSELF (again, no action, of course, as it was baseless), and the mediation was over the NON-inclusion of the PT in another article, not my conduct, we went to mediation and agreed upon a final resolution that included it. This is how WP:Civil editors come to an agreement.
• The false statements you've made about me and other editors are now so commonplace that no editor even bothers addressing you about them anymore. Much of this is part of the continued WP:Wikihounding campaign that is about to come to an end. Much like your Edit War campaign being blocked from editing for 48 hours and your admonishment for continued deletion of talk page comments. Neither of which are relevant to this thread.Mosedschurte (talk) 07:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The statements I've made are fully supported by the links to the noticeboard reports concerning the Jim Jones/People's temple topics: [76], [77], [78], [79]. The noticeboard complaints pointed out your incivility, as you called everyone who disagree with you "liars" and you accused them of "lying", much as you still do today. They also described you as a single purpose account and discussed whether you should be indefinitely blocked. In addition to your incivility and POV pushing which is fully documented on the noticeboards, you have also engaged in plagiarism of sources in other articles, and I am currently examining Jonestown for plagiarized material. Viriditas (talk) 07:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The continued repetition of false statements about other editors (anyone reading your links can plainly see that no action was taken against me therein) only further serves to demonstrate that this complaint is pretty openly and brazenly part of your continued WP:Wikihounding campaign, and not focused upon the Jonestown conspiracy theory's lack of more extensive discussion in Jonestown. Every editor has attempted to point out that this was not a POV problem, and you have continually ignored each and every one, engaging instead in combative disruptive commentary.08:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The burying of comments under repeated "crud" without actually addressing the topic or saying anything is a common tactic of POV pushers. Viriditas (talk) 08:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

You have posted minor variations of the same post 3 different times. Each of those posts contains an attack upon the editor and in no way address the content under question. You have grossly lumped all of my postings into a bad faith characterization of "an angry response", blatantly ignored any attempts to respond to you as "crud" and "spamming crud" and engaged in pointy disruption both here and at the article talk page. And now you challenge the opinion of an uninvolved editor who said he didn't see this as an NPOV issue. This has gone on long enough. The bad faith personal attacks have gone on long enough. I'm sorry, you've shot your credibility as far as I'm concerned. You've failed to prove your point. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about, but that's an interesting fantasy world you live in. Viriditas (talk) 10:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no issue with having my opinion challenged and I've yet to be criticised WRT my edits to this article (and indeed, the initial response point by Viriditas to me about the documents was fair) - and the conspiracy article probably did deserve a bit more weight and a bit more profile (which I think is now sorted, but then, I would since I made the changes). However, the (correct IMO) point was made repetitively by others that the content under debate best belonged in the conspiracy article - and Viriditas refusal to accept that seems to have consumed a lot of effort that could have been better spent improving that article and the short mention of it in the main article.--Jaymax (talk) 09:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

My main concerns have been addressed, so thanks for adding the classified document material back into the article (it had previously been deleted and related material had been buried in the "Survivors/eyewitnesses" section). I required the help of a neutral third party to make these changes, otherwise the same reversions from Yachtsman1/Mosedchurtre would have taken place (as the page history demonstrates). As for the conspiracy article, I'm not sure what content you are talking about, as I never addressed any material that appears in Jonestown conspiracy theory at any time. The core nuggets of my concerns have been addressed by Jaymax and I thank this user for making the changes. Viriditas (talk) 10:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Jaymax's statement that "I see no real NPOV issue here", was on the money, as we had been stating for at least 2-3 days now with this disruptive editor.
• Jaymax's keeping the Jonestown conspiracy theory discussion to the one existing sentence -- which all three other editors had been attempting to argue all along -- was again on the money, as well as moving that existing sentence down to the bottom in the Aftermath section, which was even more appropriate.
• Jaymax's statement that (correct IMO) point was made repetitively by others that the content under debate best belonged in the conspiracy article - and User:Viriditas refusal to accept that seems to have consumed a lot of effort that could have been better spent improving that article and the short mention of it in the main article" was also 100% correct.
• Thank you so much, Jaymax, we have been attempting to do this -- fruitlessly now -- for several days, with probably 100K of Talk page material devoted to the topic as part of a continuing WP:Wikihounding campaign.Mosedschurte (talk) 10:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

For the record, Jaymax added back in the "classified documents" and other material you had originally deleted. Previously, the article said, "The sheer scale of the event, as well as Jones' socialist leanings, led some to suggest CIA involvement" and Jaymax changed it to "The sheer scale of the event, as well as Jones' socialist leanings, purported inconsistencies in the reported number of deaths, allegedly poor explanation of events related to deaths at Jonestown, and existence of classified documents led some to suggest CIA involvement". Is there any reason you could not have made that change, Mosedchurtre? Yes, the answer is on the talk page. You refused. Viriditas (talk) 11:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

How truly revealing. After the continued WP:Wikihounding campaing complete with your entire push for an expanded discussion of the Jonestown conspiracy theory was brushed aside, with commentary that "(correct IMO) point was made repetitively by others that the content under debate best belonged in the conspiracy article - and User:Viriditas refusal to accept that seems to have consumed a lot of effort that could have been better spent improving that article and the short mention of it in the main article"" (Jaymax) you are now claiming that the one clasue addition to the EXISTING ONE SENTENCE all three editors ALL ALONG HAD BEEN SAYING WAS SUFFICIENT -- a single clause addition you never raised -- was somehow opposed by the other editors? A complete fiction so ridiculous, it does nothing more than highlight that this dispute is part of a WP:Wikihounding campaign that you have been repeatedly asked to stop.Mosedschurte (talk) 11:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Try reading my incident report and the entire talk page discussion where I asked repeatedly why you deleted the mention of classified documents and the related material? No matter, Jaymax added it back in, expanded the section, placed the appropriate link to the subarticle in the header and connected the dots in the aftermath section. You could not do this because you refused, repeatedly, on the talk page to even entertain the idea. Now, we see you predictably, taking credit for the very idea. Guffaw. Viriditas (talk) 11:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, simply unreal and again, how truly telling. No one had ever asked to add a single clause to the EXISTING SENTENCE we had been saying did not need expansion on the Jonestown conspiracy theory. Not one time had you proposed anything REMOTELY like a one clause addition. In fact, Jaymax added a source that was in the article on the documents point about which NO ONE had objected. Again,l this was correct, and let this be a lesson in the future on this issue: "the (correct IMO) point was made repetitively by others that the content under debate best belonged in the conspiracy article - and User:Viriditas refusal to accept that seems to have consumed a lot of effort that could have been better spent improving that article and the short mention of it in the main article"Mosedschurte (talk) 11:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I initially proposed this change at at 21:55, 25 June 2009.[80] I described this problem and the sources that could be used. Instead of addressing the problem, you spent the last few days refusing to deal with it. Jaymax used the source to add the material I proposed and addressed my original concerns you spent the last several days fighting about. Viriditas (talk) 11:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

(od)

• Again, it is as if you think that the rest of us cannot read. Your demands in this very complaint plainly included six bullet points containing 2,129 bytes of information to be added, proclaiming " Here are some facts that are being deliberately left out of the article".
• In response to this, yet a FOURTH editor now stated "I see no real NPOV issue here", added ONE CLAUSE TO THE EXISTING SENTENCE that other three editors had been stating all along was sufficient to cover the Jonestown onspiracy theory, and stated "the (correct IMO) point was made repetitively by others that the content under debate best belonged in the conspiracy article - and User:Viriditas refusal to accept that seems to have consumed a lot of effort that could have been better spent improving that article and the short mention of it in the main article"
• Such attempts to re-write reality are difficult when the text is sitting right in front of every reader. As you have been repeatedly asked -- in fact, practically begged at times -- please stop the continued WP:Wikihounding campaign.Mosedschurte (talk) 12:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Please put on your reading comprehension hat: None of the "facts that are being deliberately left out of the article" have anything to do with material in the Jonestown conspiracy theory article. They have to do with comments by scholars and reliable sources about classified documents and how the failure of the government to release these documents has allowed conspiracy theorists to to keep "spinning tales". If the difference between a scholarly commentary about a concept and a "push for an expanded discussion of the Jonestown conspiracy theory" is too subtle for you, then there is nothing I can do. I have not referred to anything in the Jonestown conspiracy theory article, but rather, what scholars and reliable sources say about these theories. Do you understand the difference? If not, feel free to ask any questions. When we write articles on Wikipedia, we write about what reliable sources say about the topic. The fact that reliable sources have discussed the existence of classified documents and the "failure of federal agencies to release classified information on the organization, gave rise to a body of conspiracy theories which provides alternatives to both popular and scholarly explanations of what happened." (Brown 2000, p.8) I hope this is making sense to you. Scholars are saying that the conspiracy theories are a natural result of keeping the documents classified. This says nothing about any Jonestown conspiracy theory at all. It is a discussion about the canon of Jonestown literature, and this observation is also made by religious studies scholar and author Mary McCormick Maaga in Hearing the Voices of Jonestown, and is found in the same San Francisco Chronicle article that Jaymax used. So we have a significant opinion about the relationship between the classfied documents and the conspiracy theories made by two scholars in two different books/articles, covered by secondary sources, none of which have anything to do with the expansion of Jonestown conspiracy theories. Viriditas (talk) 12:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Question

And why is that link to another language version on this page???? Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It's an interwiki link to this page in another language. Click on the link in the "languages" column directly to the left. It gives this link. Viriditas (talk) 10:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Honduran coup

Various new accounts and IP editors are pushing the golpista line in regards to the 2009 Honduran political crisis, both on that article and on related ones like Manuel Zelaya, Roberto Micheletti, Romeo Vásquez Velásquez, Politics of Honduras and especially Honduran constitutional referendum, 2009. Many of them are even insisting that the events cannot be called a coup d'état, even though that's the universal conclusion of everyone from the Wall Street Journal to Obama to the OAS to Fidel Castro. Things will probably stabilize as the single-purpose accounts drop off, but it would be nice to have reasonably neutral articles available while the crisis is still ongoing (especially since Google News indexes us now.) <eleland/talkedits> 15:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Was just on my way here to mention this. Needs eyes.Simonm223 (talk) 20:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It is getting really out of hand. People still insisting "coup, what coup?," editors collating cherry-picked negative facts from sources to make Zelaya's term look like a series of disasters, etc. I've requested semiprotection to deal with the stream of IPs and anons but yeah, we need lots more eyes. Preferably with NPOV-minded brains behind them ;) <eleland/talkedits> 22:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Drone attacks on Pakistan by the United States

Issue resolved by administrator JEN9841 (talk) 02:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The title of the above article reflects a slanted point of view. The part that I am contending is the preposition "on." Saying attacks "on" Pakistan implies military action against the country of Pakistan, as opposed to rogue al-Qaeda and Taliban targets. The preposition "in" instead of "on" would be accurate. I attempted to move the article to Drone attacks in Pakistan by the United States, but it was moved back, and currently stands as a redirect page. JEN9841 (talk) 05:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

User:JEN9841 you made a brief comment to the talk page of this article. Forgive me, I don't think it was a substantive comment. You have asserted the current name lapses from WP:NPOV. You did not address the arguments on the talk page that the name you prefer is a lapse from NPOV.

I'd like to suggest that you consider trying to engage in a civil dialogue with those you disagree with. Who knows, you might be able to mount convincing arguments that would bring those who disagree with you around. Alternatively, perhaps if you enter into a real dialogue you will find yourself brought around to the other side.

FWIW, it seemed you were arguing that your interpretation is obviously the correct one. I wrote an essay on obviousness. No offense, but if you really were claiming "obviousness", may I ask you to reconsider? IMO it is a weak argument. Geo Swan (talk) 06:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: This has been brought to this Notice Board for the input of editors who have no vested position in the name or re-naming of this article. The talk page has lapsed into two sides digging in their heels, with positions well known. It is in the end better to have editors who are not associated with the article to provide their input on this subject for that reason. My position is that the name of the article violates NPOV, and the reason it does is because the attacks described involve drones operating in Pakistan, who are striking Pakistani targets in the country. The title mis-states the sources by saying these attacks are "on" Pakistan, which is easily misinterpreted as an offensive attack by the United States "on" Pakistan's territory (which is where POV comes into play). The title proposed directly describes the situation (Drones operating from CIA bases "in" Paksiatn, striking targets, Pakistan's govt. objecting that these strikes are "unauthorized", civilians killed), as opposed to the spin provided by the title as it presently exists. I would like to hear comments from uninvolved editors so that this can be fleshed out more fully. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 15:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Drone attacks in Pakistan seems, IMO, much more neutral than drone attacks on Pakistan. This is a contentious issue between the USA and Pakistan and I understand the USA position is that they are not attacking Pakistan but rather Taliban who have crossed from Afghanistan and such. I know Pakistan sees this as a violation of sovereignty and thus they may perceive it as attacks on their country. So I certainly agree that contention exists. My suggestion is that in is a slightly better choice in wording.Simonm223 (talk) 15:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

glad you agree that controversy exists and pakistan government and people do regard this as a breach of sovereignty ( unlike other countries like Phillipines etc where US has carriied out attacks with local support). therefore not to acknowledge that these attacks are ON a country against their will is pushing pro American POVWikireader41 (talk) 18:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• EDITED: This argument is now moot. An independent administrator changed the title. I just saw it on the move log, and I had nothing to do with this action. Please mark as "resolved". Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 19:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Issue resolved by administrator JEN9841 (talk) 02:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I have called on this contributor/administrator to explain their reasoning. If they made this edit while acting as an administrator I find it very troubling that they (1) did not indicate that they regarded their renaming as the action of an administrator; (2) did not explain the reasoning behind their renaming. Geo Swan (talk) 20:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It is pretty obvious that the name was non-neutral. By renaming it into "in Pakistan" resolved that. Period. It does not dispute the fact that the US is acting there and it is not disputing that it happens in Pakistan. What the previous title suggested was that the US is waging a campaign on the state of Pakistan, which is untrue. As for the record, 1) I was unaware of this discussion until it was brought up on my talk page, 2) next time, read the edit comments. --MoRsE (talk) 22:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind clarifying whether you renamed the article while acting as an administrator?

You describe it as "pretty obvious" that the name was non-neutral. Forgive me, but I am extremely skeptical of claims of "obviousness". I can't help noticing that you have not addressed the counter-arguments that the name you prefer is the one that lapses from neutrality, by implying that these missile strikes are authorized. I suggest the record is clear that they are not.

Sorry, your explanation stops short of addressing the complicated nature of sovereignty. The USA and Pakistan can be allies, with Pakistan having allowed the USA to base aircraft in Pakistan, with the understanding that those aircraft's mission is to patrol neighbouring regions of Afghanistan. When an American plane launches a missile aimed at a target on Pakistani territory Pakistan can choose to object the USA's unauthorized use of force on Pakistani territory, without going so far as to describe it as "waging a campaign on the state of Pakistan".

No offense, but I suggest that your assertion "POV name changed into more NPOV" in the edit summary fell short of fulfilling your obligation to try to explain yourself. Geo Swan (talk) 23:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I think he has explained himself rather fully above, Geoswan. He never said the strikes were authorized or not (that's your own argument in any case), merely that the prior name strayed from neutrality be creating a false impression that this was a United States attack "on" Pakistan, which does not reflect your own soruces in the article. The matter of whether the strikes are authorized or not is best dealt with in the article itself, but the fact that the drones in question are based "in" Pakistan does not change. The name reflects the subject as it is after having been changed. Nor is he the only one who has made this same argument as a quick review of the talk page reveals. I consider this argument closed, as any further commentary would be beating a dead horse. Thank you.Yachtsman1 (talk) 23:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Geoswan, it seems to me that your connection to this subject is a little bit too emotional. I came to this web page from the RQ-1 Predator entry, and I immediately reacted on the selection of words on the subsection that linked to the page in question. I did not see any controversy in the renaming - on the contrary. And I do not say that I am unbiased, but if you study my contributions, you will see that I have zero (or almost no) history of edits to those kind of articles. I am fairly sure that if this matter was brought up again to some sort of review, the ruling would be exactly the same as the one I did. I was bold and acted independently, but I am also an administrator, and I recognize my responsibility in the work that I do here on the wikipedia. --MoRsE (talk) 00:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Teachings of Falun Gong

More fun from the Falun Gong... this time on the Teachings of Falun Gong page.

A quote of some of Li Hongzhi's more controversial statements keeps getting deleted. The editor doing the deletion claims that the quotes the New York Times provided of Li Hongzhi on April 30, 2000 constitute a fringe position not confirmed by academic sources. As they are direct quotes of man who founded the Falun Gong speaking to Falun Gong members about the Falun Gong they are most certainly not. I have already reverted twice. As I'm reaching the 3R limit and am about be be embroiled in an edit war over a valid reference I thought I'd best draw attention to it. This needs eyes.Simonm223 (talk) 14:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

'Update' Unless either I give or the FLG POV warriors do this is now a revert war... I'll notify the 3R noticeboard myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonm223 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

They are not direct quotes, they are belied as inaccurate with a simple search of the actual material. The grounds for inclusion here would be as the journalist's interpretation/opinion, not as statement of teachings. Then it's disputed whether the source (an opinion piece, isn't it?) qualifies or not, and another editor has provided some quotes of relevant policy items about that. I only revert once per day, so there's no danger of 3RR here. What I'd suggest is hashing this out further on the talk page--as in, please respond to the arguments that have been raised rather than simply crying foul--and together coming up with some simple and neutral langauge which narrates this dynamic, then adding it to the page. --Asdfg12345 23:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Regardles of the above user's accusations they are, in fact, direct quotes. The author of the article puts the information in quotation marks and states that Li Hongzhi says this. The above editor is misrepresenting the source material to support his pro-FLG POV.Simonm223 (talk) 18:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Humanism dispute resolution help?

The humanism article needs some attention from some editors with knowledge of Wikipedia's goals and policies. American Heritage Dictionary gives five widely varying definitions of the term (see http://dictionary.reference.com/dic?q=humanism&search=search ), and for several years, the status of this term on Wikipedia has been:

• AHD definitions 1, 2, 3 loosely grouped under the "humanism" article
• AHD definition 4 briefly mentioned under the humanities article
• AHD definition 5 has its own article at Renaissance humanism and connection to definition 1 mentioned in the humanism article
• Recently, an editor added a disambiguation page to direct readers to the different types of humanism, and added the appropriate hat-note to the article.

Over the past few years, one particularly tendentious editor attempts every few months to change the primary focus of the article, sometimes in favor of AHD definition 4, sometimes in favor of definition 5. Each time, I attempt to respond by showing the common use in best-selling books, news articles, magazines, web sites, and organizations applying the term to themselves is consistent with definition 1 instead. The tendentious editor has proposed moving the article and was voted down, so now he deletes his 3-revert warnings from his own talk page and attempts to create a consensus on other users' talk pages where his viewpoint will encounter no resistance, rather than on the article's own talk page. In general he seems to bring editors into the article who are abusive, argue by putting words into others' mouths, and recite their opinions over and over without providing evidence of verifiability.

The policies I feel the tendentious editor and those he brings into the discussion are breaking are these:

• WP:DICTIONARY: Wikipedia articles should begin with a good definition and description of one topic, however, they should provide other types of information about that topic as well. The full articles that the wikipedia's stubs grow into are very different from dictionary articles.
• Also at WP:DICTIONARY: "The same title for different things (homographs): are found in different articles."
• WP:VERIFY: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."
• WP:UNDUE: "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority."
• WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: "When there is a well-known primary topic for an ambiguous term, name or phrase, much more used than any other topic covered in Wikipedia to which the same word(s) may also refer, then that term or phrase should either be used for the title of the article on that topic or redirect to that article."
• WP:Naming conflict: "A number of objective criteria can be used to determine common or self-identifying usage: * Is the name in common usage in English? (check Google, other reference works, websites of media, government and international organisations; focus on reliable sources) * Is it the official current name of the subject? (check if the name is used in a legal context, e.g. a constitution) * Is it the name used by the subject to describe itself or themselves? (check if it is a self-identifying term)"

In an attempt to show a most common, most popular, and primary usage for the term "humanism," I've posted top lists of search results of best-selling books, web pages, multiple news sites, magazines, and organizations. In response, my repeated requests for evidence that AHD definition 1 is NOT the most popular use of "humanism" have been met only by occasional single web pages or books that were hand-picked specifically for their biased POV, rather than algorithmically selected for their popularity as Google, Amazon, Alexa, and the other sources I've cited.

Could someone who is familiar with the most popular use of the word "humanism" AND mindful of Wikipedia policies provide feedback? The focus of the article and its definitions have been established long before I came around, as evidenced by the contents of Template:Humanism, Outline of humanism, the categories to which the article belongs (Epistemology, Freethought, Humanism, Humanist Associations, Humanists, and Social theories), and the projects to which the article belongs (WikiProject religion, WikiProject atheism, and WikiProject philosophy). The continued attempts to change the focus of the article fit what WP:DISRUPT calls, "their edits occur over a long period of time; in this case, no single edit may be clearly disruptive, but the overall pattern is disruptive."

Thanks! Serpent More Crafty (talk) 18:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

A Request for a NPOV

Resolved

The Nikolai Velimirovic article has been tagged as not neutral and factually disputed since March 2008. I came across it, and tried to contribute, both with new material, and with resolution of the disputed items. I consider that there is a single specific disputable section in that article, namely the Nikolai Velimirovic#Controversies section. As I have contributed, and tend to contribute, to the other sections, I feel rather discouraged since the disputed label stays at the top, so all my new contributions are automatically labelled as not neutral... I would highly appreciate if anyone could spare some time see the article, to read through the discussion page (my fist comment is on June 22, 2009) and provide a neutral opinion and assistance in properly placing the disputed tag.

It can be seen, that prior to my involvement in this article, several other people made harsh remarks about the neutrality and quality of that article, and I consider that to be relevant only to the Controversies section, which contains some very serious accusations.

I also consider that the contributor As286 is violating the WP:ORIG policy, but obviously, he doesn't agree. Today he made at least 3 reverts to my edits, and from his comments, one could notice that the neutrality of his standpoint is questionable. A neutral opinion on this matter would also be very valuable.

Beware, the discussion page is (56,673 bytes) heavy...

Thanks a lot. Kpant (talk) 20:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

We overcame the misunderstandings. But, if anyone is still interested, we would like to hear a third opinion. Kpant (talk) 18:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The Chronology of the Tiananmen Square Revolt

Quote: "This day by day remembrance of the Tiananmen Square revolt starting April 8th 1989 is in memory of all those who lost their lives, stood up for the Chinese people’s human rights and exhibited some of the most moving and extraordinary acts of bravery and courage in our history. It was a seven-week fight for democracy where students, worker’s ordinary men and women stood up in a non-violent protest against the Communist Government of China. It also demonstrated the most evil side of men and how far they would go to save their tyrannical rule and system. That same system that rules China today. In honor of all the Chinese heroes and their families that participated, we present this recap of the course of events that happened on each day of those seven weeks." Need I say more? This topic is way outside my domain of editing, so I'm not going to do anything more after bringing it up here. Looie496 (talk) 03:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll get on it.Simonm223 (talk) 18:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Edited up to April 19 and then realized that it was a duplicate of Tiananmen Square Protests of 1989 only violating WP:NPOV and without the pictures, layout and erm... editing... of the older article. As this article is a duplicate of an existing article I've flagged it for speedy deletion.Simonm223 (talk) 19:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

An admin user:NawlinWiki IIRC, changed the article to a redirect to Tiananmen Square Protests of 1989 case closed for now with thanks ot admin.Simonm223 (talk) 14:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

German Pirate Party

Could somebody please have a look and give advice how to continue? I contested a user's additions about child pornography, it seems he does not join the discussion on the talk page. Thanks - 83.254.210.47 (talk) 09:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The IP user has been steadily contesting my reliably sourced additions for several days now and adding less than useful statements by the politician who was busted for buying child pornography for 200 euros in their place. He appears to think that a disgraced politician's complaints about crushing censorship (from a system that would block known child porn domains, and their IP addresses, and report aggregated numbers to the authorities (not personally identifiable information)) are important to mention, but the fact that he left his party in disgrace because of the bust isn't. It sure would be helpful to have input from someone else who doesn't have a conflict of interest in relation to the German Pirate Party. Nevard (talk) 01:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The investigation against Jörg Tauss is clearly notable and should be included in the article. German reliable sources generally mention the investigations against him as well as the statements from him on the issue when reporting on his adherence to the German Pirate Party. Currently, they do neither use wording such as "pedophile" or "alleged pedophile," but simply refer to the investigation or say that he "is under suspicion of illegal possession of child pornographic material." Coverage by reliable sources may change on short notice, of course, if there are new developments. (I don't know about his political ideas other than his widely reported views on internet control or censorship.)  Cs32en  02:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. I've seen nothing to indicate that he has interfered with any kids and am vaguely familiar with his campaigns against any form of internet restrictions going back to the Compuserve issues in the late 90s. On the other hand, the fact that he joined the German Pirate Party as their first major representative in politics while under investigation for the child porn he had bought is clearly as important as his protestations that he had made the jump because of his opposition to internet censorship. The GPP's stance that they will get rid of him if he is convicted also seems important, although it has been less widely reported. Nevard (talk) 03:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

It's excatly that biased representation that I am worried about and which multiple editors have contested. It is one way of saying "busted for buying child pornography for a few Euros" or "Tauss is under investigation over possession of child pornography images, which he said obtained during an investigation into a subculture in line with his official government work". It's part of Jörg Tauss history and covered in his article, why drag the sensitive topic of child pornography to the Pirate Party article? - 83.254.210.47 (talk) 12:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, the Pirate Party clearly see it as being an issue. Why else would they find it necessary to point out that they will chuck Tauss out should he be criminally convicted over the child pornography he bought from the ring the police were investigating? The news media clearly see it as being an issue. Why else would stories like these on 'Tauss becomes first 'Pirate' in parliament after leaving SPD' start with the paragraph "Currently under investigation for possession of child pornography he parliamentarian said he downloaded as part of his work against the trade in such images."? Nevard (talk) 12:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I have already answered you those questions on the talk page (they see "no reason to question Tauss’ innocence and moral integrity"), let's continue there please. - 83.254.210.47 (talk) 12:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk:2009 Honduran constitutional crisis

There is some debate about whether the recent events in Honduras should be described as 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis or 2009 Honduran coup d'état. Could neutral observers please pitch in at Talk:2009 Honduran constitutional crisis#The title itself is NPOV? Disembrangler (talk) 13:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Gordon Brown, British Prime Minister

We are having several edit conflicts due to both the weighting of facts presented in the lede, and the wording used to explain these facts.

The issue involves the recent elections held in the UK where the Labour party suffered what has been widely termed in the media a historic defeat. One particular editor objects to the use of this language, and continually reverts others. While his comments that the use of exaggerated language to describe the elections - such as "worst results ever" is inappropriate, he continually reverts all edits to a sentence along the lines of "poor results", which in the view of some other editors (including myself) is not a helpful description of why such information is in the lede.

I would invite suggestions on Gordon Brown's talk page. Thanks. Beganlocal (talk) 23:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Requesting Assistance

Hello, I am having a dispute with a couple of editors on the Colony collapse disorder page. About a week and a half ago I re-added some information on the subject that used to be part of the article relating to GM crops and their possible connection to the CCD phenomenon but which have apparently at some point been severely reduced and replaced with misleading comments of a non-NPOV bent stating falsely that "No experiments have found evidence of any negative effect whatsoever on honey bee populations" which the link that follows does NOT say and that "Further, CCD cases are known in areas of Europe and Canada where Bt crops are not grown" which is not the case. Additionally there is a dead link [5] and a link that does not go to the purported page [68]. Essentially, the entire paragraph is wrong. I have pointed out these errors in detail and the fact that I am not trying to say that there is a definite link between Bt toxin and CCD just to add some balance since Bt's possible role in CCD has not been ruled out but these editors refuse to allow the changes, they been repeatedly removed. Additionally one editor has threatened to remove my comments even from the talk page. There seems to be nothing more that I can do. You can see the discussion on the talk page beginning here, it's longish (sorry) but would probably help to understand if you read the whole thing. I asked for one of the disputants to request mediation but in looking over the protocol it looks like this is the first stop I should have requested. Any assistance would be helpful. Thank You. 4.246.200.21 (talk) 01:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)