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.

1434: The Year a Magnificent Chinese Fleet Sailed to Italy and Ignited the Renaissance

This article on the history book written by Sir Gavin Menzies is the recipient of continuous numerous biased personal attacks against Gavin Menzies by Dougweller, ClovisPt, Nickm57. Despite many efforts to explain the usage of non-POV and neutrality in this article and following two articles Dougweller, ClovisPt, Nickm57 and several other editors refuse to follow Wikipedia policy on academic neutrality and persist in their personal attacks against Gavin Menzies in an effort to discredit his discoveries.

That's not what is happening here. Menzes is a fringe theorist. The policies under WP:FRINGE applie. The users above (and myself) have simply been doing so. Simonm223 (talk) 23:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

1421: The Year China Discovered the World

This article on the history book written by Sir Gavin Menzies is the recipient of continuous numerous biased personal attacks against Gavin Menzies by Dougweller, ClovisPt, Nickm57. Despite many efforts to explain the concept non-POV and neutrality Dougweller, ClovisPt, Nickm57 and several other editors refuse to follow Wikipedia policy on academic neutrality and persist in their personal attacks against Gavin Menzies in an effort to discredit his discoveries.

As above, so below. My comments for the post immediately above apply here as well. Simonm223 (talk) 23:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Gavin Menzies

This article is the recipient of continuous numerous biased personal attacks against Gavin Menzies by Dougweller. Despite many efforts to explain the concept non-POV and neutrality Dougweller, ClovisPt, Nickm57 and several other editors refuse to follow Wikipedia policy on academic neutrality and persist in their personal attacks against Gavin Menzies in an effort to discredit his discoveries.

The above is from 98.71.0.146 (talk · contribs), who started off as 98.122.100.249 (talk · contribs), already blocked 3 times this year and who evidently has also been using 68.222.236.154 (talk · contribs) on other articles, is clearly also 74.243.205.109 (talk · contribs). Way over 3RR. He's also complained at ANI and AIV. Dougweller (talk) 06:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about this one, IP! Now added to my watchlist. (I hear that Pluck's ego often gets him into trouble... Auntie E. (talk) 00:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Narayan Dutt Tiwari

In the introductory para the statement 'With his recent sex scandal whole nation is angry and burning like any thing', reflects a more personal point of view. The para on Sex Scandal again contains statements that are non-neutral. Requesting a check on this.

USCCB Comment

"Quote:"

In 2007, Office director Harry Forbes was sharply criticized for giving a too favorable rating on the Golden Compass movie, which strongly attacks the Church's teaching and Magisterium.

"End Quote"

Is this a quote from a particular article or person? The way it is worded now states as a fact that The Golden Compass is anti-christian. From what I understand most people, including myself, believe that this statement is of an opinion, rather than fact - and that there are also many who would disagree. If this is a quote, it should be presented as such, with citations. Otherwise, it should be removed.

Also, I would recomend changing "the Golden Compass movie" to "the movie The Golden Compass," as it is a title and should be written and italicised properly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Conference_of_Catholic_Bishops'_Office_for_Film_and_Broadcasting

Waterboarding

Regarding the first sentence of the article: It says "Waterboarding is a method of torture..." There has been much debate as to whether or not this is neutral. The current sentence is sourced by a "political dictionary" that was found from a google books search for "waterboarding torture and death" (it can still be seen in the link for the reference). I propose to change this to the Merriam-Webster's dictionary definition, in the interest of neutrality, but this is seeing resistance on the talk page for god knows what reason. The Merriam-Webster definition says that it is an "Interrogation technique" instead of "method of torture". The first sentence essentially defines the word in a way that has proved to be very controversial (as can be seen on the talk page), without even using a neutral dictionary definition. Is it in the best interest of neutrality to define waterboarding as "torture", or is it better to define it as an "interrogation technique", as is in the dictionary, and discuss the different viewpoints of whether or not it is torture in the rest of the article? Swarm^Talk 04:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

This has been raise previously in this noticeboard here and here. Most editors were of the opinion then that the lead as it stand now is in keeping with the NPOV policy. There is no controversy among the reliable sources. The majority view among RS is that waterboarding is a form of torture and the minority/fringe view is that it is not. Notwithstanding the proportionality clause of the NPOV, the minority view is discussed in over 2/3 of the article. Sadly the Merriam-Webster's dictionary definition is incomplete by omitting the term torture. The other 188 RS explicitly define it as torture. So to summarise as I last counted 188 RS state categorically that it is torture. 6 RS that is is not and the Merriam-Webster's dictionary definition is neutral but omits the term torture. Given this facts I still believe that the lead as "Waterboarding is a form/method of torture" is in keeping with the NPOV policy.--LexCorp (talk) 04:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, but:

1. I'm not disputing the fact that waterboarding is widely considered torture, nor am I disputing the reliability of any of the sources
2. Neither of the previous discussions are helpful in this manner
3. You can't dispute a dictionary definition
4. You are heavily involved in this debate and have a clear opinion. That is unhelpful to the purpose of this noticeboard. If you want to debate this, please keep it on the talk page of the article. I'm looking for outside advice from uninvolved users. Swarm^Talk 05:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I contributed to this noticeboard long before involving myself with the waterboarding article. In fact I came to known of the waterboarding issue because a previous post here on this board. I hold no involvement in the waterboarding article other that on NPOV matters. So in that sense I am an outside advice from this very noticeboard no less. Anyway lets see what other editors have to say on the matter.--LexCorp (talk) 06:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe the phrasing is neutral: it's taking a side on a hotly contested issue. NPR and the US government are not "fringe" sources. While I view waterboarding as torture, that I view it as such does not make my point of view neutral. Go with the dictionary, state that it's widely viewed to be torture, and note the controversy over that classification. THF (talk) 06:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments and questions:

• WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPoV aren't about making minority positions incorrect ex definitione. The fact that only a small minority dispute something isn't sufficient basis to define it as fact (though matters for which there is sufficient basis may be disputed by minorities).
• Much of the debate over whether waterboarding is “torture” is one where the legal definition of “torture” is in dispute.
• The relevant lay definition is “the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure”. Do “reliable” sources report that the sensation of drowning includes intense pain? Does any “reliable” source dispute this?

—SlamDiego_←T 20:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

IRCT Senior Medical Consultant and former member of the UN Committee Against Torture is one of the most relevant RS at [1] stating:

“It’s a clear-cut case: Waterboarding can without any reservation be labelled as torture”, says Prof. Sørensen. “It fulfils all of the four central criteria that according to the United Nations Convention against Torture (UNCAT) defines an act of torture.” He explains:

“First, when water is forced into your lungs in this fashion, in addition to the pain you are likely to experience an immediate and extreme fear of death. You may even suffer a heart attack from the stress or damage to the lungs and brain from inhalation of water and oxygen deprivation. In other words there is no doubt that waterboarding causes severe physical and/or mental suffering – one central element in the UNCAT’s definition of torture”.

There are a few more RS that state that the method causes pain. Also totally unrelated you can read many accounts online of near-drowning experiences where the common factor is intense chest pain. Many people state this to be the worst pain they had felt in their lives.--LexCorp (talk) 21:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

One comment here, namely that dictionaries aren't in my opinion WP:RS. WP:RS are preferably secondary sources, whereas dictionaries are, at best, tertiary ones. If there are almost 200 WP:RS (I haven't checked them) saying it's torture and only a handful saying it's not, then the case appears to me very clead indeed: as far as Wikipedia is concerned, it's torture. Wording in the body of the article saying it is torture, but this is disputed by some would be OK. The "not torture" view should not be given much space in the article based on that breakdown of sources. --Dailycare (talk) 21:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

This page maintains (no sure how uptodate it is) a list of RS with comments by editors as to their merits. If you go to the Waterboarding article you will find that about 2/3 is dedicated to the controversy.--LexCorp (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The UN source here is a good one. But please keep in mind that we're not arguing the Truth of waterboarding being torture, so your reference to “Many people” gets us a bit off track.

Now, do we have any “reliable” sources that dispute the claim that waterboarding causes intense pain? —SlamDiego_←T 23:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Mu. You're asking the wrong question and attempting original research and synthesis. "Torture" is a term of legal art whose parameters are the subject of controversy, and it's inappropriate to try to gerrymander the lay version of the term to provide a definitive encyclopedic answer to the controversy of whether waterboarding fits within that term. Wikipedia is supposed to report, rather than decide. If your reliably-sourced arguments are as strong as you believe, and the other side's arguments are as weak as you believe, then no harm will be done to any intelligent reader who reads an article on the subject that complies with NPOV and fairly represents the controversy. Again, the USA government and NPR are not "fringe" sources, so there is a real debate here. THF (talk) 02:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The US government has a huge conflict of interest in denying that it's torture. Its reliability is suspect in this case. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I dispute that the US government has a conflict of interest (the actual waterboarding took place after the internal determination that it was not torture, and stopped when that internal determination changed), but even if it did, you prove my point. There is a dispute, and the neutral point of view acknowledges all of the major positions without taking sides. THF (talk) 08:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

THF, The issue of the legal definition is here entirely a red herring. The word “torture” lives mostly outside of legal discourse. (And the present status of the article “Torture” is most unfortunate.) The article on waterboarding should discuss the legal status, and can address the issue of whether it meets the legal definition, but the article is not principally on matters of law, and the relevant definition is not draw from law books. —SlamDiego_←T 04:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not a red herring in the slightest. It's the entire crux of the controversy. THF (talk) 08:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It's the entire crux of the legal controversy. But most people are more immediately concerned over whether waterboarding is torture than whether the law would use the word “torture” to describe it. If waterboarding causes intense pain, but the language of the law would not identify with the word “torture”, this would mean that it were legally permitted torture. (One of the consequences of confusing matters of law described in the language of law with matters of fact described with ordinary English is that lawyers who answered questions of law are condemned as if they'd said something very different from what they had.) —SlamDiego_←T 08:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The claim that the dictionary is not a reliable source is absolutely absurd. When defining a word, the definition should not be inferred based on the number of sources that support the statement, but actually taken from a dictionary. The dictionary, of course, shouldn't be used to cite entire sections, but it is absolutely valid when simply defining a term in a single purpose sentence. Not using the dictionary definition, instead favoring a definition based only on the sources for the body of the article is nothing short of synthesis. Swarm^(Talk) 02:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Swarm, as I read your remarks, you are trying for nothing more than wording that doesn't guide the reader towards a value judgment; and I for one appreciate the predisposition that would drive your effort. But consider the article “Torture” itself. How could we equivalently neutralize it? I think that the difficulty in answering that question may speak to an underlying problem with the sort of neutralization that you're seeking here. I quite agree that dictionaries are “reliable” sources for aspects of this article. I think that, if we look at the definition of “torture”, then what remains is simply whether there is sufficient, unchallenged support in “reliable” sources for the notion that waterboarding causes extreme pain, that it may be treated as something like a plain fact that waterboarding is torture. I believe that, if you wish to argue against declaring waterboarding to be torture in the lede (or elsewhere), then you should present reliable sources that argue that it is not intensely painful. —SlamDiego_←T 04:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

How could we equivalently neutralize torture? You start with the dictionary definition, and then you have sections going through various legal definitions: how it's defined by the Geneva Conventions (discussing disputes over the scope of the definition there), how it's defined by US law (discussing changes in US law over time), other major sources of law, etc. The torture article shouldn't imply there's a single agreed-upon definition, and if it does, it violates WP:NPOV. THF (talk) 08:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you propose to remove the word “torture” from the article “Torture”? The article on waterboarding can explain legal language, but its meta-language is English, and in English “torture” includes the infliction of intense pain to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure. Regardless of what the language of the law may say, if the “reliable” sources somehow all agree that waterboarding causes intense pain, then en.wikipedia.org can baldly call it “torture” except when discussing legalese. —SlamDiego_←T 08:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't propose to remove the word “torture” from the article “Torture”, and no reasonable reading of my comment could suggest that I did. It's been explained to you multiple times why your proposed approach violates WP:SYN and WP:NPOV, but you seem not to want to address those arguments and instead just repeat the argument you've already made that's been refuted. That's not fruitful discussion. You can have the WP:LASTWORD since it seems to mean so much to you. THF (talk) 09:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Your comment implied that you proposed to remove the word “torture” from the article “Torture”, or that you'd missed the fact that repulsive things cannot be clearly described and discussed without causing repulsion, or that you were entangled in a confusion of legal language with the language of en.wikipedia.org. What I propose doesn't involve violating any part of WP:OR. What I propose is that legal language not be confused with the language in which Wikipedia itself is written, and that “reliable” sources be consulted as to whether waterboarding causes intense pain. If they are in remarkable agreement that it does, then those who would use the word “torture” are on solid ground; if they are not in agreement, then Swarm or some other editor should cite the dissenting “reliable” sources, and then the article should not declare it to be torture. Evidently, you believe that those who are not simply for your position are simply against it, as you've not discerned that I haven't said that the word “torture” should be used (nor that it should not be used). —SlamDiego_←T 09:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

SlamDiego, you've made your point. Please stop repeating it, and let others contribute. THF (talk) 08:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that there's a class of editors who are to comment once, and then depart, which includes me, and then another class who are more free to continue, which includes you. —SlamDiego_←T 08:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

You have me completely wrong, by the way. I’m not proposing we remove the word “torture” from the article. I’m not proposing that based on the dictionary definition, it shouldn’t ever be called torture. I’m not proposing to use the dictionary definition to dispute the many reliable sources that call it torture. The only thing I suggested was that in one sentence, the sentence that defines the word, we should use the dictionary definition. The lead goes into great detail that it is widely considered torture. The body of the article goes into even more detail. I don’t have a personal belief that it isn’t torture. I don’t want to promote the opinion that it is not torture. Using the dictionary definition of the word is not going to mislead anyone. The dictionary does not take the viewpoint that it is not torture. It’s completely neutral. It is widely considered to be torture by many sources, but this is also disputed by a large number of people. You can't define a word based on legal opinions from reliable sources. You can't come to the conclusion that the opinion of many reliable sources is neutral to define it as such in an encyclopedia. It's clear to me -- the most neutral way to define a word is to use the freaking dictionary! Swarm^(Talk) 17:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that you would have us remove the word “torture” altogether from either article, and I certainly wasn't taking you as seeking to deny that it were torture; I was taking you to want it removed from the opening sentence of “Waterboarding”, and to want references to it couched always as opinion, regardless of what your opinion might be. (Again, I simply read you as “trying for nothing more than wording that doesn't guide the reader towards a value judgment”.) And my points are: (1) that the desire to avoid repulsive description can be taken too far; (2) if you want the matter presented as opinion, then you need to present alternate opinion; (3) that legal definitions are not principally relevant; and (4) that, given the relevant meaning of “torture”, if no “reliable” source denies that waterboarding causes intense pain, then the lede can fairly refer to it as torture. I am not suggesting that you want or must prove that it does not cause intense pain; I am suggesting that you either identify “reliable” sources which claim that it does not, or accept the wording of prior local consensus. —SlamDiego_←T 23:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:You_are_probably_not_a_lexicologist_or_a_lexicographer expressly recommends against using Websters in this case:Dictionaries are extremely conservative in what they recognize, and are descriptive of an existing definition, not creators of it. More immediate sources, like books, academic writings, or others are often more direct and accurate, especially when they are responsible for the definition in the first place. Stephen Colbert is a much better source for a definition of truthiness than Webster's. That pretty plainly says not to use Websters in cases where better sources for the definition are readily available, such as from the UNCAT or the like. RTRimmel (talk) 18:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I can imagine few things more ill-advised than letting states or super-states entities such as the UN determine our use of terms drawn from natural language. —SlamDiego_←T 23:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Above is an example of a constructive edit, the scarcasm is designed to improve the overall tone of the debate. More seriously, per lexicologist, are any of the 188 sources better than the dictionary? If so Swarm may have a case, but I doubt it, further the Webster's definition was missing more than a bit of critical information concerning waterboarding last time I checked. If we use a definition from a dictionary, could we at least use one that actually describes waterboarding as it is commonly performed? 74.219.88.102 (talk) 00:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I was not engaged in any sarcasm whatsoever; I am perfectly sincere. Most of us are aware of the pitfalls of allowing the government of any given nation to redefine a word such as “torture”, and the UN is entirely the creature of such entities. Before you again infer sarcasm, please assume good faith unless there is no other explanation. —SlamDiego_←T 04:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd argue that having a common treaty that clearly spells out a very broad definition of torture that was well supported by a majority of world governments would be a good object to reference against, but YMMV. What would you prefer in this instance? The side debating that its not torture or an interrogation technique are arguing using 'natural language' so given the ability to interpret that definition for your own ends, broadly accepted international definitions should be satisfactory. RTRimmel (talk) 12:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I've repeatedly cited what I think is the appropriate definition: “the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure”. It is from an authoritative attempt to define words in the language in which this encyclopedia is purportedly written. And the question of whether waterboarding is torture turns entirely around whether it causes intense pain (as there is no reasonable doubt that it is used to punish, to coerce, or to afford sadistic pleasure), which is a medical question. While there may be some people using natural language to argue that it is not torture, what I have seen is only argument by reference to legal definition. The UN is not a gathering of Wise Men; it is a congress of states; and its definitions are to settle questions of international law, which is not the proper primary concern of the article or of discussion of torture more generally. —SlamDiego_←T 19:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, as a newcomer coming into this debate, it looks like everyone is trying to solve the issue here, rather than determine how the issue should be explained in the article. Let me attempt to save everyone a lot of time with the following conclusion (admittedly, it is an opinion, so feel free to accuse me of original research if you want...): We will not answer the question as to whether or not waterboarding is torture on Wikipedia, nor should we attempt to do so. The Wikipedia project is designed to catalogue and preserve knowledge and make it accessable to all. We are not here to solve the problems of the world. Simply state that there is a heated debate as to whether or not waterboarding is considered torture, cite the opposing sources, and leave it at that. My 2 1/2 cents... Rapier1 (talk) 03:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

That strategy is prone to a number of pitfalls. For example, outside the scientific community Evolution is a hotly debated topic, inside of the scientific community there is no serious debate at all. Do we reflect that in the lead? 9/11 has a significant number of theories involving governmental plots and the like, do we lead off with that, do we remove it based on not solving the debate here? There are, unfortunately, many cases where despite all expert sources saying one thing, we have another group saying another and therefor we must follow policy to figure out what to do. In such cases, WP:NPOV states pretty clearly to go what the, in this case, overwhelming majority of WP:RS state. That is unfortunately the kicker, something like 3% of the waterboarding sources debated if its always torture and the rest all say it always is. Given WP:Undue it makes little sense to bow to the 3%, especially when those 3% are locked into a specific subset of one specific nationality and the 97% reflects a broad world wide consensus. The problem ultimately is that there really isn't much of a debate about water boarding status, so inflating that status of it to some sort of heated debate is against wikipedia's mission statement. RTRimmel (talk) 12:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not my intention to debate numbers with you. Simply allow me to state that if the numbers were as conclusive as you believe there would be no debate on the issue, so you may want to dig a little deeper. Again, you are attempting to solve the issue of defining waterboarding as torture one way or the other. I repeat: That is not our purpose here. Yes, Wikipedia does not put forth fringe arguments, but in cases where there is massive and heated debate such as; abortion being murder, man-made climate change, evolution v. creationism, and defining waterboarding as torture (along with many others) it is not the purpose of the Project to put forth one opinion or the other. Define the debate, and leave it for the reader to draw their own conclusion. Rapier1 (talk) 16:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem with debating the numbers is that there are hundreds of sources in the article and they say at a ratio of 188 to 6 that waterboarding is torture. Perhaps you'd like to provide some new sources to bolster the concept that there is a debate. Wikipedia policy is pretty clear here, we have WP:GEVAL and WP:Weight. Neither support 'defining the debate' when it is this lopsided. RTRimmel (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you're not familiar with the debate, but this isn't what this thread is about. There are many notable people with the opinion that waterboarding is not torture. WP:WEIGHT and WP:GEVAL are not "broken" by using the dictionary definition. We also have WP:NPOV, by the way, and I'm pretty sure it says something about being neutral. Defining a word just because it's a majority view is absolutely not neutral. You define a word based on what it is called in the dictionary. Someone above completely missed the point of the essay, but Wikipedia:You are probably not a lexicologist or a lexicographer puts it nicely: "The dictionary is a better source than you are." Swarm^(Talk) 01:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Strange, I'm sorry that you are trying to place WP:Undue on the limited number of sources available on the Waterboarding article to support your viewpoint when they rank at 3% of available sources. Are we to understand that your argument is that since 3% of sources and websters say otherwise, we are to ignore the 97% of sources that say that waterboarding is torture? The Webster's definition is, unfortunatly, not as accurate as many of the definitions of waterboarding on the page and as such, its use is certainly a WP:GEVAL violation. It doesn't even match up with the description of the act very well. If you want to use a definition, you may want to find one that accuratly repersents what the process is. Waterboarding is an interrogation technique in which water is forced into a detainee's mouth and nose so as to induce the sensation of drowning does not mention the requirement that the head be inclined or that the person needs to be restrained, nor that its a form of torture. Given, that Wikipedia:You are probably not a lexicologist or a lexicographer states not to use a dictionary definition in this case, I don't see your argument here. WP:GEVAL and WP:Weight are both part of WP:NPOV policy. You may want to read the entire thing rather than summing it down to 'its all about neutrality', much like summing your argument about the lexicon essay down to 'use the dictionary definition,' which is an essay and not policy anyway.

RTRimmel (talk) 13:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, are you trying to say waterboarding isn't an interrogation method? Are you trying to say the dictionary definition is incorrect because it doesn't use the word "torture"?

Taking the word "torture" out of one sentence, to match the actual definition is certainly not undue weight. Writing multiple paragraphs about the flat earth theory in the earth article is undue weight. Using a dictionary definition is not overly-emphasizing one side of a viewpoint, nor is it asserting the claim that "waterboarding is not torture". It doesn't say it is, it doesn't say it isn't. It's a neutral definition.

You seem not to understand why it's defined as torture in this article in the first place. It's doesn't say "Waterboarding is a method of torture" because the majority of the reliable sources say it is. It's defined that way because someone did a google search for "waterboarding torture and death", and came up with a political dictionary that matched the search. Is that your idea of neutrality? Wikipedia isn't here to say "waterboarding is torture", just like it's not here to say "waterboarding is not torture". Put it this way: Earth does not begin with "Earth (or the Earth) is a round planet" just because the majority of reliable sources (of course) accept the fact that the earth is round. It just says Earth (or the Earth) is the third planet from the Sun. The sentence in question is only there to DEFINE the word. What don't you get? Swarm^(Talk) 20:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I now fear that an attempt will be made to change “Earth” to begin “Earth is a non-flat planet…”. —SlamDiego_←T 21:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

However, I would point-out to Swarm that if a planet were found between Sol and that which we now call “Mercury”, we wouldn't start calling Venus “the Earth”. We really define Earth in terms of what we inhabit. The reason that it is appropriate for the lede to claim “Earth is the third planet from the Sun” is because the propositions that it is third planet is sufficiently well sourced (though I don't know that sources are cited in the article for that point). The question for waterboarding is whether it is sufficiently well sourced that it causes intense pain. Again, if you wish to establish reasonable doubt that waterboarding is torture, then present some “reliable” sources that argue that it does not cause intense pain. —SlamDiego_←T 23:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

SlamDiego, I don't know how many times you're going to make me say it. I don't wish to establish "doubt" that waterboarding is torture. I don't wish to give the impression that it isn't torture in the article. You act as if I'm proposing the word "torture" not be used in the article. As if I'm trying to remove all the reliable sources that claim it is torture. I'm simply proposing we use the dictionary definition (damn, did you really skip over this part the 10 times I said it already?) in the sentence that defines the word. Swarm^(Talk) 03:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how many times that you are going to say it either, but the only reason that you are saying it is because you aren't attending to what I am actually saying. I am not suggesting that you want to endorse or defend or even in the least way mitigate waterboarding. But if there is no doubt that waterboarding is torture, then calling it torture in the opening sentence is no different from calling the Earth the third planet from Sol. You literally need to deal with that, one way or another. Stop telling me that you don't have the motive that I've never thought or said you to have. Attend to the logic. If you can produce the relevant “reliable” source, then I'm all for you here. Otherwise, your clearly well-intentioned efforts are mistaken. —SlamDiego_←T 04:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the definition that is currently used on the page was chosen because it matched 97% of the reliable sources on the page and was deemed an acceptable definition. You see, different dictionaries define different words differently, especially controvertial ones. Websters, as seen in the archive, was debated and ultimatly shot down under the same criteria by a concensus of editors. Its unfortunate that you disagree with the critically aclaimed dictionary that was chosen, but as you've freqently mentioned Wikipedia:You are probably not a lexicologist or a lexicographer and the respected author of that book, William Safire, actually is. And Safire's Political Dictionary from the Oxford press had waterboarding in it for longer than Webster's recent addition of the word. So your argument has changed from use the definition to use the definition that you like? I prefer look to the definitions and take the one that most closly resembles the majority of reliable sources, especially when 97% of them support the definition. RTRimmel (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Question: What are we debating here? Seriously. Waterboarding is an interrogation technique that causes the sensation of drowning in people. Can that be defined as torture? Of course it can! However, is waterboarding defined under US Law as torture according to USC Section 2340A? There has not been a legal decision made on this point. Are we debating that because waterboarding makes you feel like you are going to drown it's torture, or are we trying to assert that anybody who does it is violating the law? This is a very important point, and is one of the reasons I suggest simply defining the debate. If Wikipedia is to assert that waterboarding is in violation of USC Section 2340A, then we are accusing people of a crime in a public forum. That is NOT cool people. You have the right to speak your opinion, but if a group tries to claim that because several third-party sources that are protected by the First Amendment have printed similar opinions, they can use those printed opinions to accuse others of violating the law in a public forum (when there is in fact no LEGAL evidence of this), then it is entirely possible that the source could be held liable for that. Define the debate, don't get involved in the legalities! Rapier1 (talk) 00:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I reïterate that whether it is torture under law is not the proper principal issue. The language of law defines things differently. Identifying something as torture in the lede is not the same thing as saying that waterboarding meets any legal test. —SlamDiego_←T 00:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Actually, we are following the 97% of the sources that indicate that Waterboarding is torture. As one of torture's primary uses is interrogation, waterboardings use as an interrogation technique is obvious. Its use for coersion, blackmail, punishment etc are also common uses of torture. The debate is over waterboarding's classification as a form of torture in the United States of America only and from a certain political group only. And in every recorded case of waterboarding brought to the US legal system, Waterboarding has always been declared torture. The last case resolved in Texas quite plainly called it torture and Governer of Texas elected not to pardon those torturers. RTRimmel (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
      • By your previous account, it was 97% of the sources cited in the article. Unfortunately, with a hot-button issue, this is especially unlikely to be 97% of a representative sample of the literature. I suggest that the “97%” figure not be invoked. —SlamDiego_←T 22:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Whether or not waterboarding is torture is not the question. Please stay on topic. If you've gotten off track, the question is whether it's in the best interest of neutrality to use the dictionary wording in the sentence that defines waterboarding (nothing more). The current sentence was inserted awhile back after someone searched waterboarding torture and death on google books and came up with a political dictionary that matched the source. I hold that it would be more neutral to use the Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition. Swarm^(Talk) 05:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPoV certainly doesn't require or advocate daintiness, evasion, or euphemism, amd Wikipedia seeks to be an encyclopædia rather than a dictionary. If there is no doubt amongst “reliable” sources that waterboarding is torture (as defined for natural language) then, given the fact that most concern is focussed on it as an alleged form of torture in recent use, the article may as well tell the reader right off that waterboarding is torture. Absenting some editor citing a “reliable” source that asserts that waterboarding does not cause extreme pain, it is time to close this discussion. —SlamDiego_←T 06:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, you've answered the question. Since reliable sources express doubt, then there is a controversy, and the lead should identify the controversy rather than take sides in it. Your insistence that Wikipedia side with your point of view on the matter violates WP:NPOV. THF (talk) 01:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Even if the sentence told the reader that waterboarding does not cause extreme pain, that would be as bad as saying it is torture. This type of thing can be addressed outside of the sentence in question. Swarm^(Talk) 05:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, the debate, such that it is, is framed in such a manner as "Waterboarding is a form of torture" or "Waterboarding is a form of interrogation" so calling it interrogation is siding with one of the two viewpoints, just the one with far fewer WP:RS to back it up. Googling 'defintion of waterboarding' has every definition of waterboarding over the webster's declaring it torture and afterwards if they actully define the term at all so 'waterboarding torture and death' seems to be an exageration at best. Of the 6 or 7 definitions I've seen, all are more reliable than websters in terms of matching the sources on the page so at minimum websters should specifically be avoided due to obvious inaccuracies when there are more accurate definitions readily available. The main problem is everything else in the sentence, Websters waterboarding ("an interrogation technique in which water is forced into a detainee's mouth and nose so as to induce the sensation of drowning") that would replace the current wikipedia lead of ("is a method of torture that consists of immobilizing the victim on his or her back with the head inclined downwards, and then pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages, causing the captive to believe he or she is dying.") is at best a very poor replacement that a quick glance at the lede, let alone the whole article, contradicts or shows an obvious lack of understanding of waterboarding. (waterboarding is used for punishment, coersion, blackmail, and interrogation, IE all the usual applications of torture, the victem must be restrained, the head must be inclined, etc) Its the equivilent of defining a hammer as "a blunt object that hits stuff". It omits so much information as to be useless. RTRimmel (talk) 05:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. Whether or not waterboarding is torture is disputed. Whether or not waterboarding is an interrogation method is not at all. "Waterboarding is an interrogation method" is simply fact. Swarm^(Talk) 06:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, Waterboarding is used just as commonly for coercion, blackmail or simple punishment. So are you saying that none of the other common uses are as important as interrogation? "Waterboarding is a coercion technique" is just as accurate as saying its an interrogation method, or "waterboarding is a method of punishing prisioners who refuse to cooperate" as some of the secret legal memos from the Bush administration suggest? Both of those are 'facts' as well, so which one do we use, all are just as well supported as the interrogation claim and all fall under common uses of torture so your simple argument that a source that says its torture support that waterboarding is interrogation, also supports it being any of the other common uses of torture. If we bother with "Wateboarding is a technique used for interrogation, coercion, blackmail and punishment of prisioners involving..." why not just call it torture and be done with it? 151.213.210.214 (talk) 12:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

No reason not to include that in the article. However, again, this is the sentence that defines waterboarding. That's why we're talking about dictionary definitions. Swarm^(Talk) 19:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Ya, but if were going to define waterboarding, why not try to be accurate and use an accurate definition as opposed to the Webster's definition? RTRimmel (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The Webster definition is perfectly accurate. A proper definition, as such, carries no inessential detail. Waterboarding would not cease to be be waterboarding were it proved not to cause intense pain, hence torture is not intrinsic to its true definition. However, Wikipedia is an encyclopædia, rather than a dictionary, and it needn't begin with a proper definition; rather, it may begin by presenting a encapsulation which goes beyond definition and into wider fact. —SlamDiego_←T 21:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)\

However, given the WP:RS in the article, it is missing essential detail, and therefor is a poor definition. IE if you performed waterboarding per webster's definition... it would not be waterboarding. Waterboarding, when correctly performed, holds the victem in a state similar to drowning causing an immenent fear of death which is a form of torture. It would be akin to describing Striking without including that physical contact is required. Waterboarding requires a sensation of drowning to work. RTRimmel (talk) 00:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Do not confuse that which is essential to a concept with that which is essential to whatever rôle the concept may play in a larger structure. It may be that the issue of waterboarding causing intense pain is essential to the article; it is not essential to the definition of “waterboarding”. It is not a tautology to claim that waterboarding causes intense pain, whereas it is a tautology that striking entails physical contact. Your analogy is thus utterly wrong-headed. —SlamDiego_←T 01:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I suppose you can misuse logic just like the rest of us. The definition of striking is a seperate concept from the word striking, saying striking requires physical contact is obviously a tautological device as striking means to make physical contact with an object, however the definition of to strike is a seperate concept that must include that the object struck must be a person or thing, go check out websters they have a very good definition of to strike. Likewise, waterboarding is a torture technique and that it causes intense pain is a requirement for it as otherwise waterboarding is little more than placing someone on a slanted surface and pouring water on them. Breathing requires the inhallation of air, should you attempt to breath in a vacum you cannot. You cannot waterboard without the sensation of drowing. Thus the infliction of pain is critical to the definition. RTRimmel (talk) 05:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not abusing logic, and you're confusing words with concepts as well as essentials with facts. And you are leaping from “the sensation of drowning” to infliction of intense pain. Indeed I could not breathe in vacuum, but we are discussing the sensation of drowning, which has at some times and places been believed to be a humane way of killing people. Experience or expert testimony might perhaps establish that it is instead a ghastly way of killing people; definition does not. —SlamDiego_←T 05:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

break no. 2

Swarm— It is only merely “as bad”, rather than worse, to claim in the lede (or anywhere else) that waterboarding does not cause extreme pain if there is a “reliable” source that says that it does not. So far, all of the convtroverting sources presented have concerned legality rather than medicine. Again, absenting a controverting “reliable” source on the claim that it causes extreme pain, it is perfectly fine to encapsulate the assertion that it is torture in the opening sentence. —SlamDiego_←T 22:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but it does not change the fact that it would be more neutral to use a neutral dictionary definition that doesn't take sides one way or another. I don't know why you think we need a reliable source that states that it isn't legally torture. Swarm^(Talk) 00:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I go back to your own example of “Earth”. That article declares at its outset that the Earth is the third planet from the sun, not-withstanding that it was once seriously hypothesized that there was a planet within the orbit of Mercury. So long as “reliable” sources entertained that hypothesis, it would violate WP:NPoV to declared the Earth to be the third planet; but, absenting such sources, it doesn't violate WP:NPoV to declare that the Earth is the third planet. If it were truly somehow a violation of WP:NPoV to declare waterboarding to be torture in the lede, then it would be a violation to do so anywhere in the article; likewise, if it is not a violation to do it elsewhere, then it is not a violation to do so in the lede. “The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article.” If the article can and does declared that waterboarding cuases intense pain, then not only is the article not more neutral for moving that from the lede; it runs against one of the guidelines. —SlamDiego_←T 01:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

If Wikipedia were being written at a time when Vulcan was not a fringe theory, then, yes, it would be a problem to call Earth the third planet unambiguously. Similarly, the NPOV of the phlogiston article looked a lot different back in the 1700s version of Wikipedia. I fail to see why you're wasting space on this--especially since the debate over whether waterboarding is torture is not a scientific question. THF (talk) 02:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Wrong; the debate over whether it is torture is a scientific one. The debate over whether it meets the legal definition of “torture” is a distinct issue. Confusing the two in spite of the distinction repeatedly being explained is not helpful. —SlamDiego_←T 03:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

THF— I've not told you my view of whether waterboarding is torture. Stop the “Those who are not for me are against me!” rubbish. After I noted that the real issue was not a matter of law nor of the legal definition of “torture”, but over whether waterboaridng was the infliction of intense pain to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure, I expected that someone would produce some “reliable” source that denied that waterboarding caused intense pain. But, so far, no editor has, and the assumption of good faith is beginning to bear ugly stretch marks.

The “reliable” sources of dispute that have been presented have been over whether waterboarding fits the legal definition of “torture”, but the legal definition of “torture” is like the legal definition of “insanity”. —SlamDiego_←T 21:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Please stop playing Argument Clinic and please stop misrepresenting my position, which you have yet to address, though you've made this section entirely unreadable by repeating yourself over and over and over and over without once addressing the crux of the issue. I don't personally dispute that waterboarding is torture. But my personal opinion doesn't resolve the issue of NPOV. The issue is whether there exist reliable sources that reasonably disagree with me, and there do, so Wikipedia can't take a position agreeing with me. This is rising to WP:TEDIOUS because you refuse to address this fact. (Also, you're being disingenuous when you claim you haven't stated your view: you're stating that it's indisputable that waterboarding is torture--how are we not to infer what your personal opinion is from that false premise? And if you're not stating that, why are you insisting on a violation of NPOV?) THF (talk) 02:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

THF— I've not misrepresented your position, and I have got right to the heart of the issue as you've tried to distract the reader with legal controversy. Cite any “reliable” source that denies that waterboarding causes intense pain, regardless of whether anyone here agrees with it, and you've established that the lede should not call wateboarding “torture”. Fail to such a source, and it's plain that your argument holds no water.

Show me anywhere I've said that it is indisputable that waterboarding is torture, and I'll apologize and withdraw from debate. When I entered this discussion, I asked for a “reliable” source that disputed the point. Subsequently, as no editor has cited one, I've noted that no editor has cited one. I've also noted relevant policy and guidelines. Show me anywhere I've said that it is indisputable that waterboarding is torture, and I'm gone; fail to do so, and you ought to be the one apologizing and withdrawing. —SlamDiego_←T 03:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Webster's definition of torture is not the only one. The United Nations Convention Against Torture is far more authoritative in this regard and it defines torture as "Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person..." Since waterboarding is primarily a US issue at this time, U.S. criminal law on the matter, 18 U.S.C. § 2340, can also be relied on: "'torture' means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;" Mental suffering is further defined under the statute to include "the threat of imminent death." Finally note that the official position of the U.S. Department of justice is that waterboarding is torture under US law. This has all been discussed at length on the article talk page and a consensus there supports the current lede.--agr (talk) 05:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, every one of these references are concerned with points of law. There is controversy about whether waterboarding is meets the legal definition, even if one can cite multiple legal sources that say that it does. (The lawyers who pored-over the law and said that it did not were neither incompetent nor generally wicked; they were providing honest, expert opinions on the what the law said, regardless of what they might have felt that it ought to have said.) But Wikipedia should never use the peculiar language of the law except where it makes it plain ab initio that it is doing so, and readers will typically want to know whether it is established that waterboarding is torture before they concern themselves over legalities. The law has on multiple occasions claimed that madmen were “sane”; the language of the law is different. —SlamDiego_←T 05:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not established, so it doesn't belong in the lede. This isn't hard. WP:LEAD addresses this question: there is a controversy, so you don't take sides on the controversy, just describe it. THF (talk) 05:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Again: The legal controversy is virtually independent of the question of whether waterboarding is torture. Given that some “reliable” sources claim that waterboarding causes extreme pain, you need to cite a countervailing “reliable” source if you would argue that it is not established. Only “reliable” sources count for Wikipedia to see controversy. —SlamDiego_←T 05:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

One can find a similar definition in non-legal sources, e.g. Britannica online: "the infliction of severe physical or mental pain or suffering for a purpose, such as extracting information, coercing a confession, or inflicting punishment. It is normally committed by a public official or other person exercising comparable power and authority." But I reject the notion that the UNCAT definition is irrelevant here. Torture is one of the few internationally recognized crimes. The entire controversy over waterboarding in the U.S. revolves around its legal status. If anything, the ordinary meaning of the word torture is much broader. Definition 1 in the Mirriam-Webster online edition reads:"a: anguish of body or mind b : something that causes agony or pain". I've seen reading Wikipedia talk pages referred to as torture. --agr (talk) 15:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

We're discussing a neutral definition of waterboarding. Please focus on that so we don't get too off topic. If there is any controversy, be it legal, political, moral or all of the above, that sentence shouldn't take sides. And there is no requirement anywhere that says something needs to be debunked by a reliable source before its neutrality can be disputed. The article shouldn't tell them that waterboarding is torture at all. It should convey what reliable sources say, regardless of what "the reader wants". Don't be ridiculous, since when would we take the viewpoint, "don't concern yourself with the legalities of this extremely controversial issue, just accept this highly controversial statement as fact."? Swarm^(Talk) 20:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Swarm— The opening sentence can be an encapsulation, rather than strictly a definition. Hence, if you would over-turn prior local consensus, you must show that more than that the opening sentence is not definitional. And, it is equivocation for either side in this argument to act as if it is-or-is-not controversial whether waterboarding is torture by referring to a legal definition of “torture”. One controversy is not the other, and the lede should not reject or embrace the word “torture” based upon the writhings of lawyers. —SlamDiego_←T 20:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

ArnoldReinhold— So far, no one has proposed that the article not have discussion of the legalities. But the article is “Waterboarding”, not “Legal status of waterboarding”. And the real-world controversy is not confined to the legal applicability of the word “torture”. People seriously argue over whether waterboarding is torture. However, for that controversy to be recognized by Wikipedia, it must be recognized by “reliable” sources. (After all, I've heard people seriously arguing over the sex of worker bees.) —SlamDiego_←T 20:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the place to agree is that without reliable sources there is nothing to discuss. If new sources are found they should be brought to the article talk page, not here. This discussion should be ended.--agr (talk) 00:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. —SlamDiego_←T 01:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

break no. 3

The United States government and NPR are both reliable sources. There is therefore a legitimate controversy that isn't just FRINGE. I've added a NPOV tag to the article because of the dispute; I do not believe the current LEAD complies with NPOV. Given that even the article acknowledges there is a notable controversy, there is no reason for Wikipedia to "resolve" the controversy in the first sentence of the article. THF (talk) 00:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, the legal controversy is distinct from what is relevant to a claim about whether waterboarding is torture. The article should make it plain that there is a legal controversy, but the infliction of intense pain to coerce is torture. Show controverting “reliable” sources to the claim that waterboarding causes intense pain, and you're done. Fail to show them, and you're equivocating. —SlamDiego_←T 02:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

One controversy is not the other, and the lede should not reject or embrace the word “torture” based upon the writhings of lawyers.
You act as if there's a minor legal debate going on, while waterboarding is otherwise universally accepted as torture. Nearly a third of respondents in this poll don't think waterboarding is torture. Former Attorney General John Ashcroft told a House committee that waterboarding does not constitute torture. [2]. Marc Thiessen publicly stated that he doesn't think waterboarding is torture.[3] Scott Brown has publicly stated that he doesn't believe waterboarding is torture.[4] The White House formerly held the official position that waterboarding is not torture.[5] You may not agree with it, but don't try to act like the controversy is limited to the "writhings of lawyers". It's a contentious political issue. Swarm^(Talk) 01:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

No. I said nothing about the magnitude of the legal controversy, and I act as if someone needs to cite a “reliable” sources that waterboarding does not cause intense pain. Citing “reliable” sources that demonstrate that non-“reliable” sources controvert the idea that waterboarding is torture isn't sufficient. Ashcroft is a “reliable” source with respect to matters of law, but not with respect to the experience of drowning. Thiessen is not a reliable source for law or medicine (and his argument that it is not torture because Hitchens submitted to it is absurd). A polling of non-“reliable” sources, no matter how large the sample size, doesn't add weight to either side. In the context of some “reliable” sources asserting that waterboarding cuases intense pain, to overturn the prior local consensus, you need a “reliable” source to itself controvert the assertion. It's no skin off my nose if you find lots of them, but over the course of this discussion I've stopped expecting anyone to cite one. —SlamDiego_←T 02:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

While you repeat this argument for the twentieth time, you still haven't addressed the fact that it is premised on inappropriate synethesis. THF (talk) 02:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This is getting a bit circular and as always discussion is being fragmented between here and the Waterboarding Talk Page. The function of this noticeboard is exhausted in this case IMHO. Please continue the discussion on the Waterboarding Talk Page. To any editor that wants to help please do so in the Waterboarding Talk Page.--LexCorp (talk) 02:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's more a cul-de-sac than a circle. ;-) —SlamDiego_←T 03:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

No, THF. First, synonymy is not synthesis. Second, it isn't even original synonymy, as some “reliable” sources assert directly that waterboarding is torture because it causes intense pain. —SlamDiego_←T 03:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You've stated many times that the legal issue is a separate issue. So I present several examples from reliable sources covering the non-legal aspects of the debate, and you tell me they're not reliable sources? What the hell do you want? Swarm^(Talk)

As I explained: “Citing “reliable” sources that demonstrate that non-“reliable” sources controvert the idea that waterboarding is torture isn't sufficient. […], you need a “reliable” source to itself controvert the assertion.”

One could find many non-“reliable” sources that claim that whales are fish, and “reliable” sources that report the existence of these non-reliable sources. That doesn't mean that “Whale” should be rewritten to begin “Whale is the common name for marine mammals creatures of the order Cetacea.” —SlamDiego_←T 05:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You continue to insist that a fuzzy question of legal definition where reasonable minds can disagree about the scope of the definition can be equated to a binary question of scientific definition. This false premise is leading you to incorrect analysis that is not helpful to the discussion. Since this has been pointed out to you repeatedly, I fail to understand a good-faith reason that you keep raising the strawman. THF (talk) 06:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

No, you continue to attempt to substitute controversy over whether waterboarding meets the legal definition of “torture” for consideration of the definition principally relevant to this encyclopædia. It isn't my good faith that should be questioned here. —SlamDiego_←T 06:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The Merriam-Webster dictionary definition does not define waterboarding as torture at all. Swarm^(Talk) 21:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

True; but, again, the opening sentence of the lede can encapsulate more than a definition of the subject, and the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “torture” with “the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure”. You two have been bouncing-around repeatedly amongst already exploded arguments. —SlamDiego_←T 23:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Check out this article by a former military lawyer. He points out that waterboarding is a method of simulating death, and that Japanese soldiers were charged with war crimes for waterboarding Allied prisoners during WWII, because it is a form of torture: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201170.html Ghostofnemo (talk) 10:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Scientific opinion on climate change

Following on from the discussion about the article Scientific opinion on climate change and it being a possible content fork, I am seeking some input from other editors about the unsourced content in the hatnote and lead of the article that define this topic. The current version of the hatnote and lead read as follows:

This page is about scientific opinion on climate change. For recent climate change generally, see Global warming. For debate on scientific consensus, see Climate change consensus. For opinions of dissenting individual climate scientists, see List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming.

Scientific opinion on climate change is given by synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. This does not include the views of individual scientists, individual universities, or laboratories, nor self-selected lists of individuals such as petitions. National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming.

The problem I have with this lead are as follows:

1. Original research has been employed to provide a defintion for what is the "Scientific opinion on climate change", rather than reliable sources that are directly related to the title of this article, and that directly support the information presented in the article itself. There have been many alterations to the hatnote and the lead, but the issue that the starting point is original research, no matter how many times it has been altered to "make the lead fit the article", has not been resolved by citing sources to support it.
2. None of the sources cited in the article define what is ""Scientific opinion on climate change", nor do any of them use or address the title of this article directly or in detail.
3. The effect of the lead is artifically segregate Scientific opinion from other sources of opinion.

My view is that no matter how innocuous the lead is, it is wholly unsatisfactory to segerage one source of opinion by creating a seperate article whose subject matter is defined by analytic or evaluative claims that that are based on original research. In short, this is a type of intellectual apartheid. My conclusions are that:

1. The lack of a recognised definition, one that is defined in terms of reliable source which would provide context to the reader, is absent. As it stands, this article can only be understood within the context of the over arching article topics (e.g. Climate Change, Global Warming etc.), and cannot be read as a seperate topic on its own. Its content, while in the most part, is referenced and ordered, address topics which are dealt with in other articles, and has expanded with no logical rationale other than to fit all of the content that has been added to it.
2. To establish the notability of this topic, and to refute the criticism that this article is a content fork, requires significant coverage from reliable secondary sources that address the article title directly and in detail, which are absent from the lead or the body of this article. For instance, the articles Climate Change, Global Warming and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are addressed directly and in detail, usually by sources which are expressing some form of opinion, whether it is scientific, economic, political or otherwise.
3. If this article topic can only be defined in terms of original research, then what purpose does it serve? One answer might be that it is simply an unintentional content fork, whose subject matter(s) are dealt with directly and in detail elsewhere by articles topics that are recognised by the world at large. Another is that this article, is in effect, a POV fork, designed to segrate scientific opinion from other forms of opinion that provide commentary, criticism or analysis about Climate Change, Global Warming etc., perhaps to avoid criticism or commentary that are the hallmarks of balanced coverage.

In short, the basis for inclusion of this topic as a standalone article is based on original research. Clearly there are several editors that disagree with the assertion that this article is a content fork (fair enough), but if the main issue is disputed, then at least consider the symptoms that are the badge of a content fork. The hatnote and lead to this article are original research, and do not define the article's subject matter in any meaningful way. Has any editor a view on this matter? Am I mistaken? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

This was originally posted at WP:OR/N. I replied there. Pcap ping 15:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

If people here disagree with you would you stop pursuing this dispute even if you are not convinced? Dmcq (talk) 16:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

In short, this is a type of intellectual apartheid

Gah. What a horrid metaphor. Trying to relate this to the apartheid is like Godwinning the discussion. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen the rules for Godwin's law, but assuming it is the misère version of Mornington Crescent as described in NF Stovold’s Mornington Crescent: Rules and Origins' he hasn't actually lost with that. Dmcq (talk) 20:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Tangent - Godwin's Law doesn't state that the person who mentions Nazis first loses; but that once Nazis are invoked, it's likely to inflame the situation and distract from the real issue. Essentially, it's a quick way to derail the thread of conversation. End Tangent — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hah - you lose! ;-) Dmcq (talk) 10:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that scientific sources should be seperated from other forms of commentary, criticism or analyis. For the sake of balance, all viewpoints and all sources should be admissible in an article - I think this is an important principal set out in the WP:NPOV. Whether seperating scientific sources from other coverage is intellectual apartheid or low level discrimination given to certain sources is a matter of debate, but the metaphor illustrates the issue that is probably covered the example used in WP:NPOV#Article naming:

Alternative article names should not be used as means of settling POV disputes among Wikipedia contributors. Also disfavored are double or "segmented" article names, in the form of: Flat Earth/Round Earth; or Flat Earth (Round Earth). Even if a synthesis is made, like Shape of the Earth, or Earth (debated shapes), it may not be appropriate, especially if it is a novel usage coined specifically to resolve a POV fork.

The use of a "segmented" article name is clearly an issue here, as no meaningful distinction can be made between some of these variants. Perhaps we should added Scientific opinion on the Earth's shape to the examples given above? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The article is about what the scientific opinion is on climate change. That is expressed by the various scientific bodies that have expressed an opinion and surveys of scientists and synthesis studies of the various articles published by scientists in the area. The article is separate as it forms a separate subject and is referred to in that way by other higher level articles. Surveys by groups like gallup would be perfectly okay for describing the subject of the article but newspapers have not done surveys when they write their versions of what the scientific opinion is so they aren't sources never mind reliable. It is not about the science and whether it is right or wrong, that is for the global warming and global warming consensus articles. It is not about the public perception of the scientific opinion, there is a separate article climate change consensus about the public perception as reported in newspapers and as informed by pressure groups and individual scientists. The climate change consensus and global warming consensus articles refers to this article instead of being cluttered up with long lists of the various scientific bodies when people reading it are interested in the controversy. Dmcq (talk) 19:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Whilst this is a detailed explaination (and thanks to Dcmq for that), it is, nonetheless, just a personal opinion on the matter. The fact that none of the sources in the article itself even mention the term "Scientific opinion on climate change", let alone define what this is. This makes it impossible to validate what Dcmq's statement against a reliable, third party source. If "Scientific opinion on climate change" is truely a standalone article topic in its own right, surely there must be some source cited in the article that would support this view? It seem me that there is not, which is what leads me to suspect that it is a content fork. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Well Naomi Oreskes, who is referenced in the article, talks about the scientific consensus on climate change with practically exactly the definition used in the article in that hatnote and the opinion article in its section on scientific opinion says something very similar. The Science Council have scientific opinion statements on climate change, creationism and intelligent design, and on the use of animals in scientific research and I can see other papers in google like 'The Structure of Evolving US Scientific Opinion on Climate Change and its Potential Consequences'. So I don't see exactly why you think the term is not well defined. I might have been better I think if it had been called scientific consensus rather than scientific opinion as consensus occurs more frequently, but are you really saying that it is not a notable subject because of that? The hatnote is only saying the meaning of the term as commonly understood and used in dictionaries. Dmcq (talk) 14:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

If Naomi Oreskes takes about Climate change consensus, then in fairness, that is not the same as Scientific opinion on climate change. The fact that the term "Scientific opinion on climate change" is not cited once in the article indicates that this may not be a notable subject matter in its own right. What is needed is significant coverage that address the subject matter directly and in detail. It seems to me that there is no meaningful distinction can be made from the article Climate change consensus, which as you have pointed out, is the subject of at least on reliable secondary source, where as Scientific opinion on climate change is not. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Naomi Oreskes talked about the scientific consensus on climate change. Other publications have talked about scientific opinion. Naomi Oreskes also talked about the public perception of the scientific consensus but they were not mixed up together. Have you actually read any of the references? Naomi Oreskes describes scientific opinion and its basis totally separate from the public perception. Dmcq (talk) 11:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Her paper, cited in both articles, is entitled "The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change"[6]. If her paper were to be used as evidence of notability, I would say it provide evicence that Climate change consensus is a notable topic, and that Scientific opinion on climate change is a content fork. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

{undent}As far as the content fork goes if we have to eliminate an article it would be Climate change consensus since it is the less well developed article and the newer article. I think the sources are sufficient to support the title of the article and for the most part the content of the article as well. Personally I don't see a reason for both articles to exist with some rewriting I think either one could sufficiently cover all the material involved, however, since they do, I don't think this is a clear enough content fork to get rid of what is otherwise a reasonably good article. And in that light WP:DEL is not a good method for trying to improve an article. Gavin Collins, it appears that your attempts to get this page deleted are bordering on WP:ZEAL. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 17:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The two subjects are quite separate and if they were stuck into a single article they would form practically two completely different subsections. For instance scientific societies don't refer to anything about the popular perception when stating their opinion and that Oreskes reference above deals with the scientific opinion separately from the popular perception. It is like the separation between global warming and global warming controversy, in that case one talks about the science and the other alks about all the controversy surrounding it. In this case one is about what the scientific opinion is and the other is about all the pressure groups and suchlike, though neither in this case is directly about the actual science itself unlike the global warming ones. When other articles refer to it they sometimes want to refer to what the actual scientific opinion is and sometimes they want to refer to both the scientific opinion and the controversy. Besides the sizes of the articles and that they would be far too big together the biggest problem I see about mixing them is that either the bits in the climate change consensus article would have to be kept to the same standard of peer review as the scientific opinion article or the scientific opinion bits would have to allow all sorts of newspaper blog stuff like the controversy one, anything else would have the weight badly wrong. Either way would be quite detrimental to the article contents. We should be aiming at improving the content of wikipedia not trying to shoehorn things into some strange idea of what the forking policy is. Dmcq (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Whilst I accept that many editors have expressed disagreement with views about whether or not Scientific opinion on climate change is a content fork,the fact remains that the sources in the article don't identify it as being a standalone article in its own right. If there are sources that address the subject matter of "Scientific opinion on climate change" directly and in detial, then my opinion on this matter can be dismissed, but there aren't any cited in the article. Instead, the lead of the article, which defines what the article is about, fills the gap left by a lack of sources on the subject with original research.
WP:V says "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it", and it seems to me that the article does no cite a single source that actually uses the term "Scientific opinion on climate change", nor does it define what this term means. I think possible that I could be mistaken on this issue, but I am not. If there is a body of coverage that addresses my concerns, then I stand corrected. But at the time of writing, there is a distinct lack of significant coverage suggest to me that this topic can only be differentiated from related topics by the opinions of its contributers. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Gavin, it seems obvious that you are basically the only one interested in pursuing this argument. You are not going to achieve anything here. Why not drop it and move on to something more productive? -- ChrisO (talk) 09:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The reason is simple. Without setting meaningful distinctions between what articles cover, articles could be split and split again into many content forks all addressing the same subject matter from arbitrary viewpoints. For example articles with titles such as "Scientific opinion on..", "Scientific concerns about...", "Scientific views on..." are content forks because no meaniful distinction that can be externally validated can be drawn between these terms . --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Verifiability covers the contents of an article not the title or topic, that's covered by WP:notability. And anyway this is the neutral point of view noticeboard. Dmcq (talk) 10:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It is indeed. Go back to the start of this thread and you will understand why this discussion has been initaited. The article topic Scientific opinion on climate change is defined by the original research in the lead of the article, not by external sources. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

So exactly what is your point? the article is notable as it satisfies WP:NOTE, the title does not have to satisfy WP:V in itself and in fact many policies explicitly forbid the title to reflect the straightforward name that most people know in the first instance because of neutral point of view concerns until it has become history and well established. WP:V is just a wrong policy to be quoting here if you want to establish the article title or topic as violating neutral point of view. As it is the title can be verified in its exact form with opinion instead of consensus but it really isn't important for this noticeboard and I see no point in doing anything about that as the article is about what it is obviously about. Though I see you have problems, you should say 'scientific view' rather than views and you'd also get the same thing. Or perspective. They'd all be the same and all have been used. Dmcq (talk)

In fairness, the article does not satisfy WP:NOTE because the sources cited in the article do not address the article's subject matter directly or in detail in accordance with WP:GNG. In actuality, the term "Scientific opinion on climate change" is not even mentioned in passing, let alone being the to subject of significant coverage. The title of the article is not externally validated at all. The sources in the article address other topics, such as climate change or global warming. The fact that the sources are mainly scientific organisations suggests that this article could be easily be retitled "Scientific pronouncements on climate change" does not address the issue that the article lacks a proper definition to identify it as a seperate standalone topic. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Validation is a wikipedia term for a proposal where edits to some articles aren't shown until a trusted editor checks them. The title should follow WP:TITLE and it does, your idea of a 'validation' requirement is irrelevant. The title describes the topic concisely so people can find the article. The topic is defined in the leader which also summarizes the article, that is as per WP:LEAD. The topic itself is very notable and so satisfies WP:NOTE. As to your comments about the sources, they in general describe scientific opinion about climate change rather than being about climate change directly. The opinion statement of a scientific association is not peer reviewed, it is not science, it is a statement of scientific opinion. The only peer review needed for an opinion survey is that it s carried out right, not that the opinions expressed are correct scientifically. Dmcq (talk) 14:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Dmcq here, the article seems to satisfy all relevent policies. As for Gavin Collin's assertion that the article name must be mentioned specifically word-for-word in the sources, I disagree and that I don't see that requirement in the relevent policies. WP:IAR seems to apply anyway, as the current title seems to be the best way to clearly express the subject of the article. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 17:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yet WP:GNG says for a topic to be notable, it has to addressed directly and in detail without the need for original research, but this is not the case. The only instance of the subject matter of "Scientific opinion on climate change" being addressed in this article directly and in detail is in the lead, which is comprised of original research. This is the key to understanding why this article conflicts with Wikipedia's content polcies. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 19:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you must be referring to this bit ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." That is pretty obvious for some of the sources for instance Oreskes on the scientific consensus on climate change or the survey on the scientific perspectives of climate scientists on global climate change. For instance the survey in [7] explicitly refers to the changing scientific opinion when comparing their results with an earlier survey by gallup. They don't give a paragraph what scientific opinion is because they assume their readership will know what such a thing is. Dmcq (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Neither of the sources you have cited use the term "Scientific opinion on climate change", either in the title nor content of these papers. For instance, the title of Oreskes paper is "The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change"[8], which is probably why it is already cited in the article Climate change consensus. The survey that you have cited actually uses the term ""Scientific opinion on global warming"[9]. I don't think we can infer from these source that "Scientific opinion on climate change" is a recognised topic in its own right, because it is term that is not widely used, if at all. There is just no evidence to support your assertion. It seems to me that you are trying to "stretch" the sources to fit the title. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You are drawing some artificial distinction between scientific opinion, scientific consensus and scientific perspective and seem to be repeating your incorrect idea about what is in WP:TITLE. Nothing you say is supported by policy. And I don't see anything sensible about your points even ignoring the policies. And even supposing there was some difference that was of any notable type which there isn't what has that got to do with neutral point of view which is what this noticeboard is about? Dmcq (talk) 11:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I would tend to view your argument from the other way around: if any artificial distinction is being made, it is that that Scientific opinion on climate change is a seperate article topic in its own right when there is no evidence to support this view. The fact that this 10,000 word article does not use the term even once in any of its 100 citations suggest to me that the article title contravenes Wikipedia:NPOV#Article naming. This is a "segmented" article name, that relies a novel usage coined specifically to resolve a POV fork. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The article includes public statements made be scientific institutions stating their opinions on the subject. If we were just looking at research done by individual scientists and citing that as their opinions then that might be original research. A prepared press release is explicitly a statement of the opinion of the organization. They are scientific organizations giving their opinions in articles that have the express purpose of giving their opinions on Climate Change. This isn't WP:OR, it's not WP:SYNTH there isn't really any interpretation going on here. This is exactly the kind of discussion that many of the statements cited in the article are meant to address.Voiceofreason01 (talk) 13:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

In answer to Voiceofreason01, if a significant opinion has been expressed by a scientific institution about climate change, then I would expect that opinion to feature in the article, such as Climate change, about which the opinion is being expressed. I would not expect a scientific opinion on any subject to feature in its own article, such as "Scientific opinion on global warming", "Scientific consensus on climate change" or any number of combinations and permutations that can be made to form a "segmented" article title.
In some ways, I can sympathise with your position: here is a group of article topics (climate change, global warming et al.) for which there is an almost inexhaustible range of reliable secondary sources, many of which come from various scientific institutions. However, citing them in one or more article topics may not be feasible: perhaps they address the same issue, or address the same issue in slightly different ways. The question is, what are the article contributors going to do with all these extra sources? There is no ready answer to this question, for as you know, there are many disagreements about which sources should or should not feature in hot topics such as Climate change or Global warming as an examination of their talk pages shows.
Insead, the approach used to deal with this problem of which sources should be featured or not is to create a content fork, and to dump all of the unwanted sources into it. Since there is no clear defintition for the entirely original and novel article title Scientific opinion on climate change (original and novel, since no external source uses this term), other than the title itself, it is easy to add sources to it without having to ask questions such as, "Is this source relevant?", "What subject matter is the source addressing?" or "Is the subject of this source duplicating what has been said elsewhere?" Put togeher, all the coverage in the article do not address any one specific subject matter at all. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I would just like to dive in here before passing through and make this comment: I have not read the article but going by the title alone, what the exact subject matter of the article is is ambiguous. Is the topic "Climate Change in the Opinion of Science" or is it something that could accommodate a subtitle like "An Article on the History of Scientific Opinion of Climate Change and How It Has Evolved Over the Years"? Just want to make sure the meaning behind the terms being debated are clearly understood by both parties and are in synch. Lambanog (talk) 16:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The article is the current scientific opinion on climate change, the article specifically addresses what the current scientific consensus is regarding anthropogenic Climate change.

Gavin Collins, what you're talking about sounds like WP:SYNTH, but the article has reliable sources saying that there is in fact a scientific consensus, which largely defuses any arguments based on WP:SYNTH and justifies including statements from scientific organizations to describe what the consensus is. Personally I don't like that the article is mostly quotes, but the article seems to maintain a reasonably neutral point of view and more importantly the article has been through AFD and consensus very clearly is that the article should stay. The relevent policies are WP:SNOW, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:IAR. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 17:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

If the article has reliable sources saying that there is in fact a scientific consensus, then why does it not address this fact directly? Whether the article title is "Scientific consensus on climate change" or "Climate change consensus", then it needs to say so in the title and define what it means in the lead that provide it is a notable topic in its own right. Just because it is balanced, that does not provide a free pass for inclusion.
I agree with Lambanog, the exact subject matter of the article is is unclear, and the original research in the lead does not help. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

If you won't accept consensus here there is no point anyone talking with you. Dmcq (talk) 17:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

In answeer to Dmcq, you should not critise Voiceofreason01 so harshly, as he entitled to his viewpoint, just as you are. I think Lambanog and myself both agree that, based on a simple reading, the exact subject matter of the article is is ambiguous. The ambiguity is probably attributable to the "segmented" article title, which suggests that the article was created to settling a POV dispute among Wikipedia contributors. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Taijitu

sorry for the cross-post with wp:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Taijitu; I'm just trying to stimulate some outside discussion on this.

Gun Powder Ma (talk · contribs) and I have been disputing about the importance of Roman symbols similar to the Taijitu (the Yin Yang symbol from Chinese philosophy). There are some Roman shield patterns that are of roughly the same form as the taijitu but a few hundred years earlier, and GPM is citing an author (an italian Lit Crit guy, I think, named Monastra) who has been offering up that similarity as an 'intriguing possibility' of connections between the Roman and Chinese symbolism. He has two references to Monastra now (one from the journal Sophia, and one from the Encyclopedia of Taoism, neither of which is an authoritative scholarly source for the topic), plus a couple of minor reference from odd sources (e.g. a footnote in an article on the roman shield patterns in a museum journal). However, he has consistently been trying to parlay these weak sources into making a huge splash for the European symbolism in an article that is ostensibly about the Taoist figure.

I opened an RfC but have gotten few responses, probably because it's such an out-of-the-way corner of wikipedia. if anyone could take a look and help put this into proper balance, I'd appreciate it. --Ludwigs2 21:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd be interested in the comparison with Christopher Columbus and Magellan and related articles and whether it is mentioned Zhang He and the Chinese might have beat them to their accomplishments. I imagine scholarly sources for that proposition might be stronger and would look at the treatment given to that theory as a precedent of sorts. Lambanog (talk) 08:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm pushing for some interest on this, please. It will soon devolve into an edit war without some outside input. I have come to the decision that this European iconography material needs to be removed entirely as non-notable silliness, but I am going to get nowhere at all with Gun Powder MA, who is insistent on giving it an ever-increasing importance. --Ludwigs2 03:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Center for Constitutional Rights

• Center for Constitutional Rights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article is already written like an advertisement, but an editor insists on deleting one of two balancing paragraphs, a critique of CCR published in the notable RS Human Events. Uncivil edit-summaries by edit-warring editor show that POV-pushing is motivation behind deletion of paragraph. Third opinion needed. THF (talk) 19:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Instead of relying on your paranoid imagination, have you considered perhaps that I was in fact motivated by precisely the reason I specified in those edit summaries? You don't have to be a POV-pusher to conclude that an article labeling an organization "The Terrorists' Legal Team" written by a fringe author with a history of such hyperbolic comments is not a source worthy of an encyclopedia article. Gamaliel (talk) 19:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Human Events isn't fringe (and I find it offensive and uncivil that you continue to repeat that slur after you were asked not to); CCR is the terrorists' legal team, and pretty much brags about it. THF (talk) 19:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I find it offensive and uncivil that you've cast aspersions on me in three different forums and then have the gall to act indignant about my opinion of a dubious source. Gamaliel (talk) 19:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly, I asked Gamaliel on Talk:Nina Totenberg to name a single center-right writer he doesn't view as fringe or "dubious," and he couldn't name any -- which perhaps explains why we have so many NPOV problems on Wikipedia, since a center-right editor with that attitude would have been topic-banned a long time ago. THF (talk) 23:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

You have confused "couldn't name any" with "I don't have to prove anything to you so I refuse to indulge your trolling". Could we have THF (perhaps a sock of banned TDC - surely the name isn't just coincidence?) topic-banned from me? He's used about seven different pages or so to insult me in the last week. Gamaliel (talk) 00:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know much about this dispute and don't intend to be dragged into it. However, I note with much interest the statement "CCR is the terrorists' legal team" made by THF. If calling people held without charge "terrorists" is THF's idea of maintaining a neutral point of view, then the rest of his/her comments should be considered very carefully. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Having seen them both around, I strongly doubt that THF is a sock of TDC, or anyone else for that matter.John Z (talk) 09:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Noel McCullagh

Noel McCullagh, subject of Noel McCullagh, persistently edits his own page. There have been numerous nudges in the direction of the various wikipedia policies on autobiographies, NPOV, OR and SOAPBOX but he persistently edits the page in a manner that is extremely POV and tendentious. He is a man who reportedly has been prescribed medical cannabis in the Netherlands, and has claimed to be an exile from Ireland (where he is from) as he has been told he may be arrested if he enters Ireland with this medication. However, it has emerged that he has in fact visited Ireland on 2 occasions in recent years. He has also tried to edit out altogether, or minimise, the fact that what he has been prescribed in medical cannabis. Whenever edits are made to the page he reacts abusively and emotionally. He uses both the username Barentsz and the IP address 85.144.135.149. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.40.62.33 (talk) 23:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Looking at this article, I can see another side to the story. McCullagh will want to keep his biography in a state that he sees as neutral, and while it would be unhelpful if the biography became part of his campaigning, it would be equally unhelpful if it became part of a campaign against him. At the moment the result of the edit-warring is an uninformative biography. Right at the start it should note what McCullagh is notable for, which I think is for campaigning in favour of the medical use of cannabis, and that he has gone to the extent of standing as an election candidate. Stick closely to what reliable sources say. The Wall Street Journal one is valuable, but it doesn't support the rather odd idea that the Republic of Ireland government would communicate with one of its citizens through the medium of an American newspaper. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Narendra Modi

This article needs more eyes. Some editors keep trying to insert problematically POV material into it which I think probably is also BLP violating. I have reached my 24 hour revert limit keeping said material off. Simonm223 (talk) 20:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

3RR does not apply for material that violates WP:BLP. Fences&Windows 00:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Problem seems resolved for now. Humourously the editor who kept inserting questionable material edited suggesting I was upset that he was inserting information harmful to the reputation of my candidate. Funny since I am a Canadian of Celtic extraction with little interest in Indian politics who has the article on watch only because of past neutrality issues across this noticeboard. LOL Simonm223 (talk) 19:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Kendriya Vidyalaya Ottapalam

This is a highly offensive article. For example lines like "Mr principal by the time you realize you were wrong in your way of dealing things, the reputation of school will go off".

Austrian School

Stale

Over at “Austrian School”, one or more editors has tried to have the article declared

However, mainstream theorists since then have shown that their results hold for all monotonic transformations of utility, and so also hold for ordinal preferences.

(underscore mine) citing a webpage as support. In 1959, it was demonstrated (in a peer-reviewed article) that some total-orderings do not correspond to any assignment of quantities (unique or otherwise), and in 1977 "The Austrian theory of the marginal use and of ordinal marginal utility", a peer-reviewed article by J Huston McCulloch in Zeitschrift für Nationalökonomie v37, used this result to demonstrate that the orthodox conjecture that a quantification could be fit to any economically rational ordering were false. The passage in question treated a false conjecture as a theorem, on the strength of a claim from a source that is not peer-reviewed.

When I attempted to remove this bald, false claim, BigK HeX restored it less baldly as

However, Bryan Caplan writes that mainstream theorists since then have shown that their results hold for all monotonic transformations of utility, and so also hold for ordinal preferences.

with the summary assertion

Never provided the requested verification for his claim. Treated as OR until such time as he completes the discussion.

though in fact McCulloch's article had been cited on this matter on the talk page. Caplan's claim as such was already in a “Criticism” section of the article (where McCulloch's article is also noted), so reïteration of the claim is redundant; and the source here is poor. None-the-less, BigK HeX asserts again on my talk page that I haven't provided an appropriate source, and preëmptively threatens to use WP:3RR. —SlamDiego_←T 18:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

And now BigK HeX has removed any reference to the peer-reviewed article by McCulloch. —SlamDiego_←T 19:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I removed the reference to McCulloch because SlamDiego insists on using it to promote a conclusion that is very clearly NOT evident in the source. I basically posted the following summary on the article's talk page. That mainly, I believe there is a violation of WP:SYN#Using_sources. SlamDiego made this edit:

• "McCulloch, however, has formally shown that there are economically rational preferences to which none of [ mainstream microeconomic theorists' ] weak quantifications can be fit."

and when pressed about it failing verification, he apparently describes how he based his statement on text from page 274 of his source which discusses "Table 4." The only relevant conclusion about a "Table 4" there is the following:

• "the unrelated ordering of Table 4 cannot be essentially cardinal."

....that's it, as conclusions on "Table 4" go. The passage in the editor's source makes no mention of mainstream theories, much less describing them as "weakly quantified," and we have certainly NOT been presented with evidence of McCulloch equating all things "essentially cardinal" with things that the editor refers to as "weakly quantified." And, no matter what phrase SlamDiego chooses to use (whether "weakly quantified" or something else), that he still has NOT been able to quote where his source attempts to make the same conclusion that he has synthesized.

Given SlamDiego's contested edit, it seems that he is using the source as if it read, "the unrelated ordering of Table 4 cannot be realized by the weak quantifications of the mainstream microeconomic theorists described by Bryan Caplan" He has substituted the source's concept ("essentially cardinal") with his own concept (of what can be "realized by the 'weak quantifications' of mainstream microeconomic theorists").

Even further, it is clear that the author, McCulloch, wrote that passage with the express aim of building his conclusions about a non-mainstream theory there [the Austrian theory of utility], which makes SlamDiego's use of that passage as a reference for assertions about mainstream theory even less defensible, as it is completely disregarding the context of the source. BigK HeX (talk) 07:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

It needs to be noted (as it was on the talk page) that McCulloch had elsewhere defined “essentially cardinal” orderings as those to which quantifications can be fitted. (McCulloch had defined “unrelated” orderings as those in which goods an services do not act as complements nor as substitutes.) Thus, in providing an ordering that was economically rational what could not be “essentially cardinal”, he had provided one to which no quantification could be fitted. Caplan (rightly or wrongly) is cited as having allegedly said “mainstream theorists since then have shown that their results hold for all monotonic transformations of utility, and so also hold for ordinal preferences”, in rebuttal to Austrian School claims that utility could not be quantified.

BigK HeX is claiming that, because McCulloch was speaking of the theory that Caplan was supposedly rebutting, but not in reply to that rebuttal nor (supposedly) in explicit response to other mainstream claims, it is synthesis to cite McCulloch in response to Caplan. (BigK HeX is not even accurate in pretending that McCulloch concerned himself only with the Austrian School theory, as McCulloch specifically noted that the von Neumann Morgenstern formulation could not be reconciled with “intrinsically ordinal” preferences, and this point has been made to BigK HeX repeatedly.)

McCulloch's demonstration wasn't based upon a prior exclusion of mainstream theories. The fact that McCulloch's principal concern was the Austrian School theory (the theory that Caplan was supposedly refuting), rather than the theory that Caplan supports, doesn't make it “original synthesis” to cite McCulloch.

The removal of the reference to McCulloch is an attempt to protect a PoV by pettifogging with WP:SYNTH. —SlamDiego_←T 12:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Even ignoring your blatant misuse of the source to draw a conclusion not evident in the reference, your edit is still problematic since it's written as if it were a refutation of Caplan's assertions when IT DOES NOTHING TO REFUTE THEM. The assertions that you attempt to refute are not present in the article --- certainly, I don't see Caplan making arguments similar to the ones you endeavor to "refute." So, on top of the problem of you not having a source that even makes the point you're trying to create, your usage as a refutation is even worse because there's not actually any content in the article for it to refute (except, perhaps, a strawman). BigK HeX (talk) 19:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Ignoring your begging of the question, Caplan is discussing exactly Austrian School ordinalism, and McCulloch's article is indeed principally about that ordinalism. Caplan is alleged in the article to claim that the Austrian School claims about their ordinalism are refuted; McCulloch had already shown a class of preferences that vindicates those claims. In attempting to stand the relationship of McCulloch's claim to the Caplan claim on its head, you are turning the relationship of the Caplan claim to the article on its head. Such inversions are wikilawyering to push a PoV. —SlamDiego_←T 04:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Editor Comments

In any case, I submit the following observations in concluding my remarks here. Perhaps, only "A" and "B" would be of relevance here.

• A) SlamDiego's claim of "repetition" (for mentioning the mainstream understanding of a certain economic concept in two different sentences) seems weak, and I have, indeed, referred him to Wikipedia:NPOV#Undue_weight and made a reference to WP:STRUCTURE as well, which seems to be what he refers to as "wikilawyering." In any case, the specifics are this: the first instance of the "repetitious" sentence is used to help bring a balancing perspective to a minority viewpoint, and the second mention occurs as one example of many in the "criticism" section of the article.
• B) SlamDiego's complaint about an "unreviewed webpage" are easily corrected (and thus not really useful for him here), since the claims of the webpage were submitted by that author to peer-reviewed journals of a reliability equivalent to the sources used throughout that wikipedia article. I'll probably adjust the citations later.
• C) SlamDiego's contentious edit made assertions that I have been unable to verify in the provided ref.
• D) When challenged for clarification, it became pretty clear to me that he is definitely drawing a conclusion not evident in the source, as explained above. His rebuttal basically has centered around explaining how one should ultimately be able to reach his conclusion, but that smells to me a lot like WP:SYN; there is an opinion other than SlamDiego and myself --- that editor on the talk page seems to agree with my conclusions; I do not think anyone has weighed in and agreed with SlamDiego's understanding. As an aside, it's not really relevant, but I've investigated SlamDiego's claim and would assert that his contention is flawed; I'd further suggest that this flaw is a good reason why he has been unable to present from his source any assertions that similar to his full contention.
• E) A further problem is that SlamDiego's edit is written as a refutation. Another editor and I (on the talk page) have stated that the assertions which are supposedly refuted are not even present in the article (i.e., strawman).
• F) Obviously, I tried to seek clarification [immediately above] that SlamDiego has not engaged in the creation of a strawman. It is pretty apparent that my request for clarification on this page went unfulfilled. I still contend that the wording&placement of his edit as a refutation is fallacious (on top of it's WP:OR problems).
• G) Of four editors who have weighed in on the talk page, I believe all of the editors except SlamDiego have concluded that his source is not used appropriately, for various reasons.

In closing, I would like to make clear that I do think SlamDiego's source has information that could be helpful for the article and that SlamDiego likely possesses some potentially helpful expertise, but, in this case, it is my sad opinion that the (mis)usage of this source is a disservice to the article. BigK HeX (talk) 04:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It looks as though much of my issue with the contentious topic would be more appropriate elsewhere, but I am of the opinion that the mention of a mainstream view in two different sentences is hardly a problem for neutrality. BigK HeX (talk) 06:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Note that BigK Hex ultimately deals with my responses to his question by moving the discussion out of sight. I'll not play along, but reply to his (hidden) response:

• I have already quoted the passage from Caplan above; if it is not a criticism of or rebuttal to the Austrian School, then it doesn't belong in that article at all.
• I use the word “alleged” because I'm neither denying nor agreeing that Caplan's actual remarks are being fairly summarized.
• The immediate point of my remarks which BigK HeX has now hidden is that he is applying onbe standard to the Caplan passage, and a very contrary standard to the McCulloch passage.

As to his “concluding” remarks,

• BigK HeX can claim that it's “weak” to object that in fact the Caplan passage is being quoted twice, but this sort of repetition is generally rejected in other articles.
• BigK HeX, as stated, perversely invoked WP:UNDUE to justify referring to the same point of an unreviewed webpage in two different sections of the same article.
• BigK HeX may indeed be able to provide a better reference, but he hasn't. (And the fact that work has been submitted to a peer-reviewed journal does not make it a reliable source.)
• BigK HeX refers again to a single contentious edit, when there are two issues under discussion, and the first was raised before he escalated to removing the McCulloch passage (as part of seeking an edit war for which he would attempt to blame me).
• As noted, McCulloch offerred an example of an economically rational ordering to which no quantification can be fitted, as per Rothbard's claim and contrary to the alleged claim of Caplan. BigK HeX has insisted that the reference doesn't count by applying a standard that he could not successfully apply to Caplan's passage.
• Any serious review of the discussions between BigK HeX and me would show that, rather than seeking clarification and then thinking himself to discover that the McCulloch passage did not say what the article claimed him to say, BigK HeX began with the presumption that McCulloch could not be cited in refutation of the Caplan passage, and has subsequently refused to ackowledge otherwise.
• In fact, at least six editors have weighed-in on the talk page concerning the McCulloch passage. When it was first introduced, two other economists and I discussed it, with no one arguing that it in any way misrepresented McCulloch's work. The unnamed editor upon whom draws for the claim that I have misrepresented McCulloch, RLV, has a demonstrable bias with a personal component (for example, see RLV's complaint to ANI and its outcome). And the remaining editor claims that Caplan's claim isn't noteworthy in the first place, so that he or she would remove both.

—SlamDiego_←T 10:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Nobody has said that what Caplan wrote "is not a criticism of or rebuttal to the Austrian School." What has been denied is that in the Wikipedia entry, Caplan is alleged to claim that the Austrian School claims about their ordinalism are refuted." In fact, the Wikipedia entry makes no claims at all about Caplan's opinion on whether or not the Austrian approach of associating commodities with needs to satisfy requires an ordinal or higher scale of measurement. The entry does say, "Caplan stated that Austrian economists have often misunderstood modern economics, causing them to overstate their differences with it. He argued that several of the most important Austrian claims are false or overstated. For example, Austrian economists object to the use of cardinal utility in microeconomic theory; however, microeconomic theorists go to great pains to show that their results hold for all monotonic transformations of utility, and so are true for purely ordinal preferences." This is supported by the following quote from Caplan's essay: "As plausible as Rothbard sounds on this issue, he simply does not understand the position he is attacking. The utility function approach is based as squarely on ordinal utility as Rothbard's is. The modern neoclassical theorists - such as Arrow and Debreau - who developed the utility function approach went out of their way to avoid the use of cardinal utility." (Caplan says something close to the same in a journal article that Cretog brought to our attention on the talk page after the entry had been locked.) McCulloch treats the Austrian approach and doesn't address, much less refute, any claims in the Wikipedia article about Caplan's views. Much else in SlamDiego's comments is false. And he also violates policy with his personal attacks. -- RLV 209.217.195.132 (talk) 23:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I hold the same conclusion that RLV states above. Within the article it is made exceedingly clear that Caplan endeavors to refute the Austrian (mis)characterization of mainstream utility theories; within the coverage of the wiki article, Caplan does NOT attempt to refute Austrians' assertions about their own utility theories, contrary to the claim made by SlamDiego [i.e. "Caplan is alleged in the article to claim that the Austrian School claims about their ordinalism are refuted"].

I'm not sure if SlamDiego is one to admit a mistake, but unless someone comes in to agree with him, I think it's pretty clear that his repeated accusations of me "pushing a POV" should be retracted. My deletions of his text are not due to any "POV pushing" on my part, but due simply to the unacceptable errors in his edit. BigK HeX (talk) 04:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

My remarks concerning Robert's claims are below.

I have made a point of providing links to diffs to support my claims about relevant behavior. The simple sequence of the edits rather plainly exhibits much of what I have said. —SlamDiego_←T 05:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Robert is mistaken both on the mathematics and on Wikipedia policy.

Caplan is mistaken on the mathematics. Were the mainstream utility function (which maps to quantities) bases as squarely on ordinal utility as the Austrian School utility function (which does not map to quantities), then it would not impose an restrictions peculiar to quantification. McCulloch showed a that quantification would rule-out some orderings that the Austrian School model does not. Thus, as we are discussing Caplan's criticism of Rothbard's claim of peculiar virtue for the Austrian School approach, there is relevance and no original synthesis in noting a various precise claim of that peculiar virtue.

Robert (and interested editors) might review NPA's own explanation of what is forbidden. I have made a point of providing evidence where relevant behavior is at issue. —SlamDiego_←T 05:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Interested parties should note that every time he elaborates on his assertion that "Caplan is mistaken on the mathematics," that SlamDiego goes through a list of supposedly logical steps (perhaps citing ONE of three or four of these steps), instead of showing us how he is just echoing/paraphrasing a conclusion that is evident from some WP:RS. He accuses me of POV violations for deleting his edit, though its pretty clear his edit is the result of original research. BigK HeX (talk) 08:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

What BigK HeX wants to characterize as “a list of supposedly logical steps” is a few trivialities in combination with material indeed found in a reliable source; for example, one of these (BigK HeX demanded one and is getting it, again) is exactly “McCulloch showed a that quantification would rule-out some orderings that the Austrian School model does not.” As noted, McCulloch showed that a quantification could not be fit tot he ordering in Table 4, and at the same time he made a point of characterizing the ordering as “unrelated” because the Austrian School model derives its results on marginal rates of substitution from an assumption that McCulloch calls “unrelatedness”. (His definition of “unrelatedness” is found in his paper. Also found in his paper, but certainly not original to McCulloch, is the point that the Austrian School presumes an absence of complementarity or substitutability to derive diminishing marginal utility.) —SlamDiego_←T 12:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Even if McCulloch says what SlamDiego pretends he does, nothing in that would refute any of Caplan's claims echoed in the Wikipedia entry. If fact, McCulloch says nothing about whether a "quantification" can or cannot be fitted to anything. McCulloch's acceptance of the usual definition of the ordinal measurement scale level is shown by this passage from pp. 256-257: "For example, in Table 1 we could square each of the ordinal utility values so that from the top down they read... The marginal utilities in Table 3 would still decline from 25th to 9th to 4th to 1st to 0th. The Austrian law of diminishing marginal utility is thus invulnerable to monotonic transformations of the utility index." SlamDiego is performing Original Research. -- RLV 209.217.195.119 (talk) 21:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

SlamDiego says, "Note that BigK Hex ultimately deals with my responses to his question by moving the discussion out of sight."

At the same time, observers should note that I was baited into this discussion over an accusation stemming from text that I deleted. That entire line of discussion centered on OR issues. Since that time, I have realized that such discussion is not really relevant to the purpose of this noticeboard. SlamDiego's response immediately above [at 10:44, 17 February 2010] is full of mischaracterizations, but I am not going to further pollute this noticeboard with talk of the WP:OR issues. My response for this noticeboard is simple -- SlamDiego is making much ado about a sentence used twice as being "repetitious," and he complains about the current source but a journal-published equivalent is available. I'd say it's pretty disingenuous (or worse) to complain that I haven't changed the refs yet, knowing full well that the article has a full-edit protection ["gold lock"]. BigK HeX (talk) 12:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

You weren't baited into anything; and, again, this discussion was begun over your restoration of redundant criticism. Your deletion of the McCulloch passage was an escalation after discussion began here.

The discussion is relevant to this noticeboard because it concerns your attempt to push a PoV, notwithstanding that you're attempting to do so under cover of a comlex of other policies. (Readers may note, for example, that the discussion above on “Waterboarding” raised other issues, yet was relevant to this noticeboard.)

BigK HeX says that I am making much ado, as if it were about nothing; yet it is a nothing that he insists should abide, and about which he raised a charge of edit-warring even before he first deleted the McCulloch passage. It is evident who is baiting whom.

As to BigK HeX changing refs, not only could he have done so directly before his manipulative complaint about edit warring resulted in protection, but he could always present the ref(s) to an admin in order to get the change made. —SlamDiego_←T 14:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved comments

• These long drawn-out discussions on technical economic theory aren't really appropriate in this notice board, I think, especially since you're all involved. It seems like each person should focus on a single paragraph where they state their views. You should try to keep this on the Austrian School talk page. This stuff is also worded in fairly impenetrable economic jargon, even for someone like myself with an BA in economics and a particular interest in heterodox schools. When you're appealing to uninvolved editors, the discussion needs to be taken to an introductory level. I am inclined to side with BigK HeX and RLV in that I do think mainstream economists just believe that their microeconomics is focused on ordinal utility. I'm guessing that Austrians think that is inaccurate and that mainstream economists actually require cardinal utility. Perhaps so, but Wikipedia isn't the place to find the true answer. Of course, I'm not sure I really understand what's going on here but I'm not that interested. II | (t - c) 23:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Ku Klux Klan Issue

Issue here has been an ongoing debate about The nature of Ku Klux Klan. I several other editors have Come to the conclusion that putting as a Fact in the lead that it is "far right hate group" violates NPOV similiar too WP:Words that label example as the KKK as Racist". It is the opinion of Groups like the Southern poverty law center. While no one disputes that it committed a heinous acts the proposal to Establish the lead as "informally known as The Klan, is the name of several past and present White Supremacist and Nativist organizations in the United States whose avowed purpose was to protect the rights of and further the interests of white Americans, mainly by the use of violence and intimidation" Was reached by a consensus of three out four individual editors and changed to that. Verbal reverted it too "White Supremacist, far right hate group organizations" with a lock on the page. This is where we are at NPOV requires opinions be attributed as such and not presented as fact. Why i am no klan lover, it does not seem encyclopedic to marginalize a groups point of view in the lead by stating as a fact it is a hate-group. It is encyclopedic to label their view points as "White Supremacist and Nativist" as their beliefs and if people want to interpret Hate group one may. I am not saying that we should not include information from groups such as SPLC as labeling such but it is not an ecylpedia job to present opion of the majority as fact. Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The SPLC has been established as a WP:RS on matters pertaining to far right groups. Also, the KKK is not about protecting "natives", so I'm not sure about the term Nativist being appropriated! Lastly, I didn't lock the page but encouraged wider debate. I see no justification for removing the accurate labelling. Verbal chat 20:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Nativism (politics)#20th and 21st century anti-immigration movements defines KKK as an example of Nativism. Hmm forgive me i must be appologies if for misddirected accusation. as i have double checked sorry againWeaponbb7 (talk) 21:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that that is how the term is used, but it is a propagandist term (KKK members are not "native"). It is a term that should probably be avoided. I'd welcome RS on whether it's use violates NPOV. Verbal chat 21:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

examples Weaponbb7 (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

My comments on the article's talkpage were lengthy enough that I don't want to duplicate them here; suffice it to say that I support Verbal's interpretation as have several other editors past and present. The Nativism argument is actually new to me, but even the link the Weaponbb7 provided is careful to say only that they employed Nativist rhetoric, not that the KKK is a Native organization. Please refer to the talkpage itself for the full conversation. Thanks, Doc Tropics 23:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)It is inaccurate to say that a consensus was reached. At least two other editors besides Verbal had voiced support for maintaining the old status quo. The change, which was my suggestion, was implemented less than 2 hours after I first suggested it. In any event, since the only issue seems to be the choice of words that essentially say the same thing (i.e. white supremacists using violence against minority groups meets any definition of hate group), this is a matter of style rather than POV. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that the "far right" label is a bit strange. While it's undeniably true today that essentially all KKK members and ideologies are "far right", the distinguishing feature of the KKK historically was that it was a terrorist organization that was formed to re-establish a white supremacy in the South regardless of political whim. A number of "progressives" were associated with the second Klan which was revived after the success of the revisionist Birth of a Nation. Robert C. Byrd and D. W. Griffith are not exactly "far right" individuals. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• I agree. "far right" is more questionable than "hate group" when explaining the KKK. --Dystopos (talk) 23:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• I can take or leave the Far right label, although I don't consider it strange. The Wikipedia article on the same, for what it's worth, does say, "The ideologies associated with the far right are fascism, Nazism, racial supremacists (especially neo-fascists and neo-Nazis group), religious extremists, and other ultra-nationalist or reactionary ideologies and movements.[2][3][4][5][6] The terms are often used to imply that someone is an extremist." While I agree that terrorists should generally fall outside of the right-left political classification, for much of its existence the KKK was closely assocated with the elected political leadership. It was a main tool of the resurgent Democratic Party in the Reconstruction South and was, at the vey least, tolerated by state and local elected officials in the South during the Civil Rights Era. The brief period in the 1920s when the KKK advocated some middle of the road policies was till marred by a tolerance for violence. Progressives during this time were, more often than not, tolerant of racism in the North but actively racist in the South. In the later 1920s the KKK was rejected by most of the "middle" as either an appropriate or acceptable political movement.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree entirely with the comments by Weaponbb7 in the top paragraph. However, I stgrongly disagree with Tom (North Shoreman) about this being more about style than NPOV. Also, to me it seems clasically Orwellian to use a demeaning and vague generalization label like "hate group" to describe a group which is reknowned for its own use of demeaning and vague generalization labels like "outside agitator". It is even more Orwellian to say that "hate group" is not a demeaning smearing label. Going even further, to conflate "hate group" with "far right" serves to smear that entire group of people by conflating "far right" with "hate group". It feels to me like a few Editors are using this article to express personal and/or collective viciously negative pov, pov which I myself happen to hold towards the KKK, but which, in any realm of reality, does not belong in a good encyclopedia. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 02:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Hate group is a term that is well understood and commonly used. I got 286 hits off Google News that goes back less than 30 days. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

From Wikipedia Words that label

Some words may be used to label a group from an outside perspective, even though these words are used in accordance with a dictionary definition. For example:

• "The Ku Klux Klan is a racist organization."

Such terms, even when accurate, often convey to readers an implied viewpoint: that of outsiders looking in and labeling as they see it. The fact that a term is accepted "outside" but not "inside" is a good indicator that it may not be neutral. There are at least three ways to deal with this: attribute the term to reliable sources; replace the label with information; or use a more neutral term. These three approaches are illustrated as follows:

• "The Ku Klux Klan is an organization that has advocated white supremacy and anti-Semitism."

This Seems to be the exact situation we are in, So it seems the appropriate way to handle this is the suggestion of "White Supremacist and Nativist" as "opposed to hate group" aributed source saying they are hate group according to "X" would be correct way of handling this. Weaponbb7 (talk) 13:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• Good reference,imo, to add to this discussion; here's the link to it:[10]. Thanks Weaponbb7 for locating/including that. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 16:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually there is a much more appropriate solution. As the section of the STYLE GUIDELINE suggests, an equally effective way to address the issue is to provide sourcing. The example used is:

"The Peoples Temple is an organization, described as a 'cult' by X,^[1] Y,^[2] and Z.^[3]"

Later on, the guideline states the following:

If a reliable source describes a person or group using one of these words, then the word can be used but the description must be attributed in the article text to its source, preferably by direct quotation, and always with a verifiable citation. If the term is used with a clear meaning by multiple reliable independent sources, then citations to several such sources should be provided for the sentence where it appears.

You are splitting hairs Wikipedia Guidline specifcally say thou shall not and gives the correct appraoch for Wikipedia. It is not whether they are a hate group its how to approach it in encyclopedia. I belive them to be hate group but i approach article writing by wikipedia standards Weaponbb7 (talk) 18:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing the fact that the KKK is considered a hate group would be no problem -- newspapers, journal articles, and books are are avalable. What is a problem is finding any reliable source that says it is NOT a hate group.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Cherrypicking quotes from WP:FREEDOMFIGHTER is incorrect stance Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It's the exact same principle as stated immediately above it. Far from being merely a few sources that label the KKK as a hate group, the sources are n fact numerous and varied. The bottom line is still that sourcing the KKK as a hate group presents no problem at all. Simply attributing it to three sources would be misleadng when in fact there are dozens, if not hundreds, of such references. Do you have ANY sources, other than perhaps KKK.com, that dispute it's classification?Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The issue is not whether to include X Group says they are a hate group but presenting it as fact in the lead is the issue is is much more effective to descibe a belive just label the beleifs. Weaponbb7 (talk) 18:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

If NUMEROUS reliable sources label it as a hate group and FEW, IF ANY reliable sources dispute the label, then it belongs in the lead without qualification. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Tom, almost all reliable sources describe them as a hate group, it's finding RS for almost any other perspective that becomes problematic. Also, I wanted to point out that the purpose of this Noticeboard is to notify other editors about the issue, not necessarily to continue our own discussions from the article's talkpage. It seems most of the relevant points have been highlighted and we should wait for some outside opinions on the matter. Doc Tropics 19:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

thanx doc i was unaware of that Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Irrespective of the opinions about RS availability, I must point out that Wikipedia:Words to Avoid [11] seems to have been presciently written for this particular issue. I also agree with Doc that we wait for some outside opinions. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 00:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

You show what your problem is when you say "Irrespective of the opinions about RS availability." Whle it may conflict with your agenda, Reliable Sources are one of the pillars of Wikipedia. Also, I didn't see "hate group" among the words to avoid. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

RS are pillars, opinions about their availability are not. The RS argument really does not fit well in this discussion because Wikipedia:Words to Avoid [12] clearly shows how RS information can be inserted while avoiding "words that label", just have a look at the example given which ironically was specific to the KKK[13]. I wanted to also mention that this is the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard and I see that there is also a Wikipedia:Reliable Sources/Noticeboard which seems to be a better venue for your opinions about RS availability. Now, I intend to stop editing on this noticeboard and follow Doc's suggestion that we wait for some outside opinions. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 06:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Late to the party but, in my outside view, the KKK has been reliably sourced as a hate group. We use WP:AVOID if there is disagreement about a group's affiliations or actions, not when it's made clear that this is their purpose. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Rory Reid

Rory Reid is a Clark County Commissioner and a major candidate for Governor of Nevada, not to mention the son of Harry Reid. Since his announcement for running for Governor, there has been numerous strong POV edits. Sometimes overly campaign-like, [14][15], but mostly unreferenced anti-Reid content and even an attempt at speedy deletion.[16][17]

Currently, an anon just made a major addition of campaign contribution content. While it does appear sourced, it's mostly negative POV... Donors are mostly major Las Vegas casinos, almost no money from northern Nevada and major New York and Washington D.C. donors. [18]

It doesn't seem politician articles usually have such a large emphasis on donations and it does seem there is undue weight to them, not to mention a NPOV spin, with this candidate's article. I don't know if it's appropriate.

Overall, this article needs to have an eye kept on it.--Oakshade (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, I've noticed the anon user has not written any contribution content in the article of Reid's probable Republican challenger Brian Sandoval despite the source cited in the Reid article giving just as much coverage to Sandoval's contribution sources.--Oakshade (talk) 01:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Authors personal view of events expressed and lineage information inaccurate (biased)

In the article on Lama (martial art)the author has in many areas expressed a biased view on the differeing white crane schools and their masters. In one particular case the Author describes the outcome of a public fight on January 17th, 1954... "The result was somewhat embarrassing, but it still brought public attention to the style." There is no mention about the reason for the exposition and if memory serves me correctly it was to raise money. the fight was called off after a couple of bouts with no winner declared so there would be a) no deaths and b) no ill feeling between the 2 schools involved.

Chan Hak Fu, one of the 2 figheters is still alive and living in Macau today.

Much of the article is biased and in areas is a blatant attempt to discredit many of the white crane schools and their masters. Insinr8 (talk) 02:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Insinr8 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC) 

I checked the reference provided for that piece wasn't up to WP:RS standards, so I've simply removed it for now, with a talkpage explanation highlighting the need for a reference. Thanks, Doc Tropics 03:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

thanks and I am learning what I can to try to provide references and to correct the article... that is untill it gets reverted to its previous form. here is a published account on the fight including reference to the fight being a fund raiser where the result was more than one hundred thousand Hong Kong dollars being raised. John Christopher Hamm, Paper Swordsmen. As for Mr Chans Address, maybe i can find it in the phone book for reference LOL. It is true his lineage extends to Australia and the rest of the world. He is the head of Pak Hok Pai and he resides in Macau. I do not know any other way to make changes and reference the sources without having the changes reverted by Nysanda. Thank you for your assistance. Insinr8 (talk) 04:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

"Criticism section" at Esperanto language

I tagged the criticism section of Esperanto language, not because of the content, but because the organization of having a "criticism section" is in and of itself POV.

Other editors removed the tag and posted responses.

I responded back and notified them that I am taking this to the noticeboard.

Please read the talk page here: Talk:Esperanto#Criticism.27s_location_in_the_article WhisperToMe (talk) 18:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

WhisperToMe, I am afraid you have misinterpreted Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. The policy means that we must report verifiable information from reliable sources in a neutral manner. It does not mean that we cannot report any information which is not neutral, merely that we don't take a stance on the information. For example, if we said "esperanto is a useless language", that would be a POV statement and against policy; but if we state that "many linguists complain about esperanto's lack of utility" then we are conveying factual information in a neutral manner. I hope that explanation helps. Happy editing, Doc Tropics 19:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course we can report on information that is not "neutral," E.G. you can state "E.G. So and so criticized Esperanto for" - I do not have an issue with the content within the section. The content is okay. It is the organization of the content, the grouping of the content, that is a problem. Obviously the Barack Obama articles all report on criticism done by third parties. Notice the organization of the criticism. It is not shoved into a "Criticism" section. It is distributed throughout the article.

In regards to "many linguists complain about esperanto's lack of utility" - That would be acceptable, if many linguists over the years made this complaint, and that the complaint was not coming from one or two people. The style guideline about Weasel words explains here: Wikipedia:Weasel_words#Exceptions about when it is okay to phrase a statement like that.

WhisperToMe (talk) 19:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I seem to have misunderstood part of the issue; there do seem to be a couple of distinct points here. You are entirely correct about the use of a Criticism section being the less-preferred form of organization, though it's not really an NPOV issue. I'll add a link from the talkpage to the WP:MOS section that covers this. The other points related to specific text are probably best addressed individually on the talkpage, and I'll try to comment there after further review. Thanks, Doc Tropics 19:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe the use of a "Criticism" section is touched upon at WP:STRUCTURE. BigK HeX (talk) 20:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Human rights in Venezuela

Re this recent edit - states various contentious claims as fact. The article as a whole is a messy work in progress; anyone willing to have a look at it and generally improve it would be most welcome (in addition to considering the specific issues with this edit). Rd232 ^talk 22:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I am beginning to collect sources which may be helpful at User:SandyGeorgia/Chavez sources, but it is still a work in progress and very far from complete. Editors working on these articles may find some sources there, albeit incomplete. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

To clarify the issue with the edit noted above, it describes a topic "Political prisoners in Venezuela" with opinion written as fact, and in at least one case uses a campaign website as a source. After that there are "Notable political prisoners", with 3 prisoners, each getting their own subhead. No evidence of notability is provided (though media sources are given covering each case). It's worth noting that the claim that these are political prisoners is extremely disputed. In only one of those cases is there any independent opinion that there may be a political cause for detention. Rd232 ^talk 01:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

On a quick glance, the sources used there don't look good, but the issue of all of those people (and more) being political prisoners or forced into exile is most certainly sourceable to reliable sources-- I've done some work on a few of their articles, so I know the sources are there. The way to neutralize the article is not to revert sourcable text, but to source it correctly-- more work than I can do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Institute for Policy Studies

Institute for Policy Studies has a lead section consisting entirely of attempts to label it. Not exactly WP:LEAD-compliant; but also WP:NPOV issues about labelling article subjects rather than allowing facts to speak for themselves. (I believe there a policy or guideline that indicates something like that, I forget what.) Rd232 ^talk 16:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a good bit of that text should be in its own section, and then expanded upon. BigK HeX (talk) 07:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The lead now is amusingly negative. Neutral, mainstream sources about it should be more prominent rather than views of right-wing critics. Of course it is left-leaning, as the Washington Post obit of one of its founders says, but a list of adjectives sourced to a couple critics is not helpful. The first obligation is to our readers, to tell them what it is, before we start arguing about it.John Z (talk) 09:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Words_that_label seems relevant - such opinions should be explicitly attributed in text to specific sources. PS Do you have a link for that obit? Is it a relevant source for IPS? Rd232 ^talk 11:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with what John Z said. Sole Soul (talk) 10:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Some straightforward improvements are needed. The lede should simply say that the institute is regarded as being on the political left. Further details of who said what about it should be in a later section. The date of foundation and current director should go into the lede instead. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Undue weight in section title in HFCS article

An editor has changed the title of a section in the HFCS page from "Comparison to other sugars" to "Comparison to natural sweeteners" because he claims that "HFCS is not a sugar" and "HFCS is a sugar substitute, not a sugar". I reverted it back twice because any chemical with the formula CnH2nOn is considered a sugar, which can be seen on the sugar page. In the talk page he replied, "you claim HFCS is a sugar which is ridiculous by any common standard, no matter how it is scientifically classified". This statement is just puzzling to me as a biochemist by training. Now that I have done 2 reverts, I would like a second opinion on this.

I feel that the original title was fine, but the new title gives undue weight to differentiating HFCS from the other sugars. Further, it pushes the POV that honey and sugar are more healthy caloric sugars because they are "natural". It seems to me the most neutral POV is the most scientific one, which would be the first one.AGeorgas (talk) 04:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Nina Totenberg

An editor is tendentiously claiming that a quote of a 1989 broadcast by Nina Totenberg that is sourced to: (1) a scholarly book written by a constitutional law professor; (2) congressional testimony; and (3) a complaint to the FCC about NPR bias is not "verifiably, reliably sourced," though there is zero evidence that Totenberg has ever denied making the statement. Might someone intercede in Talk:Nina_Totenberg#Use_of_the_book_The_Great_American_Gun_Debate and weigh in? Many thanks. THF (talk) 22:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Tried to help in the text. We should attribute the quote to the Congressional testimony. It is not really up to us to decide whether Totenberg said this or not; that's essentially beside the point. What is verifiable is that she was raked over the coals for saying that by both the NRA and Kates. I tried to edit the sentence to that effect and indeed re-edited the entire section. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

As always THF, your argument begins with a personal attack and an assumption of bad faith which is getting fairly disruptive (and tedious). But now that the point has been raised, it's a good opportunity to raise the main issue in that article. Namely, should partisan criticism be inserted into that biography simply because the subject is mentioned? This has never been the case on Wikipedia. When it comes to criticism, WP:BLP is quite clear that it must be sourced to a reliable second party and be relevant to the notability of the subject. Much of what is in this section is neither. By way of example, would you want to include a section called "Praise" that was simply a collection of positive quotes about the subject? No, of course not. So why would the reverse be acceptable? --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Huh? There is a separate "praise" section in the Totenberg article called "Awards," and I haven't tried to remove it, nor has anyone else, though some of those awards are far less notable than Bozell's criticism of Totenberg. Separately, I note that the fact that Totenberg called William L. Scott "dumb" is prominently mentioned in his BLP. The idea that BLP prohibits the mention of any criticism of the subject simply isn't true: or, at least, it isn't treated as true when it comes to liberal criticism of conservatives. THF (talk) 02:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

(e.c.) Well, we do have a place for "awards" in the article which is somewhat similar to "praise". Be that as it may, I make no argument here for whether the criticism in this particular article is appropriately weighted or not. The fact that the criticism is partisan is now noted in the article. I'm not of the opinion that the criticisms in such a context necessarily cast Ms. Totenberg in any more negative a light than any other media personality, seeing as how it is attributed now to the NRA, a conservative law professor, and two conservative columnists. Is it really a problem to let the reader know that conservatives don't like Ms. Totenberg? I mean, they don't like anybody who isn't explicitly conservative, right? And certainly their anger at media bias is legendary in that regard. You have to be pretty low on the totem pole in national reporting indeed to escape the criticism of the so-called "rabid right". Or am I missing something here? ScienceApologist (talk) 02:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

This entire has an incredibly biased slant against any idea put forth by the film, an entire bloody section is dedicated to something construed from less than 30 sec of the movie! [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed]here is the article.[/url] I just think that material that's biased should be marked as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.118.46.109 (talk) 08:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Forget for the moment any slant. This article - with subarticles! - on a not-particularly-important film has spiralled out of control. Shorten it drastically. Merge the subarticles back in. Take out all the direct quotes and use reported speech only. This one needs to be dealt with by sticking rigorously to the policy of letting the facts speak for themselves. A film was made - when, how - it argued X, reviewers said Y. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to try. There was a bit of a stink about this film, and both creationists and atheists were up in arms over how they were treated by their opposite side. I gave up trying to keep the article factual & neutral a while ago. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

COI, NPOV edits on Undercover Boss

Article: Undercover Boss

This is a new US TV show. It appears many of the new accounts are related to the production company (Studio Lambert) behind the show. Here's the "glowing" reception section promoted by the new accounts; here's the neutral version that I promote, and a few other users appear to support also.

Examples of user accounts that are SPA:

• BlueRiver28 (talk · contribs)
• Tellynut (talk · contribs)
• Seesot (talk · contribs)
• 98.214.236.229 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 82.35.19.199 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

I'm sort of lost on how to handle this. tedder (talk) 16:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Anti-clericalism

This article is written from a militant Catholic viewpoint, fails to describe the intellectual background to anti-clericalism and presents anti-clericalism primarily as a form of irrational violence against priests. A summary of the historical development of the arguments for and against clericalism would be welcome. --Tediouspedant (talk) 19:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

A concept in three sources could still be POV?

A long term dispute on the Falun Gong page is whether some of the following information, based on the sources below, can appear in the article.

An occurrence on Fuyou Street: the communist myth of Falun Gong's original sin National Review, July 20, 2009 by Ethan Gutman

"In 1999, the Public Security Bureau estimated that Falun Gong had attracted 70 million practitioners, 5 million more people than belonged to the Communist party itself. It was at that point that a physicist published an article in a Tianjin Normal University journal portraying Falun Gong as a dangerous cult. China isn't the West, and these things aren't random: The physicist, He Zuoxiu, is the brother-in-law of Luo Gan, at that time the head of public security, and the Tianjin Normal University journal answers to the state. The article was a flare in the night sky, a signal and trial of the party's designs. "

Falun Gong in the United States: An Ethnographic Study By Noah Porter (described as "excellent" by David Ownby)

"He Zuoxiu, a scientist and one of Luo Gan's relatives, perhaps partially motivated by how Li Hongzhi calls modern science limited, seems to have intentionally provoked Falun Gong... Things could not have worked out better for the two if they had planned it — which, it appears, they just might have."

Zhao Yuezhi, "Falun Gong, Identity, and the Struggle Over Meaning," in Contesting media power: alternative media in a networked world edited by Nick Couldry, James Curran, Rowman & Littlefield, 2003

"A number of factors were involved in the souring relations among Falun Gong and the Chinese state and the news media, including ... lobbying efforts on the part of Li’s qigong opponents and scientists-cum-ideologues with political motives and affiliations with competing central Party leaders, which caused the shift in the state's position."

The reason for the information being excluded, as far as I can tell, is that Ethan Gutmann's article was published in the National Review ("an anti-China U.S. conservative publication" and because Noah Porter, the anthropologist, refers to Falun Gong primary source materials in his thesis). I stated how I don't think those reasons are adequate for excluding the material. I thought the NPOV board would be a good way of getting an outside opinion. The point is to mention two things (at least):

• He Zuoxiu, the outspoken Marxist scientist critic of feudal superstition, is brother-in-law to Luo Gan, the public security tzar;
• There is speculation about whether the articles written by He were part of a plan to attack Falun Gong in the media;

I believe both those points are clear from the material above, and that no real reason has been provided for excluding the material, despite the reams of discussion. Outside editors, please state your views about whether the above points would contravene NPOV by being on the page. (The previous discussions on this are here: [19][20].)--Asdfg12345 02:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

scrap this, actually belongs at the RS noticeboard. the reason given for excluding the source was related to its reliability. --Asdfg12345 12:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Please consider that Asdfg12345 was banned from editing Falun Gong articles for gross POV violations. Simonm223 (talk) 21:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

John F. Kennedy assassination - title of article misleading

Resolved

I feel the title of the article John F. Kennedy assassination (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is extremely misleading, because readers (and some editors) are not aware of the "rules" that have been set by the active editors - that material added must not only agree with the government investigations, but it must also not challenge the simplified version of those findings that the editors have agreed upon, or digress into details about conflicting evidence. The average reader likely assumes, due to the title of the article, that this article is a wide-ranging examination of the JFK assassination, when it is actually, primarily, an account of the government's findings about the assassination. Items that don"t fit the litmus test are deleted, sometimes without comment. My referenced lines about the rifle found in the Dallas School Book Depository initially being identified as a 7.65 Mauser were deleted as "conspiracy theory", and then when moved to the "conspiracy theory" section of the article, way down in the article, they were deleted a second time, without comment. I had to get a debate going to find out what was going on. I quote one of the editors.

"THE PAGE IS CHIEFLY THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS AS PER THE OFFICIAL INVESTIGATIONS. The debates belong elsewhere. It's not about "defending" anything.(!) Which is why, throughout the article, you see phrases like "...government investigations concluded..."; "According to the Warren Commission..."; "The Warren Commission theorized..." and why, if you glance at the notes and references on the bottom, the large preponderance of citations are from the Warren Commission. The reason this is so is that there is little dispute over what the investigations claimed, IOW, there is no argument that the WC claimed a single bullet caused JFK's non-fatal wound and Connally's wounds. The moment we start to open up the debate, the page massively opens up to disputes back and forth over evidence. Why? BECAUSE THERE ARE HUGE DEBATES OVER VIRTUALLY EVERY ASPECT OF THE ASSASSINATION. To delve into those debates would make the page completely unwieldy, and so those discussions are left to the attendant pages, where relevant."

If you are going to call the article "JFK assassination" it should be a broad and inclusive article. The other editors feel this is unrealistic for the reasons given above. But I feel this results in an "official", simplified story that readers will assume is "the truth" as agreed upon by all serious researchers, which it is not (I have references I can supply if you doubt this). My suggested fix is to rename the article "John F. Kennedy assassination - U.S. government investigation findings". All of the editors participating in the debate oppose this, but the current article, as currently titled, seems clearly NOT NPOV to me, and definitely misleading to the readers, who have no idea about these "behind the scenes" restrictions on content.Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll have to go with the regular editors on this one. Like Collapse of the World Trade Center, this is an article with a generally accepted explanation, and thousands of conspiracy theories. The generally accepted explanation is the one that gets the main page, while conspiracy theories go onto their own page. The fact that there is debate is beside the point. NPOV does not mean "give equal time to every proposal on one page." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

So you support a "winner take all" approach to encyclopedia articles? If the article on U.S. history omits any evidence or commentary that the indigenous people got a raw deal when they were driven off their land, we can just exclude that as not being "generally accepted" and put it in a separate "Native Americans" article? If the "Collapse of the World Trade Center" article is only based on the 9/11 Commission report and other government sources, it should also be subtitled "official government investigation findings" because that is what it would be.Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

This person tried to gain consensus for changes to first the content then the title on the relevant page. There was never a "ban" of information that disputed the government investigations, indeed the disputes with the conclusions are mentioned in the lede, and a section briefly discusses them. At least six editors participated in a discussion and all disagreed with his proposal and disagreed with his contention there was a problem with the page. He next took it to Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests where he was a) told this smacks of forum shopping and b) his dispute had been adequately addressed. Three outside editors there all agreed that there was nothing to remedy. All the while I have suggested his material would help improve an existing page, on conspiracy theories related to the Kennedy assassination, and have offered some specific and concrete advice on how best to present the evidence of conspiracy. Canada Jack (talk) 15:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I could have just engaged in an edit war with you, and reverted your edit without comment, as you did mine, but I thought it might be better to a) first discuss it on the talk page b) when that failed to resolve the issue, I took it to editor assistance c) they suggested discussing it further on the talk page, which I pointed out we had done and that Canada Jack said further discussion was pointless, so then, d) I've raised the issue here. Are you accusing me of misconduct?Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the article title. There already is an article John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories; this article is linked from John F. Kennedy assassination. Which basically solves any NPOV problems. This sounds like a content dispute and should be settled on the article talk page not here. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 17:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

So we don't have to worry whether or not an article is NPOV, as long as it is balanced by another article somewhere else? A flat earth article is balanced by a round earth article?Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

These are the kinds of authors and references that are excluded from the main article, because they point out problems with the Warren Commission investigation:

1. Mark Lane (1966). Rush to Judgment: A Critique of the Warren Commission's Inquiry Into the Murders of President John F. Kennedy, Officer J. D. Tippit and Lee Harvey Oswald. Holt Rinehart & Winston.
2. Henry Hurt (January 1986). Reasonable Doubt: An Investigation into the Assassination of John F. Kennedy. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
3. Michael L. Kurtz (November 2006). The JFK Assassination Debates: Lone Gunman versus Conspiracy. University of Kansas Press.
4. Gerald D. McKnight (October 2005). Breach of Trust: How the Warren Commission Failed the Nation and Why. University of Kansas Press.

The last two books are by history professors. Anything that challenges the government's version of events can be, and usually is, removed from the article. If the title of the article was "Bill Clinton", would material that conflicts with his official,

Clinton-approved biography be excluded, restricted to one section, or moved to another article?Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The references above are accepted as part of the "Conspiracy" section of the article, but this implies, again, that only the official government investigations are credible, when in fact they are highly suspect. The views expressed are excluded from the rest of the article, leading the reader to believe that the version of events given in the article is unquestionably valid. In reality, it is just the goverment's THEORY about what happened, and as Canada Jack admits above, it is highly controversial. But in this article, it is the only version of events.Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

As simply as I can put this, the article is not about "John F. Kennedy assassination". It is actually about "John F. Kennedy assassination - U.S. government investigation findings." That is the scope of the article now, because the editors have made a decision to limit it in that way. Here is the information that was excluded from the article: For example, Deputy Sheriff Boone and Deputy Constable Weitzman both initially identified the rifle found in the Dallas School Book Depository as a 7.65 Mauser. Weitzman signed an affidavit the following day describing the weapon as a "7.65 Mauser bolt action equipped with a 4/18 scope, a thick leather brownish-black sling on it".[10] Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig claimed that he saw "7.65 Mauser" stamped on the barrel of the weapon. Dallas District Attorney Henry Wade told the press that the weapon found in the School Book Depository was a 7.65 Mauser, and this was reported by the news media. But investigators later identified the rifle as a 6.5 Italian Mannlicher Carcano.[11][12][13] Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

If consensus is what you are looking for, then my 2 cents worth is in for keeping the title just as it is. If you want to do another article on "Conspiracy Theories Regarding the Kennedy Assassination", I would certainly think that that is notable. Oh, wait...John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories already exists. Leave it alone. Rapier1 (talk) 00:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

If the title of the article were "Earth", and it stated that the earth is flat, and gave evidence from official Middle Age Vatican cosmology, government investigations and astronomers who support the idea, detailing why this is so, and this made up most of the article, and conflicting material that suggested the possibility that the earth is round was excluded, because it would make the article "unwieldy", except in one short section called "Round Earth theories", and most of the "Round earth theories" were in a separate article, would that be ok?Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, a poor analogy, because the material that is being excluded isn't the round earth theory, it's the observations by some historians and researchers that some evidence doesn't support the "flat earth theory" (i.e. lone gunman).Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's go with your analogy, Nemo. Look at Earth. It's based on the scientifically accepted reality that's been clearly documented. Flat earth has its own article, as it is not supported by the evidence but has a notable following (and history). Same thing with JFK: we have a scientifically accepted reality, and unsupported conspiracy theories. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

You think so? On the reliability of the Warren Commission's findings (on which the article is mostly based, which is the basis for the simplified version of events given, and which is the basis for excluding other information):

http://www.seattlepi.com/national/191397_kennedy18.html

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history.do?action=Article&id=52023

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2003-11-21/news/0311210105_1_oswald-assassination-of-president-assassinated-jfk

http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/hsca.htm Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

AS an example of the intellectual dishonesty on display here, I chose to, as an example, discuss the claims made on one of those above sources, and showed how the Baltimore Sun article is, quite simply, bullshit when it asserts four people saw Oswald on the ground floor when JFK was shot. SO I posted what the Warren Commission and others actually reported in terms of those four, yet here we have Ghost posting this stuff AGAIN as if it is the unvarnished truth. It's a prime example of the nonsense which would invade the page if his suggestions were adopted, as each and every one of the assertions above is easily answered. It would turn the main assassination page into an endless shouting match. This despite the fact there already IS a page and other places where many of these alternate scenarios are to be found. Canada Jack (talk) 01:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I proposed the following on the article talk page and it is currently being discussed: You could note, before the narrative of the story, "The following version of events is a simplified version of the Warren Commission's findings. It is a theory based on evidence available at the time it was written. Its findings have been challenged by some researchers but supported by others." That way the readers will at least know what they are reading.Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem with your proposal is 1) wikipedia does not generally include disclaimers and you have repeatedly been told this; 2) the fact there are disputes with the WC etc is clearly noted in the lede; 3) much of the narrative is introduced as " The Warren Commission said..." thus there is little chance a casual reader will be unaware many issues are contentious; 4) there is already a section on the page which discusses the fact there are many alternate theories on the subject; 5) your proposed text implies there is new evidence which has emerged which renders the Warren Commission conclusions incorrect, but this is a POV assertion; 6) there is no competing narrative per se to include. IOW, there is no definitive counter-argument to the narrative which is agreed upon by critics. Which is why those counter-arguments have their own page; 7) a page is already dedicated to counter-arguments, which has several links, including in the lede. Canada Jack (talk) 03:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, point by point: 1) I noted this! But I also noted that explaining the source of your material may not be the same as the disclaimers covered by the "no disclaimer" policy (which I provided a link to!) No one "repeatedly told me" about this policy. I pointed it out! 2) Yes, but despite this, the entire narrative is based on that source, which is NOT pointed out. 3) If parts of the narrative say "The WC said" why not describe the entire narrative that way? 4) The alternative theory section comes long after the narrative, it is tightly restricted (you removed my material), and points in the narrative are not allowed to be challenged, so controversial statements cannot be challenged 5) There is new evidence! The HSCA uncovered some, many "secret" documents have been released, Gerald Ford admitted that he changed the description of the location of the bullet wound in Kennedy's neck! 6) You can't provide a complete narrative of events because there is not enough information, but we can see that the Warren Commission's attempt to do so was flawed because some historians and researchers have said so. 7) The "assassination conspiracy" article is not under discussion here. My problem is with the "assassination" article pretending to be NPOV when it's not. Just because you ALLOW a counter article to exist doesn't mean the main article is NPOV. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

2) Yes, but despite this, the entire narrative is based on that source, which is NOT pointed out. 3) If parts of the narrative say "The WC said" why not describe the entire narrative that way?

This is the endless inanity we've had to put up with the past week. For one, Ghost has admitted HE'S NEVER READ THE REPORT. Yet he feels qualified to do roundly critique it. If he HAD read it, he'd realize that almost all the conspiracy critiques of the report COME FROM THE REPORT'S OWN EVIDENCE. SO it is entirely appropriate to link much of the material on the page to the Report. BECAUSE MOST OF THE CONSPIRACY COMMUNITY DOES SO TO. For example, the material on the sequence of shots, the nature of the wounds, the testimony etc., doesn't come from researchers asking questions decades later, it comes from the evidence gathered by the various official investigative bodies. Which is why it is quite clearly stated "The Warren Commission concluded..." etc. The other problem which Ghost, in his general ignorance on the subject as he seems blissfully unaware of this, the VAST majority of evidence to the assassination was carried out by those several government inquiries.

4) The alternative theory section comes long after the narrative, it is tightly restricted (you removed my material), and points in the narrative are not allowed to be challenged, so controversial statements cannot be challenged Ghost admits there indeed is a section on the page for the alternate scenarios, which links to a page which further explores the claims. It's been patiently explained to him that therefore his claims are moot. He tried to insert a lot of material which properly resides on the conspiracy page the section links too, minitua on aspects of the assassination. It was patiently explained that in the case of the Mauser rifle debate THERE IS ALREADY A PAGE DEDICATED TO THE RIFLE!!!! That's not good enough, it would seem.

5) There is new evidence! The HSCA uncovered some, many "secret" documents have been released, Gerald Ford admitted that he changed the description of the location of the bullet wound in Kennedy's neck!

The fact that the HSCA came to different conclusions is STATED IN THE LEDE. Various different interpretations of the HSCA IS IN THE BODY OF THE ARTICLE. While Ford changed "back" to "neck" as he noted THIS DID NOT ALTER IN ANY WAY THE HSCA'S CONCLUSIONS AS TO THE SHOTS FIRED BY OSWALD, therefore does not rise, in this relatively broad article, to being discussed. It is, I believe, on the autopsy page where these issues are more greatly explored.

6) You can't provide a complete narrative of events because there is not enough information, but we can see that the Warren Commission's attempt to do so was flawed because some historians and researchers have said so. The Warren Commission narrative is listed, along with the HSCA where it differs, and the fact that others don't agree is mentioned as well. The basic problem here, completely unaddressed by Ghost, is there is NO ALTERNATE NARRATIVE WITH ANY BROAD AGREEMENT. It suffices to say others differ, because there are literally HUNDREDS of alternate scenarios put forward by other authors. How the hell do we deal with that on one page? By putting these alternate scenarios on another page. WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE.

Further, virtually EACH AND EVERY point determined by the WC and the HSCA has some alternate scenario somewhere. AS I said earlier, attempting to incorporate these views (even if we could get a "representative" view, which is impossible) would turn the page into a shouting match.

7) The "assassination conspiracy" article is not under discussion here. The fact that it exists, that there are multiple links to it, including in the lede, renders much of your complaints moot, a point repeatedly made by outside editors. Canada Jack (talk) 15:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

We've got this discussion going on in two places now. I assume this means you are willing to discuss this further on the talk page, but we still are not making any progress. I'm just asking for a note at the top of the article to explain that the article is primarily based on government and supporting sources, and that other points of view and conflicting evidence have been excluded. Here is my response, from the article talk page, to your assertion that having not read the Warren Commission report (and presumably being familiar with the material in the 26 supporting volumes of evidence) renders me incapable of recognizing a NPOV: I rely on the opinions of journalists, researchers and historians, and don't assume to question them based on my personal (original) research. By the way, since you often question the validity of news stories and the published findings of historians, are you qualified to do so?Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I suggest we put this code at the top of the article, and request some expert assistance:

Template:Expert-subject-multiple Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced I'm wrong, but I give up. It doesn't seem NPOV that anything that conflicts with or challenges the government investigation findings is removed, and editors are told to put it in the "JFK assassination conspiracies" article. But I'm a minority of one apparently, so I can't save Wikipedia from itself. I have to assume good faith, but I have to admit that the rejection of the common sense solution, to rename the article "JFK assassination - government investigation findings" has me scratching my head.Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

10th-century city wall, Jerusalem

This article's title is completely pov, but I'm not sure what else we can call it. The Jerusalem Post reference that is cited[21] makes it clear that other archaeologists disagree with Mazar on several grounds. Mazar represents one pov on dating called the high chronology, others suggest different dates. There is also disagreement among archaeologists as to whether there really was a strong centralised state at that time. As I've said, we shouldn't have an article with this title, but I'm not sure what to do - probably merge with another article and make the content npov. Dougweller (talk) 18:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Archaeology of Israel could be a merge target but it needs a lot of attention. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I also assume that the articel means 10thC BC. But I would not agree thst this is a merge case as it seems to be a touch fringe.Slatersteven (talk) 12:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

As I've said, there is a major problem with the title. Not only is assuming this wall is 10th century clearly pov, there is no wall actually named '10th-century city wall, Jerusalem'. Dougweller (talk) 15:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Not the least fringe. There will be scholarly articles in due course, but it is typical of some archeologists in this region to publicize their work in newspapers. For general background,see City of David. see also Broad Wall (Jerusalem). We do need a better title--this one is pure POV. I made the suggestion on the article talk page of moving it to City of David Wall, Jerusalem because it at least in the region known as the city of david, whether or not it dates back to that period. . If it were merged it would be to the established article on City of David, but normally we have separate articles on all archeologically significant buildings. DGG ( talk ) 17:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, not fringe. And not new either, this seems to be a continuation of the wall she excavated in the 1980s and had been discovered earlier. See for instance [22]. Dougweller (talk) 18:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

in re Whaling in Japan, industry euphemisms

I believe that the whaling-industry euphemisms "take" and "catch" are non-neutral in the context of illegal whaling (and especially in questionable "research whaling") and thus should not be used in an unqualified voice. These terms falsely imply that the whales are not killed -- disregarding the rare to nonexistent 'non-lethal research.'
      In contrast to Japanese whaling, there is the legitimate research of wild animals which are caught, tagged and released for further study. This association is exactly why the terms "take" and "catch" are effective euphemisms by the whaling industry. Especially when our readers are not familiar with the controversies. PrBeacon (talk) 20:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Just for a little more background, an editor was concerned over the term "slaughter" some time ago. "Harvest" was another unpopular term. "Take" and "catch" are used in the industry, overseeing bodies (who are against the hunt), and media coverage. "Kill" was a concern for some but removing it completely has not occurred (and I would be against its omission completely). Another editor has expressed concern that overusing "kill" could cause neutrality concerns. I propose using a variety of terms. This seems like a pretty easy fix to me that has been blown a little out of proportion.Cptnono (talk) 08:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

To be a little more specific regarding "slaughter", since what with so much reanimation of dead threads the talk page is hard to understand: An editor (Cetamata) was concerned over the term "slaughter" to the point of reviving an old thread about it at a time when the term had not been in the article for a long time. The editor used the "slaughter" straw man as an excuse to argue for more extensive use of industry euphemisms (instead of neutral descriptions such as "killing"), and was supported in this by Cpnono. In order to understand Talk:Whaling in Japan#Biased wording: slaughter it is important to keep apart the several threads it contains:

• One anonymous comment from January 2008.
• One answer from July 2009 (1 1/2 years later).
• Long discussion started by Cetamata in December 2009 under the pretext of continuing the old one, thus creating the impression that the word "slaughter" was still in the article.
• Discussion restarted by PrBeacon in February 2009 under Whaling in Japan#Industry euphemisms are biased, too. Hans Adler 08:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Given that the title of the article is "Whaling in Japan" and describes that parts of whales are used for various products (including food) I have to say that a reasonable person, even unfamiliar with Japanese whaling (including research whaling), would understand all of these disputed terms mean a whale is killed. It's not reasonable to assume everybody who reads the article will lose all common sense and think Japan is "taking" whales for a ride or "catching" them for fun. In my opinion it is not neutral (or reasonable) to remove every instance of "take" and replace it with "kill". This will negatively affect the neutrality of the article. Cetamata (talk) 08:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that only using "kill" would make the article less neutral. I agree that we shouldn't do it. One thing readers can take away from the article is an understanding of the terms the whaling industry uses. To achieve this, we must use them synonymously with non-euphemistic terms, alternating between them. But it is crucially important not to overuse the industry euphemisms. Throughout the article whenever they are used they must be implicitly defined, e.g. by making it clear that they function as a synonym for a more neutral word such as "kill". Otherwise we run the danger of lulling the reader or seriously misleading a reader who reads only specific passages. Hans Adler 08:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

What's happened is basic. Because it's a controversial issue, the facts and even the language used to describe the facts become issues of debate. So anti-whaling opinions imply the whalers are actually poachers who illegally slaughter whales for profit while calling it "science" to sidestep regulations. Pro-whaling opinions imply the whalers are legally harvesting whales for research purposes and to preserve their hunting traditions and food culture. I've tried to use terms that don't imply a benign "harvest" or an illegal "slaughter" and I've been attacked during the course of my editing by those who thought I gave too much weight to controversy, then science and now language. Apparently, all I can do is to bend to the whim of every opinion repeatedly and stop editing. Cetamata (talk) 08:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Please, this is not the place to continue the dispute either. We're looking for fresh input. As far as the mix that HansAdler is describing, I'd say the intro for Whaling does a decent job though not ideal. I'd still like to qualify the contentious terms when they're used. PrBeacon (talk) 09:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

By the way, you should add cattle and fishing to the list of articles if we are setting a precedent here.Cptnono (talk) 10:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting point Cptnono and it seems the more controversial the subject (animal rights opposition) the more often the word "kill" appears in a Wikipedia article in the following cases.

fishing 0

History of Fishing 1

cattle 1

beef 1

poultry 3

bycatch 3

venison 1

foie gras 1

shark finning 6

Whaling in the United States 4

History of Whaling 11

Whaling in the Faroe Islands 19

Hunting 22

Seal Hunt 25

Fox Hunting 27

Wolf Hunting 67

(PrBeacon's edits of) Whaling in Japan 32

(Prior to PrBeacon's edits) 8

But, does this establish failure to follow NPOV? Cetamata (talk) 15:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

And now PrBeacon is edit warring at fishing in an attempt to modify terminology in the lead. That seems inappropriate since there is an ongoing discussion and edit warring is bad. He has opened a report at the edit warring noticeboard against the other editor.[23] I am considering opening an edit warring report but feel that might be considered forum shopping, it could just as easily be done here or at the alert noticeboard due to inappropriate edit summaries and talk page incivility, and have a feeling he might already be digging his own grave. Things have become way to heated to the point that Cetamata is coming across upset like this and PrBeacon is opening multiple reports like this. I've tried to ask everyone to calm down but it doesn't look like it is happeningCptnono (talk) 10:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Now you're mischaracterizing my side of that situation, too, but this really isn't the place to be posting it anyway. And you're accusing me of forum shopping? Whatever. I started on Talk:Fishing before my edits and politely asked the editor not to revert & instead discuss, which he refused to do. I didnt start the edit warring in either instance. And it's no wonder that no one else has offered to weigh in here with you two slugging it out against me. PrBeacon (talk) 11:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't recall ever characterizing you. Right now, I am simply explaining to you how others view your edits. No one is slugging it out with you. I have asked you multiple times to not edit war and to be civil. You just need to stop. If you want to have a broader discussion not related to the terms used feel free to respond on one of the talk pages already used.Cptnono (talk) 11:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

PrBeacon charged at the fishing article, determined to enforce ill-considered changes to the lead paragraph. In the end, I had to respond in detail, which I did here. While I was doing that he opened another ANI accusing me of edit warring. He didn't inform me that he had done this. An examination of his edit history shows he gravitates to articles where he thinks he can stir up trouble, which he promptly does in tenacious, pugnacious and unhelpful ways. This wastes the time of other editors. I suggest, PrBeacon, if you want some respect from other content editors, that you see if you can write, by yourself and without the wikidrama, half a dozen articles and bring them up to, say C-grade. There are many background articles in whaling and fishing that are needed to clarify the silliness that is going on there. I am writing some of them myself. If you seriously want to make a difference, you can do it that way. But it is hard work, you have to actually deliver, and you have to do it without drumming up the audience you seem to crave. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Sigh... While I was writing the comment above, PrBeacon was adding this comment to the fishing talk page, announcing his intention, in his usual uncivil way, to continue his disruption and dramatising, wasting yet more time. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Most of that is plainly incorrect. I did inform you of the edit-warring. I could care less about your respect by this point because you haven't shown me any. Reverting me twice before even touching the talkpage is more wikidrama than my words here and elsewhere, and you know it. Continuing the dispute here is inappropriate. PrBeacon (talk) 04:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Though unresolved, I'm tagging this resolved because it has only continued current dispute(s) and thus deterred outside, impartial feedback. I opened this thread which is not meant to provide another soapbox for entrenched editors. PrBeacon (talk) 06:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Removing the "resolved" tag because this needs the input of 3rd parties and PrBeacon is one of the "entrenched editors". Cetamata (talk) 15:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Plasma arc waste disposal

There is no evidence that these facilities have ever been net electricity generators. Moreover, all sources are industry sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.22.240 (talk • contribs) 04:40, February 24, 2010 (UTC)

Considering there's no article at that title, I'm not sure what you're asking. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Fixed heading - case sensitive. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Urban Outfitters

I would love some input on the discussion page for the colorful discussion at this article's discussion page re the article's Criticism section — it seems to focus on a half dozen or so items sold by the company that received criticism; the section comprises about a third of the entire article, doesn't seem to me to meet NPOV or guidelines for the criticism section. Any insights would be welcome. The discussion, and this section of the article, could use some very sharp minds. Thanks. 842U (talk) 04:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Monarchism in Canada / Republicanism in Canada

The article Monarchism in Canada currently reads like an advocacy of the canadian monarchism and lacks objectivity in both the partiality of the tone and the undue prominence of pro-monarchy content. The main author and contributor does not want to introduce statements which could be interpreted as anti-monarchy, even if they are relevant to the issue being discussed. I think it should instead describe the monarchism movement in the country, its history and talk about the various monarchists groups. Most of the article can be considered a POV fork, together with Republicanism in Canada. Shouldn't the arguments be incorporated, instead, in a more neutral way, in the common Debate on the monarchy in Canada‎? It is currently mostly a poll war, but I think it could be restructured to include the main arguments of the two parties. --zorxd (talk) 19:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It was I who divided the content of Debate on the monarchy in Canada between Monarchism in Canada and Republicanism in Canada, due to a) the repetition of information between the three articles, and b) an editor who adamantly asserted that Republicanism in Canada could not be merged into Debate on the monarchy in Canada due to the existence of Republicanism in the United Kingdom, Republicanism in Australia, and Republicanism in New Zealand. Though I've put a vast amount of effort into improving Monarchism in Canada, I don't flat-out object to combining it and Republicanism in Canada together into Debate on the monarchy in Canada. However, I strongly suspect that such a move would create an immense article, and I don't yet know how that could be accommodated. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It wouldn't have to be so long, because it would contains only the arguments, and not the whole canadian history as seen by the two parties. The history of the monarchism movement in Canada could stay in its article. But part of the problem also come from the fact that even the article about republicanism in Canada as a stong pro-monarchy POV. Just look at this example :

• republicans will phrase this argument as "no Canadian citizen can become head of state," though this is technically not a valid claim

Not a valid claim? It would be hard to be more biased. It also minimize republicans to Quebec separatists as much as possible (emphasizing on the marxist FLQ, of course!). The conclusion of the article is even that it would be too hard to get rid of monarchy! The article really can't be compared to its Australian equivalent. --zorxd (talk) 20:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't seek to eliminate information by labeling it as what it is not. Both articles outline examples of either republicanism or monarchism throughout Canadian history, not republican or monarchist versions of Canadian history. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we both said our view : I think that both articles have a monarchist bias, as if they were written by a monarchist, and you think that they are fine. I started this discussion so that we get the views of more contributors. We should wait for feedback. --zorxd (talk) 21:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say they are fine. We don't need others' input to confirm that. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, you don't accept any anti-monarchy statement to be added to the article. Should we remove anti-republican statements from the republican article? --zorxd (talk) 22:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You'll have to be more clear with what you mean by "anti-monarchy statement". Republicanism doesn't belong on a page about monarchism (and vice versa), but there are comments against monarchism on the Monarchism in Canada article. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Example : saying that most of the population didn't want the Queen to attend the 400th of Quebec city is not republicanism, but it does not help the cause of the monarchy either. Does it mean we can include it? --zorxd (talk) 22:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not starting this discussion all over again in a different place. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Dense Inert Metal Explosive - due weight concerning the legality issue

Bjmullan inserted in Gaza War and in International Law and the Gaza War an opinion of Sir John Stanley (see here and here respectively). Sir Stanley argues that DIME weapons are illegal and using them violates the international law.
None of the sources cited in DIME entry imply that it is illegal. Global security says that it has not been "declared an illegal weapon"; neither Norwegian doctors in Gaza nor HRW military expert imply somehow it is illegal; Colonel Lane, military expert testifying in front of the fact-finding mission in July 2009, was asked about using DIME in Gaza. In his reply, he never suggested that DIME is illegal; finally, Goldstone report in para. 49 says that "DIME weapons and weapons armed with heavy metal are not prohibited under international law as it currently stands".
my concern - citing Sir Stanley on this issue violates WP:UNDUE. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 03:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Sceptic, I haven't been following the discussions very closely on the talk pages for this issue but what strikes me most isn't concerns about legality, it's the mismatch between how the issue is addressed in the wiki articles compared to how it is addressed in the large number of sources that talk about this issue. The emphasis is completely different. The focus of the majority of the sources is on the consequences of it's use against real people in the Gaza Strip during Operation Cast Lead (assuming of course that DIMEs were being used). It's the unusual nature of people's injuries, the oddly high number of amputations and maiming injuries seen by NGO's like Physicians for Human Rights working with people in the Gaza Strip and the probable long term health risks to actual people that they discuss at length. In other words and unsurprisingly the sources focus on the effects of the use of this weapon on real people in the Gaza Strip. In contrast, the section in the Gaza War article seems to be completely detached from the reality presented by the sources. For example, the people have vanished. It presents the issue in an sort of sanitised, abstracted, technical way that detachs it from the subject of the article, the war and its effects. There's already an article about DIME which is where the abstracted, technical stuff belongs (although I see that it somewhat understates the impressively bad 100% tumour yield for this material in animal tests). Legality is pretty much a non-issue or just gets a very brief mention in the majority of sources so I'm not convinced that your question here addresses an issue that deserves any weight at all from a wider perspective. The whole legality issue seems undue to me. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

consequences of it's use against real people in Gaza War article were addressed here, here, here, not to mention other info added by Bjmullan. If you think that this is not enough, you are welcome to edit the section and participate in the talk page. This inquiry was started for completely different reason. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 06:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it's already far too much. If the section was reduced to a sensible size the legality issue would become vanishingly small. Hence it's not a completely different reason, it's directly related to the excessive amount of information about various aspects of DIME weapons which magnifies the legality issue out of proportion. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

This section has gone the same way as the section above on White phosphorus. It's not about the impact the the stuff has on real people but just about giving excuses for it's use. Bjmullan (talk) 08:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

→The inquiry is not about proportions of legality issues per se in the section; it is not about the impact of the stuff on real people or excuses to use it. The inquiry is about one simple question. Does inclusion of the opinion that DIME is illegal violates the WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE or it does not. My rationale is presented above. I would like to see defenders of keeping the opinion bring arguments based on sources and wiki policies. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 19:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Anti-clericalism

The article suffers from a distinctly pro-catholic bias... coatracked arguments with cherry picked sources. It does not treat the subject from a neutral POV. A bit of help from those with a history or political philosphy background is needed. Blueboar (talk) 04:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

NPOV category title?

I'm looking for help choosing a neutral and fair category title to embrace mechanical, electronic, and other man-made (manufactured) devices such as the radionics device and the GT200 which are broadly pseudoscientific. Devices like these are:

• Highly discredited
• Incapable of having ever worked under scientific analysis. For example:

• The "sensor" in a GT200 is a sheet of scissor-cut paper between two sheets of card and the device contains no power source, being claimed to work off "the user's static electricity".
• A radionics device appears to be a non-powered set of dials that are twiddled)

• Identified as fraudulent or incapable devices by authoritative sources (legal judgments, fraud cases, government statements, overwhemling reliable sources, etc)
• Not supported by any other than "tiny fringe" groups (if at all).

The suggested test for this category would be whether there is a substantial consensus that the device cannot or would not operate under known scientific principles, or else whether the device is so clearly determined to be non-working and incapable of being made to perform the claimed function that reliable sources have used strong terms such as "fraudulent". It would also include other notable fraudulent devices made and sold in human history.

I think such a category would be useful, but I can't think how to title it appropriately - "fraudulent" and "pseudoscientific" are emotive and (if misused) pejorative terms.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, not easy. Purported electronic devices? Itsmejudith (talk) 15:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Isn't easy is it. And the radionics dial twiddler isn't powered so it's not even an 'electronic' device. More ideas? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is a good 'glob' word; it would depend on the device in question. For instance, even though 'radionics' might itself be pseudoscientific (I don't know enough about it to know) I'd tend to call devices like that simple fakes or shams (since any pseudoscientist who sincerely advocated for radionics would probably consider them fakes as well). I mean, I think we need to distinguish between people who are honestly trying to be scientific and failing utterly at it, and people who are just trying to rip people off. 'sham devices' might be best, since it avoids the legal implications of fraudulence and carries none of the misbegotten seriousness of pseudoscience... --Ludwigs2 19:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Sham devices isn't bad. Viable though? Other options? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that "sham devices" isn't bad; although "sham" has a bit of a slang-like sound to it. I prefer "discredited"... it sounds more encyclopedic, and suggests that someone gave it a fair look before rejecting it as non-working or fraudulent. Some other possible words are "bogus" and "hoax". Wildbear (talk) 02:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

"Discredited" works best of these three but compared to "sham" it covers too many devices that "just didn't work". Most of these were not really "hoaxes", and "bogus" is a bit too infomal and "slang". Good thoughts, but more ideas? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Category:Dowsing. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. "Pseudoscientific devices" is another option. Trying to avoid creating another war zone if possible though, and this excludes blatantly fraudulent devices that don't claim a pseudoscientific basis. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

well, since your third point seems to limit the category to things that are express chicanery, 'fraudulent devices' might be best. you could go with 'duplicitous devices' instead - less harsh, and has a nice alliteration...

p.s. or maybe 'misbegotten machines'... --Ludwigs2 19:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Muhammad al-Durrah incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Not sure if this is an appropriate request to post here, but I have an Rfc on a NPOV issue here. Unfortunately, being an Isreal-Palestine issue, most editors who have weighed in seem to have existing POVs which makes me question thier neutrality. Some fresh input would be most appreciated!

P.S. If this is not an appropriate area for this request, please let me know. I seek to learn!

Thanks NickCT (talk) 18:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Libertarianism article

There have been long running battles in this article between pro and anti-property libertarians which had settled down with compromises over last 6 months to a year. Comparing this February 1 version to this this March 3rd version, one can see a lot of material has been removed by one editor in an attempt to purge the anti-property libertarian views - bringing up all the old settled arguments yet again! (Meanwhile some question edits by anti-property people also have snuck in as well, causing more problems.) Anyway, the pro-gutting editor has an RFC up and comments on these two versions and how to deal with the issue welcome. Talk:Libertarianism#RfC:_Which_form_of_libertarianism.3F CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Anti-property libertarianism is really a flavor of anarcho-libertarianism, which is itself a WP:FRINGE subset of libertarianism. Without looking at the article, and thinking about it from a blank slate, it makes most sense to segregate the anti-property stuff to part of a single section or subsection with a {{main}} template. THF (talk) 21:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you use "socialism" (the article, not the idea!) as a model to some extent? There must be roughly as many flavours of socialism as of libertarianism. I think your main way forward is to make more use of university textbooks on political science. Try to choose some from different countries. They are RS even if not in English, so long as you use English sources where you can. I don't see that "fringe" applies; these are political views and while we have to give due WP:WEIGHT, we also need to give information about all the varieties of those views whether they seem odd to us or not. So is libertarianism a single political position in which there is disagreement about property, or is it two completely different positions with the same name? I don't know, and you should go with what the sources say. Liberal and conservative share the same problems, don't they? Itsmejudith (talk) 13:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The place to give those minority views is a "See also" section, or at most, a single sentence each in a "Other uses of the word 'libertarian'" section. Libertarian socialism, which is what we're mainly talking about here, is utterly inconsistent with mainstream libertarianism, while the different strains of socialism are more like variants of chicken curry on Brick Lane. THF (talk) 13:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I've not had the impression that the gulf is as wide as you say. And I don't think that all libertarians who don't think much of private property want to call themselves libertarian socialists. We should, as far as possible, pick apart all the different variants. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Are "propaganda" and "regime" biased terms?

I would like to know the position of the Wikipedia community on whether the terms "propaganda" and "regime" are biased, in particular in reference to the activities of the Chinese Communist Party in its anti-Falun Gong campaign. The relevant section is here[24], and below is a small excerpt:

According to James Tong, Professor of Political Science at the University of California and Chief Editor of the journal Chinese Law and Government, in the wake of the official ban the regime aimed at not only coercive dissolution of the Falun Gong but also reform and rehabilitation of the practitioners. This was accomplished through four program initiatives: a mass campaign of electronic and print propaganda; intensive individualized reeducation; special programmes for true believers that emphasised "internal transformation" rather than "external conformity"; and for the still defiant, punitive and rehabilitative labor reform.

Tong's profile: [25]. The question is whether those terms should either be put inside direct quotes from the source whenever they appear, or should be changed to "Chinese government" and "statements" (instead of propaganda). My view is that the terms are not controversial or improper and can be used without needing to be modified or identified as quotes. They are commonly used terms in discussing the CCP/Falun Gong issue, and in China scholarship generally. If the source cited did not use such terms, however, then they should not be used. I am interested in the opinion of other Wikipedians.--TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 03:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with you on this. The terms are obviously biased, as is the term "true believer." However, if those are the terms commonly used in the sources, then Wikipedia is actually merely reporting. The sources are where the line is being drawn for us. If the sources did not regularly use these terms, then there would be no reason to not use these terms when speaking, for example, of the United States government. However, we are writing of a foreign government. We should ask ourselves whether we are biasing Wikipedia toward the Western POV. For example, do scholarly sources in other countries commonly refer to the US gov't in the same terms? If they do, then it is Western bias to use these terms for the Chinese gov't if we are not going to use them for the US gov't. Becritical (talk) 04:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, but the issue of how the United States and its activities are dealt with by scholars is separate to this. If indeed there was a bias among scholars, that is something we would presumably silently accept rather than "correct." In the case of James Tong, he deals in Chinese, not U.S. politics. It is worth our pondering though (even for non-U.S. residents).--TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 04:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding "true believers," this may have been my own bias creeping in, because I do not think the source used that term. I will check. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 04:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure we both are correct on reflecting bias among scholars. It seems to me that we do correct POV, and that is a very essential part of WP, that is we report on the POV but we do not reflect it. If we detect POV we do not "internalize" it but report on it. So if these terms are POV, then we would use them only in the context of reporting what named scholars say. If I'm correct in this, then I would say that 1) yes, the terms are POV and so 2) we should use different terms or make clear that the terms are from the source. Becritical (talk) 05:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Before going any further, does making clear that the terms are from the source involve anything more than saying "according to..." and citing it? --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 05:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

That sounds sufficient to me. I don't think simply changing the terms would make the passage any less damning to the Chinese Gov't though. Becritical (talk) 05:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The neutrality of the terminology is ambiguous and should either be explicitly attributed to the speaker as suggested or neutralised/clarified for use in Wikipedia's voice if unattributed in my view. Propaganda is an especially complicated and contentious term that means all sorts of different things to different people in different places if you don't explain what you mean by the term. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Certainly, the term propaganda or regime should not appear in the "Wikipedia voice." But some editors had suggested that it should not appear outside quotation marks at all. The message I get is that it does not have to appear inside quotation marks to be acceptable, but that it should be attributed to the individual who made the statement, both in writing (such as "... writes X" or "... according to Y") and with a citation. One editor had proposed that these might be words to avoid; this was what I wanted to get clarified. Please confirm that I understand the broad point here: just make sure it's clear that those are the words of the source, use attribution and citation to do so. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 14:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Propaganda seems to me to be a term which can be used as it requires less subjective interpretation. There also isn't another word which conveys the same meaning as propaganda. However, regime seems to be something which shouldn't be used as the word government will suffice in its place. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

In relation to sources, remember that verifiability and neutral point of view are not the same concept. Not all sources, even if reliable, are as neutral as we would desire, and may be biased at some broad level (such as a national or regional one) or give undue prominence to one point of view in relation to others, even if being properly neutral when adressing specific disputes MBelgrano (talk) 16:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

There isn't a standard definition of propaganda so there is no standard, universally agreed meaning conveyed by the word. I think the interpretation will be entirely subjective. Many people will see it as a derogatory term suggesting that the information is false when in fact the information may very well be true and still qualify as propaganda for other reasons. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Some subjective intepretation is required but propaganda is:

a form of communication aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position. As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense, presents information primarily to influence an audience

Propaganda can still present factual information, just in such a way that it heavily influences its audience. My point was that regime doesn't have such a clear-cut definition. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 23:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• NPOV doesn't mean finding "one true representation of reality", so much as representing the significant views and their balance neutrally. If there is a significant view that considers the topic in terms of "propaganda" and "regimes" then those may be appropriate terms to use in representing their viewpoint, with a clear neutral explanation for the reader of their stance and position and information to gain an understanding of how much WP:WEIGHT it carries.

  It's when Wikipedia uses those terms to declare XYZ is "propaganda", that we veer into POV. Representing a significant viewpoint faithfully is very different. There will presumably be other significant viewpoints that do not hold this stance, and the article should show the various views, who holds them, and the backgrounds and reasons why they do so. NPOV implies representing the topic as a whole faithfully, including the significant views that exist about it.

  In brief they would be POV if we asserted them as "the truth"; they are correct and appropriate words when representing a significant view if they accurately describe and faithfully represent the viewpoint's position. (SImilar to how we wouldn't say "X is a terrorist" but we would say "The United States Government and most other governments consider X a terrorist"). FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I consider FT2's response to have nailed the issue. I had the thought in mind, given the line of debate that had gone on earlier, to start asking about how far our "neutralisation" of terminology extends, and whether this is a Wikipedia-wide issue, and how certain terms are determined to be "biased," etc. It certainly raises a number of issues. Whatever the case, with regards to the Chinese Communist Party's use of propaganda and indoctrination, and its being termed a "regime," there is a wealth of literature. Scholars have written about it for decades, and these terms are par for the course. In particular, with regard to the propaganda and indoctrination campaign against the Falun Gong, these words are used most regularly. I will take away from this fruitful discussion that it is important to acknowledge the source in all cases, but that it is not individual editors who decide what is biased and neutral with regard to terminology, but the body of reliable sources writing on the particular topic. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 02:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Richard Littlejohn

I feel this article has been hijacked by left-wing critics of Richard Littlejohn who are using dubious sources such as left-wing newspapers, biased blogs and comments from clearly left-wing figures such as Johann Hari and Will Self. I feel there is a lot of POV and biased content in this article. It seems to be people trying to force negative material about Mr Littlejohn rather than a balanced biographical article. I would appreciate a neutral opinion. Christian1985 (talk) 22:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

New stuff goes at the bottom. Read WP:RS, find stuff that fits that criteria, and add it to that article. Can you point out anything that explicitly violates the NPOV policies? Ian.thomson (talk) 00:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

If I Can Dream (series)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:If_I_Can_Dream_(series) ... this article is written like an advertisement for the show. 'The series intends to harness new media equally, if not more so, than traditional broadcast, creating a truly cross media viewing experience.' ... 'Aside from introducing a new paradigm of reality based programming, If I Can Dream also represents a significant leap forward...' ... 'Accompanying the new technology platform is a state-of-the-art website built by a renown interactive design firm.' ... i would guess that the article has been written by the show's publicists. it needs to be flagged and rewritten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.132.112.255 (talk) 15:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)