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.

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

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)

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)

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.[1] 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)

  In my opinion, failing to let the reader understand that take and catch are synonymous with killing would be misleading and would fail to take into consideration the rationale for NPOV in the first place. I second Hans Adlers approach. Unomi (talk) 11:38, 9 March 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[2], 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: [3]. 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)

Seems to have been fixed now. If not, post a link to the article and let's have a look. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

POV-check request @ The Invention of the Jewish People

There has been an extreme amount of edit warring over the content and "POV" at The Invention of the Jewish People, in fact the article is now locked down (protected) due to disagreements among editors. I would like to request an uninvolved third party review the article for neutrality. Additionally, in somewhat of an odd request, I feel that whomever takes on the task of the POV-check should a) not be Jewish or Israeli and b) not be Muslim or Arab. I am not personally discounting the ability of such editors to remain non-bias in reviewing articles; however given the extremely controversial nature of the article, I am concerned that if an editor belonging to one of those categories performs the POV-check, his/her suggestions may be rejected by the "other side". --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 10:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Nsaum75, Personaly I would prefer unbiased admin who can comprehensively review this article and the quality of its edits. I have no problem with any ethnicity or religion -only with POV. Of course, admins are less expected to give heavy weight to their own POV when edit or mediating and so forth-that's one reason to prefer admin. The second is that his/her advices would be usually heared louder. Also, I would strongly prefer someone who is not involved with any Israel-Palestine related articles. Not sure that this boared is the right place-maybe arbitration is a better option--Gilisa (talk) 22:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't doubt your motives, but it's not possible, since many editors are anonymous and aren't going to disclose their ethnic, national or religious background. I've looked at highly controversial articles before and will give an opinion on this one. There may be other contrasting views expressed here and you will have to weigh them in the balance. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I have looked at it, and saw that, first and foremost, anyone who wants to take this up should actually have read the book. Some of the disputes are so detailed that intelligently commenting w/o prior knowledge of the book's content is impossible. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Well, I've had my first look and this is what I think. This article is in the very fortunate position of having a range of really good top quality sources to choose from. You need simply to reflect what they say. Just to give one example, you say that "Schama proceeds to debunk..." Exactly what points does he debunk? Schama is a prominent historian and two or three sentences from him would not be too much. The "Criticism" section should be named "Responses". You have a sentence in the lede which I see has been attacked on the talk page as in breach of NPOV, and I agree with that to some extent. In any case, we should avoid references in the lede, as the lede should simply summarise the properly referenced text in the article main body. Try doing that here and say something like "the book attracted much criticism and some praise", if that is the balance of the reviews that you find. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Itsmejudith, Have you seen the versions of the lead that preceded this sentence? Does they seem to you more neutral? Also, you suggest that the lead will include statement like "the book attracted much criticism and some praise" if that is the balance of the reviews that we find. However, how should we now agree on the balance? What about the transletors notes section-is it normal in such articles? I have these and more reservations here.--Gilisa (talk) 21:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the previous versions and none of them were particularly good. "Debunked" would be misleading, because if you look at Schama in the FT he does not say "all the book's claims are false". He says "we all knew these things anyway, there is no new story here". "Controversial", on the other hand, is well sourced and I think you could include it in the lead without any reference at that point, although others might disagree. The "Translator's notes" section is inappropriate. There are currently two people's opinions mentioned there and they could both go into Responses. One would expect a translator to have nothing but praise for the book, so only include her view if she is an important scholar (of history, not language) in her own right. The other comment is more likely to be relevant, but the original interview in Yedioth Ahronoth should be found, rather than sourcing it at third-hand to Haaretz. Take out the Praise and Cricitism subheadings in Responses. The reviews should speak for themselves, some reviews might be mixed, and in an academic context criticism is not the opposite of praise. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Itsmejudith, Schama does not support Sand's thesis as may be sounded from this quote. Also, among the praisers no one is notable expert of Jewish history or Jewish genetics (both disciplines are relevant) -so while they are notable for their own expertise-I think that WP:UNDUE should be implied regarding their comments on Sand's book which deal with a field out of their expertise. As for the translator -she had no expertise aside for her being an author, journalist, professional transletor from English to Hebrew and vice versa (her parent came to Israel from the UK)and anti Zionist activist. As for the second comment, Abrum Burg is not an historian and very far from being expert. He was the chirman of the Jewish agency-but I think you would agree with me that there is no place for special section for what he said--Gilisa (talk) 14:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Frederic Raphael's review essentially acknowledges that it is propaganda at the site entitled Invention of the Jewish people dot com. "It may be that this book comes too late to help men arrive at a sane and rational compromise in the Middle East." John Rose (UK politician)'s review (at the same place) says "Shlomo Sand’s book, already a best seller in Israel and France, will accelerate the disintegration of the Zionist enterprise." Tony Greenstein of the Weekly Worker "has reviewed it as “an important book” which hammers another nail into the Zionist coffin." Surely we do not want to give a voice to anti-Jewish propaganda? There were all sorts of reliable sources that said that Joan of Arc was a witch as well. This is a thoroughly debunked concept, and while popular, we do not have to presume its veracity. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion are also highly popular, but we acknowledge that it is a hoax right away, even if we seem to have problems acknowledging that the hoax is antisemitic. We should not be pushing this perspective but letting people know right away that this book is fringy and to be taken with a large grain of salt! Stellarkid (talk) 16:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

This book is certainly not anti-Jewish propaganda; and neither John Rose nor Tony Greenstein, both prominent anti-racist activists, could be described as anti-Jewish. There are of course legitimate debates to be held about Sand's thesis; but this sort of over-the-top hysterical rant is not in the least helpful. RolandR (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

In principle, and I don't know who are Greenstein and Rose, "anti Racist activists" may well be selectively racist. Also, fringe book which dismiss the history of the Jewish people and their being people in a direct intent to slough Jews from their history and to disconnect present days Jews from their homeland (and Sand had some declared very similar intentions that are cited on the article's talk page)-using unreliable arguments and ad hominom attack on his critics, can be easily considerd as anti-Semitic. Even when it's not a decalred one, even if the author declare he/she isn't, and even if he/she don't see himslef/herself as anti Semitic by himself/herself. As for Sand's book, its arguments are heavily cited in neo Nazi sites, as can be seen when googling -I would not deduce that that was his intention, but these are the facts--Gilisa (talk) 21:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment Conflating anti-zionism and anti-semitism is not at all helpful. Please desist. Unomi (talk) 20:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment oh please! This tiresome old chestnut! The book is called the Invention of the Jewish people - not the Invention of the Zionist People. Stellarkid (talk) 03:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

And if you read the book you will see why this is not 'anti-semitic' even if it attacks an oft used premise of Zionists. If anything it is anti-racist. Unomi (talk) 07:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Unomi, and why isn't it racist? Because it say that Jews are not apeople because they are people of different races? Meaning, that real nation is one based on race? Or maybe because it argue that Jewish people are not realy descendant from the Israelites (heavily refuted argument btw, both according to mainstream history and to genetic research) but Palestinians are? And that therfore the all idea of state for the Jewish people is immoral ? Because even according to the EU convention, such assertions do considerd racism. Evne if it's warpped in velvet.--Gilisa (talk) 17:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you seriously arguing that this is a racist book? Have you even read it? RolandR (talk) 18:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• A nation should not be based on the idea of a 'race' or a homogeneous 'people', there be dragons, as ww2 and its fetid mix of nationalism and race theories should have taught us. Personally I am aracialist, I find it very likely that my ancestors came out of Africa, but that doesn't mean that I find it sane to lay claim to a beach in Ghana. Have a look at our article on Race (classification of human beings) a vanishing number of scholars find the term 'race' useful, and more, while racial categories may be marked by sets of common phenotypic or genotypic traits, the popular idea of "race" is a social construct without base in scientific fact.. So where does it end? Haplogroup screenings? I don't care who descended from the Israelites and I don't understand why you do. You are here now, that is all that matters. Unomi (talk) 18:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Unomi, I quote you: "..I find it very likely that my ancestors came out of Africa, but that doesn't mean that I find it sane to lay claim to a beach in Ghana.." And you realy compared between that and Zionism or between that and the history of Jewish people? And how exactly does it help in getting to NPOV? Also, Zionism is not race based ideology more than the Palestinian world view is. For instance, Ethiopian Jews -on whose absorption Israel spent and spend dozens of billions of dollars- are racialy not Jewish and many of those have even converted back to Judaism (a religion they adopted assumably about 600 years ago) only after they came in Israel...Also, about half million non Jewish Russians have Israeli citizenship while most of those have no direct Jewish background. As I wrote, the European Union convention explicitly considerd assertions that exclude the national rights of the Jewish people as anti Semitism. But lets go back to your example again, I think that Afro Americans, for example, have the right to return to their ancestors countries of origin -had they wanted to do so.--Gilisa (talk) 19:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see how you don't accept the similarity. Ok, the African exodus might have been some 120,000 years ago, but time doesn't matter, right? By ancestral right I must have a claim. You seem to be distancing yourself from the position that Jewish people constitute a race, yet you are also saying that the link to Judaism is weak. I would certainly agree and so would Neturei Karta. In truth Zionism has nothing to do with Judaism, it is a perversion. If you are in Israel I would suggest that you go have a chat with these guardians of the city and find out how they come to hold the position that they do. I also hope that you read Who_is_a_Jew#Israeli_definition_of_nationality and have a good long think about the history Israel is repeating. I don't care one iota what the European Union has said on this matter. You asked about NPOV, this is it. By all means, have a country, but stop wasting the opportunities that you have and stop appealing to myth, fantasy and delusion. It gets tiresome. Unomi (talk) 20:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Unomi, I failed to see how all of this is relevant for NPOV notice board. We are away of topic. But in short, if you are defined by other people as African and/or see yourself as such, certainly if you are persecuted for that for generations, your very ancestors (or you yourself) were praying to return to Africa every day and so forth, then time doesn't matter. Otherwise it's. The whole issue is that those who are racist against Africans are according to the comparison you made, Africans by themselves. And oh, I didn't distance myself from anything, just was pointing to the complexities you ignored from. And if you were replying here on the position of neutral mediator then I afraid that you distanced yourself from it by your own very words (which don't seem to have much with the issue itself, if any). Regards--Gilisa (talk) 21:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I made a very simple request that people stop conflating Zionism and Jewish people. You then confronted me with arguments and appeals to authority for why they should be. Personally I hope that we can make progress with this, perhaps your problems with NPOV stem from a misconception. I find it troubling that you don't see the inherent problem of insisting on defining a nation purely on racial and sectarian basis, both without legitimacy as I alluded to above. Yes, we are all Africans. We are all brethren from primordial soup. We are all stardust and nothing. Why pick a random moment in time as an imaginary 'starting point' and lend it so much importance? Do you really believe in a literal interpretation of the Judaic tradition? And if you do how can you support Zionism? You may want to watch this. Unomi (talk) 22:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Unomi, you only present here your own political views, nothing more, honestly. You return to it once and again. It's not very helpful. Obiter dictum , Neturi Karta don't realy represent any present or past main stream views in Judaism, both secualr and religious. It's great that we are all Africans, sadly no one realy think so. How sad is it that I can jump to my near by enemy and tell him that I'm an African exactly the same as he is (even if he have pale blue eyes, fair hair , light skin and Nordic features). Yes, there are some who will accept this that we are all Africans, and should deeply see ourselves as such, but then they will argue that I'm not Muslim/Chrisitan/Shintu/Budaist/Capitalist/Commusinst and so forth. You understand how ridiculous it's by now..Sadly, you distanced yourself from being a neutral mediator, at least on these issues.--Gilisa (talk) 22:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I commented here simply to address some flawed and disturbing rhetorical devices that were in play. As for Neturi Karta don't realy represent any present or past main stream views in Judaism, both secualr and religious that is patently false. While it is true that the Judaic tradition is prone to changing interpretations, as most religions are, the position of the NK was the overwhelming view see Ravitzky, at least until recently. That this position is now termed 'Ultra-orthodox' should tell you that, hint: look up the definition of orthodox. For a brief treatment of the changing interpretations on this subject please see http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=1908060 . As for the rest, perhaps AGF should be thought to extend beyond just wikipedia. I may have failed as a neutral mediator, but you have to understand that the premise of what I ascertain to be your POV is problematic, perhaps if you were to substantiate it, we could make some progress. Unomi (talk) 14:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you realy can't rebuke me on my POV while certainly many of those who were orginally involved in the editing of this article clearly have there own. You can't rebuke me on POV while you deserting your obligations as mediator on this notice board and joining to the article talk page as a side. And as for your arguments regarding Judaism, bust don't true.--Gilisa (talk) 16:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Everyone has a POV, thats just the human condition. We strive for NPOV wording by using good sourcing and, far too infrequently, by checking our assumptions. There are no obligations to not join in the conversation on article, rather it should be welcomed. What I have stated regarding Judaism is sourced, you may want to refer to the Talmud particularly Three Oaths. As you seem to condone Zionism I can understand you are likely not familiar with Judaic tradition, I would suggest that you study it more deeply so that, if God wills, you can find knowledge. Unomi (talk) 17:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Please save the sarcastic tone, it's far too frequent, for some reason, among part of the editors who favor the book on its critiques and you should know how unwelcomed it's. I have no problem with any one who choosed to join for the discussion- I just pointed that one who took for himself the position of mediator and soon after choosed to take side, can't rebuke someone who was a side from the very first place for having allegedly wrong POV. As for your assertions, if it's ok by you-I would like to ask what is your background in Jewish tradition or where did you gain your acquaintanceship with Jewish sources? Because quoting one or two sentences from the Talmud, or even complete homiletic interpretation discussed in it, is more than just disposed to miss the Talmud meaning. There are mountains of interpenetrations of the Talmud, the Talmud editors wrote it through generations and in any case the Talmud just does not disconnect between Jewish people and Israel. The history of the Talmud speak easily for itself. It's very popular to quote the Talmud, many times out of context. Parts of the ultra orthodox Jewish people have created their own radical (and distorted) interpenetration, but it's not widely accepted and never was.--Gilisa (talk) 18:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and please read this [4] about the Three Oaths for checking your assumptions further and also to get a bit more knowledgeable.--Gilisa (talk) 21:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break

If you believe that to be a RS and you further believe that it contains arguments which have not been mentioned at Three_oaths#Zionist_arguments_that_consider_the_Three_Oaths I would suggest that you add them there. Generally speaking, I can tell you that I view the attempts at employing legalistic arguments to the Three Oaths as problematic for a number of reasons, but even if we entertain the thought: Zionism predates ww2 - Persecution of Jews unfortunately does not have as much detail as it should, but this was taken to be penance (from a religious perspective what happens after the start of Zionism should give pause); Compare the number of participants of the Balfour Declaration of 1917, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 to the participation in the torrent of resolutions condemning the actions of Israel, as an example: "Reiterates its determination that any actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the Holy City of Jerusalem are illegal and therefore null and void and have no validity whatsoever, and calls upon Israel to cease all such illegal and unilateral measures..." approved by 160 to 6 with 7 abstentions. It is quite frankly almost inconceivable to me that one can reasonably use a Judaic, religious justification for Zionism, but I welcome your thoughts on this matter. Going back to the discussion of Neturi Karta don't realy represent any present or past main stream views in Judaism, both secualr and religious then I still hold that this is a false statement. This should be abundantly clear to any one reading Jewish_beliefs_and_practices_in_the_reform_movement#Israel_and_Zionism further consider the Judaic tradition prior to the rise of Reform movement in Judaism. That the reform movement engendered alternate interpretations of the Talmud does not change historical fact, and it is truly ironic that some people call orthodox groups like NK names, while denying their own past. Unomi (talk) 21:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Background for Israeli territory - Request for neutrality check

Notes by Jaakobou (talk · contribs)
Article: Judaization of the Galilee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm having issues with 3 editors with a strong political perspective (read: who view Israel in bad light) -- mostly with Nableezy/Tiamut -- and are dominating the page in an article they've created about an Israeli policy. i.e. Judaization of the Galilee.

I request clarification in regards to the background of the Galilee. I've tried removing the old second paragraph as it makes no sense and I worked some chronological order into the first paragraph so that it won't sound like Israel "instead incorporated" the area without basic context. The third paragraph is by a disputed academic (read: criticized as a policital advocant) of no special notability - I've moved it to a 'reasoning' sub-section, which was tagged as POV for having only the perspecitve of this disputed fellow. As I'm unsure yet on how to work out the issue of 'reasoning', I'm leaving it out of the current discussion as it needs to be resolved at a later date once more mainstream perspectives are assembled.

• Note: My changes to the background are taken from the lead of the main article of the 1948 War. added 17:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Old

New

==Background== {{main|1948 Palestine war]] The 1947 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine, which called for the establishment of Jewish state and an Arab state in Palestine, called for the Western Galilee region to be within the proposed Arab state. The region was instead incorporated into Israel, following its Declaration of Independence and the armistice agreements that ended the official hostilities of the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. The Palestinian population, largely decimated by the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, still formed the majority of the population in that region. Israel's independence meant that the priorities of the Zionist movement shifted from securing a safe territorial base for Jewish immigrants (many of whom were refugees of European persecution), to building viable Jewish communities of the newly created sovereign state and 'the ingathering and assimilation of exiles' (mizug galuyot). According to Oren Yiftachel, Judaization is a statewide policy that aims at preventing the return of the 750,000 Palestinian refugees exiled by the 1948 war and at exerting Jewish control over Israeli territory which still included the 13-14% of the Palestinian population who remained there following the war. Judaization has also entailed the transfer of lands expropriated from Arabs to Jews, the physical destruction of Arab villages, towns, and neighbourhoods whose inhabitants fled or were expelled in the 1948 and 1967 wars, restrictions on Arab settlement and development and the parallel development of Jewish urban and industrial centers, changing Arabic place names to Hebrew ones, and the redrawing of municipal boundaries to ensure Jewish dominance. Two main areas targeted by the Judaization strategy are the Negev and the Galilee.

==Background== Main article: 1948 Arab-Israeli war Following the establishment of Israel in may 1948, its Arab neighbours declared what was the first in a series of wars within the Arab-Israeli conflict. The war commenced upon the termination of the British Mandate of Palestine in mid-May 1948 following a previous phase of civil war in 1947–1948. After the Arab rejection of the 1947 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine (UN General Assembly Resolution 181) that would have created an Arab state and a Jewish state side by side, five Arab states invaded the territory of the former British Mandate of Palestine. Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria attacked the state of Israel, leading to fighting mostly on the former territory of the British Mandate and for a short time also on the Sinai Peninsula and southern Lebanon. The war concluded with the 1949 Armistice Agreements, but it did not mark the end of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The Western Galilee, originally proposed by the UN as Arab territory, was incorporated into Israel as a result of the war. The Palestinian population, largely decimated by the war, still formed the majority of the population there.

I am in full disagreement with Tiamut's argument that:

• [5] - "If a soruce does not discuss info in relation to Judaiztion, we shouldn't either. As such, I've removed all the crap you added about Arab armies and rejection of the partition plan (unrelated and tired Zionist propagnda etc)." Tiamut^talk 15:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I tend to see this as WP:CENSOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:SOAP vios (per: tired Zionist propagnda) but it is up to the community to denote their opinions about the text.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Rebuttal

• Tiamut (talk · contribs) - The background section Jaakobou wrote is unsupported by any reliable sources discussing the issue of Judaization of the Galilee. The version supported by other editors has in its fvour that the information is presented by reliable secondary sources who discuss Judaization in the Galilee. Having no background section, as suggested by itsmejudith will leave the article without any context for the policies implemented (possibly leaving the reader vastly confused). Its important that any background information be presented by RS' discussing this topic and not just pinned into the rticle arbitrarily pursuant to editor biases. This is my main obejction to Jaakobou's version. Tiamut^talk 17:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

@Okedem, the first paragrph for the background section prior to my adding more to try and appease Jaakobou, was simply,

"According to the 1947 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine, the Western Galilee region was to form part of the proposed Arab state.[4] Incorporated into Israel following its establishment in 1948, the Palestinian population, largely decimated by the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, still formed the majority of the population there.[5]"

It was sourced to David McDowall, and Dan Rabinowitz, both of whom discuss the Judaization of the Galilee and provided this historical background information. As I have said, including background info not included by sources discussing the subject is a bad idea, that leds to WP:SYNTH. Furthermore, as you are aware from previous discussion, the Arab rejection narrative as regrds the partition plan is a contested one. Including it here, without an extended presentation of all POVs on the issue would be POV. Tht issue is covered in the partition plan article itself. It is not the subject of this article, and is mentioned only in passing by RS who do discuss this topic. Per itsmejudith, I agree the background should be kept to a minimum (though I don't agree with deleting it altogether). As such, I will (continegent upon the feedback in this discussion) remove the information I added to please Jaakobou and stick only to what the sources say. Tiamut^talk 20:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

@FT2, I appreciate the suggestion. A couple of comments and questions though: 1) Its not a "covert state policy", it was openly adopted and plans to pursue it were often published explicitly using citing the policy of Judization of the Galilee; 2) Should information not mentioned in reliable sources discussing this policy be included in the background section? For example, you write about the Arab armies invading Israel, but that's not covered in any texts discussing Judaization. I would also note that the 1948 Palestine war began long before the intervention of the Arab armies in May 1948. If we mention their invasion, shouldn't we also mention the fighting previous? And then, where do we draw the line as to how far back we go? 3) Is Asaf Romirowsky's critique of Oren Yiftachel in response to his work on Judaization? Or are you just adding a general critique of Yiftachel's work here, and then why would we do that? Shouldn't that just go in Oren Yiftachel's article itself, as its quite unrelated to the subject at hand and comes off as well poisoning? If however, it is directed specifically as response to his writing on the Judization of the Galilee, then I would see it as relevant, and would appreciate ref info, so that I can add it to the article. Tiamut^talk 23:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Nableezy (talk · contribs) -
• Ravpapa (talk · contribs) - Sorry, I didn't realize I was one of the combatants here. I originally posted in the "External Parties" section. Anyway, here is my reply to both Jaakobou and Tiamut:

Itsmejudith is right (see her opinion below) - both of these versions are trying to make a political point by introducing facts that are completely irrelevant to the matter at hand. The history of wars, and how Israel got sovereignty over this territory, is not germaine to the Judaization policy. Had Israel purchased the territory, rather than won it in war, would that make the policy better or worse? All of this stuff should be axed.

I also think that Yiftachel's presentation of Judaization has been misrepresented by both Tiamut and Jaakobou. The creation of a Jewish majority in the Galilee is only one of the objectives that he cites for the Judaization program, and not necessarily the main one. Others include the dispersion of the Jewish population of the country, which was and is heavily concentrated in the urban center of Israel, the resettlement of immigrants, and the provision of services to the rural settlements of the Galilee. The destruction of Arab villages is not actually Yiftachel's assertion, but a citation in his book from Benny Morris, and is not central to Yiftachel's arguments.

This is not to say that there is no place in the article for a review of Israel's development policies in the Galilee, which have, indeed, included destruction of abandoned villages, the mass acquisition of Arab-owned land by eminent domain, and the restriction of growth - physical, economic and cultural - of Palestinian villages in the Galilee. But a fair representation of Yiftachel's arguments, and of Israel's policies, should include the positive as well as the negative. --Ravpapa (talk) 03:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

External opinion

Both versions have too much background. People can use the wikilinks if they don't know the history of the area. I'd prefer to see no background section at all. So no more reason to argue.... Itsmejudith (talk) 17:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

If we want to mention the partition plan, and the Western Galilee's designation in it, we have to explain why it didn't happen. Just saying that in the plan it was supposed to be in the Arab state, but "The region was instead incorporated into Israel" strongly implies that Israel disregarded the plan and conquered it. In reality, the Arabs were the ones who rejected the plan and opened war on the Jews of Palestine. Either discuss the issue in full, or leave it out completely - but don't selectively omit the parts you don't like. Now, I do think we can remove some details in Jaakobou's proposal, basically dropping the second paragraph, or incorporating it into the first as one sentence. Tiamut's comment shows total misunderstanding of the way articles are written, and deep ignorance regarding history, specifically of the partition plan. okedem (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

@Tiamut, your reasoning is flawed. There's no obligation for every source used to discuss everything, and we can use specific sources for specific points. I've explained the problem with your formulation. Your claim as though the Arab rejection is "Zionist propaganda" is laughable. The sources on this point are extremely clear, and your attempt to rewrite history convinces no one. okedem (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Both versions are ignoring the other. Assuming all data is actually factual and cited from reliable sources, the key points seem to be:

The Western Galilee was proposed by the UN to be within the Arab controlled region. Following the state's formation, Israel was invaded by Arab states. At the end of the war it had obtained, and retained, control of the region. The Western Galilee's population was still largely (__%) Palestinian at that time. Oren Yiftachel, a prominent Israeli critical geographer, argues that the priorities of the Zionist movement shifted from securing a safe territorial base for Jewish immigrants (many of whom were refugees of European persecution), to building viable Jewish communities of the newly created sovereign state, 'the ingathering and assimilation of exiles', and the transfer and destruction of Arab towns and villages in favor of Jewish development, a process he calls "Judaization" of the region and considers to have been a covert state policy. Yitachel is disputed in this by critics such as Asaf Romirowsky, a fellow Israeli scholar, who criticize him for teaching "an ahistorical, one-sided interpretation of the Arab-Israeli conflict".

Add cites and a sentence on Romirowsky's view, possibly one further sentence on the mainstream view by "the world's scholars" (if one exists and can be decided) and try that. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments to Tiamut in the order asked:

1. If it was openly adopted then scrap "Oren Yitachel..." and replace it with "According to (reliable source X) a formal policy was adopted in (year) under which (briefest of summaries)" or some such. Make sure it's an authoritative source for something like that - a government statement or the like. If it's anything less - a comment by a minister or general etc, use the same styling as I've shown for Oren: "According to X, a minister at the time, a policy of...(brief description)".
2. No, information not in reliable sources rarely if ever has a place on wiki, much less in a contentious topic like this where you want higher quality sources not lower and where there is an acknowledged propaganda war on one or both sides (take your pick) which may lead to false documents distributed and circulated.
3. The setting of a matter in a historical context is not a problem here. To understand Israel/Palestine around the 1940s onward and how the situation actually arose, it is quite appropriate to state there was a war, and that is how the land became de facto under Israel's control. It does not need to be in a book about Judaization to be used. What's important is not to use it to imply a novel view that isn't in reliable sources.
4. You can go back as far as consensus says is salient. If it helps to add extra sentences stating that Moses kicked out the Canaanites and the Jews were removed by the Romans and then... etc etc... then do so. Generally you want to get onto the topic not rehash other stuff, so immediate background and key context points in summary, and use wikilinks or "see also" to point them to more detail.
5. I would draw a line at the formation of the state and the 1948 war. But that's just my opinion. The rationale is that the article broadly relates to Israel's policies in a given area. It's useful to know that it acquired control of that area in a war, and the population it was fighting remained were a majority in the territory afterwards. Before that... less relevant. That's enough knowledge for the present topic. If someone wants to know how they came to be at war, how the state formed, and all the previous skirmishes and military/political issues, they can look it up. As far as context for this goes, knowing "Israel was founded, a war arose when it was invaded, it won that war and kept control of a chunk of hostile territory afterwards" is sufficient. Its factual. We aren't rehashing the 1948 war here so it suffices to note there was one. One could even say "Following its victory in the 1948 war, Israel..." and omit who invaded whom, that's not essential either.
6. So far as I can tell from the versions above, Yiftachel is cited as a prominent spokesperson for the view "yes there is Judaization". That is one significant view and a significant voice for it. So far so good. But it's not the only significant view. There is a second significant view that says there was not a campaign of Judaization (or that says those advancing such claims are mis-citing history) so far as I can tell. Not all significant sources in academia, politics, or otherwise, agree there was such a campaign (if they all do, then cite evidence). So we can't just say "There was a campaign" or even "prominent person X says there was a campaign". We have to acknowledge there are other views too. Rather than a "proponent" and "criticism" section, create an article that characterizes and describes the views and their disagreements. As you can see, NPOV policy says to try and work the various views into one narrative.

7. The quote from Romirowsky is drawn from the article under his name, and cited there. If it turns out that it's about something completely different, then it would not have a place here. But if for example, Yiftachel is mainly known for his views on Israeli policy, including Judaization, etc, so that when Romirowsky says he is one sided he is clearly referring to him in his role as social critic or historian and his views on Israel-Palestine generally, then it's relevant.

   To give an analogy in everyday life (don't take this too far) - suppose you will ask a lawyer's advice on ownership of a widget factory. You read in a book that someone prominent says "that lawyer is one sided and doesn't tell stuff like it is when it comes to widgets". Now, they didn't mention specifically "widget factories". Is the concern relevant when considering how much weight to place on the lawyer's opinion? If he meant "generally in his opinion-giving capacity on issues related to widgets" then probably yes.

   In this case Yiftachel is prominent as a speaker on Judaization themes. Is it relevant that a second authority writes that he is one sided in I-P matters generally? Probably yes. It is needed so a reader can evaluate Yiftachel and understand that while he takes that stance, other prominent people may strongly criticize him as being unreliable on topics in the I-P field generally. You cannot quote Yiftachel at great length without mentioning other authorities exist who dissagree or hold other views. There are multiple views and proponents of each will have critics. Explaining simply the significant views and who holds them, and their counterviews and how strongly those are held, with cites, might make this a good article, if you let it. The aim is to explain the landscape of the topic, not to resolve "an answer" to the real-world dispute.

8. Last, a final comment. I notice the whole of paragraphs 2 and 3 are almost entirely Yiftachel's views at length. This raises a further NPOV concern: Yiftachel at great length, and nobody else probably isn't going to be a balanced representation of views in the debate.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Is the John Birch Society "far right"?

Is it neutral to begin the lead "The John Birch Society is a far right... group"? The Routledge companion to fascism and the far right defines the "far right" as "those anti-Communists and anti-socialists who, in the pursuit of their goals, are also either hostile to or indifferent to the values and practices of liberal democracy. However, their view, that the ends justify the means, even if the means include extra-legal violence, terror and dictatorship, often echo those of the far left." (p. 5)[6] However, Chip Berlet in "When alienation turns right" writes, the term is "sometimes used to describe all groups to the right of the electoral system".[7] Most academic literature appears to use the first definition.[8] The Four Deuces (talk) 17:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

If RS call them Far right then that is what we report. Not how we interperate what they are based on our reading of sources, that wouold be synthais.Slatersteven (talk) 14:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Far-right is a poorly defined word. So I give him his due. But he lamely states they support the auditing of the federal reserve when such a thing is not being done yet; It should be "supporting an auditing" (big difference), and claims that it is cosponsor of a conference which is over. He fails to even to even find the PAC group that would be currently supported. Furthermore, he introduced this when it is entirely irrelelevent.--173.31.191.192 (talk) 14:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

As a matter of interest I had a look at conservapedia at [9] to see what they thought. They call them 'a American anti-conspiracy organization'. I think that is really quite funny but I guess they would see it as a reasonable description. :) Dmcq (talk) 14:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

One problem with Routledge is that the title of the book is being used to give the label, Unfortunately, doing so ignores the fact that the same rationale can be used to call them "fascist." TFD has rightly called attention to the fact that assigning labels to any group is almost always a matter of opinion and not of demonstrable fact. We also cite the SPLC for calling JBS a "patriot group" and listing the definition SPLC uses which includes the possibility that a "patriot group" may support " extreme antigovernment doctrines ." [10] states "'The Tea Parties and similar groups that have sprung up in recent months cannot fairly be considered extremist groups, but they are shot through with rich veins of radical ideas, conspiracy theories and racism,' the report says." And "groups like the John Birch Society, which believes President Eisenhower was a communist agent." Problem is that while the notorious Welch letter is well-known, the claim about the specific belief of Ike being a Communist agent being associated with the JBS does not seem to have any RS sources using JBS official statements of any kind. Thus "JBS has been described as "far right" by (named sources)" would be far more proper than making what appears to be a "statement of fact" which is based on opinions. RS opinions remain ... opinions. Collect (talk) 15:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Collect, as I have explained to you I am not using the title of the book to give a label, I using the book's definition of "far right". Obviously a book with this title is a good source for that and also a good source for what organizations belong to the far right. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

BTW, it's polite to let other involved editors know if a noticeboard thread has been started.

Collect, we have dozens of sources which call the JBS "far right" (see Talk:John Birch Society#"Far right"), so using a formula like "JBS has been described as "far right" by (named sources)" would be unwieldy. When so many sources make an assertion, and no sources dispute it, then the attribution is no longer necessary and we can simply that that it is the thing rather than it has been described as the thing.   Will Beback  talk  18:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It is also polite to use the noticeboards to discuss the issues raised which in this case is the "neutrality" of the description. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Why would it be neutral to call the British National Party a "far right" group but not to call the JBS the same thing? Is it because you agree that the BNP is far right but you disagree that the JBS is also far right?   Will Beback  talk  10:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources overwhelmingly describe the Birchers as far right, and this is because of their extreme opposition to any form of collectivism or redistribution, and their systematic tendency to associate any form of collectivism with conspiracies by secret communist sympathizers to subvert the constitution. And I'm being very conservative in my characterization. --TS 12:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The British National Party is correctly described as "far right" because that is how it is described in literature about the "far right" and it fits the definitions provided. In the same sense, I would have no hesitation in calling the Italian Fascist Party fascist, because there are good sources for that, but would not apply the term to the US government, although data-mining could pro. bably find reliable sources for it. We should avoid trivializing terms by using them inaccurately. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Inaccurately according to whom? A single source that gives a definition? We have dozens of reliable sources, including academic journals and books, which call the JBS "far right", and none which say the description is wrong. This exact same matter has already been discussed at WP:RSN: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 58#John Birch Society. There's already been an RFC. How many more venues are needed to settle this? It's beginning to look like forum shopping. These two words now have more sources than the entire rest of the article, and have been more discussed as well. Time to move on and work on the rest of the article.   Will Beback  talk  21:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Climate change denial

This article has a fictional account of AEI studies on global warming and the IPCC, and editors are edit-warring to (1) include the fictional account and (2) exclude the refutation of the fictional account. It's a BLP violation, too. THF (talk) 01:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't you think WP:RSN would be a better place to discuss whether the Guardian newspaper is a reliable source? There was discussion only a short while ago there with assertions that The Times was an unreliable source which sounds a similar subject. As to NPOV I saw a question over whether you used to be a fellow of AEI, do you have a conflict of interest?, this would be a funny noticeboard to approach if so. As to BLP I believe there's another noticeboard for that too and it's pretty hot on removing violations of BLP. I'd go for just one noticeboard so as not to seem to be forum shopping but why this particular noticeboard? I'll post a note onto the talk page that this has been raised here. Dmcq (talk) 11:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The discussion at Talk:Climate change denial#AEI is continuing. I haven't seen anyone say that any coverage of the defense of AEI should be kept out of the article, and I've suggested some ideas and ways to move forward. So I think this notice here is a bit premature. If we find a reliable source such as a news article that debunks the original charges against AEI, we should discuss whether or not it debunks it well enough that we should delete all mention of the incident in the article. Until then, the article needs some kind of defense of AEI in order for us to be fair. As I say, discussion continues on the talk page. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

THF, please try to keep discussions together to avoid the appearance of forum shopping. The article talk discussion is ongoing, there has been a very recent AFD discussion, and several enforcement requests at WP:GS/CC. Spreading an editorial dispute to multiple pages prematurely or redundantly can be disruptive. Jehochman ^Talk 16:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Jehochman, he has a talk page, and the question of whether or not it's too early to bring this matter to this forum is currently one having to do with the most likely way to get the matter resolved, not behavior. At this stage, let's just encourage constructive communication without brandishing the admin thing, all right? You're only raising the temperature. THF has tried to fix the problem with an edit at the Climate change denial page. Stephan Shulz has reverted it. New proposals for language on that talk page would be helpful right now, and that would be the thing to discuss to get this on track, it seems to me. Got any ideas, Dmcq? Can we discuss them there? And please, nobody involved hat this thread. Let someone else do it as we discuss it there. Sound good, everyone? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

There's an NPOV issue and a BLP issue. Editors interested in NPOV and BLP are entitled to be aware of the NPOV and BLP violations in the article. You'll notice that I !voted "keep" in the AFD; I fail to see how the AFD is relevant to the NPOV and BLP violation that editors are insisting upon. I tried to correct the problem and was reverted; I proposed a compromise edit that told both sides of the story, and was reverted. The appalling libel remains in the article. I'm getting other editors involved to generate consensus, since my talk-page comments were being ignored, and further edits would be edit-warring. THF (talk) 18:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

What a shitty excuse and idea for a wikipedia article!--173.31.191.192 (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

There already are articles on shit, excuse, and idea :) Dmcq (talk) 18:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

British National Party

There is an on going dispute on the British National Party talk page about the use of phrases which some claim are non-NPOV the two phrases which have been reverted back and forth are

• the BNP has become less publicly extreme
• the BNP has changed its stance on a number of controversial issues such as compulsory repatriation

Can someone please provide some guidance DharmaDreamer (talk) 11:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

As someone who has not read the article and knows nothing about the BNP, I get the feeling the first line may be pushing the POV envelope. The second line seems neutral to me. My 2 cents. Lambanog (talk) 13:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

This is an organization that was overtly pro-fascist, celebrated Adolph Hitler's birthday and claimed that the "white race" was superior. Those views are more accuately described as "extreme" than "controversial". The Four Deuces (talk) 15:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It's hardly POV to call the BNP extreme. It would be very problematic to call them "controversial" rather than "extreme/extremist". Just one recent example of how they are usually reported about, out of hundreds: [11]. Hans Adler 18:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I made my comment in case this was one of those arguments revolving around subtleties. But if this is a rather open and shut case of they are a far right extremist group and proud of it, that should be relatively easy to establish. Outright discrimination based on race and ethnicity in this day and age from a political party would fit the description of extreme pretty handily. I will strike my previous comment. Lambanog (talk) 08:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Go to the party's own home page and read its policies. This is an explicitly racist political party. Tasty monster (TS on one of those new fangled telephone thingies) 18:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The national Front of France is not descibed as extream in thier article, thier racial policies are no different to the BNP's. What thier artciel says is that they are called extream, but also says what they claim. Indead is any otehr political party that has some or all of the BNP's policies (well those that can be considerd extream) called extream explicitly without making it clear this is an accusation from the media and its opponents?Slatersteven (talk) 13:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The term "extreme" is not only in violation of the WP:EXTREMIST policy (a Freudo-Marxian dialetic tactic, devised by the Frankfurt School to "blacklist" intellectual opponents, by suggestively illiciting an emotive response) but it is inherently in violation of the WP:NPOV policy, which is central to Wikipedia. We don't "take sides" in the mainspace when it comes to politics, we are not a partisan project. The Four Deuces' hysterical presentation is selective to say the least and a comedic caricature at the most. If we can violate the NPOV policy to call the BNP "extremist", why couldn't we do the same on the article of the Labour Party or any given Government of the United States? Many people across the world consider killing hundreds of thousands of Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan an "extreme" act. We could easily find sources from the Muslim world describing the United States and its main political parties as "war criminals", "fascists" and all manner of bias epithets. - Yorkshirian (talk) 19:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Um, the point is that we can only use the word "extreme" and "extremist" to describe bodies and policies that are universally condemned as extreme, such as writing off people because of their ethnic origins. The meaning of the phrase starting with "a Freudo-Marxian dialetic tactic..." is unclear to me. Was it part of your argument. How does it relate to the neutral point of view? --TS 21:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Human Rights Foundation

There is a dispute at Human Rights Foundation about inserting a reference to a minor source of funding to an event organised by HRF. The reference is to a primary source, and there are questions too about the meaning of the source (see talk page, near bottom of Good Start section). The context for the dispute is the editor inserting it wishing to show that HRF is not a right-wing organisation; initial versions of the text included reference to Norway's government being left. There is a narrow (2:1) consensus against including the reference at HRF; it is already mentioned at the relevant event article (Oslo Freedom Forum). Comments please. Rd232 ^talk 19:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The secondary source mentions support from the City of Oslo, and actually seems to state that they did not receive support from the Norwegian government, but were hoping that one day they might:

He is full of praise of how much support they have received from the City of Oslo.

- Without them, this forum would not have been possible. We hope that the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs will eventually stand behind us as much. Otherwise, we have supporters in Freedom of Expression, the Oslo Center for Peace and Human Rights, Amnesty, Civita, The Norwegian Helsinki Committee and the Human Rights House Foundation, and more organizations want to become formally involved."

The cited primary source does not say anything specific about the government's involvement either. It simply indicates that Norway was the source country of the funds. This is entirely consistent with the event having received funding from the City of Oslo, but this is not the same as being funded by the government of Norway. --JN466 22:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Prostitution content fork

I think I found a WP:Content fork regarding the legality of prostitution. Left prong: Legality of prostitution, right prong: Prostitution (criminology). Both articles are so huge though, I think any merge would be a significant undertaking. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Yup, same topic as far as I can see. Will look at this. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

One significant undertaking now undertaken. Loads of cleanup, POV fixing, scope fixing, and everything else needed, but the basic framework is merged sensibly. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Nice work, I'll probably read it through and give it a once over. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 18:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Terminology

An editor has been going around changing the name of specific types of Israeli settlements, moshav and kibbutz, to simply israeli settlement, calling the changes "More correct and neutral terms in accordance with international community".

• Diff set 1: [12] and [13]
• Diff set 2: [14] and [15]
• Diff set 3: [16] and [17]

Whereas the former terms are a more specific type of the latter, it would seem that they would convey more information to the reader, rather than the blanket term "settlement". However I was curious what other editors thought. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 17:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The original terms are types of community. In geographical terms this is a bit like replacing specialist descriptive terms like "town", "village", "industrial complex", "religious retreat", "commune", by the single term "settlement". It doesn't improve neutrality, it's a pointed replacement of a non-contentious descriptive term of the type of locale (does any reliable source say it's not a Kibbutz?), by a highly politically contentious term for Israeli habitation in that area generally. Doubtless others will disagree. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Occupation of the Baltic states

The article Occupation of the Baltic states has two debates: a) Soviets as liberators or occupiers in 1944? b) Baltic states under soviet rule 1944-1991; occupation or annexation? Please give third party reviews. Peltimikko (talk) 04:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Let me re-phrase "b)" a little bit. Many reliable sources use the term "annexation" whereas other sources call that "occupation". The authors that thoroughly dissected the issue argue that the case is complicated and controversial, so, although it would be correct to say that the Baltic states were illegally annexed by the USSR, the period of Soviet domination can also be described by the word "occupation" with some reservations (e.g. "occupation sui generis"). Therefore, both terms must be used, and, taking into account that "annexation" is more abundant outside the Baltic states, priority should be given to the latter.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Gun laws in the United States (by state)

There is an ongoing discussion about NPOV over at Talk:Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)#2009_Brady_Campaign_State_Scorecard, and the editors there agree that it would be helpful to hear the opinion of third party editors. If someone here would like to drop in at that talk page and give us their opinion, that would be much appreciated. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the more editors who could join the discussion in that talk page section, the better. I believe the discussion will be of great interest to editors who want to help preserve the neutrality of Wikipedia articles. Thanks. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Sam Harris in Islam and Jainism article

I'd appreciate it if someone could provide some input on the appropriateness of Sam Harris being quoted in this article.Prezbo (talk) 04:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I have given my input on the matter, but it seems that the input from more editors are needed. Unomi (talk) 05:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Hooding at Ady Gil

The pilot of the vessel was arrested for allegedly illegally boarding a Japanese vessel at sea. Another editor continues to insert that he was hooded as he was taken ashore in Japan for arrest. It is clear that there is something on his head[18] but one video (potentially day before) shows him with a similar colored windbreaker covering his head from the wind.[19] It is unclear if this is a standalone hood. As he was coming ashore, Japanese authorities put up tarps in accordance with Japanese privacy laws. So any hood could be similar to someone doing a perp walk with a newspaper or their hands over their faces. Hooding on the other hand is torture designed for sensory deprivation. A single source has made a mention that he looked like a terrorist with the hood[20] but it is appears to me that we are scandal mongering by asserting it is torture with its wording and the wikilink. Even without the wikilink we are alluding to it being because he is a terrorist and not for privacy. Is this appropriate? The edit in question: [21] Cptnono (talk) 09:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The footage of Bethune inspecting the ship was taken the day AFTER his arrest (see article discussion page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ady_Gil#Hooding_of_Pete_Bethune . One of the references, besides the news report saying Bethune was hooded, is an Associate Press video showing a hooded Bethune being taken into custody. The line in the article follows the referenced press report very closely, and it is clear from the video that Bethune was hooded. Stating the facts is not scandal mongering. I did edit the hooding article to refine the definition of hooding to include any instance of a prisoner's head being covered. It now states that it is considered torture when it is used for sensory deprivation during interrogation. Ghostofnemo (talk) 09:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Regardless if it was before or after, it looks like the same jacket to me. And was he hooded or did he have a jacket's hood over his head? The source is scandal mongering and does not need to follow the same neutrality standards. It is not clear that it was torture. I would go as far as saying torture is the least likely considering the tarps and press around. So anyone else want to way in? Alluding to it being torture when the source doesn't say that and we have every reason to believe it is not is not OK. This is a gross violation of standards as I am seeing it. Am I nuts here? Cptnono (talk) 09:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the hooding article. It no longer implies that all hooding is torture. Ghostofnemo (talk) 09:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

That is not the correct way to do it because now you are potentially breaking another article. You are also still implying that it was intentional sensory deprivation. Go revert yourself over there. I am done reverting at the Ady Gil article and neither of us wants to actually full on edit war on this so lets just see what people think.Cptnono (talk) 09:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The news source says, "Japan took extreme lengths to protect Mr Bethune from waiting reporters and protestors. They called him a terrorist, and with his head covered by a black hood it looked like he was." I was IMPROVING the other article to give a better definition of hooding, so it WOULDN'T imply all hooding is torture. Let's see what happens here before we make any more changes. Ghostofnemo (talk) 09:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like this might take a while. The current edit says his wife was shocked by his arrest, but that's not what the reference says. The reference says she was shocked by the IMAGES of his arrest. I'm going to insert this for now, just to make the line in the article accurately reflect the source: "They called him a terrorist, and with his head covered by a black hood it looked like he was." I won't link to the hooding article for now. Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok couldn't do that, because it looked like it was quoting his wife. I paraphrased the article instead. Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

So another editor reverted GoN's edits. He has now removed the wikilink but the edit still infers that he had a hood on because he was being treated as a terrorist. We are looking at what is boardering on edit warring here and intentionally presenting information in a tabloidish way. Two editors disagree with inclusion. One continues to add it. Can we get a couple fresh opinions on this?Cptnono (talk) 00:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's the current edit, which I did: "His wife was shocked by the images of his arrest. Protesters were calling him a terrorist, and Bethune's head was covered by a black hood as he was taken into custody." Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Here are the references:

http://www.3news.co.nz/Pete-Bethunes-wife-shocked-at-arrest-/tabid/417/articleID/146204/Default.aspx

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gkzjNoOxPQ Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Us repeating our arguments is not going to attract outside perspectives. Anyone wnat to chime in or should we start edit warring?Cptnono (talk) 03:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

<- Is his wife a notable commentator on Ady Gil related issues ? If not, what is the policy based reason for including her views ? Perhaps the Japanese police were simply complying with Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks." I'm not sure any of the info is really pertinent, notable or encyclopedic. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you think his arrest is notable? The news media seem to think so. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do think that the fact that he has been arrested by the Japanese authorities is notable. I don't think that fact's notability is automatically inherited by commentary about that fact. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

What if we remove the comment about his wife's reaction, drop the 3News reference, and just say, "Protesters present at Bethune's arrest called him an "eco-terrorist". Bethune's head was covered with a black hood when he was taken into custody." and reference that with the AP video. That's a neutral description of the circumstances of his arrest. One editor at the Ady Gil article discussion page says prisoners in Japan are routinely handcuffed, so he could not have put the hood on his own head. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

By the way, it doesn't matter why the Coast Guard hooded him. It's a fact he was hooded. Explaining why he was hooded, based on your original research WP:OR, would not be admissible. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

But, if you could find a reference that says, "Japanese police routinely hood suspects when they are taken into custody, to protect their privacy" that would be very relevant. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I left the 3News reference, because it backs up the video, but left out the reaction of Bethune's wife. That seems very NPOV - just stating the facts. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Your edit still implies that he was hooded in an inappropriate manner. You are connecting calls of him being a terrorist with the stigma of hoods to suggest that he was being treated poorly. One editor has gone as far as to contact the coast guard for you (that is OR of course) and others have provided sufficient reasoning to not have the line. You are becoming increasingly manipulative with your arguments and going against guidelines. I will be reporting you for edit warring if you do not revert it.Cptnono (talk) 00:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

This information is important because prisoners in most countries are NOT routinely hooded. Bethune has been accused of being a terrorist. The news story that is referenced points out the fact that he was hooded and that it made him look like a terrorist. This seems pretty straight-forward to me. So I have to ask at this point, and I'm assuming good faith, but this intense desire to remove simple observations that have been reported in the news media about an event that seems to be worthy of inclusion just leads me to ask this. Do any of the editors involved in this dispute have a WP:Conflict of interest? I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the Sea Shepherd Society. I am not a Greenpeace member, but I may have donated money to them 25 or 30 years ago when I was a college student, one of many, many groups who solicited me for donations and to whom I made donations. I do not belong to any anti-whaling groups. Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding edit-warring, I think we are making progress on improving the content. The link to the hooding article is gone. The remarks about Bethune's wife are gone. It seems like we are moving towards a consensus, but you seem to want to remove this information completely. Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I want the strained correlation between his privacy and terrorism removed. Continuing to keep the hod in is not OK. I really don't care about the other parts of the line.Cptnono (talk) 01:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The news media found it worth mentioning. It does not appear that he hooded himself because it's likely he was handcuffed. It's unlikely that he requested to be hooded for privacy, since he is an activist who apparently relishes publicity and who doesn't consider himself a criminal. I think we should go with the news media over your personal opinion. No WP:Conflict of interest? Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you have anything (like a reference) to support the assertion that Bethune requested that his head be covered for privacy reasons? Ghostofnemo (talk) 03:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

He could have refused to be hooded. Ghostofnemo, do you have anything to support that Bethune was hooded against his will? Oda Mari (talk) 04:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

He has never worn a mask or hood while engaging the whaling vessels. He has been interviewed by the media. He has never denied his involvement. He is not claiming he did not board the Japanese vessel. He does not feel he has committed a crime. He has nothing to hide or be ashamed of. Bethune asking for a hood is as unlikely as Watson avoiding media attention! Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

To all editors involved: I don't mean to be rude or to throw around accusations, but I've asked twice now if any of the editors involved in this dispute have a WP:Conflict of interest. This is very important. Please respond, as I have, about any conflicts of interest you may have regarding this article. If there is not COI, please state that. Thanks. Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

We don't know if it was privacy (yet the blue tarps lead me to believe it is) and we don;t know if it is for sensory deprivation. Thanks for making my point for me. And no.Cptnono (talk) 04:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

It is immaterial WHY he was hooded (unless he hooded himself, which is very unlikely for the reasons I've given above). The line in the article just says he was hooded. It doesn't speculate as to why. If you want to add a line that "all Japanese suspects are routinely hooded when taken into custody" with a reference, that would be fine. Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not repeating the argument just because you reworded it. You know why we are concerned. Are you going to insist on keeping it in?Cptnono (talk) 04:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

You say you think he was hooded for privacy reasons. Great, add that, but reference it.

The WP:Conflicts of interest that could apply here are in the sections "Financial", "Legal antagonists", "Campaigning" (group membership), and "Close relationships" - to save people from reading the entire article. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Ghostofnemo, you didn't answer my question. Please give me your answer. Do you have anything to support that Bethune was hooded against his will? Oda Mari (talk) 07:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Please answer the above question. And as said before, you are making it read like hooding even if you are no longer wikilinking it. Your edit leads the reader. So answer the above question and please remove the edit. I don't want to report this to edit warring based on the drama and friction it will cause but I will. You are simply going against consensus and neutrality. Cptnono (talk) 10:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up: Ball is still in your court. There are three people on the talk page agreeing wih its removal and another person here who appears t lean that way. I think we have followed the dispute resolution process pretty well (minus the leangth of time your edit as been live) so can you verify if you are going to revert if it is removed?Cptnono (talk) 23:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The line does not state whether or not Bethune was hooded against his will. You want me to speculate? I would guess the Coast Guard did that. My personal suspicion is they were jerking him around, as cops in most countries do to suspects they don't care for. But I don't have a source, so I just stated the fact that his head was covered. It probably was a hooding, but I can't prove that, so I don't say that. I found another video from Australian TV showing Bethune's head covered by the hood, but it's very similar to the AP video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VpAXYNErHk&feature=related Cptnono and I have both stated we have no WP:Conflict of interest regarding this issue. Would the other editors care to address that? Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's another view: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBEb4n1fT_A&feature=related Now, if I was trying to stir things up and make this an emotional issue, I would have used that video, but I didn't. Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User talk:Ghostofnemo reported by User:Cptnono since you refuse to delete the edit as suggested.Cptnono (talk) 09:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Spanish traditions advice needed

Hello, here I have a little debate about the lead of the Diablada article where we have two positions, I won't say which one is mine to avoid polluting the results I'll say editors A and B. The debate is regarding the Spanish influence of this Andean dance, and basically there are two theories:

• Autos sacramentales: [22] [23] [24] [25]
• Ball de diables: [26] [27] [28] [29] [30]

There are more sources explaining both theories, it's just a sample. But there are two opinions regarding the presentation of both theories:

Editor A's suggestion	Editor B's suggestion
The dance that was created in the Andean Altiplano as a result of the introduction of the Autos Sacramentales.	The dance is a mixture of the Spaniard's theatrical presentations introduced in the region during the colonial times in the form of Autos sacramentales or the Catalonian dance of Ball de diables and Andean rituals...

Editor A considers that the Ball de diables shouldn't go in the lead because in these two sources say the following: [31]

Danzas folklóricas de la villa de los Santos

The derivation of the devil dances or Diabladas constitute a topic of controversy in Ibero-America. Nowadays there are two theses about the emergence of the devil dances. The motive of the criterion divergence is based on the descent of the dance. Most authors affirm that it proceeds from the Autos Sacramentales of the Middle Ages which were represented in the atriums of the churches, where the presence of the speeches and other features identify it as an auto sacramental...

And [32]:

Khana, Issues 35-38
Regardless that in this order most authors agree in its derivation of a peninsular Auto Sacramental I consider that is a little bit risky to consi... ...a devils dance which characters are the same as in our Andean Diablada. Using the documents exhumed by Amadés in relationship to the Ball de diables'....

Editor A interpret those sources as an affirmation that the Autos Sacramentales constitute a majoritarian view and therefore the Ball de diables theory should not belong there.

Editor B considers that it's weasel terminology and that the snippet view of those two sources doesn't really allow to see the real intention of the authors, in the first case the author mentions two theories and here he also mentions the Ball de diables below. And the second author, according to editor B, sounds doubtful about that theory and also introduces the Ball de diables.

Editor A considers Editor B's criterion as original research.

Which way should we go? How can it be more neutral? Maybe it could be written differently, avoid saying Autos sacramentales or Ball de diables directly but use a general term like "Spanish traditions", I don't know what you people suggest? Thank you in advance Erebedhel - Talk 06:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Hungary–Slovakia relations

Hungary–Slovakia relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An editor has posted a request at WP:EAR#Hungary–Slovakia_relations. POV tags have been placed on the article, but reverted by editors who seem to favour posting accusations about perceived Slovak racism, using un-encyclopaedic language and tone. Some of the referencing appears to be somewhat suspect. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Patriot movement article - violation of neutrality

Patriot movement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_movement —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.132.35 (talk) 02:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like to mark this article for review on the basis of violation of neutrality. Tom of WikiTalk refused to allow me to edit this article myself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_movement —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.132.35 (talk) 02:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Reverts and vandalism on nationalistic basis

Dear admins! I'm talking about two issues: 1. The page Tadeusz Kościuszko. 2. The collage at Poles.

The thing is, Tadeusz Kościuszko was at least partly ethnicaly Belarusian, which I referenced in the article about him (he was even baptised in an orthodox church). Now he was also born on the territory which is Belarus, so I entered him into categories like Belarusian nobility. I also deleted him from the collage at Poles, because the article talks about the Poles as an ethnic group, and Tadeusz Kościuszko was not ethnicaly Polish (I wrote it on the discussion board. I mean he was born in Belarus, he was ethnicaly Belarusian, he was born on a territory which was part of Lithuenia then, so he was Polish only by citizenship). Now the user User:Marekchelsea started reverting me on both pages, without writing anything, which is rude. I was warned before signing to Wikipedia that there are few Polish nationalists here that do those stuff, but tell me, can't you admins do anything about it? It's really discusting when referenced information gets deleted, and when someone wants to steal to his ethnicity someone who wasn't of his ethnicity. Free Belarus (talk) 16:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

And now there is user User:Stephen G. Brown writing to me "Busy yourself with Belarusian pages and leave Polish subjects to the Polish" on the Poles discussion page, not refering the topic. Common, where are the admins when needed? Free Belarus (talk) 17:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Section on "Violence and conflict" deleted from Criticism of Judaism

The Criticism of Judaism is missing some important content about war and violence, and so I drafted a new section that described how critics claim that Judaism is sometimes used to justify or motivate violence in modern times. (Note: the Criticism of Judaism article already has a small section on ancient violence but that only addresses ancient violence, whereas the deleted content addresses modern violence). I inserted the new content, but it was quickly deleted. Objections include: (1) the content is not notable; (2) the content give undue weight to the criticisms; (3) not neutral, and (4) the content is a synthesis. Addressing those concerns individually:

• Notable - The claim that "Judaism has been used to justify war and violence" is immensely notable, and is documented in many secondary sources such as The gun and the olive branch: the roots of violence in the Middle East by David Hirst; and Beyond violence: religious sources of social transformation in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam James Heft (Ed.).

• Undue - The deleted content is only slightly larger than the existing section Criticism of Judaism#Kosher slaughter. Secondary sources on "criticism of religion" indicate that "religion causes war and violence" is one of the top two or three criticisms of religion.

• Neutral - The deleted content is about 90% critical information, with about 10% balancing information. Additional balancing information is needed, but while that research is underway is no reason to delete all the content: rather than delete, we should improve.

• Synthesis - The Criticism of Judaism article is, by definition, a compilation of various notable criticisms. There is no requirement that a single independent source also include the exact same compilation. Other similar articles such as Criticism of Christianity or Criticism of Islam contain similar compilations. The controversial article Israel and the apartheid analogy is a compilation of uses of an analogy, yet no independent source contains such a compilation. In these kinds of articles, there is no requirement that an independent source contain a similar compilation. Even if there were such a requirement, there are several secondary sources that do contain compilations of relgion-related violence in the Middle East, including: The gun and the olive branch: the roots of violence in the Middle East by David Hirst; Jewish fundamentalism in Israel by Israël Shahak, Norton Mezvinsky; Terror in the mind of God: the global rise of religious violence by Mark Juergensmeyer; Religious radicalism in the Greater Middle East by Bruce Maddy-Weitzman

I tagged the article with a POV tag here, but that page has only a few editors that participate, so I'm also raising the issue here to get input from disinterested editors. --Noleander (talk) 16:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• Article has been tagged for a long time; checking the history indicates that Noleander may have a POV issue, especially as regards adding non-notable criticisms and antisemitic canards. Unfortunately, due to the Passover holiday, I am going to be pretty much unavailable until April 8, so any mediation should be postponed until then. -- Avi (talk) 16:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Avi: you were the editor that deleted this content yesterday (without any prior discussion on the Talk page, by the way). You cant delete a section on a certain day, then claim that discussion must be suspended because of the timing. --Noleander (talk) 18:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Avi: You are incorrect to say that "the article has been tagged for a long time". It did not have a POV tag until you added it two days ago here. --Noleander (talk) 18:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not so sure about this. Of all the criticism of zionism's ensuing violence (...let's say, since the violence referenced would seem to mainly be in service of that), I've personally never heard much claim that Jews defend it citing religion. I don't doubt some make that claim, but the section seems unduly large. Some mention of this might be good for the article, just not so prominent. Equazcion ^(talk) 16:29, 21 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Many criticisms of Judaism (being used to justify violence) are not made in the context of Zionism - most are in the context of "There is a lot of violence in the Middle East, and religion is the root cause of it". As for Zionism: although Zionism is often presented as a non-religious movement, there is a significant religious component, see article Religious Zionism, which illustrates how many founders and leaders of the Zionist movement use religious themes in their writings. Here are some of the many secondary sources that discuss how Judaism (the religion) has been used to motivate or justify conflict and violence in the Middle East:

• Arab attitudes to Israel by Yehoshafat Harkabi
• The Bible and Zionism by Nur Masalha
• Palestine and Israel: a challenge to justice by John B. Quigley
• Under the Cover of War: The Zionist Expulsion of the Palestinians by Rosemarie M. Esber
• The birth of the Palestinian refugee problem revisited by Benny Morris
• Saleh Abdel Jawad (2007) "Zionist Massacres: the Creation of the Palestinian Refugee Problem in the 1948 War" in Israel and the Palestinian refugees, Eyal Benvenistî, Chaim Gans, Sari Hanafi (Eds.)
• Israel and the Palestinian refugees by Eyal Benvenisti
• The ethnic cleansing of Palestine by Ilan Pappe
• World orders, old and new by Noam Chomsky
• Sacred fury: understanding religious violence by Charles Selengut
• Jewish fundamentalism in Israel by Israël Shahak, Norton Mezvinsky
• The gun and the olive branch: the roots of violence in the Middle East by David Hirst
• Terror in the mind of God: the global rise of religious violence by Mark Juergensmeyer
• Reckless rites: Purim and the legacy of Jewish violence by Elliott S.Horowitz
• Beyond violence: religious sources of social transformation in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam - James Heft (Ed.)

So this content is about the religion, not about Zionism. --Noleander (talk) 18:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

i just want peace and suffer of killing people and i know israel is responsible for killing people cwho are unarmed and very poor and weak i accept israel but this country must and have to accept human and people who GOD creat theme freedom and money is just a tools the real reach is side of GOD . i hope GOD bless to jewish and every pepole who creat by GOD tanx