Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about adherence to the neutral point of view in context!

Before posting here, consult the neutral point of view policy page and the FAQ explainer. Also, make sure to discuss the disagreement at the article's talk page. Fringe theories often involve questions about neutral point of view. These should be discussed at the dedicated noticeboard. You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:NPOVN-notice}} to do so. Additional notes: Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments, not on vote count or sheer size of argument. Consensus in previous discussions does not make policy, but you can generally rely on it. The list of articles where users flagged a point-of-view concern is here. This page is not a forum for discussions unrelated to the neutral point of view. We have a separate noticeboard for concerns about original research (material made up by a Wikipedia editor), and another dedicated noticeboard for questions about contextual reliability of a source. Start a new discussion

Weston Price and Focal infection theory

We are having another dispute on the Weston Price article. The current version has a very misleading statement using the publisher PMPH-USA (whose quality in this field has NOT been proven) while I want to put in the following more accurate version:

The dental part of focal infection fell out of favor in the late 1930s (Thomas J. Pallasch, DDS, MS, and Michael J. Wahl, DDS (2000) "The Focal Infection Theory: Appraisal and Reappraisal", Journal of the California Dental Association.) with a special 1951 issue of the Journal of the American Dental Association stating "Many Authorities who formally felt that focal infection was an important etiologic factor in systemic disease have become skeptical and now recommend less radical procedures in the treatment of such disorders."("An Evaluation of the Effect of Dental Focal Infection on Health" JADA 42:609-697 June 1951) though the idea never disappeared from the dental community.(Editorial. JAMA 1952; 150: 490.) (Bergenholtz, Gunnar; Preben Hørsted-Bindslev, Claes Reit (2009). Textbook of Endodontology. Wiley. pp. 135–136) While, recent discoveries have caused a cautious reevaluation of focal infection in dentistry ((2001) Fowler, Edward B "Periodontal disease and its association with systemic disease" Military Medicine (Jan 2001)) and there are studies on the quality of diet regarding oral health in adults (Bailey, RL (2004) "Persistent oral health problems associated with comorbidity and impaired diet quality in older adults". J Am Diet . Assnc. 104:1273.) these are independent of Weston Price's work.

I have Journal of the California Dental Association, JADA, Wiley, Military Medicine, and J Am Diet . Assnc that show the PMPH-USA is wrong but we are getting NPOV tags thrown up as well as used as an excuse to remove reliable sources.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

1. If we're having a discussion here at WP:NPOVN, then the NPOV tag is warranted, right?
2. Is there agreement that the material does not belong in the lede of Weston Price?
3. Seems like a simple application of WP:MEDRS would solve the non-historical issues about focal infection theory, right?
4. Shouldn't the non-historical information unrelated to Price be left to Focal infection theory, which then should be linked and summarized as it applies within Weston Price? --Ronz (talk) 02:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Ronz, you have dodged the real issue--the biography on Weston Price is being used to make a medical claim not supported by articles from the Journal of the California Dental Association, JADA, Wiley, Military Medicine, and J Am Diet . Assnc. To date nothing to show that PMPH-USA is a reliable source has been presented while the reliable of Journal of the California Dental Association, JADA, Wiley, JAMA, Military Medicine, and J Am Diet . Assnc source are known.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Um, I noticed that, hence my questions #2, #3, and #4. --Ronz (talk) 05:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I guess I'll wade back into this again. Hopefully we'll have a more reasoned discussion this time. --Ludwigs2 05:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Ronz, I'm going to put this out here bluntly: I have not forgotten your 'fake retirement' gambit, and if you start in me again, we'll be right back in ANI and that trick will not work twice. Understood? --Ludwigs2 05:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Note on proper use of talk pages
Please focus on content, per WP:TALK, WP:CIVIL, WP:DR, and WP:NPA; and when you still find it necessary to comment on others, be sure to follow WP:TALK, WP:CIVIL, WP:DR, WP:NPA, WP:AGF, WP:HARASS, and WP:BATTLE. --Ronz (talk) 05:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Stop collapsing content you don't agree with, Ronz.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Another note on proper use of talk pages

Please learn to respect and follow our behavioral policies. The issue isn't of simple disagreement, but of proper use of talk pages. Please review the policies/guidelines. Failure to follow them can make comments appear to be attacks aimed at disrupting consensus-building. --Ronz (talk) 16:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC) I suggest letting this go Ronz. Ludwigs is not the only one who hasn't forgotten. That you have decided to involve yourself again with the very topic that lead to all the drama and your fake out retirement makes me virtually speechless. Again, I really suggest letting this go Ronz. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC) Please review and follow the policies/guidelines mentioned. Repeated failure to do so could result in a block. --Ronz (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Again Stop tying to use Wikipedia policy to hid what you don't like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BruceGrubb (talk • contribs) 07:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

1) As noted before, none of the sources you want to add speaks at all about Weston Price, which is the article you want to put it in. It is clear WP:SYNTH.

2) The source you say is not reliable, Ingle's Endodontics 6th ed, is currently published by PMPH-USA which is, by all accounts, a reliable publisher of medical textbooks (see their website). Also note that this title came to be published by PMPH-USA because they bought the entire book list from the original publisher, BC Decker, which is clearly a reliable publisher as they publish material in conjunction with the American College of Physicians, the leading internal medicine professional organization. Note also that Ingle's Endodontics 6th ed. is also published by McGraw Hill, as noted here, for sale in Canada and Europe. It is clearly reliable, so stop saying it isn't just because you don't like their conclusions.

3) The Weston Price article is not the place to get into a discussion about the relative merits of where focal infection theory stands now. The version that Price advocated for fell out of favor; discussion about any other forms of focal infection theory that may or may not remain valid belongs in the article about focal infection theory, not the Weston Price article. Yobol (talk) 05:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Several things

1. The Ingle's Endodontics at McGraw Hill states Only for sale in EMEA, Canada, Tailand If this was such a good quality textbook way isn't allowed to be sold in the US?
2. The referenced edition is 2007 while the McGraw Hill clearly states on the link you provided "Pub Date: MAY-08".
3. The referenced statement of "Price was outspoken on the relationship between endodontic therapy and pulpless teeth and broader systemic disease, ideas derived from focal infection theory, and held that dental health - and consequently physical health - were heavily influenced by nutritional factors. These theories fell out of favor in the 1930s and are not currently considered viable in the dental or medical communities" is not supported by other known reliable source--including one by the same original publisher:

"It is now realized that oral bacteria and their products and their products, particularly ipopoysccharides and proinflamunary cytokine, induced local in response in oral infections, enter the blood stream and may subsequently activate systemic response in certain susceptible individuals" (Bergenholtz, Gunnar; Preben Hørsted-Bindslev, Claes Reit putlich (2009) Textbook of Endodontology Wiley; page 136)

"Manila et al utilized sound scientific methods to reintroduce the association between systemic disease and oral infection." (Fowler, Edward B (2001) "Periodontal disease and its association with systemic disease" Military Medicine (Jan 2001))

"The dark age (1876 to 1926): In spite of introduction of X-rays and general anesthesia, extractions was the choice of treatment than endodontics in most of the cases of damaged teeth because theory of the focal infection was main concern" (Garg, Nisha; Amit Garg (2007) Textbook of endodontics Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers pg 2)

"The resurgence of the focal infection theory of disease has been greeted with great enthusiasm in some quarters;..." abstract (Pallasch, Thomas J. DDS, MS; Michael J. Wahl, DDS (2000) "The Focal Infection Theory: Appraisal and Reappraisal" Journal of the California Dental Association)

"It is becoming more validated that the oral cavity can act as the site of origin for spread of pathogenic organisms to organisms to distance body areas,..." (Saraf (2006) Textbook of Oral Pathology Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers pg 188)

"The oral focal infection theory, a concept generally neglected for several decades, is controversial yet has gained renewed interest with progress in classification and identification of oral microorganism. Additionally, recent evidence associating dental infections with atherosclerosis and other chronic diseases has also helped resurrect the focal infection theory." (Silverman, Sol; Lewis R. Eversole, Edmond L. Truelove (2002) Essentials of oral medicine PMPH usa; Page 159)

Furthermore take a look at these old contemporary to Price definitions and compare them to a 2009 definition and explain just what blasted difference there is:

"All focal infection is not of dental origin, but a sufficiently large percentage is to demand a careful study of the mouth and teeth in all cases of the mouth and teeth in all cases of systemic infection, for in these cases all foci should be removed." (1918) Dental summary: Volume 38; Page 437)

"One cannot deny the existence of such a mechanism as operates in focal infection, ie, infection in one locus leading to manifestations elsewhere in the body. One has but to call to mind the metastases that occur in such infections as tuberculosis, gonorrhea, syphilis, pneumonia, typhoid fever, and mumps. I cannot support the statement in the "critically appraised" report on dental foci of infection that "later laboratory workers were unable to confirm the bacteriologic findings of Rosenow on which the concept of 'elective localization'" ((1952) Southern California State Dental Association journal)

"Focal infection-it refers to metastasis form the focus of infection, of organisms or their products that are capable of injuring tissue" (Ghom (2009) Textbook of Oral Pathology Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers pg 459)--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

If you can't even concede that McGraw Hill and BC decker are reliable publishers, there is nothing more that needs to be said to show your tendentious need to insert POV into this page if you're going to ignore the blatantly obvious. Everything else you wrote is your confusion about what Price advocated (and was, and still is, roundly rejected by the medical/dental community) and what current advocates of focal infection theory are saying now, which are quite different. Yobol (talk) 07:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, this noticeboard really isn't the appropriate place to discuss whether or not Ingle's Endodontics is a WP:RS; if you feel the need to continue your assertion that McGraw Hill and BC Decker are not reliable publishers, we should probably take that discussion to WP:RSN.Yobol (talk) 07:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Considering that Journal of the California Dental Association, JADA, Wiley, Military Medicine, and J Am Diet . Assnc and even an earlier People's Medical Publishing House publication all say the Ingle's Endodontics statement is wrong. You can do all the hand waving you want but the fact of the end of the day is you have ONE source supporting your view while I have FIVE.

I should point out McGraw Hill also puts out little gems like Easy Homeopathy, Homeopathic Remedies for 100 Children's Common Ailments, and Homeopathic Remedies for Children’s Common Ailments. It is hard to take a publisher of medical material as reliable when they also print stuff that claims Homeopathic medicine is a viable treatment option.

"Homeopathy works best with chronic health problems and some acute health problems" Repetitive strain injuries McGraw Hill pg 179.

"Homeopathy works by treating the whole body, including body, mind, and spirit" ("Without ritalin: a natural approach to ADD" McGraw Hill pg 115).

"We have no idea if this is technically true, we still don't understand how Homeopathy works. There has been no good basic research into the mechanism of action of homeopathic medicine..." (Vogel, John H. K.; Mitchell Krucoff (2007) Integrative cardiology McGraw-Hill Medical pg 347)

Homeopathy works?!? SAY WHAT?!? Yobol, if this is your idea of reliable I hate to see what you consider unreliable. Oh wait a minute you have basically said that McGraw Hill must take a back seat to Journal of the California Dental Association, JADA, Wiley, Military Medicine, and the J Am Diet . Assnc ergo those publishers are unreliable. Does this make a lick of sense?--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Bruce, the fact that they publish fringey medical texts does not mean that they do not also publish mainstream ones. That said, since they do publish fringe medicine one cannot take them as de facto mainstream in medical textbook publications. Drop McGraw Hill. There is no need to keep on tugging at either end of that rope. There is plenty else to discuss about this matter. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not the one pushing McGraw Hill; Yobol is the one pushing it despite the fact that FIVE other sources (Journal of the California Dental Association, JADA, Wiley, Military Medicine, and Journal of the American Dietetic Association) as well an earlier work by the same original publisher show the Ingle's Endodontics statement to be flat out WRONG.

As I said before on the Weston Price talk page you can't claim focal infection theory has been resurrected in 2002, have a 2009 source by Wiley saying the theory is being cautiously being looked at, another Wiley source stating the theory never really died in dentistry, and a 2007 source saying the theory has been dead as a dodo since the 1930s. There is simply no way to reconcile those claims.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

And as I said in the talk page, Price's contribution to focal infection theory was to research and advocate for the extraction of teeth rather than using root canals. That was his sole contribution to focal infection theory (frankly, that was focal infection theory in the 1930s), and that was completely abandoned. The modern "revival" of focal infection doesn't speak, at all, about tooth extraction or root canals and is therefore different than the theory Price advocated. You are conflating two things that share the same name and very basic principles but by all accounts are two totally different scientific theories. Not a single one of the sources you have provided have tied Price to this newer focal infection theory. Yobol (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

As administrator Will Beback pointed out back in Talk:Weston_Price/Archive_2#Modern_focal_infection_theory_passage "WP:MEDRS limits what we can say about medical topics, so that may be appropriate. But we shouldn't use this article as a backdoor to discuss medical claims that we wouldn't make elsewhere." You cannot ignore the many sources that show the Ingle's Endodontics statement is WRONG. While we are on it here are two more:

"Today the concept of focal infection has been integrated into the practice of medicine. One speaks no longer of the theory of focal infection; one recognizes focal infection as a definite pathologic condition requiring scientific diagnosis and treatment." (1947 Journal of the American Medical Association Volume 133:2 page 111). This statement was repeated word for word in Review of gastroenterology Volume 18 pg 71 of the National Gastroenterological Association in 1951.

You can't claim a theory "fell out of favor in the 1930s" when papers in 1947 and 1951 say it is "a definite pathologic condition requiring scientific diagnosis and treatment." On every point the Ingle's Endodontics is WRONG and no handwaving is going to change that.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

You're repeating yourself without addressing the point. What your sources are describing and what Price advocated for are two different theories. Yobol (talk) 16:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

No it is you where are avoiding the fact that all these other sources say the medical claim being made by Ingle's Endodontics either doesn't say what you think it says or it is flat out wrong.--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

You only think Ingle's is wrong because you can't see the difference between what Price advocated and what the sources you are presenting here are saying. And round and round we go. Yobol (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

That is largely because you keep claiming this with no evidence that there is a fundamental difference in the basic theory Price's work was used to support.

"A focus of infection may be defined as a circumscribed area of tissue infected with pathogenic microorganims. Foci of infection may be primary and secondary. (...) Primary foci of infection may be located anywhere in the body." (Billings, Frank ScD. (Harvard) MD (1916) Focal infection, Lane Medical Lectures (Delivered Sept 20-24, 1915 Stanford University Medical School); D Appleton and company, pg 3)

Articles of the same time period (1919 Minnesota medicine: Volume 2 Minnesota Medical Association Page 20; (1915) The Laryngoscope: Volume 25 American Otological Society, Page 786; (1916) Pacific medical journal: Volume 59, Page 177; (1913) Interstate medical journal: Volume 20, Page 849; (1914) Section on Laryngology, Otology, and Rhinology American Medical Association, Page 23) all define Focal infection in essentially the same way and nearly all of these were written when Price was chair of the Research Section of the American Dental Association (1914-1928)

"Similarly, in patients in whom brain abscess or meningitis originates from a focal infection in the vicinity of the brain (sinusitis, otitis media, dental abscess), contiguous spread rather than bacteremia represents the likely route by route by which the pathogen gains access to the CNS" (Scheld, W. Michael; Richard J. Whitley, Christina M. Marra (2004) "Infections of the central nervous system" Wolters Kluwer Health pg 331)

"Each dental caries, dental abscess, gingival and alveolar inflammation and necrosis, has been interpreted as essentially infective processes, and hence their extent is essentially a measure of the infection." (Price, Weston (1923) Dental infections, oral and systemic)

Here we see Price himself talking about dental abscess in the very book used as reference to FIT and a 2004 book by Wolters Kluwer Health that talks about dental abscess being one of the potential focal infections for brain abscessed or meningitis and yet we are being told by Yobol that they are somehow two different theories? SAY WHAT?!?

Moreover various medical journals of Price's time talk more about dental abscesses in regards to FIT then they talk about endodontic treated or pulpless teeth. These include (but are not means limited to) (1918) "DENTAL ABSCESS OR INFECTION AND ITS CONSEQUENCES" The American journal of clinical medicine: Volume 25, Page 145; (1922) Transactions of the College of Physicians of Philadelphia College of Physicians of Philadelphia, Page 276; George W. Goler (1922) "Discussion" Transactions of the Dental Society of the State of New York, Volumes 50-54 Dental Society of the State of New York pg 126; (1916) Contributions from the Department of Pathology, Bacteriology, and Public Health: Volumes 1-2, University of Minnesota. Dept. of Pathology, Bacteriology, and Public Health, Page 192; (1915) Journal of the Iowa State Medical Society: Volume 5, Iowa State Medical Society, Page 60; Bethel, L. P. (1917) Dental summary: Volume 37, Page 917; (1916) Martin, Franklin Henry Surgery, gynecology & obstetrics: Volume 22, Page 24; Keyes, Frederick Anthony (1918) Army dentistry: Forsyth lectures for the Army Dental Reserve Corps, Page 107)--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment My only concern here is that Price's application of focal infection theory (e.g. the one shared by the dental mainstream for a number of years leading to unnecessary extractions, etc.) is not confused with the focal infection theory, which is a much more general theory. I'm saying this because I agree mostly with Yobol at this point, but with a caveat that I think relates to Bruce's concerns. The sources that do in fact discuss Price and focal infection theory appear not to be doing a very good job differentiating between the two themselves. I think we do need to stick to these sources when discussing Price's connection to the theory, but we should also make sure our readers are not confused in the sense of thinking that the focal infection theory was completely rejected. As far as that is handled with the necessary subtlety I'm happy.Griswaldo (talk) 21:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)'=

As I pointed out in the talk page when this originally came up is Silverman, Sol; Lewis R. Eversole, Edmond L. Truelove (2002) "Essentials of oral medicine" PMPH usa; Page 159 stated "Additionally, recent evidence associating dental infections with atherosclerosis and other chronic diseases has also helped resurrect the focal infection theory." Guest who now publishes Silverman's book; you got it McGraw hill!

Now I'll ask the question that I asked back on the talk page and never really got an answer to--how can People's Medical Publishing House and now McGraw Hill state the focal infection theory is being revived in 2002 and yet in 2007 (or 2008) say that it died in the 1930s period end of sentence. They can't both be true.

Here is quote regarding the book Root Canal Cover-up Exposed that addresses Price as well: "The focal infection theory, supported by many including Dr. Price, has been attacked, debated, accepted, criticized, agreed upon, etc. but it has not been covered up." ((1994) Annals of dentistry: Volumes 53-54 New York Academy of Dentistry pg 42) Why is the word "rejected" not part of that list? The author of this piece states that Root Canal Cover-up Exposed "contains unsubstantiated statements, misunderstandings, and it would definitely have benefited from a better proofreading. Infected tissues/organs, such as teeth, can serve as a source of infection which can be transported, in the form of microorganisms..."

Hold the phone there isn't the idea that tissues/organs such as teeth being a source of infection which can be transported to other parts of the body the very definition of FIT as it was in Price's time? Given the numerous quotes of the period I have been citing in the talk page looks like it to me.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Well it has been nearly a month an no real reasons for putting one source over what is now seven has been presented nor how doing so meets WP:NPOV with regards to WP:MEDRS. Administrator USER:Will Beback pointed out back in Talk:Weston_Price/Archive_2#Modern_focal_infection_theory_passage "WP:MEDRS limits what we can say about medical topics, so that may be appropriate. But we shouldn't use this article as a backdoor to discuss medical claims that we wouldn't make elsewhere." So far nothing to show why Ingle's Endodontics should be used to overrule what is stated by two other textbooks, an earlier book published by the same publisher, article by the Journal of the California Dental Association, JADA, Military Medicine, Journal of the American Dietetic Association, the New York Academy of Dentistry, and several books put out by Wiley and Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers simply under the grounds that they don't directly mention Weston Price. Per WP:MEDRS it doesn't matter if Weston Price is mentioned but if the medical claim being made in relation to him is correct and as the WP:RS show Ingle's Endodontics is wrong in this regard.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Multiple reasons have been given, you just haven't chosen to accept them. You are free to disagree with everyone else; you are not, however, free to continue to disrupt the article by ignoring consensus and implementing changes that have been rejected multiple times. Yobol (talk) 23:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

A bunch of smoke and mirror reasons have been presented that do not address the core issue--Ingle's Endodontics is making a medical claim not supported by any of the above sources and since it is a minority view that is apparent violation of the WP:NPOV part of WP:MEDRS. Unless Yobol can produce his arguments here his claims have no merit.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Additional note Yobol did this revert. Please explain how identifying the publisher falls under WP:PEACOCK especially given the just the fact example?!? Better yet explain to us how removing the very reference as where the statement was removed qualifies under WP:PEACOCK. Also explain to us why this nonsense is allowed to go on.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Ingels vs Ingels The really sad thing about this is "PDQ Endodontics" by Ingels clearly states "And even today, cancer and neuroropsychiatric disorders are blamed on focal infection". (...) "In summary, nonsurgical endodontics may be the least likely of dental treatment procedure to produce significant bacteremias in either incidence or magnitude" so even Ingels (2009) says Ignels (2002/2007) is wrong.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

POV in a map

At Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority, there are 3 world maps indicating recognition of and relations with Palestine and its derivitive institutions. This thread concerns the last of these maps (shown right), which shows different information from the other two.

The information in this map is supposedly derived from the table in the article, which is sourced. The table is divided into 3 parts:

• The top section lists states that have recognised the State of Palestine. These are coloured GREEN in the maps.
• The bottom section lists states that do not recognise the State of Palestine. These are coloured BLUE in the maps.
• A middle section lists states where sources conflict on that state's official position.

Unlike in the other 2 maps on the page, there is no neutral colouring for those unclear cases listed in the middle section. Instead, they're rendered as BLUE (i.e., not recognising the State of Palestine). Not only is this inherently confusing to the reader in its deviation from the sourced information in the article, it also shows POV.

The author of the map (Alinor (talk · contribs)) insists that discussion between editors will eventually determine to which of the two sections each of these cases belongs, thus rendering as redundant any need for a third colour in the maps. However, given the heavy disagreement between sources on a number of these entries, it is unlikely that anything will be determined regarding their positions any time soon. They have all been in the middle section since last year, while the map has shown them as belonging to the last section.

I agree that inconclusive evidence requires further investigation, but I don't think it's acceptable to show these cases, even in the meantime, as belonging to one category when the article (and the sources) show that they could just as easily belong to the other. Nightw 05:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

For example, there's a reliable source stating quite explicitly that Lesotho recognises the State of Palestine, but in the absence of official word from the baSotho government, it's been rendered as inconclusive. But this map shows it, along with all similarly undetermined cases, as not recognising it. Nightw 05:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's not discuss individual cases of the inconclusive entries - the talk page of the article is more appropriate place for that. Alinor (talk) 08:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

??? I'm not. That was an example for the noticeboard. Read comments properly. Nightw 12:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

First, all three maps are made by me, including these with special coloring for "inconclusive" cases. The other two maps not shown here, are unnecessary in my opinion, they don't add any information, but I agreed on making and adding them, as compromise.

The way in which Night w presents the information above is misleading ("the third map shows different information from the other two", etc.)

I have not insisted that we wait for ALL inconclusive cases to be resolved. I said, that before editing the map we should first finish the concurrently ongoing discussion about two of them (about the rest we don't discuss anything, because there is no new information).

My hesitation to include "inconclusive" as separate group is because of the additional colors needed (at least two). The map already has 4 colors (recognition, recognition+relations, relations, no recognition+no relations) and in the inconclusive group currently we have 2 more types ("maybe recognition", "relations+maybe recognition"). It's not just blue and green. Currently it's blue, green, light green, gray. I hesitate adding too much colors, because this is bad practice in general. But after Night w insisted so much I already agreed to do this.

What I said is - let's finish the ongoing discussion about two of the inconclusive cases and then we will change the map accordingly. Alinor (talk) 08:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why it's necessary to wait for an outcome on certain entries. Meanwhile it shows possibly wrong information. If we must wait for discussion to close on some cases, then it should be removed until the POV colouring is addressed. Nightw 12:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Wait for an outcome not on certain entries, but of an actively ongoing discussion. We can't change back-and-forth every time the discussion swings in one or another direction. Alinor (talk) 13:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The states that "lists states where sources conflict on that state's official position" should not be colored in blue as this is misleading to the reader. Later, if their position is clarified the appropriate color (green or blue) can be added. Meantime they should have a neutral color but in any case they should not be colored blue.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you say that we should be "restrictive" in coloring - e.g. in case of conflicting or inconclusive sources the map should show neutral gray color ("no SoP recognition") until an official confirmation source is found? Or you say that we should add additional neutral color specially for "conflicting or inconclusive sources"?

Just to clarify - blue doesn't mean only "SoP no recognition", but "PLO/PNA relations + no SoP recogntion". That's why some of the conflicting and inconclusive cases are blue currently - because we have official sources showing "PLO/PNA relations" just like for other of the blue states. This is implementation of the "restrictive" approach described above (gray - for no relations+no recognition; blue for relations+no recognition). Alinor (talk) 07:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

...But it's unclear to as to whether these cases recognise the State. So it's POV to say that they don't. And confusing to the reader when the rest of the article says otherwise. Nightw 09:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Let Keithbob reply. I understand him as supporting the "restrictive" coloring - e.g. for inconclusive cases we color as non-recognizing until we have official confirmation of recognition. And "the rest of the article says otherwise" is just the inclusion of these few specific cases as "conflicting and inconclusive". Alinor (talk) 15:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

So what's happening with this. We have three editors asking for neutral colouring on the map. Is it going to happen? Nightw 08:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

There are no three editors asking for this - you are asking for this, Rennell435 asks both maps to show the same thing (but doesn't insist on inclusion of "conflicting case" coloring), Keithbob hasn't replied yet. I assume that you would gladly disregard my position.

And there are multiple open questions that you haven't answered here and here - I ask you kindly to do so there. Anyway, when the article protection is lifted and we settle the Syria/Turkmenistan issue the maps will be updated. Alinor (talk) 14:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Keithbob said quite plainly that "they should have a neutral color". And Rennell's position is clear: match the maps up; there's only one discrepancy, and that's with these conflicting cases. I have no intention of revisiting that talk page until you do the right thing here. Once again, your stubborness is hindering progress. Nightw 11:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Reading Keithbob comment it seems that by "neutral color" he most probably refers to "gray" (no information).

Rennell435 said "they should all show the same thing." and this will be achieved by "neutral gray" in both maps.

I said, that I see no point in updating the map right now, when at the same time you are making some proposals to move Syria/Turkmenistan to "inconclusive" section. But, OK, since your stubbornness, non-cooperative and obstructionist behavior continues I may update the maps right now.

You are under AE obligations to discuss at the talk page. Of course you can breach that if you want. I understand your comment above as "I, Night w, won't participate in the discussion I'm under AE obligation to participate in, unless you, Alinor, do something in the way "I like it" without taking into account a related ongoing discussion and opinions of other users". In such case your refusal to participate in the discussion is sufficient for me to make the changes I proposed at the talk page. Alinor (talk) 13:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I have been busy with some real life issues. Regarding this statement by Alinor: "there is no neutral colouring for those unclear cases listed in the middle section. Instead, they're rendered as BLUE (i.e., not recognising the State of Palestine)". In my opinion it is incorrect and misleading to the reader to give a color (green or blue) to a state whose position on Palestine is unclear. If you like, you could have a neutral color such as grey for those states who have made ambiguous or conflicting statements. You could then use white for those states that have never commented in any way on the subject. A legend explaining the meaning of each color would also be needed for the reader. These are my suggestions.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

This wasn't my comment, but comment of Night w. Actually the "conflicting and inconclusive" are colored either gray or blue - not only blue - depending on whether they have PLO/PNA relations or not. About legend - in the article where the map is used there is a legend (see here). Blue is the color for "PLO/PNA relations". Gray is the color for "no information". So, in case of inconclusive source about SoP recognition, but firm source for PLO/PNA relations it gets colored blue. In case of inconclusive source about SoP recognition and nothing more - it gets colored gray. And these are not "states who have made ambiguous or conflicting statements" - these are states for whom we have conflicting/inconclusive/ambiguous sources (sources such as news reports, blogs, books, etc. not related to the state in question) - but actually we don't have quotes from the statements of the states themselves. In addition - there are some different cases with vague/ambiguous official statements (or cases, where we don't have official source at all) - but currently I think adding those nuances to a map will be too much. About white - we can't use white for coloring, but we can use yellow for example. Alinor (talk) 06:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Well you've added yellow, but only to two of the spots that need them. You've changed Lesotho and Swaziland to yellow, left Turkmenistan and Syria unchanged, and then gone and changed Cameroon to dark green...? This is map is getting more and more confusing (and thus useless) with every change. Can you please explain? Unless the map data corresponds to that of the table, I don't see how this map can continue to be shown. It's affecting the quality of the article. I may have to request deletion or removal through RfC. Nightw 10:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources about Syria and Turkmenistan SoP recognition, that's why these are unchanged. There is a source about Cameroon SoP recognition (see 22:10, 10 March 2011 comment in the "weakly supported" section at the talk page; the recent version of the table is in the sandbox) - that's why it got colored accordingly. Alinor (talk) 12:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

In this particular case, being a contemporary rather than historical situation, either an official government source states official recognition, or it's not officially recognized, plain and simple. There is no "discussion" of the situation, that synthesis and original research--i.e., speculation on a situation based on non-official sources. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 13:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't agree to changing any of those. Reverted. Nightw 07:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Then use the talk page and explain what you don't agree. [1] Uruguay or Cameroon? Alinor (talk) 08:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I've explained it. The maps should match the table, and when the table changes the map will follow suit. Otherwise they're useless, and they're not an improvement to the article. Nightw 08:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The map discussed here is used only in the protected article, where the table isn't updated yet. But you should revert your [2] change to another map that is used at another articles and where the version you recently pushed disregarded three edits - my edit following a RS/N discussion [3]; Fjmustak edit with Uruguay source [4]; my edit with Cameroon source [5]. Alinor (talk) 09:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

PЄTЄRS, so we should not add additional color for non-official conflicting or inconclusive sources? Alinor (talk) 08:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. You made undiscussed changes to the map, which affects the articles. That went against your AE obligations. So I reverted until an agreement is found. The RS/N noticeboard concluded that Doebbler cannot be used as a source to support a particular claim. It did not conclude, directly or indirectly, that any item should be moved, and it's appalling that you should use it to justify such actions. For the record, I'm fine with updating Uruguay and Cameroon, but the point is that the edits were made without consent. Nightw 09:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I didn't made "undiscussed changes" - all is discussed. Maybe you didn't want to participate or didn't have time to do it. Now, since you began participating I'm refraining from reverting your edits - so that we can reach some agreement.

Since "Doebbler cannot be used ..." I simply removed that data from the map (not the one under discussion here) that was added only because of that, what can't be used. If some new source is found for that, then the appropriate changes will be made to the map. So, far there isn't such (see here, here, here and here) - on the contrary, there are even circumstantial indications that Syria/Turkmenistan don't recognize SoP. Alinor (talk) 10:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Please, provide me the diffs where you proposed to make these changes to the maps. Did I consent to the changes? Was I even notified of the proposal? It seems quite poor behaviour to make changes where you know I disagreed and where there was an ongoing discussion over the matter (i.e., this very thread)! The noticeboard concluded that a particular source could not be used to support a particular claim. There are sources to replace it with, but you don't want to use them, and you don't want to open a RS/N thread to discuss them. So the entries will remain where they are, unsourced, until consensus dictates an outcome. Nightw 10:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The talk page is full of discussions about these topics. I asked you for a quote from the supposed source you suggests and you haven't provided such quote (and I couldn't see such myself). Controversial unsourced text can't remain. Anyway, this issue is separate - here we discuss the map and I suggest that we wait for PЄTЄRS and Keithbob responses. Alinor (talk) 11:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

PЄTЄRS, is this map OK: File:State of Palestine explicit recognition per official sources.png? For comparison see File:SoP recognition and PLO relations.png (corresponding to the map in discussion here) and File:State of Palestine recognition.png. Alinor (talk) 18:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Disregard

 – Nothing actionable or specifically addressed for discussion by OP. Viriditas (talk) 02:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

It is absolutely absurd that this article does not at the very least have a citation indicating that its neutrality is disputed. Please see the article on Gibraltar and reasonably defend how there can be less 'dispute' as to neutrality or reliability. The article on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is nothing but a long winded cult advertisement without a single reliable independent academic citation at any significant point. The article goes beyond unreliability; it is anti-academic and a shame to Wikipedia. Without a warning tag I cannot see how Wikipedia can maintain even a shred of honour as a worthy information source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factsareinconvenient (talk • contribs) 10:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The forgoing is a rant, a bunch of claims and over the top statements, which may well express how you feel about the article, but doesn't give us any of those inconvenient details as to any actual problem. E.g., you mention a lack of "independent academic citation". If that is a problem, then why don't you find the material ("citations") that should be supplied? If there is an on-going dispute, then say so, and give us the details of why it needs to be brought up here. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

You should look up the definition of "feel". I suggest you begin with Merriam-Webster. It is not my duty to provide citations; it is the ABSOLUTE and SOLE DUTY of the author of the article. It is the ABSOLUTE DUTY of Wikipedia's editors and moderators to flag articles which lack sufficient citations and neutrality (or in this case any). If this were an article on anything else, there would be such appropriate flags at the top of the article. Such tags are the one of the primary means by which Wikipedia maintains a shred of intellectual credibility. Why is this article being given special consideration? Why does it not need a shred of documentation or citation? Is the Mormon 'church' contolling the process?<< — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factsareinconvenient (talk • contribs) 09:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

And trust me, if I were able to put tags at the top of the article which stated, "This Article's neuttrality has ben disputed..." and "This article does not cite any reliable sources...", I certainly would. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factsareinconvenient (talk • contribs) 09:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Crisis pregnancy center

We have, at last count, seventeen (unless I missed a few) sources attesting false medical information propagated by CPCs; we do not have a single source attesting a CPC that does not propagate false medical information, nor do any of the seventeen sources attesting misinformation say that it is rare. Is the use of the phrase "[CPCs] have routinely been found to disseminate false medical information" justified? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't think so, not unless you have a source that says "[CPCs] have routinely been found to disseminate false medical information". It's a hasty generalization and therefore WP:SYNTH. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know whether you have this source, Abortion Counseling: A Clinician's Guide to Psychology, Legislation, Politics, and Competency. It has some actual survey data from a Congressional study on page 11 e.g. 87% of CPC's in the study were found to have provided false and misleading information. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

We cite the study itself; it's the ref called "Waxman." Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It is worth noting that that study was commissioned by a very pro-abortion congressman from California and carried out by his staff. - Haymaker (talk) 17:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Pro-choice is not the same as 'pro-abortion' so if you're truly interested in collaboration then you'll stop equating the two. -PrBeacon (talk) 18:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Only if a reliable source said that it's worth noting and why. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Which is somewhat different from "routinely providing misleading information." IIRC, more than 90% of IRS agents give out "misleading information" in tests, yet we do not say "The IRS routinely gives out misleading information" since 99% of the information the IRS gives out is published information, and not responses to complex queries (where its record is, indeed, abysmal). Perhaps "Many CDCs have been found giving out incorrect medical information in response to queries" or the like? The article surrently is a POV nightmare, however, and reads very much like an advocacy article. Collect (talk) 11:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

That would simply be false, though, as these CPCs from all appearances give out this information completely unprompted as part of their MO. My problem with "some" is that I feel it's unnecessarily minimizing - that it implies we have fewer sources than we do, that we have sources about CPCs that don't do this, that our sources say not all CPCs do this. Actually, would it be easier to deal with the problem by removing all quantifying words and just say "...they have been found..." Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Cite for them deliberately giving out misleading information? And "they have been found ..." implies "They all have been found." To avoid any such implication, the most WP can say is "some have been found to give out some misleading information." At least, from the cites proffered. I would also caution that using "MO" implies deliberate action. Collect (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

We don't say they do it deliberately, so why would we need a citation that says they do? (We also don't say it's their MO. I'm responding to your proposed wording, which is inaccurate and which does not reflect the sources.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: we have moved on to discussing other ways of wording the sentence. Bobthefish2 has suggested "CPCs have been found," which seems good to me as it is not a quantity, but hopefully will not be viewed by other participants as implying all CPCs. I have also suggested removing the "While they provide information..." part of the sentence which contrasts with the statement. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Without a quantifier it does sound like all of them have been. - Haymaker (talk) 06:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Consider the example: "Muslims have been found to issue fatwas against infidels". Bobthefish2 (talk) 06:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Its a bit different with people than with businesses. Consider "Burger Kings serve fries". - Haymaker (talk) 06:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Similarly, it can be a different depending on how you express it :)! Consider "Burger King restaurants have been found to serve fries". Bobthefish2 (talk) 07:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

"Have been found to..." sounds weaselly, and I doubt if it is ever a useful wording. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Is it the passive voice that's the problem? We used to have it in active, and I've no problem going back. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Korean History Compilation Committee

Resolved

 – User appears to have filed this report in good faith and fixed the problem to the best of his ability. Reviewing the edits RekishiEJ fixed, it appears that many of the previous claims were either unsourced or poorly sourced, with what appears to be evidence of POV pushing. Viriditas (talk) 02:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

In February 10, 2011 I left a message on the article's talk page, pointing out a fact that the article only mentions some Korean scholars' negative attitude toward the committee, and does not mention Japanese historians and Korean positivist historians's viewpoint of the committee at all ([6] mentions it). However in March 9, 2011 the problem still exists, so I deleted all the heavily biased sentences and paragraphs, which claims that the committee's main goal is to distort history of Korea, like Japanese edition. But I still think that since there are some scholars praise or attack the committee, the article should not just have the establishing date and members of the committee (the Japanese edition only mentions them); the article should also describe the various viewpoints of the committee. Hope that Wikipedians can use academic books and papers to further expand the article (not television programmes, encyclopedia articles and posts on blogs, there are not professional and accurate enough!).--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Line of succession to the British throne

I have a fairly big concern about the article Line of succession to the British throne. At first glance, the biggest problem with the list (apart from its size) is the apparent Original Research problem. While this may be a problem, I think the fundamental problem is that it violates NPOV. I summarized the problem in this RfC. Basically, if one were to verify something like the King of Sweden is number 203rd in the line of succession, you'd have to do a lot of verification.. there is no source that claims he is number 203. But there are sources who make the arguments one would need to make (he's next after number 202, who's next after 201, etc..), since there are rules to the line of succession (WP:SYNTH). The NPOV problem is that the precise meaning of some of the rules - in particular that Roman Catholics are excluded from the list - is unclear: different sources interpret the rule differently, and hence produce different numberings. Yet the Wikipedia article endorses a single choice (which, by the way, isn't found in any reliable source).

I have tried to convince editors on the talk page that something needs to be done, but there are some editors who are against removing the numbering - in particular the dedicated editors who strive to keep the list up to date. Any comments would be appreciated. I made an RfC about a month ago, but no action was taken. Mlm42 (talk) 00:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

PS - there have been a variety of complaints about this article, such as its size, original research, and unrealistic hopes of keeping it up to date. The talk page and archives are full of these discussions. But I'd like to focus on this particular NPOV concern about the numbering. None of the other issues have "stuck".. it's possible that the NPOV issue won't stick either, but what can you do. Mlm42 (talk) 00:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

We should provide a short list from a recognized source, which would probably present the first ten or twenty in line. TFD (talk) 03:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I supported limiting the size of the article on its talk page in the past to no avail. [7] back in 2009. Not much change. And the denizens there appear to like it that way. Collect (talk) 15:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

That page seems to me to be in violation of several policies. One is clearly verifiability WP:VERIFY, WP:SYNTH, but also WP:UNDUE. I have a hard time seeing the relevance of all the people in the list. Which is now at 2000+. The chances that anyone past 20 (or even, if we are very generous, past 50) ever gets to the throne is very small if not pretty much non-existent. So they really are not very relevant to the content of the article.

And if the list is about people in line to the throne, then listing all those that are not seems a bit much. Not to mention confusing. That's my 2 cents as an outside observer.--AnnekeBart (talk) 15:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Communist terrorism

Is it NPOV to describe the Viet Cong insurgency during the Vietnamese war as "communist terrorism" in the article Communist terrorism? TFD (talk) 01:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources which call it such? --Jayron32 03:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The source says,

Terrorism was commonplace in South Vietnam beginning as early as the 1950s. Targets included local political figures, police chiefs, teachers, nurses, doctors, military personnel, and others who supported the nation's infrastructure. From 1965 through 1972, terrorists killed more than thirty-three thousand South Vietnamese and abducted another fifty-seven thousand of them.... While the labeling stategy of the United States evolved over time, each of the related administrations linked terrorism and Communism as paired threats to American interests in the region. To reinforce the association, each relied on the convential Cold War narrative to publicly frame acts of terrorism during the war. The approach recalled the nation's war history by mapping the terrorist tactics of the Nazis during World War II onto the Communists in Vietnam. (In the name of terrorism: presidents on political violence in the post-World, Carol Winkler, SUNY Press, 2006, p. 17 [8]

This is rephrased in Communist terrorism#Communist Terrorism in The Vietnam War as,

In the 1950`s communist terrorism was rife in South Vietnam with political leaders, provincial chiefs, teachers, nurses, doctors and members of the military being targeted. Between 1965 and 1972 terrorists had killed over thirty three thousand people and abducted a further fifty seven thousand.

TFD (talk) 03:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds more like an issue for the original research noticeboard. It is a fairly common phrase that was used to describe the insurgency in Vietnam but you would be testing the limits of synthesis to incorporate that source. There are far better sources out there. Marcus Qwertyus 04:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The Four Deuces fails to point out it is taken from a chapter titled "The Vietnam War and the Communist Terrorists" So there is no issue here at all with either NPOV or OR. Tentontunic (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you see no difference between an author claiming that the U.S. government used the term CT and the author endorsing the use of the term? Notice the writer uses the term "Communist Terrorist" in scare quotes. TFD (talk) 17:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Given the context above, I don't think that the title of a chapter is enough to use the term without qualification. On a side note I also think the copy could be better written: phrases like "was rife" and "being targeted" seem clumsy, no offense meant to whoever wrote it. -PrBeacon (talk) 18:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

@Jayron. Your question "Do you have reliable sources which call it such?" is irrelevant to this noticeboard, because this thread is not about reliability, but about neutrality of the text we discuss. In my opinion, the same is true for the TFD's arguments, because if the author does not endorse the term "Communist terrorists", then this thread belongs to WP:RSN or/and WP:NORN, because, as Marcus says, the text may have some synthesis issues. Nevertheless, I agree with Marcus that it is possible to find some reliable sources that openly and explicitly characterise North Vientamese or Vietcong partisans as "terrorists", or even "Communist terrorists".
However, again, all of that has no relevance to the neutrality noticeboard. What is relevant to it, is the fact that many reliable sources exist that (i) explicitly state that the term "terrorists" in general should be applied with cautions to the national-liberation and partisan movements (see. e.g. William F. Shughart II. An analytical history of terrorism, 1945–2000, Public Choice (2006) 128:7–39: "What, if anything, distinguishes a terrorist from a “revolutionary”, an “insurgent”, a “freedom fighter”, a “martyr” or an ordinary criminal?"), or (ii) characterise the usage of this term in a context of Vietnam War as US, or, broadly speaking, Cold War propaganda. For instance, the current version of the article clearly explains (with sources) that "this term ("communist terrorism, P.S.) has been applied by the US administration to the actions of Communist partisans during Vietnam war to affect both the domestic and South Vietnamese public opinion and to justify the actions of the US army as "counterterrorist" measures."(Carol Winkler. In the name of terrorism: presidents on political violence in the post-World War II era. SUNY Press, 2006, ISBN 0791466175, 9780791466179, p.29-35.), therefore, we have no other choice but to conclude that, according to some reliable sources, the term "Communist terrorism" in this context is a Cold War legacy, and cannot be used without attribution. My conclusion is that the discussed section as whole contradicts to the neutrality principle and to other parts of the article and must be rewritten.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it's impossible to determine neutrality without reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

And of course on page 18, 25 and 32 of this book she says viet cong terrorists. Given the VC were of course communist then again, no issue. Tentontunic (talk) 20:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, the fact that you see no issue is a serious issue per se. Your conclude that the text is neutral just because it is (in your opinion) verifiable. By writing that you mix two independent policies. In addition, by saying that "Given the VC were of course communist then again, no issue" you demonstrate your infamiliarity with the WP:NOR policy: the source must explicitly characterise VC as "Communist terrorists", otherwise your conclusion is synthesis.

However, that is only a part of the issue. In actuality, the proposed text is even non-verifiable. Thus, whereas the author agrees that terrorism was common for South Vietnam since 1950s, on the page 18 the author does not call Vietcong "Communist terrorists", by contrast, he points out that the idea to couple terrorism with Communism belongs to the US administration and was used as a "public justification for the US involvement in the Vietnam War". Therefore, you simply misinterpeted the source.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

And that paul is pure wiki lawyering. To say the VC were communists is hardly OR. A source calling the VC terrorists is communist terrorist, to say otherwise is a waste of time. Tentontunic (talk) 20:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

And again all of this is more relevant to the umpteen attempts to delete the article than to any violation of NPOV at all. If one feels there is a POV, the procedure is to add balancing material, not to rehash the same ten thousand words over and over and over. This article has survived a sklew of AfDs - time to let it evolve and grow and not to keep sniping at it in every forum possible. Collect (talk) 20:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• A number of sources explicitly mention communist terrorism in Vietnam, for example see Inside the VC and the NVA: the real story of North Vietnam's armed forces By Michael Lee Lanning, Dan Cragg: "Pike concluded that the most horrendous example of Communist terrorism during the war, the massacre at Hue" and The war for South Viet Nam, 1954-1975 By Anthony James Joes: "The target of increasing Communist terrorism in the cities, the police forces of South Viet Nam continued to deteriorate" --Martin (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

@Collect. Wrong. You can easily see that neither I nor TFD are the proponents for the article's removal. At least, I made several additions of the text and the sources, which have been reverted by others. Let me reiterate: I do not propose to delete this article.

@Martin. As I already wrote, it is not a problem to support this material with needed references. The problem is that other reliable sources exist that directly connect the term "Communist terrorism" (in a Vientam context) with a Cold war propaganda. It is a neutrality noticeboard (if you haven't already noticed that).--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Mea culpa about the number: [9] removal of over 85% of article in one edit. [10] ditto without preserving edit history as required by WP policy about copyrights. [11] turning article into a dab page. [12] attempted redirect. [13] AFD 3. There were also AFDs 1 and 2 by the way. And note the !votes including TFD. AFD2? Paul Seibert. So your "strong delete" meant nothing? Thank you most kindly, but the forum shopping is evident. Sigh. And the MfD for "Communist terrorism (disambiguation)"? Closed as The result of the discussion was Speedy delete via G6 as blatant misuse of disambiguation. Too many bites at the apple now. Collect (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I pardon you, don't worry :). Speaking seriously, I failed to find anything in your diffs that support your assertion that I want to delete the article. Yes, I moved (not deleted) a significant part of the article, because it belonged to another article, and you perfectly know that. Therefore, I even don't know how to characterise this your assertion using the terminology allowed by the WP policy... I do not propose to delete this article because when you type "Communist terrorism" in google or gscholar you get a lot of hits. However, they refer to many quite different, and frequently not related to each other, things and sometimes are used as an alternative terminology for the events that are being described by other, more adequate terminology. Therefore, in my opinion, the article should stay, but it should discuss not a concept (no single concept of Communist terrorism currently exists), but various examples of application of this phrase by different writers, politicians, scholars and journalists: starting from the Red Terror (which should be briefly mentioned, the Nazi demagogic attempt to blame Communists in Reichstag fire, Malaya, Vietnam (as a part of propaganda efforts), left-wing terrorism (it is necessary to explain that sometimes terrorism of this type is being described as "Communist terrorism" and to provide a link to the main article), etc. We are quite able to write a good article, if we stop edit warring and forget old Cold War propaganda cliches. In any event, the way some editors follow (to combine as many bad things as possible and to contextually or directly link them to the word "Communism") will not work.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

A "Strong delete !vote is not a vote to delete? Really? Seems to me that "strong delete" means "strong delete" unless there is some "what does 'is' mean" moment has occurred. Meanwhile, trying to use this as one more forum to accomplish was not accomplished in any of innumerable other forums seems outre. Collect (talk) 07:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but you should look more carefully: I do not remember that I participated in the AfD discussions (at least I didn't find my name there). With regard to what I want to accomplish, I believe I described that in details in my previous post. And, please, if possible, try to stop your personal attacks.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Eh? Note all of the following deals with your specific words, and is not a "personal attack" in any way.

see [14] seems clear about your desires and intent.

[15] that you regard this a subcategory of an article into which you moved a great deal of content.

[16] where you removed 85% of the article to that other article.

[17] your precise rationale for disliking the article.

[18] wherein you state that "communist terrorism" is only found in regard to Malaya.

[19] where you say "Based on the google scholar search results, which demonstrated that the terrorist groups described in this article belong to the Left-wing terrorism article and not to this article, the content of the sections 2.1 - 2.16 must be moved there. Since this is a neutrality issue, no consensus is needed for that."

[20] where you say "I would say that these alleged "communist terrorist groups" are in actuality left-wing groups, according to majority reliable sources. Therefore, the content of this article simply has to be moved to the Left-wing terrorism, which will be done after Nov 4."

[21] (state of talk page included) wherein you write: "They possibly identified themselves with Communism, but they were not seen as Communist by large Communist parties, and were seen as "ultra-leftist" by others. Communism/Marxism is much more narrow term, and, accordingly, the Red Brigades etc should be moved to some more appropriate article" saying that "Communist groups" are only "Communist" if they are seen as officially communist by "large Communist parties." You specifically state: "One way or the another, whereas "Communist" is a subset of "Leftist", and whereas numerous sources calling them "Leftist" do exist, insisting on the word "Communist" is a violation of the neutrality principle. " This position is shared by TFD who even manages to say "Also, Orwell was writing about the "Communist Party". None of the groups listed in the article were Communist parties or had any official relationship with the Communists and therefore whatever he thought about Communists does not apply to them." "Delete I provided the examples of inadequate usage of the source, I addressed this argument specifically to Collect, however, he seems to completely ignore that my post. Therefore, his claim that "the claims are backed by WP:RS sources" is simply false" where a "Paul Siebert" used the word "delete" for a large section of the article (that is, everying about 'origins, evolution and history" of the topic. "Rename per Scholar results (see above). That should be done independently of the straw poll results, because the present name violates the neutrality criteria.--" where you specifically state that the name of the article itself can not be allowed.

[22] "I think, it is senseless to continue. Every article's section I checked belongs to "Left wing terrorism", not to "Communist terrorism" article, according to sources"

So let's see -- you never suggested deleting the article -- just renaming it, removing it, removing every single section, removing everything about "origins, evolution and history" and so on. I will take you at your word that you "never" sought deletion. I rather think this small assemblage of diffs shows your opinions adequately. Collect (talk) 14:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Re "seems clear about your desires and intent" To declare desires and intent does not contradict to the rules and the policy, provided that these desires do not contradict to WP:C, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Do you see anything in my desires and intents that contradict to them?

Re "that you regard this a subcategory of an article into which you moved a great deal of content" And why do you believe that was incorrect?

Re "where you removed 85% of the article to that other article." Yes, I did that, and I provided needed rationale, and this my step has been supported by many users;

Re "your precise rationale for disliking the article." Yes, I dislike wrongly written and biased article, in full accordance with the WP policy. I already explained why this article is biased and poorly sourced. Do you have any counter-arguments against that?

Re "wherein you state that "communist terrorism" is only found in regard to Malaya. " Sorry, but that statement is a blatant lie. From the diff provided by you it is clear that I wrote:

"In my understanding (although I didn't do a separate studies of this issue), what Petri means is that Malayan Emergency was the only case when the term "Communist terrorism" was used more widely than other terms to describe these events"

In other words, your statement is a lie at least for three reasons

(i) Firstly, I wrote "In my understanding (although I didn't do a separate studies of this issue)", which means that I didn't state anything, just expressed my opinion, which, according to my own words, was not based on the analysis of the sources, so it was not the ultimate one;

(ii) This opinion was not about Malaya, but about the views of another user (Petri);

(iii) This my opinion was not about "Communist terrorism" as the term applied to Malaya only, but about Malaya as the only known case when this term is being used more frequently than other, alternative terms.

Therefore, the only my advise in that case is: please, read the text you quote more carefully. Misinterpretation of my words is harmless, however, if you read the sources as carefully as you read my posts, you are quite able to badly misinterpret the formers, which may inflict serious damage on Wikipedia.

Re the rest of your post, I don't see any problems with what I wrote in the past.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Also note your own words: "[Obviously, someone wants the word "communism" to be associated with as many nasty words and definitions as possible. Of course, this article's content should be moved to the terrorism article (interestingly, the latter article even do not mention "Communist terrorism" as a separate type of terrorism). BTW, the same is true for "Mass killings under Communist regimes": the mass murder (the article mass killing redirects to, that is supposedly a "Mass killing under Communist regimes"'s mother article) mentions neither "Mass killing under Communist regimes" as a separate mass killing category, nor Valentino's, Goldhagen's, etc works. (IMHO, the very fact that so much efforts and WP space is devoted to killings under Communists, whereas almost no attention is paid to other mass killings, and to the mass killing issue in general, is a clear sign of someone strong bias) In my opinion, a redirect from mass killing to mass murder should be removed, the "mass killing" article should be extended by moving part of mass murder's, Mass killings under Communist regimes', Holocaust, Nazi war crimes, American war crimes' etc content there, and, if necessary, series of "Mass killings under..." daughter articles can be created. That should be done first, and only after that can I switch to communist terrorism." [23] which also appears to be an abundantly clear statement of your intent to remove anything where you feel "communist" is used as something only anti-communists seek to associate with "nasty words and definitions." I am not an "anti-communist" in any such sense - but it is likelwise clear that you have a WP:BATTLEGROUND outlook on this per your own talk page. Collect (talk) 14:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

A pure logical fallacy: "X in not always wrong" and "X is always right" are two quite different statements. --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Not only do I "lie" but I have a "pure logical fallacy"? Your supercilious claims thereon do not benefit any article. Nor do they benefit this noticeboard. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 13:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Upon taking a closer look at the source and the proposed text, I would say that it fails verification. The quoted source is about how the US government labeled this as communist terrorism, which is, of course, wholely different than saying it is communist terrorism. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

How incredibly fortunate then that I found another source which supports this content. Tentontunic (talk) 20:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

What is unfortunate, however, is that you continue to misinterpret the neutrality policy: if the sources A states that the Vietnamese partisans were labelled as Communist terrorists by the US administration, and the source Y states stat they were Communist terrorists, that does not mean that the source X can be rejected. But, in actuality, that what you have done. You removed the following text [24], that was supported by numerous reliable sources and that stated:

"...... Later, this term has been applied by the US administration to the actions of Communist partisans duringVietnam war to affect both the domestic and South Vietnamese public opinion and to justify the actions of the US army as "counterterrorist" measures.(ref. Carol Winkler. In the name of terrorism: presidents on political violence in the post-World War II era. SUNY Press, 2006, ISBN 0791466175, 9780791466179, p.29-35. /ref)......"

And added another text that directly contradicted to what the text removed by you said. This is a serious violation of the policy, and I request you to self-revert. The fact that you found another source that supports your POV changes nothing. This is my second warning.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Please take your warning, and then put it were the sun doth not shine. The second source most certainly does not contradict the first, perhaps you ought to look closer. Tentontunic (talk) 22:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

This is totally irrelevant. Since reliable sources exist that confirm that the originators of the phrase "Communist terrorism" (in this context) was the US administration, and that it was utulised to draw teh US into the Vietnam War and to affect the public opinion, that must be said in the article (so the text removed by you should be restored). Since no common opinion exists among the scholars on if partisans can be described as terrorists, the term "communist terrorists" must be used with attribution. Do you have any concrete arguments against that?--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It is really irrelevant whether or not the US government used the phrase "Communist terrorism" as Cold War propaganda, since your source states as fact that terrorism existed in Vietnam. The very first paragraph of chapter of the book you cite states the existence of terrorism as fact: "Terrorism was commonplace in South Vietnam beginning as early as the 1950s. Targets included local political figures, province chiefs, teachers, nurses, doctors, military personnel, and others who supported the nation's infrastructure. From 1965 through 1972, terrorists killed more than 33,000 South Vietnamese and abducted another 57,000 of them." That the US administration exploited that fact as propaganda does not diminish that fact or make it POV, no more than the Allies used the fact of Nazi atrocities as propaganda to motivate their people into action. --Martin (talk) 19:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

You are not correct. Firstly, the source does not state that this terrorism was Communist terrorism (it does not specify that at all). Secondly, this chapter is specifically about the attempts of the US administration to link terrorism and Communism to justify American involvement in Vietnam. To take some facts from this source and to reject other facts and the author's conclusions is a direct and deliberate misinterpretation of the sources. You also forget that other sources explicitly refuse to call partisans "terrorists". By saying that, I do not claim that the characterisation of Vietcong partisans as terrorists should be removed from the article, however, it is absolutely necessary to say that (i) the originator of this terminology was the US administration, which did that for propaganda purposes, and (ii) other sources do not characterise partisans as terrorists. By contrast, Tentontunic and the editors supporting him insist on removal of any other information but Cold war propaganda, which is in blatant contradiction with WP policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

So who were these terrorists that killed 33,000 and abducted 57,000 South Vietnamese, aliens from the planet Mars? A number of authors, such as Michael Lee Lanning, Dan Cragg and Anthony James Joes, do make the explicit connection between Communist insurgents and terrorism in South Vietnam. Nobody is claiming that Vietcong partisans were "terrorists", but that they used terrorism as a tactic in their insurgency. --Martin (talk) 19:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

They definitely were not aliens, which, of course, automatically makes them Communists (as we all known, all bad things are being done by either aliens or Communists). According to the existing viewpoints (major ones), the originators of term "Communist terrorism" (in a context of Vietnam) was the US administration, and, therefore, this term was initially politically motivated. Some authors explicitly call VC insurgents "terrorists", some of them use the adjective "Communist" (just to discriminate them from others), some authors directly link Communism and terrorism, and others explicitly refuse to apply this term to partisans, because the term "Terrorism" is vague. Neutrality requires us to say all of that in the article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

"Terrorists" itself is a loaded word, and arguably non-neutral POV. Contrast with "freedom fighters" — one is bad, the other is good, and (curiously) all of the terrorists are on the other side, and all the freedom-fighters are on our side. It's like a wire with high voltage on — there will be sparks where ever it touches, and needs extremely careful handling. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The article seems mis-named since it only addresses terrorism related to the Vietnam War. This sentence: " On December 6 1967 the Viet Cong used Flame throwers on civilians in the village of Dak Son killing 252 with the majority of those burnt alive being women and children.[13]", makes me wonder if we should have an article titled "Anti-Communist terrorism", to address the My Lai massacre of civilians. Or better yet, maybe just delete the article and merge it back to the Vietnam War article.   Will Beback  talk  19:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I fear you misapprehend the context. Collect (talk) 13:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The article in question is Communist terrorism, this is just a section within the article. Tentontunic (talk) 08:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know on how many notice boards and pages this article has popped up. The whole topic suffers from the fact that "communist terrorism" is a propaganda phrase that has been bandied around for about 100 years with very many different meanings (usually "stuff the other side does", but with different "stuff" and different "other" and different "sides"), and with different intentions (tainting insurgent movements with the association with "communism" and tainting "communism" by association with acts of terror). Treating the topic as a meaningful concept in its own right is about as reasonable as an article on "capitalist imperialism" as a valid concept. To answer the original question: Based on the source, no, it is not correct to describe the Viet Cong insurgency as communist terrorism, although the insurgency certainly included acts of terrorism. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting claim -- but Wikipedia has thirteen articles mentioning "capitalist imperialism." Including Anti-imperialism which is quite definitely mainly aimed at that topic. Meanwhile, I find it interesting that people can assert that people who admittedly engage in terrorism are somehow not terrorists! It is neatly analogous to a person who has committed multiple arsons complaining when he is called an "arsonist." :) Collect (talk) 17:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused. Are you referring to my comment? An insurgency is not "people". And acts done by members of an organization or group don't universally reflect on the organization or group, and much less on all members. Compare "All Americans are evil torture-murderers". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Collect, were you not aware that the British referred to their sphere of influence as an Empire? That the heads of state of Russia, Germany, Austria, France, and Belgium called themselves emperors? That they called themselves imperialists? That scholars refer to them, as well as the Spanish, Portugese, and Dutch (even U.S.) overseas possessions as imperialism? They do not however refer to anti-imperialists as Communist Terrorists. TFD (talk) 20:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Idris al-Senussi

Idris al-Senussi is a claimant to the abolished throne of Libya. The man has gained quite a bit of notoriety in the media, including most recently in the U.S., in light of the protests against Gaddafi. But the legitimacy of his claims have been widely questioned.

• The two main sources used in the list, Christopher Buyers and Henry Soszynski, both present the son of the last crown prince, Muhammad al-Senussi, as the rightful heir.
• In 1995, a British magistrate ruled that "The world of make belief has totally absorbed Mr Idris Al-Senussi in this case. Mr al-Senussi wishes people to believe he is the heir presumptive to the Libyan throne. ... [T]he clear evidence in this case says that crown prince Muhammad, son of the last Crown Prince of the Kingdom of Libya, has a stronger case".
• This case followed his attempt to convince British members of parliament that he was the "great nephew of the late King Idris of Libya". However, David Williamson, co-editor of Debrett's Peerage, instead described the man (after also mocking his claim) as "the second son of the sixth son of the second son of the younger brother of Idris's father." (The Sunday Times) Buyers' genealogy matches this association exactly. Soszynski doesn't list him at all.

There is now a disagreement regarding how best to present his claim on List of current pretenders. WP:LIST requires a verifiable inclusion criteria, and this list currently requires a legitimate link to the throne. The order of succession in Libya was codified in Art. 45 of the Constitution: primogeniture, or failing that, nomination by the reigning king. This man fails both of these, and it's verified by independent sources. Similarly dubious claims are presented in the article either in plain prose or in a footnote, but not as a main entry. The other editor involed claims that presenting claims unequally violates NPOV. As for myself, I consider it a violation of NPOV to give dubious claims the same weight as those that are generally recognised; see the following relevant sections from WP:NPOV: I'm hoping that editors here, familiar with the policy, can determine which is the right way to go. Any comments would be greatly appreciated. Nightw 08:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

FPX (company)

I have been having various disputes with the editor of this article about noteability and NPOV of the article going on for a while now. The article does not provide any reliable third party sources and does not give sources backing up most of the statements made. The history of the article suggests that this is maintained by the companies' marketing or some other insider, given the users edit history. -- Arekusandaa (talk) 11:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see this as a NPOV issue, rather one of notability. Its a promotional piece for a company that doesn't meet the WP:ORG criteria. I've nominated it for AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FPX (company). Wee Curry Monster talk 12:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but i am not as familiar with the english language Wikipedia as i am with the german language Wikipedia. So since both applies (NPOV and notability) I thought i would bring it to attention here since i could not find a suitable page where you would discuss notability issues. -- Arekusandaa (talk) 11:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Argumentative?

Hi, all. Is the second sentence below a fair and neutral takeaway from the first one?

(1) The WP:RS's sentence: Corwin said she supports abortion rights — but does not support late-term abortions or federal funding for abortion.

(2) Our article's sentence: Corwin supports abortion rights — but is opposed to late-term abortions and federal funding for abortions.

Another editor says it's not, and posted this objection to the talk page for our Jane Corwin article:

"But" used as argumentative statement

If it is in the cite - then quote it, ascribing the opion directly to the person holding that opinion. It should not be used otherwise. WP:WTA: Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proven should be clearly attributed. And the "but" is most certainly an opinion. Just give the full quote, attributed to the person making it as an opinion. Simple.

I've already spent a couple hours researching and adding cites to this article, and I'm not really interested in spending more time trying to find the press release or interview transcript or whatever it was that this secondary source based its statement on, just to satisfy this editor's demand. Relevant diffs. Help please? Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 02:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I assert the "but" is an example of "opinion" and only ask that the source be used as a quote if we wish to use "but" and that the quote be sourced as opinion, as required by WP policies and guidelines. That is all. WP:WTA appears to also apply unless we attribute the "but" to a source. I do, moreover, object to my position being grossly misstated. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 08:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Note: The source does not say it is Corwin;s words, which would be an exception - thus the wording is the opinion of the source. It is Robert J. McCarthy who makes the connection. Clearly a transcript using the "but" ascribable to Corwin would then be citable as her own words, but that is not the case. McCarthy clearly adds other statements of opinion in the column such as "Still, she did note in her Thursday statement that she considers marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman." "But" and "Still"are clearly matters of opinion in this case. All that is needed is to attribute the words to Mr. McCarthy. Simple. Collect (talk) 08:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Impact of the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami on the video game industry

The applicability of our NPOV policy and its UNDUE clause is discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Impact of the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami on the video game industry. Editors here may be able to help. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

  Shouldn't WP:Wikipedia is not a newspaper and even WP:SPECULATION (as the recovery is not yet started and the consequences largely speculative) trump any considerations of NPOV? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Tony Santiago

More eyes on this would be greatly helpful. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Feminism Page: dispute over NPOV on Approach to Men section. We need help resolving.

We need help on the wiki Feminism page, we can not come to an agreement. I feel one version is balanced and the other is promoting a point of view and verging on original research. We are going round in circles.

My version http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Feminism&diff=419509002&oldid=419311345#Approach_to_men

Version I dispute. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Feminism&diff=419509513&oldid=419509002#Approach_to_men

(1)

"Most feminist movements ....... argue that men are also oppressed by gender roles and can ultimately benefit from feminism."

I do not believe this to be true. There are numerous forms of feminism, including probably the largest being the social movement of most women who just believe in equality for women, for whom gender roles has no part of their thinking or would have no idea what you are talking about.

The term "most", imo, requires either (a) A reliable source that has through empirical or other means has confirmed this. or (b) Consensus.

In this case we have neither.

(2)

"In the U.S., mainstream feminist organizations and literature, along with most self-identified feminists, take the former position"

This has not be verified as true and is circular. It asserts through its references that:- US mainstream feminism = Those who believe in gender role arguments

There are many forms of feminism as this article shows. And what is a self identified feminist?

(3) Removal of

"In The Second Stage (1981), Betty Friedan argued that feminists were alienating support by being confrontational and anti-men"

It has been removed with its reference being moved to those to do with radical feminism. This opinion belongs to one of the most famous feminists of all time and is not specific to radical feminism but a general commentary on feminism in general. It belongs in this page.

Zimbazumba (talk) 00:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

This is very interesting. One day, if I am overcome by a desire to stick my head in the mouth of a hungry lion, I might get involved with this subject instead. Rumiton (talk) 02:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

If nothing else you made me laugh. About that lion..... Zimbazumba (talk) 03:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

To address your first question (one question at a time). Why does the article have a section "Approaches to men" as second section after "History", and before the sections on theory and on the different parts of the movement? I don't see on the talk page from any part any real acknowledgement that this is an important article in political science. All statements should be referenced to good, recent secondary sources. Also, as far as possible, try and take a world-wide view. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Moving the "approach to men" section down could be a good idea. Also I just want to note that everything in this section is sourced, as can be seen at the article. The two sentences Zimbazumba doesn't believe are true are supported by many feminist books asserting that feminism is pro-men, the positions of the major feminist organizations, and a review of studies showing that feminists are generally not anti-men. Also Friedan is still in the section, but was combined with another source to support "[Radical feminism] has been criticized by other feminists as having anti-male views." To answer Zimbazumba's question, a "self-identified feminist" is someone who would label themselves as a feminist if asked. --Aronoel (talk) 15:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Aroneal,

(1) You have demonstrated some not most feminist movements adhere to gender role arguments. (feminism is defined by more than members of NOW et al)

(2) The final statement is ethnocentric in that is merely addressing the US and in my view not true, and basically says

mainstream feminism = those who believe in gender role arguments = mainstream feminism

Mainstream is a difficult word to define word and you are making well defined statements about it.

(3) The Friedman quote is clearly notable. No where in the voluminous commentary on her work have I seen it suggested that her use of feminism in that opinion is with reference to radical feminism alone. Simply put she say "feminism" not "radical feminism". Her views on this are well know.

Perhaps you are young and don't remember the 60's - 90's, but the the anti-male commentary from "mainstream" feminism was ubiquitous despite what the policy manual said. It exists today to a far lesser extent, because they have realised Friedan is right. It should be commented on. One comment from one of the most famous feminists of all time is hardly overkill

My version basically say feminism is not against men, welcomes male allies and some hold gender role arguments whilst a few are against and blame men. It think this is reasonably, uncontroversial and more in line with an encyclopedic entry. No where in that paragraph am I suggesting, apart from a few radicals, that feminists aren't pro-men. I can't see what the problem is.

Zimbazumba (talk) 17:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Betty Friedan criticized radical feminists many times. I don't recall her ever criticizing all feminists for being anti-male. If the desire is to include a source saying she did, then we certainly need to include a source saying that her critique was specifically of radicals, which was her usual complaint. While The Second Stage has been cited, no page has been cited, although requested. While the obituary cited does support the claim that she criticized large parts of the feminist movement, the movement also criticized her, and that's been reported in various places, including in the cited obit. That subject, too, is as valid for discussing in the article about her, although very little, if anything, about the disagreement between her and the movement belongs in an introductory article on feminism, because she remained a feminist supporter and the movement continued to remain connected with her and neither allowed the disagreement to terminate the feminist movement. The relationship was at an arm's length, but so were many.

The consensus was that Betty Friedan's commentary about radical feminism belongs in the article on radical feminism. This article is only a general introduction to feminism; it is not all about everything feminist. Most feminist movements are not critiqued in the introductory feminism article, that being the province of a specific article on each movement. If this critque belongs here, it should get very little space, hardly its own paragraph, since it is clearly relevant mainly to the radical view that men are presently to blame for sexism and her critique would belong with that.

That most feminists in the U.S. oppose sexism but not men personally is, regarding sexism, a paraphrased summary of gender roles. We don't mind clarifying the wording, but its basis remains valid and sources are abundantly provided (and I'll probably add Mary Wollstonecraft soon). We do not have a statistical study of the ratio because there is no such study in either direction, to our knowledge, but the literature is extensive and the moderates overwhelmingly outnumbering radicals is so well known within feminism that no one's likely to spend the money to conduct a study of the ratio, but the literature remains available. We use the best kinds of sources available and did. That only a small proportion of U.S. feminists are radical or have ever been (except perhaps at the beginning of any movement or wave, mainly in the late 1960s) is reflected in that both mainstreamers and radicals contributed thought, both participated in politics as outsiders, the radicals participated much less in inside politics (Andrea Dworkin did), but the legislation that passed and remained law was almost entirely that from moderates. Moderates were much more important to the movement in terms of numbers and influence, although radicals had a portion, and radicals are already covered in the introductory article on feminism, with a link to the article on them.

The charge that feminism was anti-male was ubiquitous from antifeminists and nonfeminists and they typically identified themselves as such (as in, "I'm no feminist but I believe in equal pay"). It was not ubiquitous from feminists, unless it was in the mid-to-late '60s. The ubiquity faded after that as moderates became more numerous.

The Approach to Men section is high up because feminism is about women's general relationship to men, and feminist theories and movements are developments of feminist thinking and action about the general relationship to men. If the desire is to move it down, not great but okay.

The statement is not circular and, in math, if A=B then B=A and therefore A=B=A. A survey of feminists requires either qualifying their feminism (which is costlier and less likely to be done) or asking them to qualify themselves (a method used in numerous studies, allowing comparison between studies with some time- and place-independence). Both can be valid. For an understanding of mainstream, I think you'll find the answer in sociology and in politics. Applied to feminism, it is not an unclear concept. It does vary between places and between times, but that doesn't seem to be an issue in this dispute. Certain statements should be U.S.-specific and editing has reflected that.

Political science sources are fine for adding; as are sources on the arts. Feminism is a field of study that overlaps many fields. Some sources can be added here. To add many more sources, the best places may be in specific articles within feminism.

I took the liberty of correcting part of the title to this section from "Reactions to Men" to "Approach to Men", as that appears to be what the original poster meant and is substantively the subject of the section. I hope that's okay.

Nick Levinson (talk) 18:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC) (Corrected "mainstream" to "mainstream" to indicate discussion as a word and that title correction was to part of it, the part newly quoted: 18:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC))

Thank you Nick for your contribution, they are always remarkable.

Zimbazumba (talk) 18:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Zimb: While I might quibble with the phrasing 'oppressed by', it is clear that almost every major thread of feminism sees the disentitlement of women as a social dynamic which involves cognitive distortions and a degree of misery for both sexes. This goes all the way back to Wollstonecraft in the 18th century, and is one of the theoretical underpinnings of feminism. Put bluntly, feminism (1) asserts that gender inequality exists, and (2) asserts that this inequality is not a conscious, intentional action of men individually or collectively. These two points imply that men must be just as conditioned and constrained as women when it comes to gender relations.

A few feminist scholars make this kind of point explicit, usually from a psychological perspective (e.g. where feminists talk about the social conditioning placed on men during their upbringing - discouraged from expressing emotions, forced to be self-sufficient and competitive, etc). Most feminist schools adopt an ill-defined, semi-Marxist 'failure of class consciousness' approach (men behave the way they do because they don't understand the societal role they have been locked into). No feminist scholar that I know of treats men as unaffected, because that would inevitably lead to a mindlessly simplistic model that places all of the blame on men (as vicious oppressors) or all of the blame on women (as too weak to stand up for their rights).

That being said, I'm tempted to bull in there, move that entire section down into the 'Societal Impact' section, rename it 'theoretical relationship to men', and rewrite it with a cold, cold eye. It's clear that someone is trying to push a point with this paragraph - it has way too much prominence for what it says, way too many pushy citations, and a point/counterpoint feel to it that just screams 'agenda'. I'm going o bookmark it and come back to it in a few days, and decide then. --Ludwigs2 18:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

feminism no longer promotes equality. Today's feminism promotes inequality to women's favour. For example, recently a law in England was under review to give women equality under the law, so they could be held equally accountable for their actions. It was feminist groups who argued against it, saying men would abuse the law. Women who have 'affairs' with minors are not currently called 'rapists' (like men who have sex with minors). The law offered equality - and feminists argued against it, demonstrating they clearly do NOT want equality. Note also how they claimed 'men' would abuse it (as if no woman currently abuses the advantages currently afforded them by not classing them as rapists when they have indeed raped), this demonstrates their innate hatred towards men - assuming the worst in men and the best of women.

Feminism IS misandry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.124.121 (talk) 00:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Ludwigs2 for your feedback, it was an interesting synopsis. The class of feminist theories you are describing, although very important, are one of a number and are the ones predominately taught in universities. In part because they are much more interesting to analyse and are worthy of a section of their own. This is a great article imo describing the diversity of feminism http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-topics/, if only the wiki article had the feel of objectivity this article has to it.

The problem with terms like feminism, feminist theory, feminist movement and feminist is that they have multiple definitions and mean different things to different people. As such they are a nirvana for prevaricators and agenda pushes. I have attempted to be as clear and unambiguous as I can.

The objection to the Friedan opinion is simply bizarre.

Zimbazumba (talk) 04:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Ludwigs. I just saw the addition of this "approach to men" section today. (And I've been working on articles relating to feminism for over 3 years). This is an outright violation of WP:UNDUE. It's also basically original resaech becuase it presents the topic of feminism in a completely novel way.
The problem with the arguments you have about this Zimbazumba are 'weighting'. There should not be sections on the approaches to men, reactions from men's rights activists, pro-feminist men reactions and a section about the effect on hetrosexual relationships. On top of that none of this reflects how Feminism is written about in relaiable sources. And that's crucial. The article needs to be organized to reflect how the subject is discussed in 3rd party reliable sources - that means in academic sources. It doesn't. Thus I support Ludwigs suggestion to move, rewrite and rename that section--Cailil ^talk 15:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree too. The article should be structured along straightforward lines. History first is fine. Then a section telling us the current scope of the movement - worldwide - liberal feminism, socialist feminism, ecofeminism, Muslim feminism, etc. Obviously the salient parts of the feminist viewpoint(s) have to be described, but it is also important to give the rather more boring organisational facts, some names of feminist organisations in different countries, for example. Some of the most important writers should be mentioned. Only after all that is done, a "responses" section, and even then only if it is necessary, if the responses haven't been covered in the earlier sections. That's about it. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Cailil, It was not me who added it. I was responding to what imo was an agenda driven entry that had been added. Its placement at the top atm is clearly wp:undue and I think is more an oversight. That being said, the terms feminism and feminist movement etc. means different things to different people. Certainly an informative discussion of feminism from a more academic perspective and its theoretical underpinning is excellent.

But also feminism to many is an important social movement involving mostly people who would never heard of Wollstonecraft or gender roles but adhere to a loose concept of gender equality. This aspect is commonly seen in our media, has caused social change, widespread debate and division amongst groups including the idea of the "The man hater". For this not to be on this page shows a lack of balance.

I agree this page needs a lot of work and the presence of some of the sections boggles the mind. Much as I'd like to contribute to this, my chances of not being repeatedly edit reverted and stonewalled in discussion are slim.

Zimbazumba (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Zimbazumba this is very simple. Wikipedia is written by recording all the major mainstream, 3rd party reliable sources on a subject. WP:NPOV means, recording these sources neutrally and in a manner that reflects the research and knowledge 'out there'. It does not mean neutralizing or "balancing" an article between academic and media sources.
If a source does contains a POV that is considered to be significant and well cited (this does not mean widely held), as per WP:V and WP:RS, then it goes in with appropriate weighting. But if its weight is too low (especially in a parent article like feminism or Science) then it just doesn't belong there.
As far as I can see from reading throgh the past year of talk - these entries about teh relationship with men have proliferated due to the demand for balance (not by you pe Zimbazumba but by others who have made similar arguments) this is all way off track as regards how to write articles for wikipedia. When dealing with a massive subject that has indeed multiple definitions one needs to read up about it from a number of major sources just to learn what's out there. That isn't being done. Rather what's happening is a creep towards POV giving undue weight to Fringe points of view about men & feminism--Cailil ^talk 19:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Tasks that are easily described are not always easily completed. But I understand your point. Zimbazumba (talk) 19:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Friedan's viewpoint is casually misrepresented by the obituary quoted in The Guardian. Far better sources are available, scholarly ones with a more complete picture. Binksternet (talk) 20:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Offering only one point here: A source need not be recognized by most Wikipedia readers, most feminists, most women, or most people to be a valid referent. E.g., Mary Wollstonecraft, whose work is established in feminism. Nick Levinson (talk) 01:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Pepi II Neferkare

An attempt is being made to disassociate Pepi II Neferkare from the Ipuwer Papyrus and the First Intermediate Period.

First of all, Pepi II Neferkare is associated with the First Intermediate Period.

"Once the choice was made for the First Intermediate Period reasons were found to date it to the beginning of the period or even to the last years of Pepi II in the Old Kingdom." -- John van Seters, archaeologist, December 1964

"Ipuwer had been understood by earlier scholars to be an attack by Ipuwer on a ruler, probably Pepi II." -- R. J. Williams, professor, 1981

"... research strongly suggests Moses and the Israelites went into bondage during the reign of Pharaoh Pepy II, the 'Pharaoh of the Oppression'" -- J.J. Williams and C. Parry, historians, Who Was the Pharaoh of the Exodus?, 1994

"One of the names in the family of Pepy II is an exact match to a name given in the Book of Jasher. This is the chief wife of Pepy II. In the Book of Jasher it states that the wife of Melol, the pharaoh of the oppression, was named Alparanith. The chief queen of Pepy II was named Neith (or Nith). This is very probably the same name and therefore the same person." -- J.J. Williams and C. Parry, historians, Who Was the Pharaoh of the Exodus?, 1994

"According to the Midrash, the Pharaoh of the Exodus was named Akidam and he had a short reign of four years. The Pharaoh who preceded him, whose death prompted Moses' return to Egypt (Exodus 2:23, 4:19), was named Malul. Malul, we are told, reigned from the age of six to the age of 100. Such a long reign - 94 years! - sounds fantastic, and many people would hesitate to take this Midrash literally. As it happens though, Egyptian records mention a Pharaoh who reigned for 94 years, and not only 94 years, but from the age of six to the age of 100! This Pharaoh was known in inscriptions as Pepi (or Phiops) II. The information regarding his reign is known both from the Egyptian historian-priest Manetho, writing in the 3rd century BCE, and from an ancient Egyptian papyrus called the Turin Royal Canon, which was only discovered in the last century." -- Brad Aronson, scholar, 1995

"Ipuwer, an ancient Egyptian sage. He perhaps served as a treasury official during the last years of Pepi II Neferkare (reigned c. 2294 - c. 2200 BC)...." -- The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, Volume 6, 2002

"The end of the reign of Pepi II led into the First Intermediate period...." -- Richard Lobban, historian, Historical Dictionary of Ancient and Medieval Nubia, 2004

"There are many petroglyphs which depict ostriches and a few that depict giraffes. Butzer (1961) has used relative frequencies of the appearance of these animals in petroglyphs to gauge the changing climate. This evidence fits well with the three OK inscriptions, at least one of which is from the reign of Pepy II, which tell of digging wells (inscriptions DN28, ML01, ML12). While it is possible that these people could be simply pioneering a new route, it seems more likely that the old sources of water were drying up. Additional weight is given to the latter argument by a passage from a document known to Egyptologists as the 'Admonitions of Ipuwer,' which described conditions during the First Intermediate Period." -- Rusell D. Rothe, et al., Pharaonic Inscriptions From the Southern Eastern Desert of Egypt, Eisenbrauns, 2008

All this scholarship is being distorted. It is being claimed that Pepi II Neferkare is not associated with the 4.2 kiloyear event and the First Intermediate Period and that modern scholars do not associate Pepi II Neferkare with the Ipuwer Papyrus even though they do.76.216.196.209 (talk) 00:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I and another editor have tried to explain the situation to this IP, who continues to add references which either don't meet WP:RS, are misinterpreted or in other ways misused, eg not about the subject being referenced. The IP seems to have picked up quotes at [[25]]. For instance, "J.J. Williams and C. Parry, historians, Who Was the Pharaoh of the Exodus?, 1994" which he mentions above is from that site. So far as I can see Parry had nothing to do with this, that's a Google error somehow. The actual booklet is by JJ Williams, an LDS member whose work is soundly rejected by LDS scholar John Gee at [26] and I have explained this in detail on one talk page or another (see Talk:Ipuwer Papyrus and Talk:Pepi II Neferkare). He quotes John Van Seters above in support but doesn't point out that van Seters argues that the Admonitions were not written during the period of Pepi II but "late in the Thirteenth Dynasty"

His Brad Aronson is Brad Aaronson, some sort of Velikovskian [27] and certainly not a reliable source.

The issue isn't whether Pepi has ever been considered related to the Admonitions of Ipuwer, it is about current opinions and the IP has been trying to present the relationship as thought it is more or less certain. The pov being pushed by the IP is this link and a link to the Exodus. He's been doing the same thing at Pharaohs in the Hebrew Bible where even self-published books have been used. Dougweller (talk) 11:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem with anon's is that he is cherry picking some of his sources and is actually the one in violation of the NPOV guidelines. There is a lot of research literature that points to problems with the interpretations with the above mentioned Ipuwer papyrus. The actual document dates to the 19th dynasty (ca 13th - 12th cent BC), but is thought to be a copy of an older document. How old is much debated. The idea of a link to the breakdown of the Old Kingdom (and the reign of Pepi II) is an old idea and dates back to the work of Gardiner and Erman. But by the 1950's this was starting to be re-examined. And over the decades there has been a work by several Egyptologists putting the date and meaning of the original text in doubt. Otto started in the 1950's by suggesting that the original work on which the papyrus was based was from a later period and that the discussion with a king was actually aimed at the got Atum. This was later supported by work of Fecht who has shown that the work is more consistent with the 10th dynasty, which is several decades later than the end of the 6th dynasty (Pepi II). The history of the interpretations can be checked:

• Online Master's Thesis Elisa Priglinger, Historiographie der Ersten Zwischenzeit einst und heute“, 2010 (with Prof. Dr. Manfred Bietak as the Thesis Advisor)
• Ilin-Tomich A. A., Safronov A. V., Dating and historical circumstances of the Admonitions of Ipuwer. Vestnik drevnej istorii, 2010, no4, pp. 3-22 [20 page(s) (article)] (2 p.1/4) - This paper actually dates the event from the papyrus to the Second Intermediate Period (several centuries after Pepi II). Online Abstract
• R. J. Williams, The Sages of Ancient Egypt in the Light of Recent Scholarship, Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 101, No. 1, Oriental Wisdom (Jan. -Mar., 1981), pp. 1-19. - Refers to the work by Otto and Fecht.
• Winfried Barta, Das Gespräch des Ipuwer mit dem Schöpfergott, Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur, Bd. 1 (1974), pp. 19-33 (Available through JSTOR).
• Fecht, G., Der Vorwurf an Gott in den »Mahnworten des Ipu-wer«. Zur geistigen Krise der ersten Zwischenzeit und ihrer Bewältigung, Heidelberg 1972.

The problem with the posts of Anon are as follows:

* WP:NPOV A disregard of the complete picture as presented by the literature.

* WP:RELIABLE See previous editor's comments.

* WP:CITE The references quoted at times do not support the claims. [28]

Regards --AnnekeBart (talk) 11:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Evolutionary psychology POV related RFC

The article about Evolutionary psychology currently includes no information about the highly publicized controversy surrounding the discipline inspite of the fact that that controversyt has generated dozens of books and scores of articles. We also have a separate article about the controversy that is as long as the main article. EP partisan's argue to keep out the critiques of the discipline from the main article because that is "for presenting the main theories of Evolutionary psychology and its main findings". I say POV-fork. I have started an important RFC here regarding how to integrate the criticism of Evolutionary psychology into the article about that topic, and about how to define the topic itself either narrowly or broadly. Please participate.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Has this issue been raised on the article's talk page? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The talk page is getting a bit impenetrable, so this clear RfC could help. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Non-neutral pov for Family Compact

Hi there, I've been going through the Family Compact(Can History) article and don't think this article is neutral. I see name calling (oligarchy,elitest) and other terms that are not supported by the received body of historical research. Family Compact is certainly led by a prominent group of Upper Canadians, but this kind of writing is really a bit over the edge.

Membership in the Family Compact was not "closed". Any immigrant could join the family compact; it was a question of choice about the general tone of thought.

I've added the section with the prominent names of members of the Family Compact which include French Canadians (Baby), Scots etc. Membership at the lower levels would have been representative of the local Upper Canada population.

The Opposition section is weighted towards Mackenzie and does not discuss any other form of opposition. It would be more balanced if it showed the influence of the Colborne Clique at least and some mention of the other forces at work in Upper Canada.

This article is not neutral.

REF: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Compact

99.246.14.181 (talk) 12:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you help improve the article by adding more material with reliable sources. You mention "the received body of historical research", and that's exactly what all our history articles need to be based on. You can just start by listing some relevant texts on the talk page. I don't see any really good sources there at the moment. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

That's no problem to add the relevant sources. I plan on re-writting some of the intro and the sections. I just wanted to make sure that my objection had been noted in case there is any conflict in the future. Given the importance given to the article this seems to be right way to go about it. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by CJ3370 (talk • contribs) 14:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

That is how they are described by historians and how they saw themselves. TFD (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

NPOV in opening line of People's Pledge

I recently created People's Pledge to cover this new British politicial campaign which hopes to force a yes/no referendum in the UK on the issue of ongoing membership European Union. Now, from where I'm standing, if you look at their 'case' page, explaining why a referendum shoud take place, I'd say it's pretty fair to describe in the opening line that the campaign is Eurosceptic - i.e., against the EU. Another user James Harvard (talk · contribs), is trying to water this down into just saying it's a campaign for a referendum, on the (correct) basis that (some) of the supporters of the campaign are not Eurosceptic, and they just want a referendum to settle the issue either way, as it's been a political issue in the UK for decades. While this could be mentioned in the article; given the case page, given this is not the view of the majority of the supporters, and given the very obvious fact that all the polling suggests that a referendum would say no to continued membership, I think it would be a pretty basic violation of NPOV to present this campaign as politicially neutral, i.e., just interested in polling the democratic will of the people (although the Europhile view is that the UK does not run on referenda, and the umpteen general elections inbetween are sufficient representation). What are other people's views? MickMacNee (talk) 14:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Drop "Eurosceptic" from the initial description - add a sentence or so in the corpus saying who describes them as such (RS source). There is no need to so specifically categorize every single person, group, or movement on such a basis. Generally the mildest adjective is the wisest in the lede, focus on qualifying adjectives in the corpus. In the case at hand, it is a political campaign seeking a referendum on continued UK membership in the EU. We can trust the reader to continue for specifics. Put specific references claims (I suspect most fall into the category of "opinion" as a simple matter of fact) and source the opinions to the persons or groups holding them. IMHO. Collect (talk) 14:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

First, in the UK at least, Eurosceptic already is a pretty mild adjective, and is commonly used. Second, if it's RS opinion you are after instead of the primary evidence, the stuff we have is pretty clear that it's Eurosceptic, and I have not yet seen even one RS that gives their opinion that this is just a neutral campaign, let alone enough to confidently say this is the majority view. NPOV is not about presenting no view at all in the lede and then hoping the reader figures out from the main article what the situation is. MickMacNee (talk) 15:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

In which case, giving you my view seems futile. Collect (talk) 16:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not futile if you offer something to back it up. I've stated specifically where my opinion comes from, and it can be swayed by contrary evidence. I've found no RS to support your claim it's viewed as a neutral campaign, and I cannot even think of a term that is used as a weaker form of 'Eurosceptic'. But I'm open to counter-evidence. MickMacNee (talk) 23:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Furry fandom

NPOV dispute about sexuality in the Furry fandom article. My claim: two Master's theses (and a third academic paper deemed un-citable by a furry wikipedian) assert the emphasis on sexuality of the furry identity and in the furry community. These verifiable, highly reliable sources are being rejected on the basis of personal anecdotes by self-identified furry wikipedians. In general the article's NPOV is compromised by such editors who revert edits about the sexual nature of the fandom.

• The two Master's theses:
  • Morgan, Matt (2008-03-25). "Creature Comfort: Anthropomorphism, Sexuality, and Revitalization in The Furry Fandom".
  • Eric Stephen Altman (May 2010). "Posthum/an/ous: Identity, Imagination, and The Internet" (PDF).
• A third academic paper, deemed "personal essay":
  • Cameron Lindley Cross (2006). "On the Fringe of Queer" (PDF).

Somewhat related to this NPOV issue, bad references and original research that puts the fandom in a positive light remains unchallenged. -Furry-friend (talk) 19:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

All the policies work together. While doctoral dissertations are generally considered reliable sources, master's theses are not usually given that status. Undergraduate papers don't count at all. NPOV requires that we include all significant views with weight according to their prominence. But views which are not found in reliable sources need not be included at all. I suggest that the theses, if used at all, should be kept at arm's length, more to show the level of academic interest in the topic than for their actual contents.   Will Beback  talk  19:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand this approach. Other, much less reliable sources are given prominence in the article. The very first sentence which defines the fandom is taken from a small newspaper. How is it that one non-academic article from a newspaper takes precedence over two other Master's theses? -Furry-friend (talk) 20:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you know the writer of the newspaper article?Slatersteven (talk) 20:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's in the article -Furry-friend (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Are both theses making completely novel claims about the sexuality aspect? If they are you are out of luck, but if they aren't I'm sure there are usable sources in the reference sections. Just be sure to actually read the sources before you use them.Griswaldo (talk) 20:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I must wonder again why I'm "out of luck" while most of the article cites press, non-academic publications, and even user-edited website. -Furry-friend (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Because, MA theses are not considered reliable sources. Hence any novel claims made in them are unusable. Non-novel claims can be sourced elsewhere. What is it you don't understand about MA theses not being reliable? This is the consensus here. You can try the RS/N but I assure you you'll get the same answer there. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

So I need a PhD thesis or a widely-cited MA thesis to stand against personal anecdotes and newspaper articles? Or will a newspaper article be enough? -Furry-friend (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Personal anecdotes which haven't been published in reliable sources should not be included either. But otherwise you're correct.   Will Beback  talk  21:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I will suggest using a newspaper article as a source and see how it goes. -Furry-friend (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Even though I recognize the proper Wikipedia policy on this issue, I'd like to note that I think it's absurd. Were the conclusions of these research theses made as personal anecdotes in a newspaper article, they would be considered more reliable and more worthy of being cited. -Furry-friend (talk) 13:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhpas it has something to do with editorial oversight.Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

As one of those who was involved in the discussion, I will offer my input. Furry fandom does include a degree of adult material and sexual aspects, and there is already a section of the article that addresses this. The consensus up to this point has been that this section gives that aspect of the fandom an appropriate level of coverage. Furry-friend is trying to use the master's theses to claim that the current degree of coverage is not sufficient and has been trying to make changes to other sections of the article, including the lede, that would give the impression that sexuality is a more pervasive and inseparable element of furry fandom.

Of the two papers he cites, I have been unable to access the Morgan thesis due to restricted access. Myself and at least one other person have raised issues with the Altman thesis, or at least the manner in which it is being cited by Furry-friend. For example, he employs a definition of what a furry fan is that in actuality applies only to a specific subset of furry fans. That may be well and fine within the scope of Altman's thesis if that's what he wishes to address, but what Furry-friend is attempting to do is to turn it around and use Altman's conclusions based on this sub-group as applicable to furry fandom as a whole. There were other issues brought up in the discussion.

The issue was raised that some of the more active contributors to the article are members of the fandom (myself included) and whether that would disqualify us as having a neutral point of view on the subject matter. My response to that is that I'm not trying to push my opinions, but rather to keep the article consistent with my observations, and I believe the other involved fans are doing likewise. In other words, I would characterize our actions as exercising editorial discretion rather than POV-pushing. I don't know the extent of Furry-friend's involvement in either furry fandom or anti-furry. It seemed interesting that his prior experience as a Wikipedia editor was just enough to get past the semi-protection against newly registered users (the article is semi-protected indefinitely due to past vandalism). There's no rule against people who have personal experience in a subject contributing to articles about that subject; it is my understanding that when handled appropriately, the improvement to accuracy and completeness more than outweighs any potential neutrality issues. If this weren't the case, then we might, as an extreme example, have the reliability of Neil Armstrong, if he were to contribute to articles about the Apollo moon landings, being questioned by moon landing conspiracy theorists on the grounds that his point of view is biased. --mwalimu59 (talk) 18:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Haha, so you are to the furry fandom as Neil Armstrong is to the Apollo moon landings? Jokes aside, that still qualifies as original research and personal anecdotes. The "specific subset" you are referring to is nearly 80%. Since other internet surveys are included in the article, I'm going to go on a limb and cite it. As much as I don't like self-selecting samples, I'm going to cite it as apparently internet surveys hold more credence than Master's theses. -Furry-friend (talk) 20:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

If I may add my personal anecdote, there is a backlash by furries about the prominence of sexuality in the furry community which, Morgan concludes, stems from shame, which is perfectly natural when discussing sex, and non-mainstream sex in particular. I believe this is amplified by the unflattering portrayals of furry sexuality in the media. This backlash is what leads to the NPOV issue in the article. Anecdotally, the vast majority of fursonas I have encountered are sexualized or hyper-sexualized. Non-anecdotally, I can point to the sources I cite in the article, which time and again note the prominence of sex in the fandom. Morgan argues sexual empowerment through furry iconography is what defines (or redefines) the individual in the furry fandom. -Furry-friend (talk) 20:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I took a look and that paper seems to have been self-published by the film student who wrote it. If so, it would not be an acceptable source.   Will Beback  talk  20:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I realize this, however the other article editors have no issue with similar surveys. Two wrongs don't make a right, but perhaps an experienced editor can take out all of the unacceptable sources in the article, starting with original research. I avoid doing so because it will undoubtedly create conflict. -Furry-friend (talk) 21:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The WP:verifiability policy applies to all articles. I don't know which sources you're referring to. I suggest you discuss the issue on the article talk page and if community input is needed start a thread at WP:RSN.   Will Beback  talk  22:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

You're free to remove unreliable sources from the article (especially when they don't cover trivial facts). But so far you have shown more interest in adding sources (both reliable and unreliable, you don't seem to make a difference there) that suit your point of view rather than actually improving the article. --Conti|✉ 22:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh please. Why don't you remove all the internet surveys yourself and see what happens. -Furry-friend (talk) 08:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

  That is not a helpful response. Try again? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

SuperblySpiffingPerson and non-consensus, extremely biased edits

In 2011 Libyan uprising, I noticed a pattern of edits by SuperblySpiffingPerson, who is listed as a relatively new editor. These edits seem to be primarily regarding the conflict in Libya. My research on the content of their edits seems to indicate a pattern where the conflict is being described in terms that are very biased toward the Western powers and describe the fledgling rebel government as 'transitional'. This editor seems to include a bias in a significant majority of their edits. For example, while most people might say "government of Libya" or "Gaddafi", Superbly says "Jamahiriya loyalists" or "Jamahiriya".

I am concerned about the integrity of the article, as well as related articles, and am worried by their seemingly rapid understanding of how to move pages and the number of edits (22 edits so far on March 23).

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=SuperblySpiffingPerson

Please forgive me if I have left anything out. I'm very concerned about the direction the article seems to be taking.

-- Avanu (talk) 04:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

User talk:SuperblySpiffingPerson has been blocked for a week. There seem to be multiple issues with this person; this venue doesn't seem to be the proper place to get into them. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I had forgotten there was a comment still placed here about that editor. It would be fine with me to take this section down for now. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 21:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Atypical NPOV Issues

I would like to write an article(s) about a project I'm involved in on an ambiguous and partially undisclosed level. We purposely engineer an environment suggesting endless supposition of who precisely is involved, as the project itself has an attitude of atypical relativeness, and so we believe we've become specialists at bypassing subjectivity and adopting an alternate point of view. (I say "alternate" and not "neutral" because I feel in many ways there is no such thing, for even a news publication decides what type of facts constitute objectivity, subjectifying its internal relative neutrality.) Paradoxically, we often hype and market this nature (and the project) ad nauseum, but we generally (or have come to be able to) do so in a conscious, crafted, calculated way, and often as a parody of its own ego. (We might wager the argument that this ego, even when uninflated, is an unavoidable consequence of the general principles and methods involved, but we're far too in the know to be certain we're not fooling ourselves.) Hence, one's right to suspect an especially high susceptibility to subjectivity (excuse the alliteration) but the opposite should also be supposed. I think we've evolved the latter skill, and are experienced enough to write with epitome NPOV.

For a microcosm example, I choose the phrase "has an attitude of atypical relativeness" (above) rather than a phrase with more miniature spin, such as "a philosophy of radical objectivity". Even though someone can have a philosophy seen as negative to some, that philosophy is a respected scholastic field of study seems to cast a warm light on that what's in question has been thought through intelligently by someone or something involved. And, while describing something as "radical" may judge it light or dark, it's more a plus when paired with something already having positive spin (e.g. "objectivity", which is a little more often than not seen as a better thing than its opposite). Also, I attempted to throw in a negative to the revision to counter the infinitesimal precision of exact neutrality. The phrase "has an attitude" usually connotes an undesirable one, and is something someone suppressing a negative bias might use. That the phrase must be modified after the point where it would create a gramatically correct sentence sans the modification is something that may have gone unnoticed to someone less specialized in "atypical relativeness". You may or may not agree with these details, but my point is that I was able to catch myself subconsciously on this particular word-to-word level. Likewise, I revised "expert" to "specialist", "mysterious" to "ambiguous", and "craft" to "engineer". (Rhetorically, this is conrived to an extent for demonstration.)

While all this should be enough to make my general inquiry obvious (how to write about the project neutrally here, given that a place that promotes neutrality via understandings of precision and complexity intrinsically offers allowing exception to policies prohibiting writing normally prone to bias), the question is complicated by the vast/excessive (POV-depending) amount of original terminology and concepts that need or could use extensive explanation or promotion to be understood. That is, its creative sope. More specifically, a largely undiscovered one. A good example would be a hidden library of sci-fi/fantasy books of a single epic (e.g. Star Trek, Star Wars, Wheel of Time, Lord of the Rings) of which A) only a few people read or have read, whose opinions would reflect a larger whole, B) has an established body of material worth noting, and C) incorporates unique/confusing concepts best nutshelled by its maker(s). (This latter point is key, a close example being the book Godel, Escher, Bach.) This scope in combination with being very "little discovered" suggests a potential nightmare of spam for a place like Wikipedia. Again, we think we're extremely sensitive to these subtleties, and our sense of noteworthiness is based on these factors. For instance, I would not write an article about a book we've not posted, nor one contradicting the consensus of minimal feedback.

Our project as a whole is largely a template for potential projects, or an ambitious web of them. We consider something to have substance when its strongly developed as a concept as well as via significant posted/published material, and I think we're at the point where a few key/core articles would be at home with the spirit of Wikipedia. Unfortunately, our projects are exceptionally prone to confusion and complexity, so it may be a long wait for a third party to decide they understand one enough to relay it. Of course, our desire to eliminate extension may be tainting objectiveness, which is another reason I'm inquiring beforehand.

I hate mentioning specifics when I try to talk about our stuff objectively, because it always seems to turn out pluggy. I can't even say my own nickname anymore without feeling like I'm pushing a flyer into somebody's face. For instance, discussion boards can have a positive effect on the search engine status of a site, so even mentioning a keyword or two can be technically plug-esque. If you want more specific examples about what I'm talking about, you can search the net for the phrases "difficult to maintain total and fully up-to-date continuity", and "free for nonprofit use and free in general anyway". These should bring you to two pages that speak to our attention to detail, and you may explore from there. (You can also check the list of junk in my profile, but not all is what I'm talking about.) The projects these two phrases should bring you to are two I'd consider writing an article about if deemed appropriate. Please advice on how to proceed, thanks.

Squish7 (talk) 07:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what's atypical about it. You want to write an article about a personal project. That's against Wikipedia policy. -Furry-friend (talk) 11:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

It's against general official policy, not the spirit or point of it, and not the details, given documentation mentions the possibility of exception. If a project potentially difficult for a third party to sum up whose core specialty is objectivity and the establishment of the equal weight of all points of view via writing and reading is not a potential exception, I don't understand what would be. At the least, it falls under "atypical" by definition.

Wikipedia is vast, documenting everything under the sun. Intrinsically, no blanket policy or simple method of documentation is going to hold for practically everything in the universe there is to document, and an intelligent publication should be able to evaluate and consider special situations. Almost always, it's near-impossible to fully detach from personal bias when attempting to write objectively about one's own project(s). In addition, most artworks can always be summed up well by a smart third party who's familiar with the work. These are roots of the general policy you speak of, and a project which lies outside of them lies outside the point of the policy. Our project plays with the entire medium of writing and reading and experiencing art, and in doing this we think we've developed a better ability to write objectively about our own project than most third parties.

Epitome NPOV is formed from the masses. An article on a widely known project incorporates the average voice of everybody exposed to it. It's generally impossible for an individual to speak with that honed tone. There are absolutely infinite things one might say or leave out in an article that attempts to be neutral. Out of this infinite pool of potential articles, only a scant handful qualify for true NPOV. I believe we have a rare ability to generate such an article, but I wanted a feel for its potential acceptance before drafting one, as it would be a major undertaking to write with A+ NPOV, however possible. We're fluent shifting around internal voices and tones, but have not written with a truly anonymous external voice.

Consider a narcissistic clique of con artists with better skill to forge a detailed police report about their activities than any single investigator, motivated primarily by the creative endeavor of doing so, with bias toward benefit in check. -Squish7 (talk) 23:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like your project is still at a very early stage and not yet notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Look at the WP:Article wizard which will guide you through the process. If you are sure that your project is notable, i.e. it has been written about independently, then you should ask someone else to create the article for you. Best of luck with your project. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Doctor's diagnoses

Is it POV to preface a medical diagnosis with "-by doctors opinion-" as was done here? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, that was of course not the right way of putting it, but I believe the standard way the media deals with this kind of situation is to say something like "according to doctors", and I don't think this would be understood as casting doubt on the information. As far as I can tell from reading some reliable sources, it appears that the irreversibility and the extremely low life expectancy of the child are not contested, but the parents insist that he isn't quite in a vegetative state. Given that this seems a bit iffy to diagnose anyway, I think "... which doctors say has left him ..." would be perfectly reasonable and NPOV. Hans Adler 19:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me -- updated the article. Thanks! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Should Lyndon LaRouche contain a paragraph about Jeremiah Duggan?

Uninvolved eyes would be appreciated here on Talk:Lyndon LaRouche to decide an NPOV/BLP issue.

The issue is whether the Lyndon LaRouche biography should contain a paragraph about the death in 2003 of Jeremiah Duggan. Duggan died in disputed circumstances after running down a busy road, apparently while being recruited to LaRouche's organization. The High Court in London recently ordered a second inquest into the death.

The article has contained a paragraph about this for several years—currently the third paragraph in this section—but there are now objections to including any reference to it. Arguments against inclusion are that LaRouche is not personally involved in whatever happened to Duggan, and that BLPs must err on the side of caution. Arguments in favour are that multiple high-quality sources have linked the incident directly to LaRouche's ideas, and he has several times responded to the allegations personally. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Does your link refer to the third paragraph in the lead? Its not clear from your link where the controversial text is/was located. Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Note that this has been discussed over the past few days at "Death of ..." sections in Lyndon LaRouche BLP on the BLP noticeboard. --JN466 19:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

This question was asked and answered at the BLP/N. The editor who has now posted this RfC apparently doesn't respect the opinions of the uninvolved editors who commented there. The death of Duggan has 0 connection to Lyndon LaRouche the person. Any notable connection to Lyndon LaRouche Movement can stay in that entry.Griswaldo (talk) 19:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Coatracking, editorializing, and edit warring on Employee assistance programs

I'm making this report as a third party uninvolved in the original dispute. In November 2010 Albertoarmstrong (talk · contribs) began adding content to the article Employee assistance programs related to workplace bullying ([29]). This content was summarily deleted on 17 November but reverted by an IP (likely Albertoarmstrong forgetting to log in) a few hours later. In January 2011 Cknoepke (talk · contribs) became involved in editing this section and the two have been involved in a prolonged edit war ever since. I warned both users and requested full protection of the article to prevent the edit warring from continuing. Now that I've had a chance to look over the content issue, I disagree with both users' preferred versions of the article and I think this whole section should be deleted as coatracking, or at a minimum drastically trimmed back to remove editorial content. I'm bringing this issue here to get some consensus from editors who (theoretically) have more experience with these sort of issues than I do. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

Prior to my involvement the article had no references. It read like an advertisement for EAP and I think Wiki frowns upon that practice.

I started a new section "Workplace Bully Concerns" and backed it up with about 15 independent references (from US, Canada, Britian .. "worldview"). Despite this another editor (Cknoepke) keeps attacking it (just read the Discussion Page). I haven't bothered with others edits as I'm sure readers can judge for themselves what's what. On Jan 5, 2011 Cknoepke wrote: "You are correct in assuming that I am an EAP professional, but I am an external contracted provider ....." Cknoepke is by their own admission a private EAP provider, so they have a vested interest in censoring my edits.

As for the "coatracking" claim against me: the article started out as "coat racking' (before me) as it was written as an advertisement for EAP.

Albertoarmstrong (talk) 19:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello

A third party review of the article and discussion page would be very helpful as it illustrates the manner in which discussions about various content changes have taken place (or, in many instances, have not taken place). This, coupled with (Albertoarmstrong)'s constant baseless accusations of vandalism and attacks on my credibility (based, as you can see, on one statement where I disclosed that I am a professional in the area) has lead to what I believe to be an intractable argument: Albertoarmstrong has illustrated that he believes the article to be his own and is unwilling to discuss even minor modifications for NPOV or other purposes.

Cknoepke (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

"Bully managers" in Wikipedia's voice? I'd have to agree that that section is a mess. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

Cknoepke wrote: "he believes the article to be his own" This is a false but EAP providers sure believe it theirs. Cknoepke inserted a paragraph at the end of the Workplace Bullying Concern section but misrepresented the reference so I had to insert a direct quote from Cknoepke's own reference to put in the correct perspective. If I thought the section was "mine" I would have deleted it.

Cknoepke wrote: "and is unwilling to discuss even minor modifications". Again false. We had extensive discussion on the Discussion Page.

A Quest For Knowledge wrote: "Bully managers" in Wikipedia's voice?" That the terminology used in the references, so why can't that language be reflected in a Wiki article?

A Quest For Knowledge wrote: "I'd have to agree that that section is a mess." I used about 15 references so how can it be a mess? Albertoarmstrong (talk) 20:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict x2) I'm not going to lie: this article as it existed before Albertoarmstrong edited it was a terrible, unreferenced, promotional mess. However, the article as it exists right now is still mostly the same terrible, unreferenced, promotional mess, though marginally better referenced and coupled with a new section on "Workplace Bullying Concerns".

Note that the name of this forum is the Neutral point of view noticeboard. I brought this issue here first because I believe that adherence to neutral point of view is the biggest problem with both Albertoarmstrong and Cknoepke's preferred versions of this article. Here is how I would summarize this issue:

1. The article started off as unreferenced blatant promotion for EAPs.
2. In an attempt to correct this issue, Albertoarmstrong piled on some criticism of EAPs.
3. Cknoepke challenged Albertoarmstrong's content by adding a bunch of {{dubious}}, {{fact}}, and similar tags, which Albertoarmstrong responded to by adding citations.
4. A previously uninvolved SPA rewrote the "bullying" section in accordance with the promotional nature of the rest of the article ([30]). An edit war ensued over this version of the article, with Cknoepke supporting the promotional version and Albertoarmstrong supporting the negative version.

A strongly POV article does not magically become neutral by adding a bunch of the opposite POV. In my book, that only compounds the problem. This entire article needs to be rewritten from scratch. I can't even find a good NPOV version to revert to, including the original version.—KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Albertoarmstrong: It has so many things wrong with it, I'm not sure where to even begin, but let's start with the first sentence: "Workplace bullying or mobbing targets should be leery of EAPs, particularly in-house EAPs." This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not a how-to guide. We're not here to give people advice. The very next sentence begins, "Unfortunately," which is a violation of WP:EDITORIAL. This is terrible writing, no offense, and if this has been going on since October, I don't know what to say. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi A Quest For Knowledge,

Actually, another editor inserted the "leery" word. Other than my edits, the rest of the article "implies" advice because its promotional material.Albertoarmstrong (talk) 20:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I have made what hopefully will be the first of several requests for consensus on edits that will make this article more NPOV. Please see Talk:Employee assistance programs#Edit request 28 March 2011. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Due weight and numbers of sources

Just moved this over from WP:RSN, since I figured here was more appropriate. This is Gibraltar again, I'm afraid.

An editor is currently citing an argument made here (in a mediation case since closed), which judges the due weight of points to be made in an article based on the raw number of sources found in a search of Google Books. The methodology is to search for keywords in books that contain the word "Gibraltar" in the title.

I have three questions:

• Is this a reliable means of judging the appropriate weight to be given to subjects in articles?
• Would it be a reliable means of judging the appropriate weight to be given to subjects in articles, if it was confirmed that all of the sources actually mention the piece of history concerned?
• If it was not done through Google Books, but rather through a count of sources containing the point collated by some other means, would this be a reliable means of judging appropriate weight?

Thanks, Pfainuk talk 18:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

To add to the above, I was about to start a new thread. I am involved in the above discussion so will not comment but add further information.

It has transpired that two editors who have been arguing the edit they prefer is justified per WP:DUE and WP:V but they do not have access to any sources whatsoever. They are relying upon limited searches of google books, often from google snippets. Having no access to any sources I'm at a loss to see how that can make an argument based upon WP:DUE. 20:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

  The question of relying on Google hit counts was a side issue at RSN. It seems appropriate here because establishing relative WP:WEIGHT (or balance) is central to NPOV. And it is an intriguing idea. However, it has been discussed at RSN#Archive 54, where it rejected. Main problem is that Google hits are only on strings of words, and any inference beyond the numerical occurrence of a specific string of words is unsupported. Also, the domain referenced (nearly all the garbage on the WWW) has no particular authority.

  The simple answer to the question posed is: No. The very idea that proper WP:WEIGHT can be determined by any simple numerical or (not so simple?) statistical measure (whether Google hits, or citation counts, or ??) is misleading. Such measures might show how notorious a subject is (i.e., how much it is being discussed), but how much weight any discussion or viewpoint or argument should be given depends in a large part on the quality of the argument, expertise and reliability of the proponents, etc. These have to be assessed by the editor, require some familiarity of the field, may even require expert knowledge on specific points, and in the end are subjective. It appears there is not, nor even could be, any "simple" arithmetical determination of due weight. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually the original question was whether it is reasonable to rely on Google snippets from reliable sources as evidence for the occurrence of a single phrase, and I gather that you might accept this. We are currently trying to follow a bibliometric approach to another vexed question and I take your point that bibliometry cannot be determinative. In fact we have been stuck on a fundamentally subjective issue for two years of argument, and I can't really see any way to solve it. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

No Richard that wasn't the original question at all, due weight is argued on the basis of the number of google hits. And as we've seen it isn't a suitable argument at all. What we've now found is that those making this argument, don't have access to sources and the argument pursued for 2 years to the frustration of any attempt to improve the article is one that isn't sustained by policy. Please do not confuse the question and allow outside comment and don't deter it with walls of text as virtually every attempt to elicit outside opinion is. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

  May I point out that this is the NPOV notice board? As to whether due weight can be determined by any "bibliometric" means, I have given you my opinion. Now you both are sliding back into the more general question of reliable source, which seems more appropriately discussed at WP:RSN. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Neutral point of view violation at Frot article

I am in constant dispute with an editor named Mijopaalmc at the Frot article. And because of this, I opened this discussion there: Talk:Frot#Other editors.

Basically, Mijopaalmc constantly nitpicks and makes things worse at the article every time I fix it up. No matter how much I fix up this article, he is never satisfied. Or he pretends to be satisfied and then finds something else to complain about the next week or next month later. I reverted him this time because these changes[31][32][33] give WP:UNDUE weight in the Preferences section as to why men like anal sex. Why men do not like it, and why they like it should be adequately summarized in the Preferences section. Furthermore, the change unbalances the Debates section back to the same problem it had before. There was a POV problem with that section, which Mijopaalmc complained about, and I recently balanced it out. His changes make the section lean back toward presenting the same POV he complained about. Which is no doubt what he wants so that he can complain some more about the article. Not to mention...that what is in the Preferences section is not about debates. It is specifically about why men prefer one act over the other. Mijopaalmc insists that "Repeating the claim about the the intimacy of frot give WP:UNDUE to frot," which I find absurd. The Preferences section is about opinions, and is of course going to include men preferring frot because they feel it is more intimate, or because of whatever other reason they prefer frot. Flyer22 (talk) 19:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The whole Comparison to anal sex section is a disaster, as it does not properly belong in the an article about the act of frot. Additionally, it relies almost exclusively on content generated on the internet by people who are admittedly "vocal" and whose reliability and notability are therefore suspect. Mijopaalmc (talk) 20:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. The whole Comparison to anal sex section belongs in the article because "frot" has to do with preferring the act of frottage over anal sex, for various reason, just as much as it has to do with the act itself; the term even originated as a way to disparage anal sex. See Talk:Frot#Rename page "Frottage" and Talk:Frot#Is the term "Frot" POV?, where even Mijopaalmc agrees with this. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frot first nomination).

And notice how Mijopaalmc is diverting attention away from the matter at hand and has not offered any valid reasons for why the Preferences section should not mention that men prefer frot because they find it to be more intimate or for whatever reason, and why the preference for anal sex should be given more weight than the preference for frot. Flyer22 (talk) 20:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The Preferences section does still state that MSM do prefer other sex acts over anal sex because they perceive the to be more intimate. (The sources that are not from the groups discussed later in the Debates section say "frottage" or "frottage and mutual mastrubation" not "frot".) I only removed the phrasing that repeated what was already discussed in greater detail in the Debates section. Mijopaalmc (talk) 20:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It does not mention that two other reasons some gay men engage in frot is because of the health risks they associate with anal sex and because they find it degrading to the receptive partner, which it should mention...because those are preferences for the act of frot as well; there are sources for this specifically, which state "frot." And even if they only used "frottage," you yourself have stated how the words are used interchangeably among gay men and men who have sex with men (MSM) in general and how most of these men simply use the word "frottage" the majority of the time. Flyer22 (talk) 21:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Sigh! That was not the take from my analysis. I demonstrated quite clearly that MSM do not in general distinguish between rubbing their penises together and rubbing their penises on other parts of their partners' bodies. Moreover, the Preference subsection does mention both intimacy and safer sex, so I don't see what your objection is. Mijopaalmc (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Sigh in return! You clearly stated that MSM in general use the word "frottage" for genital-genital stimulation and not the word "frot." Moreover, while the Preferences subsection does mention intimacy and safer sex, it does not mention "health risks" (seeing that some frot advocates are not only speaking of sexually transmitted infections) and "degrading to the receptive partner." That, and the fact that the Preferences section currently leans more toward why men have anal sex, and the Debates section currently leans more toward why they don't, is my problem. Flyer22 (talk) 22:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I clearly stated that the only term used to describe genital-genital rubbing (and other genital-on-body-part rubbing) in writings that don't reference Bill Weintraub is "frottage". That means that "frottage" has a much wider definition than "frot", the reliability and notability of which is therefore questionable. Mijopaalmc (talk) 22:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Uh, how is that different than what I stated? That you said MSM in general use the word "frottage" for genital-genital stimulation and not the word "frot"? All of what you stated is there in those linked discussions, and that is what you stated -- that even when gay men mean genital-to-genital rubbing, they generally use the word "frottage." Flyer22 (talk) 23:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I said the only word used outside of the works of Bill Weintraub to describe male-male genital-genital rubbing is "frottage" and that "frottage" also describes other sex acts, so it is not synonymous with how Bill Weintraub uses it. Please stop misrepresenting what I say. Mijopaalmc (talk) 23:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

You can continue to play semantics all you want. Saying "the only word used outside of the works of Bill Weintraub to describe male-male genital-genital rubbing is 'frottage'" is the same as saying "MSM in general use the word 'frottage' for genital-genital stimulation and not the word 'frot'." There has been no misinterpretation of your words. Flyer22 (talk) 23:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The words are seldom, if ever, used interchagable, because "frot" is seldom, if ever, used. Mijopaalmc (talk) 00:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Like I stated above.

For others reading this, I have combined the sections. That should solve this matter. But other editors are still welcomed to weigh in, of course. Flyer22 (talk) 00:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, you didn't misinterpret my words; you put words into my mouth. You and Atomaton determined that Bill Weintraub and his community use "frot" interchangeably with "frottage", and I demostrated that the predominate, if not, sole term for genital rubbing was "frottage" [34] [35]. What you are trying to so is say that, since Bill Weintraub and his commounity, use "frottage" and "frot" interchangeably, all gay men or MSM do. This is a falsehood as borne out by the sex manuals I just cited and and even one of the sources you cited which says:

Frottage, also known as dry humping, is sex without penetration where both partners rub or grind on each other to achieve an orgasm. This can be done either clothed or unclothed and can be achieved genital to genital or genital to other body parts. Frottage can be used as foreplay before anal sex or as the primary means of intimacy.[36]

Nope. I didn't put words into your mouth either. But you just put words into Atomaton's mouth. Atomaton did not agree that the words "frot" and "frottage" are used interchangeably. You put words into my mouth too, because I did not say that "since Bill Weintraub and his commounity, use 'frottage' and 'frot' interchangeably, all gay men or MSM do." I said, "...that reliable sources clearly show that when speaking of male-to-male genital sex or a male rubbing his genitals on any body part of another male, the word frottage is generally used over the word frot. "Frot" is hardly ever used." Nice that you used one of my sources above, though. And that you further demonstrated you love to divert discussions away from matters at hand. Flyer22 (talk) 02:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Rabbi Pinto - Assistance

A major feature story ran on Rabbi Pinto, the largest story ever written about him and the few editors who control the board didnt allow neutral entrees to be placed. Need assistance from curious non interested parties.

The article was syndicated and picked up by Globes a major Israeli paper, The Real Deal a major NYC real estate publication and Vos Iz Neas Religious news service but entire chunks of article werent included. Can we have new eyes please ?

Would suggest adding: "Considerable questions have risen regarding Pinto’s organizations finances. A report by a leading New York Jewish newspaper has revealed a “contrast between the rabbi’s lifestyle and his reputation for modest living, and questions about the rabbi’s image as a business guru when his own not-for-profit faces financial problems.” The Forward stated: “The business troubles at Mosdot Shuva Israel could be seen as ironic, given Rabbi Pinto’s reputation as an adviser to businessmen, and particularly to real estate brokers.” 65.112.21.194 (talk) 13:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

If you make a concrete proposal on the talk page ie. what text you would like to add and give links to support that text, then I will participate in the discussion on the talk page.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be a little forum-shopping going on here. Versions of the above request have been posted at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism, an RfC, and on four different user talk pages (all today).

Some related background is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Babasalichai/Archive. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah...so...we (the "few editors who control the board", by Babasalichai's description) did include a lot of information from the report the sock mentions, we just didn't include the more polemic and statements. Yes, it's the largest story ever written about him (at least, in English), but it's still only one story, and most of it isn't even about him (it's about the organization he is a member of); certainly not enough to use phrases like "considerable questions". However, if anyone feels like investigating, the story is linked at the article, and there's at least 3 of us who can/have discussed it there. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying I support his proposal, just that I need to see specifics before I can comment one way or another. If its already been discussed among multiple editors and the editor is just forum shopping to try and subvert an existing consensus then that is another story altogether. Thanks for your comment.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

47th of foot regiment

Correction: The 47th of foot was commanded By Lt. Colonel John Hale (1725-1806)rather than Major General James Wolfe during the battle for Quebeck City, Plains of Abraham. Sept. 13th 1759. Col. Hale was the fast friend of Gen. Wolfe and on Wolfes request carried the dispatch of the victory back to King Geo. III, returning Wolfes remains to England. He was granted a warrant to raise one of five new cavalry regiments being formed, patterened on the succesful model of Cromwell's cavalry. John Hale was the founder of the Death of Glory Boys, the 17th Lancers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.66.133.144 (talk) 00:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

  Huh? Correction to what?

  Please note that this noticeboard is for the discussion of WP:NPOV issues (possible violations of Neutral Point of View) that haven't been resolvable on an article's talk page. You have not claimed any such issue, nor even an article (47th of foot regiment?); there doesn't seem to be anything to discuss here. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps our OP means 47th (Lancashire) Regiment of Foot? James Wolfe is mentioned, "John Hale (soldier) (1728–1806), British soldier" has no article, but appears on the John Hale disambigution page. Perhaps the post should be moved/copied to the relevant articles talkpage? - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 10:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The label "alternative"--as in category:alternative journalists

--A Jimbo quote...: Template:Jimboquote--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I think such a category has some use, if perhaps small--say, in cases where someone hasn't received journalistic training and does non- "MSM style"(?) work? however, perhaps these type of individuals really should be incorporated into the more general category of journalists, for maximum NPOV, too-- . So, either way--that is, keeping these two cats separate or combining them--is fine according to my own pov.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Is this an accepted term in the national media or in academia? If so, can we see some refs and a definition of what the term means? If not, then it may be POV or OR.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Well (of course, FWIW), there is a 2010 book, Alternative Journalists with chapters: Michael Moore, Alex Jones, Eduardo Montes-Bradley, Michael Yon, Amy Goodman, Alexander Cockburn, Kevin Pina, Thom Hartmann, Wayne Madsen, Hugh Hewitt, Charles Karel Bouley, Stephanie Miller, Michael Jackson, Steve Dillard, Abraham Sarmiento, Jr., Jim Hightower, Andrew Goldberg, Larry Bensky, Alex Bennett, Charles Foster Johnson, Marc Cooper, Dennis Bernstein, Neil Rogers, Phillip Frazer, Jeremy Scahill, Marlene Garcia-Esperat, Wakas Mir, Ed Morrissey, Aaron Glantz, John H. Hinderaker, Isabelo de Los Reyes, Rick Rydell, Teodoro Casino, Jeffrey St. Clair, Paul and Shirley Eberle, Mohammed Omer, Dahr Jamail, Jon Rappoport, Laura Flanders, Jay Marvin, List of Progressive Talk Radio Hosts in the United States, Dave Kopel, Scott W. Johnson, T-Bone Slim, Francisco Aruca, Mike Malloy, Stephen Bainbridge, David Barsamian, Robert Parry, Deepa Fernandes, Bob Cesca, Patricio Guzman, Janine Jackson, Paul Mirengoff, Pierre Carles, David Moberg, Jim Naureckas, Neil Demause. I'm an idiot. That book is a reprint from Wikipedia!

And here is where the phrase alternative journalist is used per a Google Books search (plus: plural; alt. journal-ism).

The problem is: Where do we draw the line for inclusion, with regard such a category? What constitutes its parameters as either a sub-set of "journalist" or a grouping that partially overlaps with it?--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 19:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 19:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Not knowing the history behind the creation.... Is this the same as citizen Journalism or is a simple "Other Category" for those who dont neatly fit in any existing category? The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 20:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

or is this simply desciptive of some one who works for Alternative media like an Alternative news agency or Alternative newspaper The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 20:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

there's no doubt that many newspapers are labeled "alternative". For example, the free weeklies distributed in a number of U.S. cities get that label. But I'm not familiar with it being applied to the journalists themselves. Some of them may write for a variety of sources, so it would be inappropriate for us to use that category on our own based on their contributions to alternative news sources. Like any category, we should be able to find sources which use it about the individuals to whom it's applied.   Will Beback  talk  21:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I thumbed through a couple of dozen sources now, I am seeing no consistent use. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 03:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

A question on weight

How much weight ought to be given to a source which although published in a peer reviewed journal has since has received little to no citations, and which the author himself says is a new way of looking at things? The source in question is "Phillip Deery. The Terminology of Terrorism: Malaya, 1948–52. Journal of Southeast Asia Studies, Vol. 34, No. 2 (June 2003), pp. 231–247." and it is used to support an edit which claims the use of the term communist terrorists during the Malayan emergency was propaganda. The majority of sources I have read do not say this, so is giving one paper which does breaking WP:UNDUE? Tentontunic (talk) 22:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

You answer your own question when you say it has received little or no citations. A single paper giving a completely alternative viewpoint to the majority of the literature that is 8 yrs old and has received little attention since is a WP:FRINGE opinion even if it is published in an otherwise reliable source. Journals do publish fringe theories to encourage debate. Being somewhat familiar with the history myself I would agree with your assessment that this is giving undue weight to a fringe opinion. Hope this helps. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I have to ask since I dont have acess was there a rejoinder to it? Those are always very illuminating. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 02:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

When posting a request to this board you should refer to the source, providing a link where possible, and explain what claims it is used to support. For example:

In Communist terrorism, the following passage is referenced to Philip Deery's article, "The terminology of Terrorism: Malaya, 1948-52", Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, Vol. 34, 2003:[37]

"In 1948, an anti-colonial guerrilla war, the "Malayan emergency", started between Commonwealth armed forces and the Malayan National Liberation Army. The insurgents were led by the Malayan Communist Party and their their actions were labeled at first as "banditry" then later as "Communist terrorism" in British propaganda."

It appears that this description in the source is presented as factual and is supported by sources. The author does not say that this is "a new way of looking at things", merely that he seeks "to throw some new historical light on the use of political language during the early years of the Emergency" by "charting the shift in the language used to depict Communist insurgents in Malaya". But the Wikipedia article does not report that part of the article.

TFD (talk) 05:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

No you're confusing fact with opinion, that is the opinion of the author, which you present as fact. Not acceptable usually. Wee Curry Monster talk 07:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

See WP:NPOV: "Avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion." There is consensus that propaganda was used on both sides during the Cold War and also that it was used by the British government during the Malyan Emergency. See for example 661 hits for "malayan emergency"+propaganda at Google books. If you can find any serious sources among these that take a different view, then I will change my mind. TFD (talk) 15:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Sigh, see [38]. It is actually referred to above. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Totally different issue. Tentontunic claimed that the connection made by Deery between the use of language and propaganda during the Malayan Emergency was "a new way of looking at things". In fact the topic has been addressed in hundreds of books. Does that make the connection correct? No. What makes it correct is that it is a consensus view. If it is not then it would be possible for Tentontunic to find sources challenging this view. TFD (talk) 16:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Um -- saying that a view which others have not seen fit to decry therefore makes it "consensus" is an interesting sort of argument. Thus if a person wrote an article connecting Gnarphism with Daphne du Maurier, and no one thought enough of it to refute it, then that opinion becomes "consensus"? Nope. Consensus requires affirmative acceptance of the view by others. Ignoring a fringe view does not make the fringe view into the consensus view. Collect (talk) 16:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I did not say that, the papers author did. Were is your source that this is a consensus view out of curiosity? Tentontunic (talk) 16:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Collect, there are hundreds of books that discuss British propaganda during the Malyan Emergency and none that I could find that challenge this view.[39] The British themselves called it propaganda, as is documented in Emergency propaganda: the winning of Malayan hearts and minds, 1948-1958.[40] TFD (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Tentunic, you appear to apply a different standard on whether we can refer to "propaganda" used by the British during the Malayan emergency and whether we can label the insurgents "Communist Terrorists". TFD (talk) 17:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Explain please? Were have I applied different standards? Tentontunic (talk) 18:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

You believe that we can call the Malayan insurgency "Communist Terrorism", despite the fact that this terminology does not have the support of academic consensus. Yet you object to using the term "propaganda" in reference to the British during the Malayan Emergency because "The majority of sources I have read do not say this". What makes your position especially bizarre is that you are arguing to use jargon that was abandoned 40 years ago. TFD (talk) 18:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe noting, the sources I have read say communist terrorists, they do nto say they were called this as a propaganda exercise. They were called terrorists becasue they engaged in terrorist activities. And of course they were communist. And as for jargon which was abandoned 40 years ago? Malaya's Secret Police 1945-60: The Role of the Special Branch in the Malayan Emergency Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (15 Dec 2008) ISBN 978-9812308290 what is the date this book was printed? And there are hundreds more the same. Tentontunic (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The source was discussed on WP:RSN and it seemed to be resolved there. It was suggested that weighting was not a question for that board but one for this one. However, it seems that there is still disagreement about the reliability so I am taking it back there. We will try and resolve reliability there, alongside other sources used in the article, and then any weight issues can come here. I hope that people already involved in the discussion will refrain from commenting and some further uninvolved people will give opinions. My opinion, already expressed on RSN, is that this is a normal academic source. It's a paper in a good journal. I see no sign whatsoever of fringe status. If anyone wants to pursue the line of argument that the source is fringe, then we could also ask on the fringe theories noticeboard. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Malaya's secret police deals extensively with British "propaganda" during the Emergency. For example, "This directive [No. 16] ... deals with propaganda.... General Briggs played a significant part in arranging for the government's information and propaganda services to become.... propaganda was the responsibility of the Department of Public Relations...." (p. 155)[41] Also, "The High Commissioner suggested... that such emotive terms as 'war', 'enemy' and 'rebellion' should be avoided, and names such as 'banditry' 'thugs', 'terrorism' and so on be used instead. The true meanings of these euphemisms needs to be understood by the research scholar, for a literal interpretation of their meaning would lead to ill-foirmed conclusions that the British colonial power... was not faced with an outright war.... I was not until...1952 that the British colonial authorities decided to replace the term 'bandits' with 'communist terrorists'."[42]

Your source says that CT was a euphemism used as part of British propaganda. That is what the article should reflect.

TFD (talk) 19:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually no it does not, at least on p13. No mention of propaganda on that page at all. They even got an official legal definition. and on p158 it does not say that they were called CT`s as part of a propaganda operation. It talks of keeping morale up. Tentontunic (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I raised this again at RSN. The notion that "journals publish fringe theories to encourage debate" is not in line with WP:IRS, where academic research articles are treated as sources of high quality. Does it need also to go to FTN? Itsmejudith (talk) 20:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

If you wish to post at FTN go ahead. This is about weight, how much weight ought to be given to an article which has next to no citations and sank without trace? You have already said you believe it reliable, that is not the issue here, it is weight. Tentontunic (talk) 20:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I will only post at FTN if someone wants to say that it is fringe, as above. Your challenge still is really about reliability. I am alarmed at your formulation "next to no citations and sank without trace". As I already said, very many academic articles are uncited. It does not equate to "sank without trace". You do not seem to be very familiar with the norms of scholarship. I hope we will get some more comments on RSN about reliability. If this source is judged reliable for the article, and some other sources on the same topic are also judged reliable, then we will be in a position to weight them against each other. As you know, where there is a disagreement of scholarly opinion we should reflect both sides. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

In fact the source is used to represent a view that is found in hundreds of sources and is the consensus of writers. Tentontunic, the source Malaya's secret police, which you provided is quite clear and I have no idea why you are writing "no it does not, at least on p13" when I clearly typed out what appeared on that page. Here it is again, and anyone can check it: "The High Commissioner suggested... that such emotive terms as 'war', 'enemy' and 'rebellion' should be avoided, and names such as 'banditry' 'thugs', 'terrorism' and so on be used instead. The true meanings of these euphemisms needs to be understood by the research scholar, for a literal interpretation of their meaning would lead to ill-foirmed conclusions that the British colonial power... was not faced with an outright war.... I was not until...1952 that the British colonial authorities decided to replace the term 'bandits' with 'communist terrorists'."(p. 13)[43]

Itsmejudith, there is no disagreement in scholarly opinion.

TFD (talk) 20:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you read past what you need? Perhaps you ought to look at why they avoided terms such as 'war', 'enemy' and 'rebellion' it was to stop insurance premiums going up. There is noting in that book which says the British called them terrorists as part of a propaganda campaign. Tentontunic (talk) 20:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

It says, "At the outset of the Emergency, the British colonial government attempted to downplay the seriousness of the situation so as not to affect public morale. The government was anxious to ensure, too, that commercial insurance rates were not affected...." IOW the government had more than one reason to mislead the public. So what? The first casualty of war is truth. TFD (talk) 21:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. It does not say communist terrorism was used as part of a propaganda campaign does it? Thank you. Tentontunic (talk) 21:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

You appear to be unaware of what propaganda means, and I suggest you read up on it. It is essential that the articles we edit do not repeat propaganda without attribution. TFD (talk) 21:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

You will both do better to allow for external opinion if you do not deter it with walls of text, with tendentious arguments between yourselves. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, the whole point of these boards is to get an outside perspective, not to perpetuate their disagreement in yet another forum. FWIW, TFD appears to be applying his personal viewpoint and saying this is "propaganda", that's synthesis. --Martin (talk) 21:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Martin funnily enough I arrived at the same conclusion regarding WP:SYN, however, I declined to comment at the time as it seemed doomed to be ignored. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The word "propaganda" is clearly a judgemental word in context - intended to imply "but anything propaganda is clearly false" or the like. Unless multiple reliable sources use the term "propaganda" in a discussion, the use is undue weight at best, and likely far worse with regard to how we treat the readers (the ultimate customers for the article). We must always be cognizant that pushing WP:TRUTH is contrary to WP policy. Collect (talk) 00:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. That governments, especially in violent conflicts, use propaganda, is an entirely unsurprising and ordinary (as in "not extraordinary") fact. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 02:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The sources say it was propaganda, the British government called it propaganda and unlike the U.S. there are no historical revisionists who say otherwise. We go with the consensus of historians - there is not even a fringe element with a different view. If I am wrong, please present a single source that differs. TFD (talk) 03:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

"At the outset of the Emergency, the British colonial government attempted to downplay the seriousness of the situation so as not to affect public morale." -- This is almost though not quite the same as saying that the British colonial government used propaganda. It would be reasonable, though a bit weak, as a source for the claim that they used propaganda. But if I understand the situation correctly this is not the question here: TFD quoted this from a source which Tentontunic claims contradicts the claim about propaganda by not mentioning it. It does no such thing. In fact, as TFD pointed out correctly, it supports the claim, although the other source is still better for that purpose. Hans Adler 09:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Hotpads.com Wiki entry reads more like promotion than neutral point of view

Here's a link to the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HotPads.com Last 2 sentences in the intro paragraph seems out of place on a site like Wikipedia. I'm a little surprised it got past the editors. <<All features are designed to create the most user-friendly, comprehensive, and personalized location-based housing search experience online. Whereas many real estate websites are mash-ups of other mapping applications, like Google Maps, HotPads uses its own original mapping application.>> Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.68.91.86 (talk) 23:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

At AFD almost no sources and certainly none having depth of coverage The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 02:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Due weight and factual accuracy

We're really going around the houses on this one, I'm afraid.

It is argued that WP:WEIGHT only applies when the factual accuracy of a point is in dispute. That is to say, that there is no problem from a WP:WEIGHT perspective with giving a point whose factual accuracy is undisputed significantly more weight than it is given in reliable sources.

In the case concerned, the point given significantly more weight than is present in reliable sources is accepted to be factually accurate (broadly, there are some disputes on detail), but are the points argued by those on one side of the modern dispute to further their cause.

Is this argument an accurate reading of policy? Pfainuk talk 18:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

  Interesting. Allowing at the outset that I make no claim to being expert on policy, yet there are points that might be raised. Like, it seems to me that the question you have raised here is not quite the same as the argument you refer to at Talk:Gibraltar. Both seem worth discussing, but I am a little concerned lest what is discussed here gets carried back to there in a way that might not be appropriate. (As a side comment: is it possible that you and the other editors at Gibraltar might work up a joint statement as to just what you all think the issue is? That is a somewhat sophisticated approach, but you all seem to be reasonable enough and cool enough to do that.)

  As to the question raised here, my understanding is that you have a point whose general "factual accuracy" is not in dispute. That is, it is agreed that certain events happen, though there may be some quibbling about the exact details. So the issue is not about whether these events happened, but how much prominence they should be given. (Close enough?)

  My initial take on this is that WP:WEIGHT is about prominence. But — what makes this question tricky — is that the policy seems focused on opinions, views, viewpoints, and disputed interpretations. What you have here is (effectively) undisputed fact(s); the "weighing" is in regard to their presentation. WP:WEIGHT says: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." Note the "overall significance to the article topic." And just further on, what seems to be key here: "Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." (emphasis added.) In brief: no, WP:WEIGHT is not limited to only "when the factual accuracy of a point is in dispute."

  A warning: while reliable sources might be relied on to some extent regarding proper weight, I think there are other factors that might be considered. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

May I offer a little more information. These facts are included to explain why the population left and some authors do make that link. Others do not for example Andrews contradicts it directly. Opinions vary signficantly including the expectation of a counter attack, loyalty to Philip and others. The range of opinions in the literature isn't reflected, with a focus on only one. Clearly this is unsatisfactory for NPOV, particularly as the sole opinion represented reflects the Spanish national narrative.

In additon, I cannot see how Imalbornoz has established due weight regarding the opinion in the literature. He does not have access to either of the sources he cites (Hills, Jackson) and both are only available in snippet view via Google Books. He relies on a 3rd party for second hand quotes from texts he does not have. He claims notability on the basis of Google Hits.

Hence, I believe this is why Pfainuk has asked for external opinion on the arguments advanced by Imalbornoz rather than his own comments. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Muammar Gaddafi

What has happened with this article in the last month is one of the worst examples of politically-motivated recentist bias I've ever saw on Wikipedia. Just compare this revision from February 21 and the current revision as of March 30.

There is a standing bias in wording of half of the section titles, compared to the older version. While much of content hasn't changed, the way in which article is currently structured is blatantly non-neutral.

The almost empty Economy section was created, with no any mention that Libya became one of the most prosperous states in Africa with the highest HDI under Gaddafi. Instead, there is only a dubious statement that the eastern separatist regions "became impoverished under Gaddafi's economic theories".

Another one-sentence section "Prosecution for massacres" was created, as if there is good evidence so far (other than Twitter, Facebook and biased journalism) that there were "massacres" and not just fighting separatists.

At the same time the Public works projects has been reduced in size, tagged with no good reason, renamed to more ambiguous "Public works", stripped from the subsections and put into less prominent position in the article.

And so on. The question of the deteriorated neutrality of the article has been raised multiple times at Talk:Muammar Gaddafi, but nothing has been done about the issue. Hope somebody intervenes. GreyHood ^Talk 18:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Without looking at the article (I appreciate that this may reduce the credibility of my comment - however, if I happen to hit the nail without looking, maybe it actually increases it), this sounds very credible and describes exactly the sort of thing that WP ought to have effective mechanisms for avoiding. Undoubtedly there are currently ample sources for a whole range of things (true, false, fair, infair) that portray Gaddafi in a poor light. Concentrating exclusively on those isn't NPOV, however much editors think that that Gaddafi-is-a-shit represents genuine neutrality.

BTW. I'm not saying it doesn't. But obscuring the other side of the case remains wrong. This isn't meant as a defence of Gadaffi. Stalin, Hitler, Mao and George W Bush also presided over considerable economic success. The fact that they are also shits doesn't mean that their association with anything that might be considered positive should be excluded from their articles. --FormerIP (talk) 20:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

  What I just quoted in the section above (from WP:WEIGHT) seems relevant in this instance: "Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text ...." I see the prospect that Gadaffi's supporters would want to emphasize his public works, etc., while his detractors would want to diminish coverage of same. But how to determine the appropriate balance I don't know. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

At least, two months ago the balance was more appropriate. And the article was rather stable for months and for years. Why change its structure and tone so much because of the recent events? I'd propose to return to the older order and naming of sections, of course with addition of one or two sections specifically devoted to the recent events. GreyHood ^Talk 20:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Duloxetine: badly in need of a re-write or at least a re-edit

The article is a big jumble of two different viewpoints, even mid-paragraph. Either the entire thing needs to be ditched and re-written, or at least somebody needs to separate out the bogus negative stuff with the valid ones, and put them together in some sort of different subsection. Every single symptom section seems to refer to some obscure study about how it didn't work for this symptom, while talking about how it's treated for this symptom.

Here's the "Major depressive disorder" section:

Duloxetine has demonstrated efficacy for the treatment of major depressive disorder. In three out of six well-designed properly controlled pre-marketing trials duloxetine performed better than placebo; the three other trials were inconclusive.[17] Recently, duloxetine was shown to be effective in elderly with recurrent major depressive disorder where it improved cognition, depression, and some pain measures.[18] A meta-analysis of these trials indicated that the effect size of duloxetine as compared with placebo was weak-to-moderate, and similar to other 11 antidepressants studied.[19] The rationale behind the development of duloxetine was that inhibition of the reuptake of both serotonin and norepinephrine would make it work better than selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), which inhibit only the reuptake of serotonin. However, in a comparative meta-analysis of clinical trials duloxetine appeared to be insignificantly less effective than SSRIs.[20] A head-to-head comparison of duloxetine with an SSRI escitalopram (Lexapro) found duloxetine to be both less tolerable and less effective.[21] Another analysis of the comparative efficacy of modern antidepressants found duloxetine to be significantly, by 30-40%, less efficacious than mirtazapine (Remeron), escitalopram, venlafaxine (Effexor) and sertraline (Zoloft). Duloxetine was similar to fluoxetine (Prozac), fluvoxamine (Luvox) and paroxetine (Paxil). The tolerability of duloxetine was significantly worse than the tolerability of escitalopram and sertraline.[22]

A review in Prescrire International summarizing the existing evidence noted that duloxetine has limited efficacy in depression and no advantages over other antidepressants. Prescribers observed that, taking into account the risk of hepatic disorders and drug interactions, there is no reason to choose duloxetine when so many other options are available.[2] Similar analysis was presented by Drug and Therapeutics Bulletin, which is a part of the respected BMJ Group.[23]

References or not, it's still slanted and biased, showcasing a minority opinion as front and center, while contradicting itself with somebody else's edits. This article has been on the Noticeboard before, but that was two years ago.

I have put in Conflict & Undue templates for the article until it is fixed. SineSwiper (talk) 23:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Franklin child prostitution ring allegations

The subject of criminal charges is referred to by newspapers variously as a "nationally active Republican politician" (he was vice chairman of a Republican council), a "prominent Republican", "a rising star in the Republican party" or a "major Republican fundraiser". Three editors were happy just to mention the connection only in the lead ie: "Republican fundraiser Lawrence E. King" and not to mention the connection at all in the article. One very active editor repeatedly deletes this claiming that any mention of his Republican affiliation is pushing an "all Republicans are perverts" agenda which is POV pushing and a BLP violation. It took some time to get him to accept using the word "political" and the lead now says "prominent political fundraiser Lawrence E. King". This disagreement has been ongoing in talk since early January. Wayne (talk) 11:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The same newspapers point out that King was a Democrat for most of his life, but that didn't make it into the Wikipedia article. Instead, the criminal was described exclusively in the Wikipedia article lede as a Republican. The party identification of Democratic state senator Ernie Chambers and frequent Democratic presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche, who flogged this scandal for every political point they could score, was also never mentioned in the Wikipedia article. If we're going to mention political party affiliation, we need to be even handed about it, particularly in this case where the most salient allegation (a large scale child prostitution ring that allegedly flew child prostitutes all over the country) was never proven, and in fact produced a perjury conviction and prison sentence for one of the accusers.

Yes, for a few months before his embezzlement conviction, Lawrence E. King changed over to the Republican Party. But prominent Democratic Party members were backing even more hideous allegations that turned out to be nothing but a smear campaign. Either the political affiliations need to be completely described on both sides, or they need to be left out. By the way, I am the one who proposed using a compromise word "political" instead of "Republican," Wayne/WLRoss was the one who eventually accepted it, and the diffs are available to prove it. I grow very weary of these misrepresentations. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

It is worth noting that this editor has been pushing for inclusion of an unreliable source in this BLP article (which espouses the minority/fringe POV even though it criticizes LaRouche), on the article talk page here. The issue was taken to WP:RSN here, where several previously uninvolved editors unanimously agreed that the unreliable source should not be used. Dissatisfied with this result, the editor has now brought his grievance to WP:NPOVN. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

POV about LDS Mormons belonging to Christianity

The article The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints describes the religious body to be a restoratinist Christian religion. Renowned references like the Britannica, Oxford English Dictionary, among others don't define the Church of Jesus Christ LDS as a christian religion. Therefore I see the NPOV policy violated and ask other Wikipedia editors to resolve the dispute. --217.5.199.242 (talk) 13:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

While the LDS church is about as theologically distant from Christianity as Hinduism, they are derived from Christianity, they describe themselves as Christians, and so the anthropological approach is to say they are a Christian religion. It's not saying they truely are Christians, though, if you want to look at it that way. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I smell a Scotsman here. LDS is a Christian Church (and, BTW, Britannica agrees, as far as I can figure out from snippets online). Christianity is a somewhat mushy concept. But if we accept Southern Baptists, the Roman Catholic Church, Episcopalians, and the Syrian Orthodox Church, I see no reason to exclude Mormons or Jehova's Witnesses. Of course, the only true Christians are adherents of Platonic Gnosticism. All others will Burn In Hell (tm). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, the Baptists, Catholics, Episcopalians, and Orthodox are trinitarian monotheists who believe in the incarnation, at least; but yeah... And no, the only true Christians (tm) are the Circumcellions. ;P *TWHACK!* "Laudate Deum!" Ian.thomson (talk) 14:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

What a compelling doctrine! And to think I never heard of them before. Rumiton (talk) 14:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

There are a couple of distinct issues here, first the questioner needs to understand that 'Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' is a distinct subset of what are collectively called Mormons. And since the question was specifically about LDS, then we need to restrict the debate to that article. The typical LDS view is that they are the correct branch of Mormonism. Many LDS members describe themselves as 'Christian', but not all. The typical argument I have heard is "'Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' has Christ in the title, so how are we not Christians?" That alone I do not find to be a compelling argument, since anyone can make a religion and include Christ in the name ("Balloon Christ Believers"). LDS Mormons believe that Joseph Smith set them back on the proper Christian path and that other Christian religions were in error. Most Orthodox Christian religions do not regard LDS as Christian. When comparing the set of beliefs of LDS versus Orthodox, there are several significant divergences.

The article Mormonism and Christianity describes these differences in detail. A quote from that article:

Mormons do not accept non-Mormon baptism nor do non-Mormon Christians usually accept Mormon baptism. Mormons regularly proselytize individuals actually or nominally within the Christian tradition, and some Christians, especially evangelicals, proselytize Mormons. A prominent scholarly view is that Mormonism is a form of Christianity, but is distinct enough from traditional Christianity so as to form a new religious tradition, much as Christianity is more than just a sect of Judaism.

As far as the exact proper way to approach this in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints article, I believe I would lean toward something like "is described a restorationist Christian religion", just adding the word 'described' maybe. -- Avanu (talk) 15:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

We had a long ArbCom case about a similar topic regarding Jehovah's witnesses. LDS is classified as restorationsist christian in so far as they profess to restore the original form of early christianity. It doesn't matter whether other christians actually accept them as christians or not. Restoriationists are recognized by stating that they restore the original "correct" form of Christianity. Not by the degree to which they are distinct from other denominations.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

• comment - Christian theology of course describes itself as a continuation of the religion of the Old Testament, just as Muslim theology (see eg "Messiah#Islam") describes itself as a continuation of both Judaism and Gospel of the Messiah, Jesus, in turn. Yet, because of the distinctions among them from what is normally understood as "Judaism" and/or "Christianity," we classify them both as separate and distinct branches of Abrahamic faith. The Mormon faith(s) are analogous.

  Would it be possible, as a compromise, to classify "Latter Day Saint Christianity" as a distinct branch of Abrahamic faith (actually, Sikhism and Bahai could conceivably be added too) yet keep this use of the self-describing term "Christianity" within the designation itself?

  --Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

People, can you please give your feedback here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints#Argument_against_Christianity I would like to see this discussed on just one page, and that is the page where the debate started. --217.50.56.198 (talk) 17:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

About the LDS

People, can you please give your feedback here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints#Argument_against_Christianity I would like to see this discussed on just one page, and that is the page where the debate started. --217.50.56.198 (talk) 17:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)