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

Relisted: How best to present disputed information

Idris bin Abdullah 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)

My reading is that we should exclude people like Emperor Norton, whose claims are entirely illegitimate. TFD (talk) 20:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Noting that I've been asked to comment here on my talk (but also that the message was neutrally worded and I am looking at this without regard for who holds which position here).

A list such as this needs to find a way of giving appropriate weight to each POV in each case. Per WP:NPOV (and in particular WP:VALID), the idea that points need to be given equal validity, regardless of prevalence, is not accepted. Neutrality requires that we give due weight to each case, which in this means putting significantly more weight on those who are recognised by scholars as those who would be the legitimate heirs to the throne if it still existed, and less weight to those who are not. For this reason, it would appear from the above that Idris al-Senussi should not be given equal weight with Muhammad al-Senussi in the case of Libya.

I think it would also be a good idea to distinguish more clearly those individuals who actually claim rights to the thrones concerned from those who recognise the abolition of the thrones concerned (or the rights of another line). Pfainuk talk 15:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion Crown Prince Mohammed El Senussi is the rightful claimant that is my 'POV'. However Idris al-Senussi is a widely acknowledged and high profile claimant since the late 1980’s, his claims are not entirely illegitimate I don't think it is appropriate to dismiss him completely, he is without doubt a member of the Senussi family (compare with Portugal: Duarte Pio, Duke of Braganza and the other 'claimant' Rosario Poidimani), his father was appointed by the last king, Idris to restore the monarchy, he in turn succeeded his father. Within former reigning families sometimes disputes arise, are Wikipedia editors going to make decisions over who the rightful claimant is to Lippe, Russia, France, Italy, Brazil, Two Scillies....? - dwc lr (talk) 16:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

But he has been dismissed, as shown above, my multiple genealogical sources. He may be named in hundreds of news articles, but the sources that discuss his claim in relation to that of the Crown Prince's are the ones that should be given most weight. Nightw 16:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I can cite sources to dismiss one rival claimant over another in other countries as well. At any rate Buyers and Soszynski are self published I don't think they are really even supposed to be used as sources. But there are sources that discuss his claim such as Greg Copley of the International Strategic Studies Association. Idris is treated as a claimant in the media, I don't see justification for removing his listing. - dwc lr (talk) 14:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The media is not a reliable source for this subject. I'm aware of your position, I'm listing this in order to get further opinions. Nightw 08:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Can someone offer an opinion, please?

I've relisted this in order to get further input. Do any of the regulars on here have any thoughts? Nightw 08:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I would think he is a notable pretender to the throne and should be listed. The media would not have the last word, but any experts on Libya, or on monarchy, writing on the media would be citable. The existence of articles in the serious media is an indicator of notability. I appreciate that there should be criteria for inclusion of pretenders so that absolutely ridiculous claims are ignored completely, but if this is indeed a notable claim, then those criteria should be reviewed or waived in this instance. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Rather than removing the claim then, what alternative would you suggest in order to represent the view of genealogists? Nightw 09:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Just add one sentence using the Sunday Times 1995 lead article linked to above. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Where? The list is in table format. I would put it in a footnote, but given that his claims have been uniformly dismissed by genealogists, the rest of the family, the courts, and just plain common sense, I think that's giving way too much weight to the mass media's perspective, which is divided to boot. It's alright to say that he's in the same family, but let's look at the facts:

• At the time of the monarchy's abolition, the Crown Prince, as the eldest son of the king, is the legal heir under the order of succession (primogeniture). He's also been designated the heir apparent by decree. It's not hard to draw a line between him and his eldest son, who was also publicly designated heir.
• This guy, on the other hand, isn't descended from any Libyan king (not even distantly) and, at the time of the abolition, had no royal title. He's not even technically a prince, let alone a king. And his claim, as the sources show above, was dismissed recently in a court of law.

I'm not questioning his notability, but we do have a criteria on this list and there are plenty of other fake pretenders included outside of the table in plain prose. So you have half (let's say) of the media randomly labelling him as the would-be monarch—without delving any further into that claim—while the other half, along with genealogists, courts, the last king's family, and simple logic disqualify that assertion. Surely this is a case of WP:QS with regards the media? Surely his claim can be included, but in plain prose rather than table format. Nightw 21:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt

The tone of this article is clearly that of support for the woman's controversial claims. The article barely talks of the woman herself, rather it serves to advertise her statements and viewpoints. Several paragraphs do not even discuss subjects connected to Ms. Iserbyt, instead focusing on topics related - only to the contents of her writings such as Ronald Reagan's affiliations and Yale societies. Further, there is a dearth of citations for the numerous claims in the article, and two of the three references are the author's website and an amateur Youtube video. In all, this is a very poorly written article that requires a serious rewrite to establish any amount of neutrality. Trorbes (talk) 19:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, very poor article not meeting our standards for WP:BLP. My first question is whether she is notable. She was a rather junior policy advisor, if the article is to be believed, and has written two books, one of a conspiracy theory nature, probably with minor publishers or self-published. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

a Fred Pearce sentence / reliably sourced loosely worded sentences

This illustrates a frequently recurring problem in content disputes with climate change regulars so I'd appreciate some outside views.

As we all know, ostensibly reliable sources sometimes still contain loosely worded sentences as well as statements better described as opinions which just happen to appear in otherwise reliable sources.

To illustrate in relation to the present content dispute, the following sentence from Fred Pearce in The Guardian has been added as a fact in Wikipedia's voice to the Hockey stick controversy (now redacted in prose) and has been a bone of contention:

The contrarians have made [the hockey stick graph] the focus of their attacks for a decade, hoping that by demolishing the hockey stick graph they can destroy the credibility of climate scientists.

The various problem with the sentence are that (a) obviously not all 'contrarians' wanted to destroy climate scientists' credibility, and some were presumably motivated by curiosity (i.e. it's a generalisation); (b) we have removed the sentence from its context in the article; (c) the sentence insinuates that the HS graph's chief critic Stephen McIntyre had an alterior motive; and (d) we find in Fred Pearce's more carefully written book that he actually believes Stephen McIntyre & similar bloggers were motivated by other factors such as intellectual curiosity, desire for openness, and so on, and certainly it is not said that their chief aim was character assassination. In other words, I don't believe the sentence is the considered view of its author.

For all these reasons I believe use of this sentence in the article is not consistent with NPOV (or V or BLP).

I would also appreciate comments on the general point, i.e. that just because a sentence appears in a reliable source it does not automatically follow that the sentence makes a fact that can be stated in Wikipedia's voice.

Cheers, Alex Harvey (talk) 16:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm an involved editor. I support Alex's analysis and query. Ongoing problem at Hockey stick controversy and other controversial CC pages. Thanks for outside opinions and advice. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 16:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm involved, both Alex and Pete have been arguing on the talk page for interpretations not found in reliable sources, and despite repeated requests have failed to provide reliable sources supporting their contention that clear majority views by respected mainstream authors are in some way disputed. If such sources are provided, we can discuss it on the talk page, but there has been a consistent pattern of original interpretation by these editors: for example, in Alex's argument above the repeated attempts to "destroy the credibility of climate scientists" as well attested in Pearce's writings, somehow becomes "their chief aim was character assassination" which is not the same thing. . . dave souza, talk 18:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• In other words, a reliable source says something that Alexh19740110 does not agree with, so he wants it removed or qualified. I frankly don't see a valid reason for either; WP:RS is pretty clear here, and WP:SYNTH covers the latter. Tarc (talk) 18:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

  No, Tarc, I was hoping that other Wikipedians interpreted NPOV as it is actually written, rather than deferring instead to the 'Word of God' interpretation of WP:RS. NPOV is quite clear that reliable sources sometimes say things which we should avoid repeating. In this case, we almost certainly have attributed to Fred Pearce a view that he doesn't actually hold. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

  I have written to The Guardian to point out that this sentence is not accurate and to ask if possible for Fred Pearce's view on Wikipedia's use of the sentence. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Fred Pearce has written back and agreed with me on every point, i.e. that (1) as I guessed, he didn't actually write this in the Guardian article in the first place, but that one of his editors changed the sentence without his knowledge; (2) as I said, he expressed a quite different view in his book The Climate Files; (3) he agrees with me that the statement is a "bald over-generalisation". I am not sure at this stage whether The Guardian intends to make a correction to the online article, but I'll reproduce his email with permission in the relevant talk page.
I trust some editors can see this is a good example of why NPOV says that we should not assume that just because a source is reliable we can or should simply quote every word. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• Unless there is an official editorial correction/retraction, none of this "I got an e-mail" stuff...if it even to be believed...is even remotely applicable to making an editorial decision here. Tarc (talk) 12:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

  I have reproduced the correspondence in the talk page at the Talk:Hockey_stick_controversy. I am happy to write to Fred Pearce and request on behalf of Wikipedia a formal retraction. This should not, of course, be necessary. The statement is, self evidently, an over generalisation. NPOV say, therefore, we should not use the wording, whether it's in an RS or not. You are just plainly wrong. You are answering here at NPOVN but have you actually read NPOV? Alex Harvey (talk) 17:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

  Yes, I have, as opposed to you who clearly have not. All you do is pop up about once a month to whine about how your fringe POV isn't being represented in the climate change topic area. Guess what? That's why they call em "fringe". Take care, unwatching this dead-end discussion now. Tarc (talk) 22:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Despite Tarc's smear, my question is a serious and I would be grateful for a serious response. This isn't the RS/N so if all that was required were reliable sources there would be no need for the NPOV policy at all. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It looks like there have been about six edits to this page in as many days. Does this mean there are hardly any active editors left? Or am I in the wrong place? Alex Harvey (talk) 11:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Nair

The new article about nair posted in wikipedia is full of misinformation. One paragragh reads like this "Pork was also noted as one of their favourite foods,[107] and even high-status Nairs were noted as eating buffalo meat.[108]" In india, everybody knows that Beef or Pork is not cooked in Hindu homes, even in this day. Another one "The worship of snakes, a Dravidian custom,[5] is so prevalent in the area that one modern historian notes: "In no part of the world is snake worship more general than in Kerala."[6] There is no proof that it is purely a dravidian custom, even other hindus in different parts of northern india also practised this. In the first paragraph itself there is an attempt to show the whole community in badlight. it says "the pre-puberty thalikettu kalyanam and the later sambandham. The practice, in which some women, predominantly from central Kerala, bore legitimate children with their several husbands lasted in some areas until the late nineteenth century and in others until as late as the 1960s. Some Nair women from higher sub divisions also practiced hypergamy with Nambudiri Brahmins from the Malabar area." Actual is the pre-puberty thaliketty kalyanam is just a ritual and the girls need not continue any relationship with the brahmin boy and will get married to another nair, sometimes with same brahmin boy also. But not all nair women had multiple hunsbands and Sambandam with Brahmins are not limited to malabar area. Too many mistakes are there in the article. In the Etymology section, deregatory reference and comparison to dogs are mentioned citing an unknown author who recently published a book full of nair, brahmin hatred In the military history, an unknown alliance with portughese is mentioned, also proposing that portughese were influencial enough to bestow the "nair" name to all people who fought with them, thus making many, instantanious upper class. This is ridiculous!

The section of caste system should not have been there as it is irrelevent to the article subject. this section and sub group section cites a lot of foreign authors who dont really understand the subject and subsequently the facts are distorted in those sections as well. Under the section, Historical customs and traditions, which says "Pullapilly has suggested that the Nairs may share a common heritage with the Ezhava caste. This theory is based on similarities between numerous of the customs adopted by the two groups, particularly with regard to marking various significant life stages such as childbirth and death, as well as their matrilineal practices and martial history. The theory is that only a common parentage can explain some of these issues.[32]" Ezhavas didnt follow the matrilineal practice and it is common knowledge. these two castes are entirely different from each other. Who is pullapilly? nobody has heard about him. There is a very sick attempt to bring down the nair caste in all the sections of the article.

The editors should be warned or the Nair community will come together and approach the government and the courts to punish such culprits. There have been previous instances of people from Ezhava community and Christian community who indulged in such activities and they were arrested by police for spreading false information. The whole article is edited by such people and we will not rest until such nonsense published in Wikipedia is removed. Thanks The king555 (talk) 14:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Above user now blocked for making the legal threat. Most of what is alleged above is a distortion of the article. The article is currently being closely watched by at least two non-involved admins & there has been substantial POV-pushing, probably orchestrated off-wiki, by people who claim to be members of the Nair caste. There are at least two SPIs in the queue right now, and the article has on several occasions - including today - featured at WP:ANI. - Sitush (talk) 16:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:LEAD matter at Talk:Femininity#Definition of femininity

Hi. Is there anyone here willing to read or partially read through the long discussions about this and help out? I feel that a few editors there are controlling the lead in a way that is not consistent with the Manual of Style, and that they are also going against Wikipedia's principles. There is more than one thing that femininity encompasses, including biological factors, and yet a few editors at the Femininity article are trying to keep the definition of femininity limited to only or mostly a social construction, despite the reliable sources I have provided that demonstrates that femininity is considered to be due to both biological and sociological factors. They only want to stick to their sources, instead of having the lead present a wider definition of the term. And per WP:LEAD, all the ways the term is defined should be included in the lead, especially any significant controversies or debates, such as the biological vs. sociological debate in this case. With such a narrow version of the lead, it also currently violates WP:Neutral. And as one editor weighing in on the RfC stated:

The sources above definitely indicate there are a variety of views of "femininity", perhaps even a sharp disagreement. Clearly the lead needs to reflect the various definitions. The sentence from the proposal above "Though largely socially constructed and distinct from the female biological sex, femininity may encompass biological factors as well" seems like a very good characterization, and should probably be in the first 2 or 3 sentences. I understand that some editors may find the clean definition "femininity is a social construct, period" very tempting, but the article must follow the sources (editors cannot pick-and-choose which sources' definitions to use, and cannot rely on their own viewpoint). If the sources provide a variety of interpretations to "femininity", so must the lead paragraph.

So please...can (or rather will) anyone here help out? I don't believe this is the way Wikipedia is supposed to work regarding its leads (excluding or under-representing other ways a term is defined) simply because editors prefer one particular definition.

I would provide diffs, but there isn't any one diff that I can provide to show that I have tried to resolve the matter on the talk page. The linked section above, which leads to the other sections where the discussion is still going on, shows how I have tried to resolve the matter (including the RfC, which has been a bust so far). I have even tried to compromise, but the few editors are insistent upon limiting the lead. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 13:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

This IP editor can't see that we're in agreement and is arguing again and again over a non-issue. EVERYONE (not an exaggeration) agrees with the IP, and yet we still argue for some reason. I've suggested that we're just not communicating well. Despite full agreement with the IP, the IP insists on seeing this in contentious terms with 2 'sides', when in reality every single person in the discussion fully agrees on the points. So, if anything, come and help explain things in a way to end this pointless debate. -- Avanu (talk) 15:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

We were not entirely in agreement, which is why extensive debate took place on the talk page and there were people who agreed with me about the lead being narrow in its scope and non-neutral. Even so, this matter now seems resolved. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 18:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

sikh

A Sikh is a follower of Sikhism. Sikhism primarily originated in the 15th century in the Punjab region with the birth of Guru Nanak Dev ji. The term "Sikh" has its origin in Sanskrit term शिष्य, meaning "disciple, student" or शिक्ष, meaning "instruction". A Sikh is a disciple of the Guru. According to Article I of the "Rehat Maryada" (the Sikh code of conduct and conventions), a Sikh is defined as "any human being who faithfully believes in One Immortal Being; ten Gurus, from Guru Nanak Dev to Sri Guru Gobind Singh; Sri Guru Granth Sahib; the teachings of the ten Gurus and the baptism bequeathed by the tenth Guru; and who does not owe allegiance to any other religion". Sikhs believe in the One Supreme God (Ik Onkar), the Guru who is main driving force behind Sikhs, truth, equality of humankind, universal brotherhood, truthful earning, respect towards life and all other creations/decisions made by GOD and they believe that no one can understand the supreme God without the blessings of the Guru and outmost love. Sikhs are recognized by their 5 Ks. 1) Kesh, specially maintained hair 2) Kara, special metal ring like bracelet 3) Kirpan, special small sword in a Strap called gatra. 4) Kashera, specially designed underpants, 5) Kanga, special comb for hair. These are applied to Baptised Sikhs called Khalsa. Sikhs are recognized by their distinctively wrapped turban, uncut hair, beard and moustache and they are supposed to wear an iron/steel bracelet (kara). The surname Singh (lion) being used by men and Kaur (princess) by women (Waheguru) the name of One Supreme God, (Sharbat da Bhala) selfless service and believe for the benefits of all is an integral part of Sikh worship, Due to their distinct identity they can be very easily observed in the masses as well as in the Gurdwara where visitors of any religious or socio-economic background are welcomed, where langar (free and unbiased food for all) is another way to break the caste system (as observed by Hindus) by serving people of all origins with the same (vegetarian) food, while sitting together on the same level of the floor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.254.214.108 (talk) 07:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

"LIberal" versus "progressive" for United States politics

This question is inspired by a particular article, but I want to ask it more generally, isolated from some of the other variables at work there. I'll say at the outset that I don't plan to reference this discussion to influence that one.

I'm curious about the use of labels to describe political organizations and individuals. In particular, there's "liberal" and "progressive" for modern United States politics. In the last 10 or so years, "progressive" has become increasingly popular with left-of-center politicians and groups to describe their political philosophy. The news media in a lot of cases still uses "liberal" even for organizations that fairly stringently stick to "progressive." There are different shades of meaning for both terms, but in my view, they encompass the same rough idea. One issue that weighs on the topic is that American conservatives have engaged in concerted effort to make liberal a "dirty word" that conjures negative feelings int he electorate.

We have a few options for characterizing the politics of a person/organization such as this: 1. Use no label at all 2. Use a different label entirely 3. Use one of "liberal" or "progressive", but not the other 4. Use either one interchangeably 5. Use some sort of "compromise" phrase that casts the labeling as some sort of dispute

I have a fairly strong distaste for both 1 and 5. I understand the theoretical appeal of using no labels, but we need words to describe things. For 5, I think that does a disservice to the politician to say something like, "Often called a liberal, Jones calls himself a progressive." That ascribes a degree of defensiveness that may or may not actually be there on the part of the politician or organization. It also creates a sort of clunky phrase where we dither about using two different terms that are more similar than different.

Where I'm largely lost is which term the voice of the encyclopedia should use. Is one "better" than the other? Should it matter which term the organization uses? Should we try to "count votes" in our sources to see which they use? ("Sources A and B use 'liberal' exclusively, Source C uses both, but prefers 'progressive," Source D only uses 'progressive,' and so on.)

Should we crop or bracket-edit quotes to avoid using one term or the other? For instance, let's say that editors decide that a politician's website is worth quoting to describe his positions. If the site reads, "Senator Jones believes in standing up for progressive values, such as.." and then lists his positions on issues, should we leave out the progressive identifier? Should we instead write something like, "Jones says he stands up for liberal values, such as.." and then quote the website?

I appreciate anyone who's read through this whole thing, and I'm interested in hearing a lot of opinions on this sort of thing if anyone wants to give them. If this isn't the right place for a question of this nature, please point me in the right direction. Croctotheface (talk) 09:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you're splitting hairs a bit. If 'liberal' really had become pejorative then I would agree that to remain neutral we should avoid using it. That's a very big 'if' though. Out of all your options I believe (4) is closest to what I would favour, although I wouldn't say 'interchangeably' but I would say use 'editorial discretion'. Hope this helps. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Alex that 4 is the best option. In terms of 5 (compromise/dispute), I think something like that would only come into play if there's an actual dispute noted in RS where some person/institution accuses the politician of calling himself one thing when he is (at lease according to the source) another. Otherwise, it's not really an issue.--Scaleshombre (talk) 15:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. There should be no question that there's been an attempt by conservative activists to make "liberal" into a pejorative. See Modern liberalism in the United States#"Liberal" as a derogatory epithet. Croctotheface (talk) 01:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I would usually avoid the terms "liberal" and "conservative" which are contentious, lack precision, and have a different meaning in the U.S. than in the rest of the world. Usually the best terms would be Democrat and Republican. The term "progressive" however seems more acceptable because there is a Congressional Progressive Caucus and Progressive Democrats of America - it is an identifiable faction within the Democratic Party and to the left of the party. TFD (talk) 04:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I am Australian and it has never occurred to me that 'liberal' is pejorative, although our conservative party is actually called the 'Liberal Party', so that could be the reason. Still, I doubt there is going to be a lasting shift in meaning of the term 'liberal'. But if it is clear that a source is using the term pejoratively then Wikipedia shouldn't be doing that. Can this be illustrated with reference to a specific content dispute? Part of the problem is that this whole discussion seems somewhat abstract. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

A simple way through this potential minefield could be to include the self-descriptions of individuals and groups, alongside characterisations by their most notable critics. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Alex Harvey, the Liberal Party of Australia is a liberal party (hence the name), the conservative party having disappeared in the 1840s. In the U.S. however, they would be called conservative, while their opponents are called liberals. Many countries however have both liberal and conservative parties, as in Scandinavia. Usually the difference is that liberals support free markets, while conservatives support tradition. TFD (talk) 22:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

An important difference in political nomenclature between the US and other Anglophone countries is that "liberal" over here doesn't connote strong ideological support for free markets, but rather support for economic regulation in the public sphere while retaining its more universal connotation of civil libertarianism in the private sphere. American liberalism is thus more "philosophically inconsistent" (though a foolish consistency can surely remain the hobgoblin of small minds) than what's implied by Liberal and Liberal-Democratic parties in parliamentary systems, which generally tend to support free markets and lassiez-faire social policies. This makes, e.g. the British Liberal Democratic Party a philosophical cousin of the American Libertarian Party, though the US LP would be regarded as more "extreme" and much more marginal than the UK LD party, which is the third largest party in multiparty Britain. Both parties tend to attract the well-educated and well-off.

If the term "progressive" seems to get shunted aside by American commentators taking their cues from the right wing's Mighty Wurlitzer to keep their opponents tarred with the dreaded "liberal" label (one must pronounce it "lib-uh-rul" for the proper ring of contempt), it's as important to keep watch on the term "conservative" as casually attributed by American media outlets. Most often it's shorthand for "economic conservative" which can imply a belief in the power of free markets in all sectors so strong it can be justly (and quite objectively) termed radical. Likewise "social conservatives" often connotes a passionate group who would foist the sort of social changes hard to square with honestly tradition-bound conservatism. Snardbafulator (talk) 01:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Perry#Cameron_Todd_Willingham NPOV?

Hi. I'm hardly neutral as I'm fairly certain that the guy was innocent, or at the very least not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Could someone knowledgeable in NPOV issues have a look over the section and decide whether or not to place an NPOV tag? Thank you. Also not certain how I should have labeled this section but at least it works. Pär Larsson (talk) 21:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I am a little concerned that too much weight is being given to this section in a biography about Rick Perry. I get the feeling that the article is making a point that death sentences are wrong and attempting to pin the blame for a possibly wrongful execution on the governor, simply because he supports the death sentence generally. While the death sentence may be wrong, it would appear that the courts failed here if Willingham really was innocent. I would suggest other editors have a look at this. Alex Harvey (talk) 02:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

propaganda at United States and state terrorism

It would be great to have more editors involved in the discussion. The article's highly contentious and has been flagged for neutrality violations since September 2010. I'd love to have input regarding peacock terms ("notable," "foremost," etc.) puffing up people quoted in the piece.

Please see discussion at Talk:United_States_and_state_terrorism#Chomsky.

Thank you.--Scaleshombre (talk) 23:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky does not need to be "puffed up" to place him among the topic's strongest proponents. He is certainly notable, and perhaps foremost. This is not puffery or peacockism, it is simply an accurate description of the most vocal gadfly on the topic. Binksternet (talk) 16:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Then his work can speak for itself. The role of Wikipedia is to be an impartial chronicler, not a cheerleader.--Scaleshombre (talk) 16:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

We are correct to tell the reader new to the topic that Chomsky is notable. Many observers have described him as such. It seems obvious, but the casual reader should be told the state of scholarly thought including a bit of who's who on the topic. Binksternet (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

In fact the source says that he is one of the notable writers on the subject. TFD (talk) 04:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

4th Halifax Highland Scout Troop / Scots Highland Company

Reeks of agenda, potential BLP violations, and the like. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh god. Someone obviously had a very large amount of prose to unload, but it's virtually impenetrable. I'm tempted to simply stub the article, keep the references, and start all over again, but someone better than me at salvaging content should have a crack at it first. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

This is being discussed in several places. Please look at the merge discussion flagged at the top of the page which will also lead to other discussions. --Bduke (Discussion) 09:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Is it acceptable for an encyclopedic article to reinforce only one side of a controversial issue?

In the article for conspiracy theories a vested contributor has relinquished any responsibility to write for the opponent since he or she assumes that the opponent might not be supported by reliable sources. Of course, this assumption is based on nothing but sheer arrogance.

Is it acceptable or fair to write for only one viewpoint unchallenged then soft-own the article by demanding consensus for the opposing viewpoint? Tsnuemuozobh (talk) 23:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you asking for an opinion on an editor's conduct? You might consider reviewing WP:AGF, as your questions strike me as pretty abrasive. Editors often disagree about content, but our goal is to present material in a neutral manner, according to reliable sources. To choose an extreme example, on an article about cigarette smoking, we say that it is bad for you based on the vast number of sources supporting that view. We are not obligated to balance that view with statements arguing how it is good for you, unless reliable sources support those claims. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm asking for clarification about accepted standards for Wikipedia articles. The article contains more quotes from sociologists than from conspiracy theorists. The appeal to emotion in the article is an example of the lack of balance resulting from bias or anecdotes rather than facts. Informing about the harmful effects of cigarette smoking is necessary for the public good. Writing an article for the sake of "debunking" conspiracy theories, on the hand, appears to be motivated chiefly by a political agenda. Tsnuemuozobh (talk) 02:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I have only had a very quick look at Talk:Conspiracy theory#This article is full of judgmental statements, but it appears that Loremaster has explained WP:NPOV very well ("we only represent viewpoints published by reliable sources and in proportion to the number of reliable sources that express this view"—that is of course a slightly simplified version of the policy, but in essence it is correct). It also appears as if the disagreement started very recently; assuming that's correct, such a matter should not normally be reported to a noticeboard unless there is some kind of urgent need for action (that's just a general thought, and is a minor issue). The next step would be to focus on some content in the article and explain your problem about that (on the article talk page). Johnuniq (talk) 04:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Algol - feedback on whether (and if so, to what extent) pseudoscience policy affects the content of this star page.

I'm asking for clarification / benefit of experience / general advice on a matter where an editor seems intent on starting an edit war by invoking pseudo-science policy over the content of the Wikipedia page on the fixed star Algol.

MakeSense64 has a history of targeting content which involves any kind of connection with astrology. Three days ago (6th July) he took it on himself to remove astrological references from this fixed star page, beginning with the talk-page question “Since this article is about the star, then is it normal there is also an astrology section? The astrology of Algol is covered in Behenian_fixed_stars, so it can be removed here. Any objections?” (BTW, the astrology of Algol is not covered on the other page, as another editor later pointed out).

This question met with the objection of a contributing editor who wrote: “Yes. mine. It is like any popular culture/cultural depictions section. I prefer to have them all at the topic, as that is what we are talking about.”

MakeSense64 ignored the objection and removed the content anyway. At that stage I also objected and restored the content, asking for consensus to be reached before cuts are made to content that has been a part of the page for 6 years. That began a series of undos and reverts, and a discussion which pulled in some new editors, partly as a result of Makesense64 placing a request for comment on the Wikipedia Astronomy Project notice-board - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomical_objects#Astrology.3F

Despite this, only one editor supported his point of view and it has always been the case, throughout the discussion, that more editors wanted the astrological content to remain than be removed.

The point of contention originally involved the appropriateness of an external link which led to an article on the astrological significance of the star, and since the suggestion was that there shouldn’t be such external links on the page, I offered to produce some relevant and reliably sourced text which could elaborate on its cultural and traditional astrological significance. My point was this:

As I have said before, the focus of this article is not pure astronomy, but the star popularly known as Algol (from its Arabic name ‘the ghoul’). This article is not limited to covering only modern scientific information on the star: the question of why it has been considered ghoulish is of interest to an enquiring mind and suitable for inclusion on the page. There should be some expansion of the single astrological reference to its meaning that currently exists “Algol is considered the most unfortunate star in the sky”. Why? If an external link is considered inappropriate then I shall aim to provide some explanation of that within the main text.

I worked hard to provide solidly referenced text, free of ‘woo woo’ and of value to researchers, scholars, and historians, as well as readers with a general astrological interest. The emphasis was on the widespread cultural and long-standing astrological tradition attached to the star. The passage demonstrated how the name and astrological associations connect to the noted astronomical features of the star. Following publication, one contributing editor raised an issue about the reliability of one point concerning the historical recognition of its variability; but this was talked through to satisfaction with a slight edit and a reminder that the same historical point had already been given in the astronomical section of the star.

As the page may have changed, please consider this diff between his subsequent removal of the text, and the previous edit which shows the text in place, to see exactly what we are talking about.

Ignoring all the previous discussion, Makesense64 removed everything I had contributed saying “see talk”. His ‘talk’ stated:

We have to adhere to WP:PSCI, which makes it clear that where science and pseudoscience are presented next to each other in an article (which can be for good reason), the pseudoscience part should not be made as big as to look equal in importance. That becomes a case of undue weight WP:UNDUE. … [NB: The added text is nowhere near as big, and does not overwhelm the astronomical content; and it is historical and cultural – not pseudoscientific] …. Just imagine how it would be if astronomers came to add their materials in an astrology article about a planet, that would not benefit any user of WP [I truly cannot imagine that anyone would have a problem with such a thing]. Please consider that it will not be helpful for astrology articles if you go to war with the astronomy community on WP.

This happened yesterday. Then another editor reverted the undo and placed arguments on the talk page saying that the addition was well sourced and of good quality and demonstrated care and research. But today I see that Makesense64 has deleted it again, arguing that the text cannot be published to the page unless it gets consensus first. This is bizarre: he has held an extreme and minority position all along, supported by only one other editor from the astronomy project, who I suspect is overly concerned by Makesense64’s suggestion there: “It is a questionable development when astrologers start taking over astronomy pages with GA status, so more editor comments will be welcome.”

I am going to revert the deletion myself, this one time, and ask him to leave the content in place so it can be evaluated here. If he doesn’t I hope others will act instead because this reference to war, following on from what he claimed to be an edit war the day before (in which he slapped a banning warning on my talk page) makes me loathe to do anymore myself now for fear of adding fuel to an inflammatory situation.

I don’t know whether to comment on the astronomy discussion page myself or whether that would make things worse. I hope the astronomers realise that when Makesense64 joined their project on the day he posted to their talk page to call their attention to this, he was not forwarding a pro-astronomy concern but only continuing his habitual anti-astrology agenda. His contribution history shows how practically all his editorial activity is geared towards condemning astrology comments and astrology-related pages. Criticisms are fair enough – this sharpens content - but references to going to war, attempts to stir astronomers into a state of emotive reaction against the fear that “astrologers start taking over the astronomy pages”, whilst drawing reference to the pseudo-science policy seems completely over the top and surely benefits no one. If Wiki editors apply common sense and adhere to WP policy, why is there need for editors to ‘go to war’? I struggle to know how to deal with what seems to be deliberate engineering of controversy and division. Maybe I need to open a complaint against this editor elsewhere but we also need a review of his argument from those of you with more experience, to establish the principle of whether – as he suggests - there must be extreme restriction placed upon anything that construes an astrological reference. My argument is that we are not dealing with a page in an astronomy manual here, we are talking about a Wikipedia feature article on the fixed star Algol, which can easily accommodate a segmented section that sensibly explores the star’s point of interest from the cultural and traditional astrological angle too.

Thanks for any guidance you can give Zac Δ talk 14:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Zachariel notified me about this post on my Talk page. This looks like strong campaigning to me. Please consider WP:CANVAS . MakeSense64 (talk) 16:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

You have misunderstood WP:CANVAS. It is obvious consensus on the talk page is not working so bringing it here as part of the dispute process is quite reasonable. As to the actual dispute I believe you are wrong in every respect and have in addition acted disruptively against consensus by edit warring. Dmcq (talk) 22:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:CANVAS mentions that asking outside opinion should be done in neutral wording. The above piece looks like a long campaign speech to me.

If a person cannot ask outside opinion on a NPOV noticeboard in neutral wording, then where is his NPOV?

MakeSense64 (talk) 06:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

What's above is not a notification on a user page or suchlike. This page is for discussions of problems and dispute resolution. Dmcq (talk) 21:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Dmcq - thank you for your comments. I have never used this noticeboard before so I'm not sure about procedure or what happens as a result of raising the issue here. The only new feedback on the Algol page is from a member of the Astronomy project who made a reasonable edit that I'm entirely happy with, and then wrote:

"I don't have a problem with having an astrology section in an article about a star, as long as it had some historical significance, is kept in proper contest, reliably sourced, and does not either dominate the content, drift too far off topic, or presume that the reader accepts astrology as fact. I.e. it is in line with WP:PSCI, WP:RS, WP:RNPOV and WP:TOPIC."

This seems sensible to me but Makesense64 still insists that this breaks policy. He gives what I think is an unecessarily derogatory comparison between the content on the page being for some astronomers as unpleasant as when a non-smoker being is forced to endure the smoke of a smoker. He is continuing to pursue his point on the Algol talk page and related project pages. At this point I'm not sure whether it is best to respond to his posts for the sake of transparent consensus, or regard them as best ignored as not representative of policy or an argument that anyone else is choosing to pursue. If anyone can clarify the procedure I should take I'd be very grateful Zac Δ talk 08:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll have a look at the talk page. You've asked for extra input and the consensus is against them. It may be that admin action is needed about them if so I'll request it. Dmcq (talk) 16:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I've had a good look at it all now, alerted by this section. As you'll have seen, I made my own attempt at a compromise, which hasn't generated consensus. I don't want this to go round in circles and turn into a bigger dispute than it needs to be. Perhaps a quick Everyone is acting in good faith and engaging on the talk page, so admin action isn't called for. A Request for Comment is the obvious next step, isn't it?

User:Itsmejudith - I think your attempt at a compromise could work but with a little amendment and discussed agreement first - we mainly need to clarify policy over the statement made on the Stars in astrology page - see my latest comment on the deletion request to understand the problem that I realise will prevent either astronomers or astrologers from buying into that page and developing it unless there is a better policy scope defined first. If that page was used as a central reference point that led to dedicated astrological articles on star meanings and small astrological references on other pages then yes it would be useful and could be purposefully developed. I have a suggestion that should be capable of resolving the Algol problem to everyone's interest and satisfaction and will propose that tomorrow as I want to break away from WP for today. My immediate question is where to place the proposal so it can be discussed, hopefully agreed, and used to define a workable policy for future reference. I don't want to thrash through the argument on the Algol page and have it recreated over and over. So would this be the best place to offer the suggestion, and then bring refrence to this in the places where the discussion is ongoing? I am assuming this is the place where these sorts of policy decisions are examined, am I right ?Zac Δ talk 17:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I think for policy proposals you can go here: WP:PROPOSAL MakeSense64 (talk) 17:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Probably meant WP:VPP. I would suggest floating it on the Algol talk page first and then going to VPP or whichever guideline looks most appropriate if it isn't shot down in flames. Dmcq (talk) 18:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Is "The Rapture" page indicating bias or editing to justify a specific point of view?

I am far from an expert on this topic. My understanding has always been that the "Rapture" was first mentioned by William Eugene Blackstone in the late 19th or early 20th century. The page on the Rapture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapture draws upon numerous Biblical passages that prior to this I have never seen used to justify the belief in it.

Every time I have attempted to edit Wikipedia in the past, my additions have been removed (such as adding famous graduates of Grinnell College [Peter Coyote, for example] or factual information [its ranking in producing PhDs]). I am not knowledgeable enough on the topic or the Rapture or editing to attempt to change it myself, and I feel that is inappropriate without a consensus on whether there are factual errors.

Finding a way to submit this to anyone was nearly impossible. If I'm not able to do that, it should be clear that I am not qualified to edit it myself.

Thank you for any help you are able to provide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Demetererinys (talk • contribs) 21:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the topic to know whether this is biased or not but certainly the section Rapture#Supporting_scriptures_.28KJV.29 is original research, because it is an original analysis of a primary source without supporting reliable secondary sources. Why were your edits reverted? Do you know how to provide diffs to show us exactly what is going on there? Alex Harvey (talk) 04:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I've removed that section per WP:PRIMARY. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Nihal Sri Ameresekere

• Nihal Sri Ameresekere (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can someone have a look at this page, reads like a "Our Team" section from a company website to see if it can be re-written or is it a no hoper. Mtking (talk) 22:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

There are a couple of decent sources, my suggestion would be to take the new reports and start from scratch. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

NPOV question and some problems with English

[This is copied from my email as the editor apparently thinks he's emailing some official group - it deals with edits at Pyramid but Pyramid of Hellinikon has related issues. Dougweller (talk) 07:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)]

Dear Administrators, After our last correspndance below I present a fair case for the Lefkowitz – Liritzis reference: AS IT IS NOW

Mary Lefkowitz has criticised this research. She suggests that some of the research was done not to determine the reliability of the dating method, as was suggested, but to back up an assumption of age and to make certain points about pyramids and Greek civilization. She notes that not only are the results not very precise, but that other structures mentioned in the research are not in fact pyramids, e.g. a tomb alleged to be the tomb of Amphion and Zethus near Thebes, a structure at Stylidha (Thessaly) which is just a long wall, etc. She also notes the possibility that the stones that were dated might have been recycled from earlier constructions. She also notes that earlier research from the 1930s, confirmed in the 1980s by Fracchia was ignored. She argues that they undertook their research using a novel, previously untested methodology in order to confirm a predetermined theory about the age of these structures.[17] In a recent article to ICI journal Geochronometria Ioannis Liritzis [1, page 294] criticises classicist Lefkowitz (2009: 195-202), referring to her inadequacy in physical methodology, one often encountered with academic historians, and specifically in the methodology known as Surface Luminescence Dating.[18] PROPOSED CHANGE

Mary Lefkowitz has criticised this research. She suggests that some of the research was done not to determine the reliability of the dating method , (NEVER THE AUTHORS MENTIONED THIS! THE RELIABILITY WAS ALREADY TESTED IN LAB & KNOWN AGE MONUMENTS PRIOR TO PYRAMIDALS SEE REFS I SUSPECT NOT READ BY LEFKOWITZ:

1. Liritzis (1994) A new dating method by thermoluminescence of carved megalithic stone building. Comptes Rendus (Academie des Sciences), Paris, t. 319, serie II, 603-610.

2. Liritzis.I (1994) Archaeometry: Dating the past. EKISTICS, t.368/364, 361-366.

3. Liritzis I., Galloway R.B. and Theocaris P. (1994) Thermoluminescence dating of ceramics revisited: Optical stimulated luminesccence of quartz single aliquot with green light emitting diodes. J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem. Letters, 188 (3), 189-198.

4. Theocaris P., Liritzis I., Lagios E., and Sampson A. (1997). Geophysical prospection and archaeological test excavation and dating in two Hellenic pyramids. Surveys in Geophysics, 17, 593-618.

5. Theocaris P.S., Liritzis I. and Galloway R.B. (1994). Dating of two Hellenic pyramids by a novel application of thermoluminescence. J. Archaeological Science, 24, 399-405.

6. Liritzis I., (1995) Alternative determination of equivalent dose by green light emitting diodes Optically Stimulated Luminescence using the unstable luminescence. J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem., 190, 1, 13-21.

7. Liritzis I., Guilbert P., Foti F., Schvoerer M., (1996) Solar Bleaching of thermoluminescence of calcites. Nuclear Instr. Meth. B, 117, 260-268.

8. Liritzis I., Guilbert P., Foti F., Schvoerer M. (1997) The Temple of Apollo (Delphi) strengthens new thermoluminescence dating method. Geoarchaeology International, vol. 12, no. 5, 479-496.

9. Liritzis I., Bakopoulos Y. (1997) Functional behaviour of solar bleached thermoluminescence in calcities. Nuclear Instruments and Methods B, 132, 87-92.

10. Liritzis I. (1998) Bronze Age Greek Pyramids and Orion's belt. Griffith Observer, vol.63, n.10, 10-21

11. Liritzis I. and Galloway R.B. (1999), Dating implications from solar bleaching of thermoluminescente of ancient marble. J Radioanal. Nucl. Chem. 241, 2, 361-368.

12. iritzis.I and Vafiadou.A (2005) Dating by luminescence of ancient megalithic masonry. Mediterranean Archaeology & Archaeometry, vol.5, No.1, 25-38.

13. Liritzis. I, Sideris. C, Vafiadou, A and Mitsis.J (2007) Mineralogical petrological and radioactivity aspects of some building material from Egyptian Old Kingdom monuments. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 9, 1-13..

14. Liritzis, I, Kitis.G, Galloway. R.B, Vafiadou, A, Tsirliganis, N, Polymeris., G (2008) Probing luminescence dating of archaeologically significant carved rock types. Mediterranean Archaeology & Archaeometry, 8(1), 61-79.

15. Liritzis, I, Polymeris, G and Zacharias, N (2010) Surface luminescence dating of ‘Dragon Houses’ and Armena Gate at Styra (Euboea, Greece). Mediterranean Archaeology & Archaeometry, Special Issue, (D.Keller, guest editor), Vol.10, No.3, 65-81.]

as was suggested, but to back up an assumption of age and to make certain points about pyramids and Greek civilization. > ASSUMPTIONS THAT THE AUTHORS NEVER QUOTE! SHE MISALLEDGES READERS ATTRIBUTING TO AUTHORS WRONG ISSUES eg THE BLACK ATHENA AFFAIR, THE AFROCENTRISM etc THAT SHE WROTE AGAINST BERNAL. BUT SHE ACCUSES THE RESEARCHERS THAT DATED THE STRUCTURES WITHOUT PROOF . WHAT SHE WRITES SHOULD INDICATE OTHERS NOT THE LIRITZIS TEAM. VERY MISLEASDING. She notes that not only are the results not very precise, but that other structures mentioned in the research are not in fact pyramids, e.g. a tomb alleged to be the tomb of Amphion and Zethus near Thebes, a structure at Stylidha (Thessaly) which is just a long wall, etc. > THE AGE ERRORS ARE CLEARLY QUOTED IN PUBLISHED WORKS BY LIRITZIS TEAM. AND THEY TAKE INTO ACCOUNT AND DISCUSS ERRORS (ALSO MUCH CITED BY OTHER SPECIALISTS COLLEAGUES). NOTHING MORE TO MAKE. THE AUTHORS DO NOT CALL PYRAMID THAT AT THEBES BUT SIMPLY QUOTE THE EXCAVATOR’S PAPER. NEITHER REFER TO STYLIDHA (THESSALY)…..! WHERE HAS SHE FOUND THESE?. She also notes the possibility that the stones that were dated might have been recycled from earlier constructions. > THIS IS WELL KNOWN EFFECT AND MENTIONED BY AUTHORS! IT DOES NOT ADD ANYTHING. NEITHER ALTERS RESULTS!

She also notes that earlier research from the 1930s, confirmed in the 1980s by Fracchia was ignored. WHERE IS THE IMPORTANCE TO WIKI READERS? A MISSED REFERENCE? She argues that they undertook their research using a novel, previously untested methodology in order to confirm a predetermined theory about the age of these structures.[17] > THE METHOD WAS TESTED AND ESTABLISHED (SEE ABOVE REFERENCES). PREDETERMINED IS A WRONG ATTRIBUTION PURELY HYPOTHETICAL AND ANTI-SCIENTIFIC. IT SHOULD BE CROSSED OUT. Under these misjudges one should expect a defence reply on one-to-one points raised by Lefkowitz by the Liritzis team. That would be fair. Isn’t it? Wikipedia does not get involved in such detail but writes the facts providing correct references with citation.

Thus, I suggest the following: [Mary Lefkowitz has criticised this research based on assumptions regarding the methodology and linking archaeology with politics [17]. In a recent article to ICI journal Geochronometria Ioannis Liritzis [1, page 294] criticises classicist Lefkowitz (2009: 195-202), referring to her inadequacy in physical methodology, one often encountered with academic historians, and specifically in the methodology known as Surface Luminescence Dating.[18]

____

My comments - one problem is that the text in the article by Liritzis is brief and difficult to understand:

"The first result of surface TL dating of the marble Temple of Apollo Delphi of c.550 BC was dated to 470±200 BC (Liritzis et al., 1997b) and two limestone pyramidal buildings at Hellenikon and Ligourio (in Ar-golid, Greece), thought to be Hellenistic times but TL dated to 2500-2000 BC on overlapping errors, were reported (Theocaris et al., 1997). In a recent volume on archaeology and politics, classicist Lefkowitz (2006: 195-202) has discussed latter dates on hypothetical preten-tiousness. The loquacity on the pseudo-archaeology is-sues in general, is a self obvious and scientifically sound attainable consideration. However, her inadequacy in physical methodology, often encountered with academic historians, and/or missing detailed critical reports and finds on the published dates, as well as, misinterpretation of the novel effort, today widely accepted as surface luminescence dating, unjustifiably undermines unsuccess-fully the new ages. Though at the end she remains skepti-cal about these older than thought ages."

The book in question is in fact not about archaeology and politics, it is about fringe archaeology, although her article is about politics - Mary Lefkowitz (2006). "Archaeology and the politics of origins". In Garrett G. Fagan. Archaeological Fantasies: How Pseudoarchaeology Misrepresents the Past and Misleads the Public and she devotes about 8 pages to this versus the four sentences above. The Hellinikon article probably needs more from her analysis in fact (note that I'm the one that added her to both articles). I'd very much appreciate other comments on this and will direct the editor to this section. Thanks. - I'll add more here later. I have both sources if there are any questions about them. Dougweller (talk) 07:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Funeral articles, "Reaction" sections

WP is not a memorial site. That applies to regular folk, as described at WP:NOTMEMORIAL. But it also applies to the famous and powerful. WP:NPOV is a core policy, and it requires including all significant points of view. There are a number of "funeral" articles which look fine to me:

• Death and state funeral of Ronald Reagan
• Michael Jackson memorial service
• Funeral of Diana, Princess of Wales
• State funeral of John F. Kennedy

However there is also a set which include "Reaction" sections:

• Death and funeral of Corazon Aquino#Reaction
• Death and funeral of Otto von Habsburg#Reaction

These sections comprise excerpts from condolences and eulogistic comments sent by world dignitaries. I think they're a bad idea. One cannot expect honest assessments of a person in remarks of this kind, so these sections are really just collections of nice quotations about the deceased. We wouldn't allow material like this in a biography. Perhaps they should be moved to Wikiquote and summarized collectively, something like "The subject was praised in comments sent by leaders from around the world, including..." Maybe quote one or two, briefly. Thoughts?   Will Beback  talk  10:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The Habsburg one seems to meet notability standards on its own - the Aquino one is more problematic. In neither case, however, does NPOV seem to be an issue, however. Try AfD on the Aquino one and see how it fares, I suppose. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting deleting the articles, only minimizing the "Reaction" sections because they violation NPOV, hence this noticeboard. The sections are basically eulogies for the subjects, and that doesn't seem NPOV. I don't object to articles about the events surrounding the funerals, just these sections.   Will Beback  talk  12:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. The sections are ver the top and unencyclopedic. When a head of state or former head of state dies, other heads of state send messages. The most that is needed is a brief "Among those sending condolences were...". Very few funerals need a separate article, only if there is something remarkable about the death or funeral that leads to substantial coverage. Diana, of course, Michael Jackson, of course. The US presidents. Elvis? Churchill? Those sorts of cases, not others. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

One sided opinion of Admin and user Sitush and Matthews on the page Kurmi: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurmi

Admins are not ready to accept any POV and reliable sources other than what is state by the above two users.

One of the admins already accepted that he doesn't know anything about the claim that being OBC means Kurmis are Shurda or not. But still he believes that any edit done by the above users is valid. While so many reliable sources have been cited to show that Kurmis are not Shudra. Still none of the admin believe these sources. Every admin especially

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Qwyrxian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Boing!_said_Zebedee and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SpacemanSpiff

seem to concur with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sitush and User:MatthewVanitas

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sitush#Please_dont_take_ownership_of_articles

   Huh, and I treated you so nicely on Talk:Kurmi. But anyone accusing Sitush of ownership is clearly on the wrong end of the NPOV forum. Suggesting archiving of a 45 section long talk page isn't ownership. In fact, suggesting it not be archived is borderline disruptive--navigating that page is painful at best, and impossible at worst. Archiving doesn't erase anything, it just moves old discussions out of the way so that we can stay current on new discussions. Finally...have you ever edited under an account name before? This behavior of giving unwarranted warnings and reverting against consensus sure seems familiar to me...Qwyrxian (talk) 06:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Please stop this unsubstantiated claim. By nicely you meant you accepted your wrong POV. Where have I reverted? I am putting some material for an organization. If that's what you mean. We must keep wiki as neutral as possible. Why do you think that I committed a grave insult by placing a warning here? Is this WP:NPOV

This admin is openly haressing this user.

Please conduct an investigation on the conduct of the admins mentioned above, along with the users mentioned above.