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

Social democratic and socialist groups

Prematurely archived: Leftist politics in the U.S.

American Left (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

LID and SDS split in 1965 when SDS voted to allow communists (Marxist Leninists organized conspiratorially) to vote; afterwords, SDS was taken over and destroyed by Marxist Leninists such as The Weatherman and the Progressive Labor Party.

[Historical note: the Weather Underground, which later became a terrorist organization, emerged within the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) and fought for control with the Progressive Labor Party (founded 1876), which was never Leninist.]

Is the phrasing of this text neutral? Another editor has inserted similar text, which in my opinion, compromises neutrality and re-orients the article to events in the 1960s. I would be appreciative if other editors could look at recent changes. TFD (talk) 18:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

[Historical note: Ignore the previous paragraph's falsehood about Progressive Labor Party (United States).]

The (Maoist) Progressive Labor Movement split off (after 1948) from the Communist Party USA: The CPUSA and Maoist sects are Leninist, obviously. The Progressive Labor Movement renamed itself the Progressive Labor Party sometime in the mid 1960s.

Gitlin describes Progressive Labor as Marxist Leninist on page 190. Obviously, T4D doesn't know the first thing about SDS, and apparently cannot be bothered to read Gitlin or the WP article on Progressive Labor.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Is the phrasing of this text neutral? Another editor has inserted similar text, which in my opinion, compromises neutrality and re-orients the article to events in the 1960s. I would be appreciative if other editors could look at recent changes. TFD (talk) 18:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

What is the actual language in the reliable sources? Is "taken over and destroyed" the precise language in the sources used? Is there a precise cite for the statement that some group "was never Leninist"? Collect (talk) 21:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

This particular section seems dubious. "Organised conspiratorially", linking to "democratic centralism" is an interpretation. Of course Marxist-Leninists are organised by democratic centralism - that is what should be said. I see some scholarly histories of the Left cited. Is there no good history of SDS? Itsmejudith (talk) 21:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Sources provided:

• Todd Gitlin. The Sixties: Years of Hope, Days of Rage (1987) ISBN 0-553-37212-2
• Miller, James. Democracy is in the Streets: From Port Huron to the Siege of Chicago. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1994 ISBN 978-0674197251.
• Todd Gitlin later acknowledged that LID Director Tom Kahn, "to his eternal credit", was correct in opposing that deletion, which helped Marxist Leninists to take over SDS: Todd Gitlin, p. 88, in discussion with Irving Howe: Politics and the Intellectual: Conversations with Irving Howe. John Rodden, Ethan Goffman, eds. Purdue University Press 06/30/2010 series: Shofar Supplements in Jewish Studies ISBN 13:9781557535511

No page nos. are provided and therefore I do not know what the original text is. I do not have a source that the SLP was not Marxist Leninist, but have not seen sources that they were. Supposedly had then been Leninists they would have joined the CPUSA which Lenin directed his followers to join. TFD (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

TFD mis-states my scholarship. I cited a page reference to Todd Gitlin's The Sixties, linked to Amazon where you can confirm it.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

On the talk page you provide a reference to p. 387 of Gitlin's book[1] and a link to his book on Amazon.[2] But Amazon does not show p. 387 of the book. However, the entire book can be viewed at the Internet Archive. (Click at "PDF" under "View this book").[3] While page 387 mentions violence by the Weather Underground, it says nothing about their relationship with SDS. The PLP is not even mentioned in the book. TFD (talk) 02:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Gitlin discusses "Progressive Labor" on 16 pages, as shown on Amazon. In particular, according to Amazon, he calls PL a Marxist Leninist group on page 190. He discusses PL and SDS on page 240. Gitlin discusses both Progressive Labor and the Weatherman Underground and the 1969 SDS convention on page 382.

You wasted this noticeboard's time, by running here without discussing anything on the page. You further waste our time by failing to read.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I found the full text of Gitlin's book online. It is detailed and fascinating but above all it is an intensely personal account. I don't find this a waste of the noticeboard's time. How to do justice to Gitlin's account within a short and dispassionate Wikipedia article is something that requires careful consideration. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

It is a waste of time for T4D to have rushed to this noticeboard without indicating what was his POV/non-neutral concern at the article's talk page, especially after I asked him. (It is a waste of time, assuming that T4D or you know anything about SDS, the way it would waste the mathematics project's time to complain that I had written 1968+2=1970.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

TFD did take the question up on the talk page before coming here. If you will be patient, you should get some input here to help the page. I have some knowledge of the history of Leftist groups in Europe, less in relation to the USA, but enough background to look texts up and understand them. With luck you will get some further views from noticeboard regulars. The gloss "organized conspiratorially" for a link to democratic centralism contains an interpretation not conducive to NPOV. A better wording would be "following the democratic centralist form of organization". But you need at least one good source for any epithet attached to any group. "Marxist-Leninist", for example, is a minefield in that period. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

No, he did not.

He complained about POV/Nonneutrality and lack of references. I provided references and asked him what the problem was. Then he came here.

"Conspiratorially" is a standard NPOV explanation for the totalitarian euphemism "democratic centralism". Sidney Hook was correct when he described the Communist Party USA as a conspiracy in his book, "Freedom yes, conspiracy no" (or similar title). Hook's book had some controversy, but nobody serious objected to his characterization of leadership cadre of the CPUSA as a conspiracy.

Do you have similar problems with discussing right totalitarians as when discussing left totalitarians? ["Nazis committed genocide" "No, that's point of view. The Nazis said they were providing living space for their race, by reducing subhuman populations.... Your saying that Jews and Slavs and Gypsies are humans is POV."!]  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

OK it might be good here to get a little less confrontational with people who are trying to help. Regarding the "conspiratorial" issue if it is a "standard NPOV explanation for ... democratic centralism" then why don't I see it in the entry on that topic? It would seem from first glance to be one way to describe democratic centralism and perhaps not the most common, and it does sound less than NPOV. Either way though we don't need to describe democratic centralism at all in this other article, we just need to name it and link to it's entry. IMO the conspiratorial part should go.Griswaldo (talk) 11:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

To answer your question, the obvious truth is that that that article, like many on similar topics, is written by communists or anti-anticommunists.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry for being irritated, but T4D failed to discuss the issues at the page. I have improved the passage, and I'm not going to waste further time, when none of you have followed WP procedure and tried discussing things at the article talk page. This discussion is closed.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Procedural note: Kiefer, you have a valid point in saying that there should have been discussion on the article talk page before bringing it here... but we don't close discussions on this page because one editor says so. Now that it is being discussed here, there is no harm in letting it continue here until resolved (is it?). Blueboar (talk) 13:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

As noted before, I have updated the draft on the talk page, which I had understood was Wikipedia's preferred way to improve content. I shan't participate further in a pointless discussion that has no relation to improving the article or the proposed section in question. You are all welcome to help improve the draft at the talk page of the article.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

(out) Kiefer.Wolfowitz is using the 1993 version of the book while the on-line version (1987) uses different pagination. Nonetheless I cannot find the specific claims in the on-line version. Even if they were there, the phrasing used violates neutrality.

As anyone can see, there was extensive discussion on the talk page, and it was apparent that it was unproductive. K.F wants to focus the article on the 1960s and present the article from the point of view of the Social Democrats USA, a political group that had several hundred members.

TFD (talk) 14:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

TFD now is violating AGF and making a personal attack based on unsubstantiated speculations about my politics. As I have stated before, the history of my editing on this set of articles is easy to check, and certainly does not come because of adherence to SDUSA, but upon following a request of Carrite, who has stated his past membership in 3 organizations from the old SP. Similarly, I provided a discussion of Solidarity, not because I am a reader of "Against the Current" or a believer that militancy can solve all problems but because of a concern with presenting the most interesting political groups with integrity. I would urge TFD to emulate the intelligence and honesty that Carrite displays.

I have no idea what TFD is babbling about, with his claim that any phrasing violates neutrality. It is time for TFD to specify NPOV violations or be silent.

Why does he object to a paragraph on the leading socialists' roles the Civil Rights movement and the War on Poverty or SDS? Michael Harrington and Gitlin and Sale seem never to have been members of SDUSA, btw. (A basic knowledge of history would prevent such charges.)

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC).

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Calling one of the three history sections, "Max Shachtman, Civil Rights and the War on Poverty"[4] provides undue emphasis to certain groups, individuals, activities, etc. Your claim that they had more influence then (when they had a membership of approx. 1600) than in 1912, then they owned numerous newspapers, had elected officials and obtained 6% of the vote in a presidential election, is not supported. It also wrongly implies that the socialists were the driving force behind these movements. TFD (talk) 18:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

If so, your article originated the over-emphasis on a mythic figure called "Shachtman": I quote what you consider neutral language, which is a bastardized version of the pseudoscholarly history inflicted on the public by the PA chair of SPUSA.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

1. In 1972, the Socialist Party was renamed Social Democrats, USA (SDUSA) and now had only 1,600 members [Reverses chronology of Isserman, failing to note that the 1600 comes from the SP (while Harrington's UAW friend counted 1000, according to Isserman)]. Dissidents left to form the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (DSOC) in 1973, led by Michael Harrington. The same year another faction of the SPA, including David McReynolds, formed the Socialist Party, USA which continues to run presidential candidates.

1. In the 1960s there was a renewed interest in anarchism, and some anarchist and other left-wing groups developed out of the New Left. Anarchists began using direct action, organizing through affinity groups during anti-nuclear campaigns in the 1970s. In the 1990s, anarchists attempted to organize across North America around Love and Rage, which drew several hundred activists. One successful anarchist movement was Food not Bombs, that distributed free vegetarian meals. Anarchists received significant media coverage for their disruption of the 1999 WTO conference, called the Battle in Seattle, where the Direct Action Network was organized. Most organizations were short-lived and anarchism went into decline following a reaction by the authorities that was increased after the 911 attacks in 2001. However by 1997 anarchist organizations had again begun to proliferate.

   The article discusses anarchism but not civil rights, labor, or the war on poverty.

You are getting your sequences mixed. Harrington supported negotiations with the North Vietnamese, while the Shachtmanites wanted to pursue victory. That was a major cause of his break with that faction, and he later came to support unilateral withdrawal. I have provided two high quality reliable sources to back that up. While Shachtman died in 1972, the faction he led may still be called "Shachtmanites". Providing 1/3 of the history section to a group that had at most 1,600 members, is undue. And labor is mentioned in the article. And as sources state, the Old Left largely irrelevant to the civil rights movement in the 1960s and the "War on Poverty" was led by the Johnson administration. And yes, anarchism is mentioned because there are more anarchists today than members of the SDP. TFD (talk) 03:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

1. The main social democratic and socialist groups that emerged from the Socialist Party-Social Democratic Federation (SP-SDF) after 1972.

   This is the long name, which was never used popularly. All the standard sources refer to it as simply the SP.

Social Democrats USA (SDUSA)

Main article: Social Democrats USA

1. The Shachtmanites, called the Realignment Caucus, in the SP-SDF argued that since organized labor supported the Democratic Party, they should join the Democratic Party and transform it into a left-wing party, with the Republicans becoming a right-wing party. Further, they argued that they should support the War in Vietnam to stop Communist expansion. In 1972, they supported Senator Henry Jackson for the Democratic presidential nomination, and re-named the party Social Democrats USA (SDUSA), dropping the term "socialist". While they retained membership in the Socialist International, they supported Jimmy Carter in the 1976 election and had moved sufficiently right by 1980, that many of their members served in the Reagan administration.
2. Compare this with what I have written, which has been edited in other articles by Carrite. They did not support the Vietnam War, as the NYT reports.

   Busky's book is a pseudoscholarly book, not an academic book: it is not terrible, but it is dull and poorly referenced. Busky was a national officer in SPUSA, editing Hammer and Tong and the time of his death. Busky's book declares his COI, his having been a state chair of the SPUSA in PA since 1978.

Socialist Party USA (SPUSA)

Main article: Socialist Party USA

1. Members of the Debs Caucus opposed supporting the Democrats and began working outside the Socialist Party with antiwar groups such as the Students for a Democratic Society. Many locals of the SD-SDF voted to disaffiliate. They re-organized as the Socialist Party USA (SPUSA) and kept control of the old Debs Caucus paper, the Socialist Tribune, later re-named The Socialist. The SPUSA continued to run local and national candidates, although by 2000 they had only about 1,000 members. In 1972 they supported the presidential campaign of Benjamin Spock of the People's Party. Their 2000 candidate for president was David McReynolds.

Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)

Main article: Democratic Socialists of America

Although Michael Harrington, who came to lead the Coalition Caucus, agreed to work within the Democratic Party, he broke with the Shachtmanites over support of the War in Vietnam, urging peace negotiations, although not an immediate withdrawal. He led his caucus out of the SD-SDF to form the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (DSOC), which became a member of the Socialist International. Although this group never ran candidates for public office, it became the largest of the three groups emerging from the SD-SDF, attaining a peak membership of as many as 10,000. In 1982, it joined with the New American Movement (NAM), an antiwar group that emerged from the New Left of the 1960s, to form the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA).

Marxist Leninism and SDS

I added references to James Miller's Democracy is in the streets, a history of SDS. Please note that Miller documents the obvious role in Marxist Leninists sects, like the Progressive Labor Party, in destroying SDS, contrary to the confident ignorance stated above.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Analysis

Like many who have been active turning WP articles into propaganda for the SPUSA, TD4 is basing his articles on SPUSA literature. I prefer to use reliable sources, preferably written by honest people of intelligence and academic competence, like Drucker. One of the things that makes Solidarity and Against the Current interesting is that their writers are smart, honest, and hard working---and many of them are courageous in real life.

It is not a minor error to state that Harrington did not call for an immediate pull-out, it is willfull ignorance of the basic facts of the history, one acknowledged from the NYT to Harrington to Drucker. It is not hard to check the sources I gave, but TD4 so far has lacked the curiosity or courage to read others' ideas, swimming cozily "inside the whale".  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Reliance is made on Democratic socialism: a global survey (Praeger Publishers, 2000) by Donald F. Busky, a professor of political science, for history in the late 20th century. Your comment "Busky's book is a pseudoscholarly book, not an academic book" is wrong. If you think the book is inaccurate, then you need to find sources that explain events differently. Notice that the authors used as sources for the article represent a broad range of views, and very few are socialists of any kind. TFD (talk) 15:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Your paragraphs, quoted above, are based on Busky, apparently. Do you acknowledge that Busky was a SPUSA official and activist, and that you knew that when you used his book?

Busky's publisher states his rank as " Adjunct Professor of History and Political Science at Camden County College". I am sorry but being an adjunct professor at a community college is such a low academic rank that it raises more questions about his research competence than it credits him. In fact, his book is a joke, that gets basic facts wrong, and not randomly but always to indulge his prejudices as the Napolean of PA socialist puritanism. But I have pointed out his errors before, and you have failed to learn or reply to specific criticisms. Busky/you state that Harrington supported the war and the NYT states Harrington called for an immediate withdrawal. Only one of these can be correct, and you are wrong. It is time for you to grow up and admit your errors.

About NPOV. You seem to think that SPUSA literature counts as a point of view and must be reported on WP. On the contrary, WP has no policy requiring that its article on Jesus Christ report the beliefs of any of the Three Christs of Ypsilanti.

The more important question is why you have allowed yourself to use such a bad source and continue to defend it even when persons have admitted its errors elsewhere on WP. Do you see that my edits to SPUSA and SPA and DSOC and SDUSA have not been reverted? Doesn't that tell you that I may know what I am talking about?

You should be concerned that you may have naively trusted SPUSA's organizational literature and activists, almost as infallible.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

TD4 has failed to retract and apologize for his violations of AGF and NPA, particularly his charging that I wanted to write history from the standpoint of SDUSA.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The discussion is about whether or not your edits are neutral. You re-wrote the history section so that half of it was devoted to the SDUSA, and wrote "[their leader] was an extraordinary public speaker and formidable in debate, and his intelligent analysis attracted young socialists... [his] youthful followers were able to bring new vigor into the Party...."[5] You then refer (above) to other U.S, leftists as " (Marxist Leninists organized conspiratorially)" and "left totalitarians", then bring up Nazi Germany. At WQA and here you have accused myself and others of a pro-SPUSA bias. TFD (talk) 17:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I have noted that another editor had plagiarized the SPUSA's "history" in another article. Several editors have noted their COI as officers (some national) of SPUSA and as long-term activists, one long-toothed (!) and esteemed editor noting participation in the Debs caucus at 1972, and I have noted concern that such sophisticated editors had failed to notice the plagiarism of an SPUSA brochure. In any event, these editors have not reverted my edits to this cluster of articles (mentioning SPUSA), nor have they asked for revision on the article talk pages (which would be well within their rights under WP's COI policy). Your article, perhaps because it had naively trusted Busky, had similar biases. You have not answered the question: Did you read Busky's statement that he was an officer of SPUSA or not?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your criticisms of the draft. I have edited the draft, and reduced the discussion of Shachtman's role in the Socialist Party. I had tried to explain why the SP had increased its contributions to American politics because of Shachtman, whose role you first highlighted. Would you please look at the latest version of the article, and see whether you still believe that it gives more than 50% of the history to SDUSA? I don't understand this charge. I also don't understand its relevance, even if it were true: the majority of the SP (SDUSA) had 2/3 of the votes at the 1972 convention, and Harrington had the other 1/3. It would be useful to expand the DSOC material to mention Democratic Agenda and the Democratic Party midterm convention of 1978, which criticized Carter's policies, and also to mention DSOC's role in organizing against draft registration. Please expand the material on DSOC using reliable sources.

What is the problem with referring to the Progressive Labor Party as Marxist Leninist? (The Weatherman/national office faction of SDS adopted Marxist Leninist posturing and tactics also, when SDS became a mad-house, at least nationally and at many leading chapters: I do not cite Sale's discussion of "insanity" etc.)

For clarity: On this page, I referred to "left totalitarians", but not on the article page. I asked you why you had a problem describing left totalitarians, and asked whether you had a similar problem with right totalitarians.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: Busky. The main criteria for rs is the publisher, which in this case is an academic publishing company that conducts fact-checking. Your reference to the NYT is an example - articles are considered rs because they are in the NYT, we may not even know who the author is. BTW you can read about the convention in The other American by Maurice Isserman, p. 290,[6] which shows that Harrington supported the compromise resolution rather than the one for immediate withdrawal. TFD (talk) 18:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

You first mentioned Busky's being a professor of political science, to indicate why his book is not a joke. If you want to backpedal, you could at least acknowledge that you had referred to his qualifications before. It is hard to continue ascribing good faith to you, when you fail to acknowledge any errors or bad arguments, and just keep changing the arguments as your previous arguments are found to be faulty.

Regarding your latest defense of Busky: Busky's publisher is one of the weaker academic presses, if it is even considered an academic press, of course. It is not the U of Chicago or Cambridge or Oxford or Harvard, which are leading publishers of history. Regardless, his book is a joke: We can discuss this with the projects on American history or journals, which have expertise in such matters, if you want to lose again. An honest academic can read one page of Busky and see that it's unprofessional and unreliable---although it is infinitely better than the SPUSA's literature, which has been plagiarized in other WP articles.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Harrington supported other compromises at earlier conventions. He led call for an immediate withdrawal, according to the NYT in December 1972, the only one discussed in the article,because it was the name change convention after which Harrington resigned and founded DSOC and after which the small SPUSA was formed.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The reliability of Busky's book is a question better addressed on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard than here. It seems to be a normal scholarly book, and if it has a bias towards one political party then that could be addressed by adding material from other sources with a different bias. Anyway, does someone want to post on RSN for further views? Itsmejudith (talk) 18:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Judith, posting on another noticeboard would be an even greater waste of time because the book is a joke. Have you bothered reading any pages? You are quite wrong about its viewpoint balancing others. WP requires reliable high quality sources, not nonsense by political activists. Please read what T4D wrote above and compare it with the coverage in the present article to see how biased he has been (and apparently still is).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Now posted there. TFD (talk) 05:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

1960s and SDS: Present version of the article

SDS

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC) The article has the following paragraph on SDS:

Harrington, Kahn, and Horowitz were officers and staff-persons of the League for Industrial Democracy (LID), which helped to start the New Left Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). The three LID officers clashed with the less experienced activists of SDS, like Tom Hayden, when the latter's Port Huron Statement criticized socialist and liberal opposition to communism and criticized the labor movement while promoting students as agents of social change. LID and SDS split in 1965, when SDS voted to remove from its constitution the "exclusion clause" that prohibited membership by communists: The SDS exclusion clause had barred "advocates of or apologists for" "totalitarianism". The clause's removal effectively invited "disciplined cadre" to attempt to "take over or paralyze" SDS, as had occurred to mass organizations in the thirties. Afterwords, Marxism Leninism, particularly the Progressive Labor Party, helped to write "the death sentence" for SDS, which nonetheless had over 100 thousand members at its peak.

DSOC/DSA

18:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC): This is the present state of the description on American Left, which uses reliable sources (rather than Busky, whose reliability has been contested here):

Quoting article

Michael Harrington resigned from Social Democrats, USA early in 1973. He rejected the SDUSA (majority Socialist Party) position on the Vietnam War, which demanded an end to bombings and a negotiated peace settlement. Harrington called rather for an immediate cease fire and immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces from Vietnam. Even before the December 1972 convention, Michael Harrington had resigned as an Honorary Chairperson of the Socialist Party. In the early spring of 1973, he resigned his membership in SDUSA. That same year, Harrington and his supporters formed the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (DSOC). At its start, DSOC had 840 members, of which 2 percent served on its national board; approximately 200 had been members of Social Democrats, USA or its predecessors whose membership was then 1,800, according to a 1973 profile of Harrington.

DSOC became a member of the Socialist International. DSOC supported progressive Democrats, including DSOC member Congressman Ron Dellums, and worked to help network activists in the Democratic Party and in labor unions. It had 10,000 members at its peak of membership, making it the largest democratic-socialist or social-democratic organization in the United States.

In 1982 DSOC established the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) upon merging with the New American Movement, an organization of democratic socialists mostly from the New Left. Its high-profile members included Congressman Major Owens and William Winpisinger, President of the International Association of Machinists.

Closing this discussion?

I trust that this notice can now be closed. (I repeat that the original notice was premature, and would urge TfD to allow talk-pages a reasonable time before coming here again.) 16:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

TheFourDeuces wrote, "The NPOV issues have been resolved.

Peacefully,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 02:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

War of the Pacific

• Article: War of the Pacific
• Evidence of Talk Page Discussion: [7]
• Evidence of notifying other party of this discussion: [8]
• Problem: Disagreement on how the Peru-Bolivia Mutual Defense Treaty should be written in the article's introductory summary. In the following block quote (taken directly from the first paragraph in the article), the bold part is the text in question.

The War of the Pacific (Spanish: Guerra del Pacífico) took place in western South America from 1879 through 1883. The forces of Chile fought a defensive alliance of Bolivia and Peru. The conflict is also known as the "Saltpeter War", as disputes over mineral-rich territory were the war's prime cause. The conflict originated in a dispute between Chile and Bolivia over a 10 cent tax on the Antofagasta Nitrate & Railway Company, but Bolivia and Chile's controversy over ownership of Atacama preceded and laid foundations for the conflict. Peru entered the affair in 1879, initially attempting to mediate the dispute, but when Chile invaded the Bolivian port city of Antofagasta on February 14, 1879, Bolivia activated its mutual defense treaty with Peru.

War of the Pacific; Discussion:

• My position is that the text in question is correct and should not be removed.
• The user seeking to remove it (User:Keysanger), calls it an "extreme nationalistic Peru-Bolivia POV". However, the text in question is neither "extreme" or "nationalistic".
• User:Keysanger thinks that "defensive alliance" is a term that shows a Peruvian-Bolivian point of view, hence why he calls it "nationalistic".
• History: The Peru-Bolivia alliance was created (also titled) as a mutual defense pact, which would only be activated if either Peru or Bolivia were invaded by a foreign country. Bolivia called for its activation when Chile invaded Antofagasta in February 14, 1879. Peru activated the alliance the day after Chile declared war on both Bolivia and Peru.
• The historical record demonstrates that the Peru-Bolivia pact was a defensive alliance. Regardless of any POV, the plain historical facts speak for themselves.
• Even User:Keysanger admits to this by writing: "I think that every one can read there that the alliance was actually defensive". ([9])
• Therefore, given the evidence and the other user's comment on the matter, I would like for the reviewer of this NPOV case to, basically, agree with me and put a quick end to this really silly matter.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure so please interpret this as me trying to understand the issue. I gather that the other editor's concern is that the wording gives a simplistic impression at the article's outset that Chile was the aggressor and Peru-Bolivia were innocent parties who were attacked. Reading the article, it is more complicated. Is it really important to say this was a defensive alliance in the opening? Alex Harvey (talk) 12:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. I'll respond in bullets since it's easier for me to present the points, and probably also easier for you to read them (if you don't like it, please tell me):

• It seems that the other editor believes that only Peru/Bolivia saw their alliance as defensive. Since Chile viewed the alliance as offensive, he believes that anything disagreeing with it must be "extreme Peru/Bolivia nationalism".
• My goal is to provide (following the summary method established in Wikipedia's Manual of Style) a straight-forward summary of the events, avoiding any long-winded argument on the subject. Regardless of what Peru, Bolivia, or Chile think/thought about the alliance, the historical record clearly has the Peru-Bolivia alliance as a defensive alliance. Not only was the alliance titled, "Mutual Defense Pact", but it also only came into effect after Chile declared war on both Bolivia and Peru.
• Assumptions: I don't like assumptions, and I believe these should not be in the introductory summary. The assumptions are discussed, in detail, in the "Crisis" and "Background" sections of the article. Chile's POV assumes that since they were never mentioned in the secret treaty, and since they were never invited to join the mutual defense pact, that it must have been aimed at them. However, once again based on the historical record at that time: Peru was having border conflicts with Ecuador, and both Bolivia/Peru were having issues with Brazilian colonists in the Amazon region (particularly the area known as "Acre", which both Peru/Bolivia claimed).

I'm not trying to make any of the sides look or sound like victims (I'm pretty sure both sides of the conflict had their interests at stake in some form or another). All I am trying to do is present the summary based on the historical record, not on POV assumptions. Based on the historical record, the Peru-Bolivia alliance was, especifically, a defensive alliance. It is necessary to be exact in order to avoid vague statements which will end up confusing the reader. --MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Well I think it is obvious that you are not promoting any kind of 'extreme nationalism'. But to be honest I actually find the sentence The forces of Chile fought a defensive alliance of Bolivia and Peru a bit awkward in any case. Isn't it simpler and just as accurate to say something like Chile fought against Bolivia and Peru or Chile went to war with Bolivia and Peru? It seems if Chileans are going to be offended with the present wording, it's a neat way to just steer clear of the issue and still inform the reader just as well. Or maybe I am missing something? Alex Harvey (talk) 15:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not an expert on international law, but my understanding is that there does exist a difference between an offensive alliance (in which two or more countries unite to attack a common enemy), and a defensive alliance (in which two countries unite to defend their territory; i.e., mutual defense pacts). My only objective is to avoid vagueness by focusing on the historical record. I feel that if we give way to vagueness for the sake of not hurting anyone's feelings, then information in Wikipedia is going to lack veracity. For example, it would be like re-wording The Holocaust or Nanking Massacre article so that it doesn't offend Nazi supporters or the Japanese. Of course, I do not compare both of these issues as on the "same level" or kind as this case with the War of the Pacific; it's just an example. Please do tell me if you feel I'm just being stubborn, or if I may actually have some sort of point? Thank you.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I am sure there is a difference between a defense pact and an aggressive alliance, just as there is a difference between a democracy and a dictatorship. North Korea is in reality one of the worst examples of a totalitarian dictatorship and yet the country's formal title is the 'Democratic People's Republic of Korea'. So it is possible - and I am not saying this is my view but just that it is hypothetically possible - that although Peru/Bolivia described their alliance as a 'defense pact' on paper, it was still in reality something other than a purely defensive alliance. Your sentence could be seen as being contrived to emphasise the words 'defensive alliance' and to have Wikipedia's voice state at the outset that this is a fact. I definitely would change the wording somehow, although I stop short of recommending that you remove 'defensive alliance' until I know more about the subject. Do you have reliable sources that we can look at to see how professional historians describe the conflict? Also I note that the other editor asserts that some professional historians disagree that it was a purely 'defensive alliance'. I guess he is referring to Chilean historians and that you would say these are revisionist histories? Alex Harvey (talk) 06:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Alexh, yes, he has Talk:War of the Pacific/Archive 7#Mediation of defensive/offensive issue. here a list of sources that considered the pact sometimes as offensive or some times as defensive. But he takes only the one side. --Keysanger (what?) 11:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Keysanger, there are over 40,000 words on that page. Could you help me out by directing me to the exact location of the refs? Alex Harvey (talk) 11:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Alex, thanks for your time. Of course I want to help in this question. I apologize in advance for my poor English, but, I think, it is enough for such a simple question.

At that time I added 9 sources about the issue defensive-ofensive. (the references are at the bottom of this page).

Extended content

* There are 1 italian, 3 US-american and 5 Chilean reliable sources that confirm that the treaty can be and was interpreted as defensive and/or as offensive or as a menace for Chile: 1) Donald E. Worcester and Wendell G. Schaeffer, "The Growth and Culture of Latin America", New York, Oxford University Press, 1956, 963 pages. Page 706, Relevant Text the treaty is called (only) defensive-offensive, the authors don't go into details. 2) Alfred Barnaby Thomas, Profesor of History, University of Alabama,"Latin America, A History", The Macmillian Company, New York, 1956, 800 pages. Page 450, Relevant Text the treaty is called (only) defensive-offensive, the authors don't go into details. 3) Charles de Varigny, La Guerra del Pacifico, page 18, here Relevant Text the treaty is called defensive-offensive and go into details, that is why is considered offensive. 4) Gonzalo Bulnes, "Chile and Peru, The causes of the War of 1879" page 57 and 58, Relevant Text the treaty is called defensive-offensive and go into details, that is why is considered offensive. 5) Diego Barros Arana, "Historia de la Guerra del Pacifico", parte 1, capitulo III pag. 31, Relevant Text the treaty is called defensive-offensive and go into details, that is why is considered offensive. (not in the cited passage) 6) Chilean Magazin "Que Pasa" here Relevant Text the treaty is called defensive-offensive and go into details, that is why is considered offensive. 7) Manifest of the Chilean government to the representatives of friendly powers with reference to the declaration of war against Peru. Alejandro Fierro, Chilean Ministry of Foreign affairs, Santiago April 12, 1879 here Relevant Text the treaty is not called defensive or offensive but explain why it is considered a to justify one of the most audacious and cruel spoliation witnessed by countries submitted to a regime of common respect toward the industry of all nations and go into details. 8) The New York Times - Current History (1922) here (page 450) Relevant Text the NYT call the treaty a pact of alliance tacitly directed against Chile 9) Tommaso Caivano, "Storia de lla guerra d'America fra Chilì, il Perù e la Bolivia", here page 252, Relevant Text Tommasso Caivano (9) doesn't call the treaty offensive, only reproduces Diego Barros Arana's view and states that a treaty is subject of interpretations. That is what I want to state.

At that time MarshalN20 added following sources:

Extended content

I can provide 4 neutral sources stating that the alliance was merely defensive: History of the Latin-American nations By William Spence Robertson: [10] New York Times: "The defensive treaty of 1873 between Peru and Bolivia" (First column).[11] A history of Peru By Clements Robert Markham: "The Chileans used this purely defensive treaty, by which arbitration is provided for before there can be a casus foederis, as a pretext for war."[12] CHILE, PERU AND THE TREATY OF 1929: THE FINAL SETTLEMENT by Ronald Bruce St John: "Peru was honour bound under the terms of an 1873 treaty of defensive alliance to join the conflict on the side of Bolivia."[13]

The agreement was:

Extended content

:Well, it looks like you two are pretty close to an agreement. Maybe one final push and this can be resolved? Gigs (talk) 01:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC) As you like it: The treaty was officially titled defensive. The treaty was viewed by Chile as a menace (offensive to it). Professional opinion is split on whether the alliance was solely defensive or whether it was offensive and defensive. So, I think the issue is now cleared. --Keysanger (talk) 11:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Sounds good to me. Thank you Gigs.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 14:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Excellent, thank you all for working through this. Gigs (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Thank you Gigs, --Keysanger (talk) 10:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

As you can see, there are a lot of opinions about defensive v/s offensive and Wikipedia can't do any other thing that consider both, not only the view "the treaty was defensive", it doesn't matter how many sources had found MarshallN20 in the last time.

It is a little bit disappointing to discuss the same thing every year, but I accept MarshalN20 right to defend his ideas and error. I do it sometimes also. Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 18:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Alexh, let me help you. Go to Keysanger's link, click (on the content box) on "Mediation of offensive/defensive issue". Go the section "Moving On". Finally, open up the "extended content" to read the sources provided by Keysanger. Nearly 2 years have passed after that discussion, and over the years I have gotten better at analyzing and gathering sources. These things I note now that back then I did not consider:

1. The first three sources he mentions (from United States authors) only title (name) the treaty as "offensive-defensive", but do not provide any sort of actual historical analysis. In Varigny's (1829-1899) case, a contemporary to the conflict (primary source), his analysis is limited. The treaty's title/name (defensive) is not in question. Therefore, these 3 sources in no way validate the idea that Peru-Bolivia formed an offensive alliance.
2. The following 5 sources are from Chilean authors. I do not contest the Chilean POV, and find it a view that deserves to be included in the article (It is included in the "Crisis" and the "Background" sections). However, upon careful examination of the sources: (1) Historians Diego Barros Arana and Gonzalo Bulnes are primary sources, and their opinion is skewed in favor of Chile (hence the Chilean POV). (2) Alejandro Fierro, Chile's minister, is also a primary source. (3) Chilean Magazine "Que Pasa"...who wrote the article? It's reliability is unknown. (4) New York Times magazine from 1922, primary source from Chilean correspondant F. Nieto del Rio (unknown profession or notability), is completely unreliable.
3. The Italian source, from Thomas Caivanno, merely states that according to Barros Arana, in Chile the Peru-Bolivia alliance is viewed as offensive.

2 years ago I had very little knowledge on how to analyze sources, but now I am confident that all of the sources originally presented by Keysanger only serve little purpose other than to demonstrate a Chilean POV which is already present in the Wikipedia article. Whether Keysanger purposely tried to trick both me and the mediator at that point, I ultimately assume good faith from his part. Furthemore, this Chilean POV is a minority view in the sense that only Chileans seem to agree with it.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

---

War of the Pacific; MarshalN20 (Non-Peruvian or Bolivian) Sources:

• Edwin Montefiore Borchard [14], (Opinion on the controversy between Peru and Chile; Page 14 [15]): "On the contrary, whatever inference against Peru may be drawn from the secrecy of the treaty, all the evidence indicates that neither the parties themselves nor those whose adherence was sought considered it anything but a defensive alliance for the maintenance of the status quo. Moreover, it is impossible to doubt the sincerity of Peru's effort to avoid and, if that proved unsuccessful, to terminate, the war between Chile and Bolivia. Int he matter of motive, it seems reasonable to conclude that Peru had nothing to gain from a war against Chile. They were not adjoining countries, had no boundary dispute, and whatever guano and nitrate Chile had obtained through the treaty of 1874 with Bolivia, Peru had so much more that it is not reasonable to suppose that she coveted Chile's. Indeed, so far as I can find, only Orrego Luco, one of the most zealous Chilean protagonists, has imputed such a motive to [Peru]. On the other hand, the same absence of motive cannot be ascribed to Chile, whose policy had since 1842 been directed toward acquiring greater contorl of the nitrate territory."
• William Spence Robertson [16], (History of the Latin-American nations; Page 344-345 [17]): "Peru signed a secret treaty of defensive alliance with Bolivia. The Treaty of Lima provided that the contracting parties were mutually to guarantee their independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity against all foreign aggression, whether of one or more states. In case of acts that tended to deprive a party to this treaty of a portion of her territory, or to induce a party to accept a protectorate, or to lessen the sovereignty of a party, or to alter the government of a party, the alliance was to become effective. Each party expressly retained the right to judge for herself whether or not an offense that might be comitted against her ally should be considered as casus foederis. [...] The allies promised to emply whenever feasible every possible conciliatory measure to prevent a rupture of relations or to end a war."

We already know the Peru, Bolivia, and Chile POV's on the matter. Therefore, I find it appropiate to present the analysis of historians who are not from these countries. If you need any more sources, please do ask.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 17:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

---

The nature of "offensive alliances" and "defensive alliances"

Example of a Defensive Alliance treaty aimed at specific countries (Spain and USA), but which does not constitute an offensive alliance:

• Fredrick B. Pike, (The United States and the Andean republics: Peru, Bolivia, and Ecuador; Page 124 [18]): "Delegates from Bolivia, Chile, Ecuador, New Granada, and Peru convened in 1847 and signed a treaty pledging a defensive alliance mong the five republics should an invasion or overt foreign intervention materialize. The treaty was directed not only against the Flores venture but also against the United States which had alarmed South American states by its war against Mexico."

As this source demonstrates, an alliance treaty aimed at a country does not constitute an "offensive alliance". Defensive alliances have a strict character, different from offensive alliances, as they are forced to only take effect upon the attack of a foreign country. The historical record of the War of the Pacific also demonstrates that neither Peru or Bolivia ever invaded Chile; the whole war was based on Chile invading both Bolivian and Peruvian territory, while both countries simply defended.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 17:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay thanks Keysanger & MarshalN20. Here is another take on the war: [19]

Despite cooperation among Chile, Peru, and Bolivia in the war against Spain, friction began to develop over the mineral-rich Bolivian province of Antofagasta and the Peruvian provinces of Tarapaca, Tacna, and Arica, whose wealth was exploited largely by Chilean enterprises. In 1875 Peru seized Chilean nitrate mines in Tarapaca, and in 1878 a new Bolivian government greatly increased taxes on Chilean business interests. To protect these interests and preempt their threatened expropriation, Chile dispatched a naval squadron headed by the ironclad Blanco Encalada and landed 200 troops at the Bolivian port of Antofagasta on February 14, 1879, provoking a declaration of war by Bolivia on March 1, an action reciprocated by Chile on April 5. Peru, which had concluded the secret Treaty of Mutual Defense with Bolivia in 1873, was now also drawn into the conflict (see The Liberal Era, 1861-91 , ch. 1).

I am curious to know whether MarshalN20 & Keysanger feel the above text is both neutral and accurate. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I like it, especially how it goes back to the Chincha Islands War from the "Background" section. How should we implement it into the introduction? One thing I disagree with: Bolivia didn't declare war on Chile on March 1. Chile didn't declare war on Bolivia either when they invaded Antofagasta. This is why Peru didn't activate the alliance (it could only come into effect if and only if one of the countries was officially declared war upon). The first country to declare war on anyone was Chile, which is what activated the Treaty of Mutual Defense. If Bolivia had declared war on Chile first, then Peru had the right (according to the treaty) to make the treaty void and remain neutral.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 10:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The text isn't neutral because it presume that the secret pact was of defensive character. That is of course posible, but there are reliable sources that demostrate that the pact can be seen as offensive, for example the source 8) of the list in the mediation. The New York Times (Current History (1922), page 450) said about:

Notwithstanding the fact that in 1873 Peru had induced Bolivia to sign a pact of alliance tacitly directed against Chile, the Peruvian government offered its mediation in the Bolivian-Chilean conflict, the origin of which was nothing more than Peru’s monopolistic nitrate policy, which had instigated Bolivia to disposes Chilean industries. The mediation of Peru was accompanied by three suspicious circumstances: (1) The denial on the part of the mediating minister of the existence of the secret treaty of which Chile had lately become aware; (2) Previous Peruvian demands compatible only with the pretensions of Bolivia; (3) Hurried war preparations of Peru, the Peruvian government meanwhile showing a desire to gain time. These circumstances, with the fact that Bolivia did not manifest the slightest desire to facilitate an amicable adjustment, indicated to Chile that Peru was not working ‘bona fide’, but only with the intentin of strengthening the alliance.

There are at least two sights of the facts, both referenced. Wikipedia has to represent a well balanced version of the history and not a biased interpretations of the facts. Best regards, --Keysanger (what?) 15:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

As I mentioned in my analysis above, the New York Times source is unreliable as it is not known who is the author, named as "F. Nieto del Rio". All that is known is that he is a Chilean correspondant, which once again demonstrates that your source only presents Chilean POV. You keep demonstrating a desire to impose Chilean POV above all else, and keep trying to trick friendly mediators into agreeing with you.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Keysanger, leaving aside the question of possible errors in the detail, I feel there is a subtle but important difference between the wording in our article and the wording by David Shelton that I linked above. In our wording, Wikipedia's voice states that the Peru/Bolivia alliance was "defensive". Shelton doesn't say this. He simply notes that it was called the "Treaty of Mutual Defense" (through use of capitalisation the reader knows he is simply giving the treaty's formal name). He also alerts the reader to the fact that it was a secret treaty, and he provides more context, i.e. some of the acts of provocation which might have led Chile to declare war. His text here remains agnostic on whether or not the alliance was really defensive. So I disagree that it "presumes that the secret pact was of a defensive character". Are you sure you couldn't live with a compromise along these lines? Alex Harvey (talk) 00:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that Keysanger doesn't like any mention of the word "defensive" in association with Peru or Bolivia. In Chile, people get taught that Bolivia declared war upon them (despite this is historically inaccurate), and that "evil Peru" was jealous of Chile and wanted to take them out of the competition. In reality, Bolivia only sent a presidential decree in response to the Chilean invasion of Antofagasta (which in no way or form constitutes a declaration of war), and Peru monopolized all mining industries in Tarapaca/Tacna/Arica (they took over all Peruvian, European, and Chilean private companies) in a desperate attempt to stabilize the economy (not as provocation to Chile).--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

My view is that the present wording is subtly failing strict neutrality by saying in Wikipedia's voice in the opening that the treaty "was" defensive. That is problematic for two reasons (1) it seems Chileans and otherwise presumably reliable Chilean historians don't agree; and (2) an article lead should fairly summarise the rest of the article and elsewhere in the article it is clearer that there is some debate about the defensive/offensive nature of the treaty. On the other hand I don't myself agree that stating in the opening that Peru was drawn into the conflict after having signed the Treaty of Mutual Defense with Bolivia presumes anything about whether the treaty was really defensive or not, or is a problem for neutrality. Alex Harvey (talk) 11:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I am open to rewording the part as you suggest, without excluding the Treaty of Mutual Defense. This is what I propose for the first 2 paragraphs of the introduction (using your suggestions). I think it's as neutral as it can get:

The War of the Pacific (Spanish: Guerra del Pacífico) took place in western South America from 1879 through 1883. Chile fought against Bolivia and Peru. Despite cooperation among Chile, Peru, and Bolivia in the war against Spain, disputes soon arose over the mineral-rich Peruvian provinces of Tarapaca, Tacna, and Arica, and the Bolivian province of Antofagasta. Chilean enterprises, which largely exploited the area, saw their interests at stake when Peru nationalized all nitrate mines in Tarapaca, and Bolivia imposed a 10 cent tax on the Antofagasta Nitrate & Railway Company. The problem primarily focused on Bolivia and Chile due to their controversy over ownership of Atacama, which preceded and laid foundations for their conflict. Peru entered the affair in 1879, initially attempting to mediate the dispute, but, when Chile invaded the Bolivian port city of Antofagasta on February 14, 1879, Bolivia sought the activation of its Treaty of Mutual Defense with Peru. Disputes further escalated until Chile declared war on both countries on April 5, 1879, and the following day Peru activated the alliance.

This "Saltpeter War" took place over five years in a variety of terrain, including the Atacama Desert and Peru's deserts and mountainous regions. The war's first battle was the Battle of Topáter. For most of the first year the focus was on the naval campaign, as Chile struggled to establish a sea-based resupply corridor for its forces in the world's driest desert. The Peruvian Navy met initial success, but the Chilean Navy prevailed. Afterwards, Chile's land campaign bested the badly equipped Bolivian and Peruvian armies, leading to Bolivia's complete defeat and withdrawal in the Battle of Tacna on May 26, 1880, and the defeat of the Peruvian army after the Battle of Arica on June 7. The land campaign climaxed in 1881, with the Chilean occupation of Lima. The conflict then became a guerrilla war engaging Peruvian army remnants and irregulars. This Campaign of the Breña was fairly successful as a resistance movement, but did not change the war's outcome. After Peru's defeat in the Battle of Huamachuco, Chile and Peru signed the Treaty of Ancón on October 20, 1883. Bolivia signed a truce with Chile in 1884.

What do you think?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it is a big improvement, and not to mention easier to read and more interesting. I probably would mention that the Peru/Bolivia treaty was a secret treaty. :) Alex Harvey (talk) 16:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It's great that you like it, but that doesn't resolve the issue as long as Keysanger makes little notion of agreement and promotes further Chile POV pushing ([20] and [21]). What do you suggest be done, or is there something you could do? Thanks.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 17:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll see if I can help out there. I am Australian so hopefully no one will say I have a bias. :) Alex Harvey (talk) 00:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Alex, Hi MarshallN20,

I agree that, regarding the use of "defensive" in the paragraph, MarshalN20's proposal is a good proposal. MarshalN20, would you be so kind to change the wording of the other places that come into consideration? (Yesterday I counted 5 places in the article where the word "defensive" was used to portray the treaty). We also should add the word "secret" in the lede in order to inform the reader about the complicated situation at that time.

We can analyse some issues in the lede, like " Peru entered the affair in 1879 …" and others, at the proper time.

I am sure that a decision by consensus will endure and set the basis for a change for the better in the article. Best Regards, --Keysanger (what?) 11:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

My agreement to this proposal is under the condition that in no case the reader can be mislead to the assumption that the treaty was a defensive one. If needed there must be said that the treaty was called "of defense" or "defensive", but that it is not the opinion of Wikipedia. --Keysanger (what?) 11:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course my agreement to this proposal is under the condition that this difference between name and adjective must be replicated overall in the article where the treaty is mentioned. Also this agreement is valid and bindig for the page of the treaty Treaty of defensive alliance between Peru and Bolivia of 1873. --Keysanger (what?) 11:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

defense/defensive or similar adjectives can't be acepted

Regarding your objections in my talk page, I repeat, the reader in no case should be lead to presume that the treaty was defensive. Your rationale about words are capitalised is not enough because the name is misleading. I propouse to add "so-called" before the name or to add in every case that the treaty has been characterized by historians as an offensive and as an defensive one. This agreement must be replicated to all places in the article where the treaty is mentioned. Also we have to accept the same conditions for the Treaty of defensive alliance between Peru and Bolivia of 1873 article. Best Regards, --Keysanger (what?) 13:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The funny thing is that you talk about "misleading" the reader, and yet you "propouse" weasel words. As Alex Harvey suggests, the name "Treaty of Mutual Defense" is a proper name, which to English readers is easily understood as the title of the treaty.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The offensive v defensive controversy should be discussed within the article. Right now it's simply included in the following way:

On February 6, 1873, Peru and Bolivia signed a Treaty of Mutual Defense which guaranteed their independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity. An additional clause kept the treaty secret. Argentina had begun talks with Peru and Bolivia to join the alliance, and the Argentine Chamber of Deputies, in a secret session, approved the law, but the Senate postponed the matter to 1874. Chile was not directly mentioned in the treaty text and was not informed about its existence, which led Chilean historiography to conclude that the treaty was aimed against Chile.

It seems good to me, but room for expansion does exist.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Your proposal is the old version of the passage. It uses the official name "Defense" but doesn't warn the reader that the treaty is considered offensive by a lot of historians. Moreover it lacks the information that Chile was informed few days before the begin of the war and was for Chile one of the causes of the war.

We must include following items in a solution:

1. It must be clear for the reader the difference between the official name of the treaty and a description of the treaty on the part of Wikipedia.
2. The capital letters are not enough.
3. There must be said that the treaty was secret
4. The reader must be informed that Chile was informed few days before the begin of the war
5. The reader must be informed that the treaty was considered by the Chilean government as one of the causes of the war
6. The consensus decision replicated to all places where the treaty is mentioned
7. Also to the article Treaty of defensive alliance between Peru and Bolivia of 1873.
8. The Chilean, Peruvian, Bolivian histography are not the issue.

They are the minimal requirements to comply with WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR. We can't accept a flubbed article and edit wars for the next 100 years. Best Regrads, --Keysanger (what?) 20:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

All I see is a person claiming the term "Treaty of Mutual Defense" is not good despite three users (Alex, Chiton, and me) have already explained that it is as neutral a term as it can get. What seems to be irritating for this person is that the term "defense" is being used. The proposed "solution" is to use WP:WEASEL terms (i.e., "so-called") wherever possible in all parts which this user deems as non-neutral. This is completely unacceptable.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 22:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the "secret" part of the treaty, I have found a series of sources which argue against that point. These sources explain that Chile had known of the treaty for plenty of time prior to the conflict, but pretended to not know in order to manipulate Chilean public opinion in favor of war. However, as Alex suggests, it's best to discuss each point without diverting the attention to multiple points at once.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 22:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

@ Marshal, I just changed the lead to "secret" before I was aware of this discussion. I've already seen a considerable number of sources saying the treaty was secret so could be perhaps queue this issue until we have resolved the matter of "who declared war on whom and when"? I'll respond to Keysanger's points shortly. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure, going step-by-step is a good plan. The sources I have regarding the "secret" part of the treaty won't discard the fact that Bolivia and Peru signed it in secrecy, but it will challenge the concept of whether it was really "secret or not-secret" (similar to how Keysanger argued that, despite the treaty is named "defensive", there is considerable discussion of whether it was "offensive or defensive"). Hence, my point would be to remove the mention of "secret" from the lead (similar to how "offensive" and "defensive" are removed) and only leave the official title "Treaty of the Mutual Defense". The secrecy of the treaty then can be discussed either in the "Crisis" or "Background" sections. But, yes, it's best this is left for after this part of the discussion is over.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

@ Keysanger, I was going to respond but I really feel this thread belongs in the talk page and feel we should be trying to resolve one issue at a time. Also I made a few changes to the article so perhaps you'd like to see if they resolve at least some of your concerns. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I made a proposal and hope that will find a good echo (sorry, I introduced a new issue, but it can be reverted). We can discuss here or in the talk page of the article, as you like it .--Keysanger (what?) 16:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I want to finish the declaration of war issue first and then I will be back to this theme to find a sustainable solution for this o/d issue. --Keysanger (what?) 09:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

References

Extended content
(References from prior discussion.)

Objections to evolution#Violation of the second law of thermodynamics

My problem is that evolutionists who posted the aledged objection to evolution on @nd law of thermodynamics completely altered the argument and when I made already two versions of modification [22] [23] they are erasing it within minute and do not allow even for NPOV discussion to be raised. I'm convinced that the objection is manipulated to something else than what it really is and thus it is misleading the Wikipedia reader. It is very tricky case: group A, evolutionists, with opinion X, declares that their opponents, creationists, group B, holding opinion Y, cannot have their opinion Y presented because their own papers "are not good enough sources" of their own opinion and that's why twisted opinion Z had to be falsely atributed to them to misrepresent their own position. Even if we would accept that given source is not up to some standards of evolutionists, then it would be still ethical at least to decalre that the objection is presented from point of view how evolutionist understand it and that might widely differ from the real position of the proponents of this objection.--Stephfo (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Already being discussed here. Please don't forum shop. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, I will move it there then.--Stephfo (talk) 21:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I still have a Q though, that borad is evaluating the text from other than NPOV perspective. How does it work then if my primary objection against may opponents is that they do alter soemone's else opinion, thus potentially attacking someone's good reputation?--Stephfo (talk) 12:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Catholics for Choice

Apparently I'm one of those people who just has to do everything myself, since even though the burden is on the editors adding this information, I'm the one posting here. Anyway, there are a couple of related issues at Catholics for Choice, some of which could be addressed at other noticeboards individually but which together make up something best addressed at NPOVN. (And yes, before you say so, I think the answers to these questions are obvious, but clearly some of the other editors at this article do not.)

• Is an anti-CFC rant published in Insight on the News, a far-right magazine that happens to be notorious for making things up, a reliable source on CFC's funding?
• Is an organization that calls George Soros a "bigoted pro-abortion mogul" a reliable source on his activities?
• Is it undue to include self-published criticism of CFC by far-right groups like the Catholic League and Catholic News Agency, particularly when we already detail the (also self-published) criticism from the Roman Catholic Church and other criticism published in reliable sources?
• Is it necessary to have the criticism of CFC's funding be over four times as long as the actual information about its funding, particularly when most of said criticism is mostly cited to the worst possible sources, as noted above?

--Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

No, no, yes, no. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Ditto. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Definitely ditto. Dougweller (talk) 08:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Most definitely ditto. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Allegations of fraud involving Chinese stocks

Serious NPOV issues generally, including a list of "fraudulent" Chinese stocks without proper sourcing. Making one last attempt to salvage this before I nominate it for deletion. Constructive input into the page is welcome. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

NPOV over SYN?

• Van Tuong Nguyen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Dear all, IF possible I'm requesting all to assist in the reviewing the aforementioned article and comment on the discussion page for the difference of "explained" (supported by the source, and an archive of the original source I found) over the word "said" (which isn't supported by any source), the latter is incessantly demanded by an extremely abusive Anon IP editor (2.220.204.70 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) to replace the former, per WP:SAY. Similarly, I've placed this same request for review on WP:No original research/Noticeboard#NPOV over SYN? in order to give it a fair chance at hearing. Apologies for any disturbance caused, thank you. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 00:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I think this argument is bizarre. There is no obligation to use words that sources use. To say that a simple verb like said "isn't supported by any source" is just ridiculous. Biased sources can very easily be reported in a neutral way, unless you decide, arbitrarily and unilaterally, that for some reason you have to use one particular word from the source. 2.220.204.70 (talk) 06:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

From what I can see the IP editor has a point there. Why do you feel the IP is misunderstanding WP:SAY? Alex Harvey (talk) 02:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

War of the Pacific : Bolivian declaration of war

The current article War of the Pacific states that:

• However, under international law at that time [before the Chilean declaration of war] neither side had actually declared war.

User MarshalN20 asserts that the wording of the current version is correct.

User Keysanger asserts that the wording is biased and pretend to elude the fact that Bolivia declared the war first and refused any negotiation with Chile looking forward to Peru's help.

(For a better understanding of the text: H. Daza was at that time dictator of Bolivia, Lavalle was the Peruvian envoy to Chile short before the war)

For this asserts, that there was no Bolivian declaration of war, the User MarshalN20 presents following sources:

Extended content

Ramiro Prudencio Lizon (Historian and Diplomat) [24]: "In order for Chile to be able to advance further north an official war declaration was necessary. And it wasn't this country but rather Bolivia the one who sent an internal decree which was afterwards interpreted as a true declaration of war. [...] Obviously, Daza had no interest in declaring war, because he knew that Bolivia was not in conditions to affront a campaign against a country much superior in belligerent resources and which counted with a powerful navy." Atilio Sivirichi, "Historia del Perú" (1932), page 193: "[Daza's decree] was skilfully interpreted by the Chilean government as a declaration of war and as a justification for its occupation of the [Bolivian coast]." William F. Sater, "Andean Tragedy", page 28: "Two weeks after the Chilean occupation of Antofagasta, he declared that Chile had imposed "a state of war" on Bolivia. Apparently this decree did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence, which he announced on 18 March." Tommaso Caivano, "Historia de la guerra de América entre Chile, Perú y Bolivia", pages 61-62 ([25]): "[Daza's decree], as can be clearly read within it, does not do anything more than dictate a few measures relative to true the state of war in which Bolivia and Chile found themselves after the invasion of [Bolivian territory] by [Chile], and, like it textually and carefully states, "while this state of war imposed by Chile upon Bolivia", was interpreted by Chile in an extremely original manner." Mariano Felipe Paz Soldán, "Narracion Historica de la Guerra de Chile contra el Peru y Bolivia". On Page 80 he presents the Bolivian March 1st declaration and explains its nature (at no point describing it as a declaration of war). On Page 86 makes first mention of a declaration of war, this coming from Chile to both Peru and Bolivia. Text from Page 86 ([26]): "War having been declared by Chile, it needed to justify its conduct upon the neutral nations and, at a loss of good reasons founded in law and corroborated by deeds, opted for falsity, presenting a series of situations under a distortion of reality, and others completely false. [Chile] said among other things that Peru did not gesture Bolivia in time to lead it towards a good path and procede with fewer recklesness and violence in its determinations." Valentín Abecia Baldivieso, "The History of Bolivia in International Relations. Vol 2.," page 73: "But in reality no such declaration of war took place. The decree (Hilarión Daza's decree) to which this characteristic [of declaring war] is attributed only alludes that "Chile has indeed invaded the national territory", stipulating that "all commerce and communication with the Republic of Chile is cut for the duration of the war that [Chile] has promoted upon Bolivia." He later states that Chileans should vacate the country given deadlines in cases of emergency and taking action on property belonging to them. Therefore, it is not correct to attribute that Decree the characteristics of a declaration of war, because under the international law of the time, it was not. The steps taken were for security because Chile had taken Antofagasta. On April 3 the declaration of war by the Chilean Congress was approved, and by the 5th it became known throughout the press."

The user Keysanger means that the wording (however), facts (neither side had actually declared war) and interpretations (under international law) don't show the overwhelming opinion under historians, that is there was a Bolivian declaration of war and Keysanger presents following sources:

Extended content

William F. Sater in "Andean Tragedy", page 28 states: Two weeks after the Chilean occupation of Antofagasta, he declared that had imposed "a state of war" on Bolivia. Apparently this decree did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence, which he announced on 18 March. "Documentary History of the Tacna-Arica dispute, University of Iowa studies in the social sciences, Vol. 8", by William Jefferson Dennis, here, page 69: On March 14 Bolivia advised representatives of foreign powers that a state of war existed with Chile. ... Godoi advised President Pinto that this move was to prevent Chile from securing armaments abroad ... "Andean Tragedy", William F. Sater, page 39:Thus, Daza's declaration of war was a godsend ..., also page 42in March he suddenly declared war on Chile "Latin America's Wars: The age of the caudillo, 1791-1899" By Robert L. Scheina, page 376: On March 18 Bolivia declared war and confiscated all Chilean property in Bolivia and under the terms of a secret treaty ..." "Wars and Peace Treaties, 1816-1991", By Erik Goldstein, page 182: As result of this action Bolivia declared war on Chile (1.March) "The history of Chile" By John Lawrence Rector, page 100: Bolivia declared war and attemted to expel all Chileans from its territory onwar.com: Bolivia then declared war on Chile and called upon Peru for help. country-data.com: Bolivia, in alliance with Peru, declared war on Chile on March 1, ...' andrewclem.com: ... , but Bolivia declared war on Chile and made known its “secret” alliance with Peru in March, ... globalsecurity.com: Bolivia, in alliance with Peru, declared war on Chile on March 1,... Encarta: Bolivia declared war and was joined by Peru, a partner in a secret alliance. "The geopolitics of security in the Americas: hemispheric denial from Monroe ..." by Martin Sicker here: and Bolivia declared war on 14 February 1879 ... "A history of Chile‎" - Page 326, by Luis Galdames, Isaac Joslin Cox - History - 1941 - 565 pages: The government of Chile refused to accede to this. Meanwhile Peru mobilized its army rapidly, Bolivia declared war against Chile, and the press of those ... "Chile and the War of the Pacific"‎ - Page 9 by William F. Sater - History - 1986 - 343 pages Two weeks after Chile occupied the disputed territory, Daza declared war. "The Bolivia-Chile-Peru dispute in the Atacama Desert" by Ronald Bruce St. John, Clive H. Schofield here: "Once Bolivia declared war on March 14 1879 ...".

Old Discussion in Talk page of the article

There was a long discussion in the talk page, where the parties didn't agree about the issue. You can see the thread here:

Extended content

'== Template:Undue weight == However, under international law at that time neither side had actually declared war.[23][24] It is astonishing that 2 sources are enough to write in the that there was no Bolivian declaration of war. One of the sources (a broken link) is the Peruvian newspaper "La Razon", known not for its scientific art but for his anti-Chilean resentements. I found 15 sources that state that there was a Bolivian declaration of war and such a overwhelming opinion about the Bolivian declaration of war must be included in the text and as the common view of the historians. The no-declaration-of-war theory can also be included but as a rand view. Here the list of sources: William F. Sater in "Andean Tragedy", page 28 states: Two weeks after the Chilean occupation of Antofagasta, he declared that had imposed "a state of war" on Bolivia. Apparently this decree did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence, which he announced on 18 March. "Documentary History of the Tacna-Arica dispute, University of Iowa studies in the social sciences, Vol. 8", by William Jefferson Dennis, here, page 69: On March 14 Bolivia advised representatives of foreign powers that a state of war existed with Chile. ... Godoi advised President Pinto that this move was to prevent Chile from securing armaments abroad ... "Andean Tragedy", William F. Sater, page 39:Thus, Daza's declaration of war was a godsend ..., also page 42in March he suddenly declared war on Chile "Latin America's Wars: The age of the caudillo, 1791-1899" By Robert L. Scheina, page 376: On March 18 Bolivia declared war and confiscated all Chilean property in Bolivia and under the terms of a secret treaty ..." "Wars and Peace Treaties, 1816-1991", By Erik Goldstein, page 182: As result of this action Bolivia declared war on Chile (1.March) "The history of Chile" By John Lawrence Rector, page 100: Bolivia declared war and attemted to expel all Chileans from its territory onwar.com: Bolivia then declared war on Chile and called upon Peru for help. country-data.com: Bolivia, in alliance with Peru, declared war on Chile on March 1, ...' andrewclem.com: ... , but Bolivia declared war on Chile and made known its “secret” alliance with Peru in March, ... globalsecurity.com: Bolivia, in alliance with Peru, declared war on Chile on March 1,... Encarta: Bolivia declared war and was joined by Peru, a partner in a secret alliance. "The geopolitics of security in the Americas: hemispheric denial from Monroe ..." by Martin Sicker here: and Bolivia declared war on 14 February 1879 ... "A history of Chile‎" - Page 326, by Luis Galdames, Isaac Joslin Cox - History - 1941 - 565 pages: The government of Chile refused to accede to this. Meanwhile Peru mobilized its army rapidly, Bolivia declared war against Chile, and the press of those ... "Chile and the War of the Pacific"‎ - Page 9 by William F. Sater - History - 1986 - 343 pages Two weeks after Chile occupied the disputed territory, Daza declared war. "The Bolivia-Chile-Peru dispute in the Atacama Desert" by Ronald Bruce St. John, Clive H. Schofield here: "Once Bolivia declared war on March 14 1879 ...". Best Regards, --Keysanger (what?) 16:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC) Bolivia didn't declare war. Even the first source you present states it: "Apparently this decree did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence, which he announced on 18 March." "Undue weight" doesn't apply here since even Daza explains that the decree he presented was not a declaration of war.--MarshalN20 | Talk 16:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC) You forget the 14 others, what about that?. Best Regards, --Keysanger (what?) 23:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC) You can provide 100+ sources on the topic, but the article already presents: The view that Chile saw Daza's decree as a declaration of war. The view that his decree was not a declaration of war. The only new thing you have provided which is important to note is that Daza announced, on March 18, that he did declare war. You can take it to an administrator's forum, but like in the other issue, it will lead you to nothing.--MarshalN20 | Talk 03:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC) Hi MarshallN20, Keysanger seems to have provided quite a bit of support for his position here. Do you have reliable sources that also state that this decree was not a declaration of war? Generally, in situations like this, it is appropriate to note in the article that there is disagreement in the reliable sources. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC) Yes, I do have reliable sources for this matter. First, a quick analysis: William F. Sater is used 3 times in his list, and the source contradicts itself. (P. 39) "Thus, Daza's declaration of war was a godsend". (P. 28) "Apparently this decree did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence, which he announced on 18 March." Something is incongruent with this source; how is it possible for a decree to not be a declaration of war in Page 28, but then become a declaration of war on Page 39? The Iowa source does not support Keysanger's view as, "On March 14 Bolivia advised representatives of foreign powers that a state of war existed with Chile", does not translate into "Bolivia declared war on Chile". Please quit trying to trick users with your lists. You have been warned of this plenty of times.--MarshalN20 | Talk 15:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC) My proposal is to consider William F. Sater as a reliable professor of Latin American History at California State University (others [27], [28]). I am convinced that such a source is more reliable than the Peruvian newspaper "La Razon". If you have better sources, please feel free to let us know more. Best Regards, --Keysanger (what?) 15:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC) Sater is one person, not multiple persons. It's illogical to gather 3 sources from the same author and try to pass them off as different; writing: "I found 15 sources". It's also surprising that such a reliable source as Sater contradicts himself within the same book. If Daza is the author of his presidential decree, and Sater explains that Daza stated his decree was not a declaration of war; then how is it possible for a few pages later for Sater to claim the decree was a declaration of war? Sater places himself in a position in which he contrasts with Daza's opinion of his own decree.--MarshalN20 | Talk 16:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC) </nowiki>===MarshalN20 Sources===</nowiki> Ramiro Prudencio Lizon (Historian and Diplomat) [29]: "In order for Chile to be able to advance further north an official war declaration was necessary. And it wasn't this country but rather Bolivia the one who sent an internal decree which was afterwards interpreted as a true declaration of war. [...] Obviously, Daza had no interest in declaring war, because he knew that Bolivia was not in conditions to affront a campaign against a country much superior in belligerent resources and which counted with a powerful navy." Atilio Sivirichi, "Historia del Perú" (1932), page 193: "[Daza's decree] was skilfully interpreted by the Chilean government as a declaration of war and as a justification for its occupation of the [Bolivian coast]." William F. Sater, "Andean Tragedy", page 28: "Two weeks after the Chilean occupation of Antofagasta, he declared that Chile had imposed "a state of war" on Bolivia. Apparently this decree did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence, which he announced on 18 March." Tommaso Caivano, "Historia de la guerra de América entre Chile, Perú y Bolivia", pages 61-62 ([30]): "[Daza's decree], as can be clearly read within it, does not do anything more than dictate a few measures relative to true the state of war in which Bolivia and Chile found themselves after the invasion of [Bolivian territory] by [Chile], and, like it textually and carefully states, "while this state of war imposed by Chile upon Bolivia", was interpreted by Chile in an extremely original manner." Mariano Felipe Paz Soldán, "Narracion Historica de la Guerra de Chile contra el Peru y Bolivia". On Page 80 he presents the Bolivian March 1st declaration and explains its nature (at no point describing it as a declaration of war). On Page 86 makes first mention of a declaration of war, this coming from Chile to both Peru and Bolivia. Text from Page 86 ([31]): "War having been declared by Chile, it needed to justify its conduct upon the neutral nations and, at a loss of good reasons founded in law and corroborated by deeds, opted for falsity, presenting a series of situations under a distortion of reality, and others completely false. [Chile] said among other things that Peru did not gesture Bolivia in time to lead it towards a good path and procede with fewer recklesness and violence in its determinations." Valentín Abecia Baldivieso, "The History of Bolivia in International Relations. Vol 2.," page 73: "But in reality no such declaration of war took place. The decree (Hilarión Daza's decree) to which this characteristic [of declaring war] is attributed only alludes that "Chile has indeed invaded the national territory", stipulating that "all commerce and communication with the Republic of Chile is cut for the duration of the war that [Chile] has promoted upon Bolivia." He later states that Chileans should vacate the country given deadlines in cases of emergency and taking action on property belonging to them. Therefore, it is not correct to attribute that Decree the characteristics of a declaration of war, because under the international law of the time, it was not. The steps taken were for security because Chile had taken Antofagasta. On April 3 the declaration of war by the Chilean Congress was approved, and by the 5th it became known throughout the press." These sources are more than enough to demonstrate that Daza's decree was not a true declaration of war. Not only does Daza explain this, as sourced by Sater, but the information is backed up by historical analysis. On the other hand, the sources presented by Keysanger are merely textual parrots, merely stating that Bolivia declared war without any further analysis. It's important to mention that the article does present Chile's view about Daza's decree. However, Keysanger is trying to use the WP concept of "Undue weight" to present Chile's POV as supreme and leave the analysis of Daza's decree (including Daza's own opinion about his decree) as "minority views".--MarshalN20 | Talk 18:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC) Your rationale is broken because you contradict yourself: W.F.Sater, is a source for or not for a Bolivian Declaration of war?. Now you say that he is a source for NO declaration of war. Above you say that he was cited three times. What about the other two?. Do you have also reliable sources?. Best Regards, --Keysanger (what?) 21:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC) I honestly don't understand what it is you are trying to state. I have already provided the necessary amount of sources to discard your "Undue Weight" claim.--MarshalN20 | Talk 22:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC) Hi Marshal, I am inclined to agree that Keysanger has made a point here, and that it is probably too strong to have Wikipedia assert as a fact that, "under international law at that time neither side had actually declared war". That is an absolute statement. I think the statement should be attributed, i.e. "According to X, ...". When Wikipedia's voice makes an absolute statement, it should be a statement of an uncontested fact. Also I am finding it confusing that Keysanger's sources do indeed say that Bolivia declared war - not just that Chile thought Bolivia declared war. If these historians are wrong, the article doesn't help me to understand why they are wrong. I am happy to be persuaded otherwise? Also (a suggestion to both Keysanger & MarshalN20), having multiple threads open discussing multiple disputes at the same time is probably not ideal. Should we try to resolve this point first? Alex Harvey (talk) 15:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC) That's not Keysanger's point, but rather your point Alex. Keysanger's point is that there is "Undue Weight" in the article, which is not true. The sources I have provided are from a long timespan (starting from the early 20th century all the way to the 2000's) of different historians from different nationalities (including Daza's own explanation of his decree). Your point, Alex, about the "International law" part and its status as "uncontested fact" is correct. Going back in time, I found this old consensus statement, proposed by me, in which the four users discussing this same issue at that time agreed [32]: How about this for statement: "After the Chilean invasion of Antofagasta, Hilarión Daza made a presidential decree which demanded the expulsion of Chileans and the nationalizing of Chilean private property. Due to its aggressiveness, the Chilean government understood the decree as a declaration of war. However, although both nations had already taken aggressive actions, in reality no war had yet been formally declared from either side of the conflict."--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 00:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC) This discussion reminded me of the existence of this consensus statment. I no idea what happened to it until now: [33]. It turns out that Keysanger massively deleted the consensus statement and sources in order to impose his POV. Strangely enough, he is trying to do the exact same thing at this point, except that now he tries to use the concept of "Undue Weight". I don't believe in history repeating itself, but this sure does seem like a case of Déjà vu. What I plan to do at this point is propose another consensus statement, which may take a few minutes.--MarshalN20 | Talk 17:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Marshall's list of 6 sources has severe problems. Atilio Sivirichi, Mariano Felipe Paz Soldán are Peruvian and Valentín Abecia Baldivieso and Ramiro Prudencio Lizon are Bolivian historians. They represent a rand view that see Peru and Bolivia as victims of the Chilean agressor. Tommaso Caivano is an Italian historian and is a primary source (1886). This 5 sources recognize that Bolivia declared a state of war and interpreted by Chile, and the majority of historians, as declaration of war.

The only one neutral historian in MarshalN20's list, is professor of Latin American History at California State University W. F. Sater. Perhaps is that the reason why MarshalN20 has so many problems to understand Sater's passage: "Apparently this decree did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence, which he announced on 18 March.". Instead the complete sentence MarshalN20 reads "Apparently this decree did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence, which he announced on 18 March." and lose sight of the fact that the other two books of Sater, also given in my list, repeat the same fact: "in March he (Daza) suddenly declared war on Chile" and "Two weeks after Chile occupied the disputed territory, Daza declared war". Therefore MarshalN20 presents one of Sater's books as a support for his theory.

Other neutral historians in my list are Dr. Robert L. Scheina, William Jefferson Dennis, Martin Sicker, John L. Rector (professor of history at Western Oregon University), Erik Goldstein (Professor of International Relations and History. (BA, Tufts University; MA, MALD, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy; PhD, University of Cambridge, Specialization: Diplomacy, International Relations, British Foreign Policy)([34]), etc.

Of course I plead for a cite of the MarshalN20 view, I think we can show to the reader rand views, but the due weight must be correct. MarshalN20's view is a rand POV even in Perú. Jorge Basadre a famous Peruvian historian tell us about the declaration and why Daza was interested in a early declaration of war (See Jorge Besadre, "Historia de la Republica, La guerra con Chile"):

Extended content

Pero las pasiones excitadas no se enfriaron. El dí­a 18 de marzo se abrió un nuevo perí­odo de la misión Lavalle. Ese dí­a fue recibido en Santiago, desde Tacna por correo y desde Caldera por telégrafo el decreto expedido por el Presidente Daza y notificado al cuerpo diplomático el 14 de marzo estableciendo el casus belli con Chile con todos sus efectos y consecuencias, junto con otros decretos de ruptura de relaciones mientras durara la guerra y de expulsión y confiscación de bienes chilenos en Bolivia. Esto ocurrió a pesar de que Quiones y Doria Medina acordaron el 5 de marzo las bases para la mediación peruana. La versión chilena fue que Bolivia quiso impedir que Chile se armara. En realidad, Daza buscó la forma de malograr la misión Lavalle. Una vez más la legación peruana en La Paz había fallado porque, según el tratado secreto, un acto de esta especie debía haberse hecho previo acuerdo de las partes. Al no estar declarada la guerra entre Chile y Bolivia, Chile no podía pedir al Perú que se mantuviera neutral. Porque la había declarado Bolivia, la exigencia chilena de neutralidad peruana era inevitable. La declaración boliviana de guerra era (dice el historiador chileno Bulnes) un palo atravesado en las ruedas del carro empujado por Lavalle. La situación que se habí­a ido agravando mes a mes y semana a semana, se complicaba ahora día a dí­a, hora a hora, minuto a minuto. El Perú se veí­a envuelto con rapidez creciente en un conflicto tremendo, sin tiempo casi para presentar la acción conciliatoria propia y sin haber buscado una acción análoga de Argentina, Estados Unidos o las potencias europeas Tranlation by Keysanger: ...on 18 March was the begin of a new phase in Lavalle's mission. This day was received in Santiago from Tacna by post and from Caldera by telegram Daza's decree that notified on 14 March all diplomats about the casus belli against Chile with all efects and consequences, together with other decrees of rupture of relations as long as the war lasted and of expulsion of Chileans and confiscation of his goods. The Chilean version saw that Bolivia ['s declaration of war] aimed to impede the purchase of weapons to Chile. In reality, Daza intended to eliminate Lavalle's mission. Once again the Peruvian legation in La Paz [Bolivia] failed because in accordance with the treaty such act [declaration of war] should have been done in agreement between both [Peru and Bolivia]. As long as no state of war between Chile and Bolivia existed , Chile couldn't require neutrality from Peru. Since Bolivia declared the war on Chile, the Chilean request of Peruvian neutrality was inevitable. The Bolivian declaration of war on Chile was (as stated by Chilean historian Bulnes) a traverse fault through the wheel of Lavalle's handkart. The situation worsened month to month ... (Bold by Keysanger)

As we can read there is nothing in Besadre's "Historia de la Republica, La guerra con Chile" about a lacks of Bolivian declaration of war. Best Regards, Keysanger (what?) 23:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Alex Harvey is helping us out in the talk page of the article. At this point you're making forks of the discussion, and make a poor job at trying to discard my sources as unreliable when they are all written by reliable historians from different times in history. Thanks.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld

I believe the langauge in this section which deals with host Greg Gutfield's comments violate NPOV policy

"In a September 28, 2010, Rolling Stone article, President Barack Obama made another political attack[75] [76] [77] on Fox News Channel by accusing the cable network of having a "point of view that I think is ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country that has a vibrant middle-class."[78] [79] Red Eye host Greg Gutfeld responded to this particular political attack by Obama with his following September 29, 2010 Greg-alogue:[80] [81]

"Okay. So, you're the President of the United States, with both houses under your control. You also have the most fawning press of any president in the History of the Universe. And yet you let FNC get under your skin, because it’s the only network that doesn’t have a 'thrill up its leg'? Obama is like a sports team who owns the Ref, the fans and the field, but refuses to play ball until the kid in the 10th row stops chewing gum."

"And this is why the Crybaby-in-Chief needs us. It provides cover, so Obama can criticize Americans without ever saying 'those Americans.' He can just say Fox News instead. One thing is for sure: If you go after a collection of talking-heads, you're going to get an earful back. And if you disagree with me, you're a racist, homophobic, taurophobe." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.220.21 (talk) 06:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
[75] http://www.torontosun.com/news/columnists/peter_worthington/2009/10/29/11561946-sun.html Toronto Sun "White House 'war' with Fox News"
[76] http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/weekinreview/18davidcarr.html?ref=media New York Times "The Battle Between the White House and Fox News"
[77] http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/12/business/media/12fox.html?pagewanted=all New York Times "Fox’s Volley With Obama Intensifying"
[78] http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/obama-in-command-br-the-rolling-stone-interview-20100928?page=2 Rolling Stone article w/Obama quote
[79] http://www.aoltv.com/2010/09/29/obama-slams-fox-news-and-greg-gutfeld-slams-him-back-video%20&%20transcript/ AOL "Obama Slams Fox News and Greg Gutfeld Slams Him Back" -article includes 9-29-2010 Greg-alogue by Gutfeld
[80] http://www.aoltv.com/2010/09/29/obama-slams-fox-news-and-greg-gutfeld-slams-him-back-video%20&%20transcript/ AOL "Obama Slams Fox News and Greg Gutfeld Slams Him Back" -article includes 9-29-2010 Greg-alogue by Gutfeld
[81] http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,601642,00.html Fox News transcript of 9-29-2010 'Greg-alogue' by Gutfeld
-footnoted sources added by: --RedEyedCajun (talk) 06:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC) -footnoted source's titles added --RedEyedCajun (talk) 15:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's a blatant NPOV violation but it could use some cleanup. It should simply say "President Barack Obama criticized Fox News Channel..." and "responded to this criticism from Obama with..." instead of "political attacks". The phrases "another" and "this particular" are subtle POV phrases. –CWenger (^ • @) 06:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Greg Gutfeld, the host of Red Eye, specifically said that he was responding to "this particular" quote by President Obama in Rolling Stone. (addendum: Also see the title of the AOL footnoted source above[79]. --RedEyedCajun (talk) 15:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)) That is not a POV - that is a fact and sourced with complete transcript of episode containing the complete Greg-alogue, which is not shown above. The phrases "another political attack" is also not POV because the White House Anita Dunn publicly announced in the New York Times and elsewhere that they would be making many political attacks against Fox News and their on-air personalities from now on in response to what they saw as political attacks by Fox. This is also all fact - not POV and many political attacks soon followed which were all reported as such, including the Rolling Stone Obama quote, even by the New York Times which warned the WH that it was unwise to attack Fox News and their on-air personalities in this way. --RedEyedCajun (talk) 13:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

...if someone could please make these changes as the current author to the page keeps changing these attempts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.220.21 (talk) 08:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I had a look and it looks obvious that an editor or editors are expressing a POV that Obama has made political attacks, not criticisms, against Fox News. The wording is contrived to reiterate that they were 'political attacks' and about 10 sources have been added to "prove" that Obama has made "blatant political attacks". I'll try to clean it up. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The user IP 118 that wants this change is a long-time banned user known originally as Jackjit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jackjit/Archive He libeled the host of Red Eye, Greg Gutfeld, calling him a racist in the Red Eye article without any source, so he is not capable of judging NPOV or having fairness on this Red Eye article. He has a LONG history of shopping for help WP:FORUMSHOP using his banned shared/revolving 118 IP address, avoiding his block. He was just recently blocked again after avoiding his block. Over the past months, many other editors have reverted these changes Jackjit/118 wants to the Red Eye article, as well as his other vandalism to the article, so he is not being truthful here saying it is only one editor reverting his changes/vandalism. In fact, many editors across Wiki are reverting his vandalism to Conservative/republican articles. He should not be here shopping around for help (he's supposed to be banned), but especially since I was NOT notified of this discussion here but discovered it on my own by mere chance. I suspected this when user Alexh suddenly showed up out-of-the-blue on Red Eye article deleting the same well-sourced material as Jackjit/118IP.

As to Alex Harvey (talk) false/uninformed accusation that 10 references were added over time, it is only three reliable sources that have always supported the term "another political attack", which is toned down from "war" and "battle" which is used in the two "New York Times" sources and Toronto Sun source. Ten more could have been referenced, but three is plenty to support the language some people might find objectionable. These sources also use the term "attack". WP:NPOV is being followed here because the language used is netural when compared to the reliable sources language, which is much harsher POV and tone toward Obama administration's political war/battle against Fox News and how unwise the Obama administration was to announce a war against Fox. Also, WP:NPOV does allow objectionable language to be used, even if some or many may find it objectionable or more likely WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT.

I have always been open to some changes to this particular section and have allowed several to remain in the past without challenging them, even though I thought the references fully supported keeping them. It is not fair for one editor (Alexh) to go delete material that has been well sourced without discussing it on the Talk page of the article first, especially since this is a very obvious attempt at shopping for help WP:FORUMSHOP and Alex Harvey (talk) willingly took the bait and then stated falehoods here. He obviously did NOT look at the footnotes because if he had, he would have known there were three sources cited supporting the term, not ten as he stated above (addendum: and not 6 either, as he incorrectly stated below --RedEyedCajun (talk) 03:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)). That also proves he did NOT even bother to read the source material to see if it did support the language before he deleted the content (but he did leave many references hanging so a 'bot' wouldn't immediately revert his edits as pure vandalism); therefore, his only real objection is WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT! It is false that anything was "contrived" - it was all well-sourced. The term "political attack" is an often used term which describes an attack that is of a "political" nature, which is fully supported by the three references which Alexh didn't bother to read before making his uninformed deletions and forcing his political POV into the article without any discussion.

Please compare my talk page/contributions to Alexh and Jackjit and see who is more capable of compromise, following NPOV and being fair with deletions/helpful edits/adding references/talk. I like debating issues such as this, but the proper place is the Red Eye Talk page where other interested editors, who wanted to keep the language in question and have in the past reverted these same edits by Jackjit/118IP (and now, Alexh), could have commented. Jackjit/118IP knew many there didn't want that material deleted, so he went shopping for help WP:FORUMSHOP to get someone else to respond to his deceptive untruths and then make his edits, which is always his MO when he can't get his way by simply deleting well sourced material without discussion. So much for banning a user on Wiki - even one as bad as Jackjit still edits deceptively on Wiki and spreads untruths to get his way. --RedEyedCajun (talk) 09:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC) --RedEyedCajun (talk) 13:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Red Eyed Cajun, is it fair to say that this is a pretty strongly worded response? For the record I am Australian with no interest in US politics and no prior knowledge of this subject. One doesn't always need prior knowledge to see that something is biased, and that is the case with the section discussed here. It's true that I didn't actually count the number of sources you've given to justify your wording 'political attacks' and 'blatantly attacking'. So now I have counted and you have 6, 3 on the first wording and 3 on the second. Generally, there are a lot of footnotes "proving" various bits of wording in that article - probably more than I've ever seen actually. The NPOV policy states,

Prefer non-judgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone.

Actually, if you had ever bothered just once to go read the footnotes and sources, you would know that I did not try to "prove various bits" with footnotes. That is outright false. There are 3 footnotes (not 6 or 10 footnotes like you incorrectly stated above) that show this was 'another political attack' by Obama. Any one of those three sources alone would have supported 'another political attack', but I knew if I only put one, someone would be complaining one is not enough. The first sentence was a combination of a Rolling Stone Obama quote and another source which used the word "attack", all properly footnoted at the end of the sentence. I'm so sorry if you just don't like properly footnoted content on Wiki, which is Wiki policy. --RedEyedCajun (talk) 05:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The one thing I have sadly learned about Wikipedia is that political ideology knows no borders. Jackjit/118IP is a liberal New Zealander who vandalizes USA conservative/Republican type articles constantly. So saying you are Australian Alex Harvey doesn't prove you are any less biased than me or anyone else when it comes to NPOV on USA related articles. --RedEyedCajun (talk) 15:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you feel that your section is consistent with this policy? Do you feel you have used a disinterested tone? (talk) 15:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

In 20/20 hindsight, I should not have gone with the word "attack" which the reliable sources used (and thus mislead me). I should have instead replaced "attack" with the term "political comment", i.e. "President Obama made the political comment that Fox News was a destructive force..." That would have been a lot better than the current wording which uses the biased weasel word "criticized" which automatically implies there is something bad that deserves criticism. --RedEyedCajun (talk) 05:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Nobody here has complained once about "destructive force" being very pejorative. Yet they delete Gutfeld's response quote of "Crybaby-in-Chief". The section is now in violation of WP:NPOV as long as "destructive force" is allowed without being balanced by Gutfeld's "Crybaby-in-Chief" response for clarity/balance. In an ironic way, by removing Gutfeld's "crybaby" quote, Gutfeld's 'Greg-alogue' response cannot be properly judged in context by the reader. Many on the left might well say Gutfeld's political response to the President's political comments proves Fox's on-air personalities are "destructive forces". Do you really think Gutfeld's response was helpful to Fox News' image? The Huffington Post bloggers didn't think so.--RedEyedCajun (talk) 05:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

To re-quote NPOV policy: "A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone." And objectionable material you WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to delete and eviscerate a section using WP:NPOV as a sledge hammer, because sometimes you lose the very clarity, balance and unbiased content most are seeking to present on Wiki articles. --RedEyedCajun (talk) 05:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Alex, Cajun. I've gone through the section and trimmed it. There's no reason for using a pejorative term ("political attack") when a non-perjorative term ("critcise") will suffice. Alex, this list may both amuse and depress you; I've seen far worse than two pairs of three citations on Wikipedia. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem at all leaving the edits you made to the article. We shall see if others who disagreed in the past step up now and revert your edits or not. I will let others decide the fate of this section. But I don't think a banned user like Jackjit should be allowed to edit/vandalize this article or others, using WP:FORUMSHOP by asking above "...if someone could please make these changes..." I did NOT think further describing the kind of "attack", which was the word used in many reliable sources, by adding it was an obvious "political" attack was pejorative. It's all political and don't we all know this. I think it was also fair of these same sources to say some of Fox's "attacks" were political in nature and the WH had every right to respond sometimes. --RedEyedCajun (talk) 17:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I will offer here what was never offered to the interested editors of the Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld article: I am copying this discussion (minus the banned user Jackjit's comments) and moving it to the Red Eye TALK page, which the NPOV noticeboard policy clearly states was the proper place to discuss such major changes to content of the article. --RedEyedCajun (talk) 06:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Coatracking at George Packer?

An editor has removed the following brief text from the George Packer article based upon the claim that it is coatracking:

From 2004 to 2005, Packer contributed $1,000 to Democratic organizations and candidates.

This is sourced to this article by investigative journalist Bill Dedman, where Packer is disussed:

George Packer is The New Yorker's man in Iraq.

The war correspondent for the magazine since 2003 and author of the acclaimed 2005 book "The Assassins' Gate: America in Iraq," Packer gave $750 to the Democratic National Committee in August 2004, and then $250 in 2005 to Iraq war veteran Paul Hackett, an anti-war Democrat who campaigned unsuccessfully for a seat in Congress from Ohio.

In addition to his reported pieces, Packer also writes commentary for the magazine, such as his June 11 piece ruing Bush's "shallow, unreflective character."

"My readers know my views on politics and politicians because I make no secret of them in my comments for The New Yorker and elsewhere," Packer said. "If giving money to a politician prejudiced my ability to think and write honestly, I wouldn't do it. Fortunately, it doesn't."

In addition, an article in The Washington Post also mentions Dedman's reporting about Packer's contributions.

The dispute has been discussed here.

I don't know about "coatrack", but my feeling is that for a biography as brief as this one, it would be a BLP violation and undue weight to include material that arguably puts a question mark over his political neutrality. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith

The article concerns the first critical biography of Mormon founder Joseph Smith written by Fawn Brodie in 1945. A recent conflict has arisen between me (a non-Mormon) and all the other current editors (who are Mormons), over whether research by a Mormon geneticist and publicized only by a LDS-owned newspaper and a Mormon apologetic organization should be so labeled. The Mormon editors oppose allowing readers to be aware of these connections. Here's the diff.

Here's a link to the discussion segment. There's more, but this section is probably more than you want to read anyway.--John Foxe (talk) 21:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned that this isn't published in a peer reviewed scientific journal, and puzzled why it hasn't been if the author is as prestigious as our article makes him sound. Ugo A. Perego has a PhD in genetics and has some respectable publications [35] but he doesn't seem to have published this outside of Mormon-related venues. Dougweller (talk) 08:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

First, John Foxe only assumes that all editor who have opposing viewpoints are "Mormons", by which he means are members of the LDS Church. They are not. I am not a member of the LDS Church, the brand of Mormonism he is assuming that everyone against his viewpoint is.

Second; Perego and SMGF has outsourced all of its laboratory work to Sorenson Genomics, which is accredited by three "independent peer reviewed scientific" accreditation companies. They are capable of establishing familiar relations in a court of law. Weather Perego is Mormon or the Deseret News published the findings is irreverent.

Third; The real issue is that Foxe wants to introduce a NPOV bias by insinuating that any research that comes from a "Mormon" or is published by the Deseret News is "Flawed" since it comes from "Mormons". His own viewpoint that only a "non-Mormon" can objectively edit a Mormon related topic. This shows the bias he is attempting to add to this page. My favorite addition of his was this edit where he added "Mormons attempted to discredit Brodie by citing DNA profiling performed...". So the only reason anyone would care if JS had children was to "discredit Brodie"?

If we are to keep a NPOV in this article then the "Mormon" status of Perego should not be included since it is no more relevant to his findings, the statement included in the article, nor articles subject, any more then the "religious" status of the lab tech at Sorenson Genomics who ran the actual test or the religion of Foxe or myself.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 12:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

@Dougweller - Actually this has been published in an independent peer-reviewed scholarly journal, the Journal of Mormon History. While a bit niche, it is a respected and well known publication on Mormon studies. It has also been published in the peer-reviewed John Whitmer Historical Association Journal, which might be less independent (I think it is somewhat affliated with CoC) but is still a well-known publication in the field.

In general though, it is hard to have meaningful debate with someone who makes a habit of using other editors' religious affliations as ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views. That is another reason why John Foxe's suggestion should be opposed - if he constantly points out other editors as "Mormons" (whether they have openly said they are or not) as ad hominem attempts to dismiss them, how are his intentions any different when he wants the article to go out of its way to identify sources as "Mormon"? --FyzixFighter (talk) 21:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

While the Journal of Mormon History is a fine peer-reviewed history journal, Dougweller asked why Perego did not publish in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and why he "doesn't seem to have published this outside of Mormon-related venues." Those are still good, unanswered questions.--John Foxe (talk) 22:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Abortion

Several editors at this article want the lead sentence to say there is no such thing as abortion after about five months of pregnancy (i.e. when the fetus becomes viable), notwithstanding definitions in reliable sources like the Oxford English Dictionary.[36] So, the lead sentence of the article now recites a narrow medical definition, while excluding all other definitions, and this lead sentence has been installed without talk page consensus regarding how to change the previous lead sentence that existed from 2006 to 2011. Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia rather than a strictly medical text, and the subject of this article is not merely medical, but also social, legal, historical, etc. Favoring a narrow technical definition to the 100% exclusion of all broader viewpoints in reliable sources seems contrary to NPOV, and seems to be intended to reduce the scope of the entire article. Any advice?Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Demand sources... if there are reliable sources that define abortion as ending at around five months, then "present the disagreement"... neutrally note that the term is defined in dictionaries as X, but is defined in these other sources as Y. Don't try to say which is "correct". Blueboar (talk) 13:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Have you even looked at the article? Because what essentially could be templated advice is not particularly useful here. NW (Talk) 01:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I tried "presenting the disagreement" before posting here, without success. The sources have been provided, but there's been unwillingness to use anything but those sources.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there's been a clear emphasis on using professional-quality secondary sources for this article on a medical event. Almost without exception, those use the viability-based definition. JJL (talk) 00:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

This has been thoroughly discussed at the Talk page. JJL (talk) 00:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

JJL, we know your opinion on this. Let's hear from the broader community. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 01:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Genius and Historiometry

Historiometry is a scientific field which studies genius. Despite this, an editor objects to having a section on Historiometry in the Genius article because it is "undue" and "it's only tangentially related" and "An entire section about an obscure and minor field of study is certainly not needed here". IMO it is obviously not tangentially related and while it is not a major field it is not insignificant either: 3000 hits in Google Books: [37]Miradre (talk) 21:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that Historiometry is not focused on studying genius, so I disagree with having a whole section for it on the article. However, I also disagree with the other editor's position that a "see also" entry is enough. Historiometry deserves at least a few sentences (if not a paragraph) in the "Historical Development" section, along with a "see also" entry. I hope this is a good solution for both parties.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 22:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll note that I made a very similar suggestion on the talk page: "I suppose an inline link in the Psychology section might be worthwhile." This suggestion was not welcomed by Miradre. aprock (talk) 23:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It deserves some description as stated above and not just a link.Miradre (talk) 23:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Certainly, which is why I said "inline link". aprock (talk) 23:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Good. Then I will add some material. Although not to the psychology section. It is not a subfield of psychology but rather inter-disciplinary.Miradre (talk) 23:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Aprock here [38] shows his true colors. He deleted almost all descriptions of the field and moved it one sentence in "Galton" setion. Obviously inadequate considering that the long ago dead Galton gets numerous paragraphs. Also, it is not just a "historical development" but a currently active field.Miradre (talk) 00:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I still don't see the need for a section or subsection on historiometry, but I also disagree with aprock's approach to minimize the information. I would suggest you expand the sentence on historiometry with the necessary descriptions and sources, but without losing the link to Galton (which is considered one of the pioneers of the field, according to the historiometry wiki-page). Regarding the term "historical development": history doesn't equal to old or obsolete; history is a mixture of both past and present. You could explain that historiometry is still an active study. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Charles Murray (author) is mentioned in Historiometry as a principal modern researcher, but that article doesn't mention Historiometry as an interest of his. Overall looking at both those articles the methods looks pseudo scientific and I get the very strong feeling it is some sort of unholy union between a conservative think tank and a tabloid newspaper. The real point though in Wikipedia terms is do sources about genius mention historiometry with some sort of weight or is it just that articles about historiometry mentions genius? The first means it should be in the article and the second means it should at best be a see also or one liner. Using the google test I got 20 thousand mentions of historiometry on its own. I searched for all three of study psychology genius together and got 7 million replies. So it seems to me that even in the study of the psychology of genius historiometry probably has fairly low weight. And that's using statistics which historiometry supposedly makes great use of. Dmcq (talk) 19:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's article about Charles Murray is not good evidence regarding him. The book Human Accomplishment describes the work as Historiometric. Historiometry is not a pseudeoscence with numerous academic papers published. A general Google search is not particularly relevant for status in academic works. There are about 1000 books both mentioning Historiometry and Genius in Google Books. As such relevance seems demonstrated.Miradre (talk) 20:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I make that 336, which I work out as about one twentieth of what one gets for morphic resonance. I do hope you're not trying to use google counts for showing something is reputable science? Dmcq (talk) 21:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure you used Google Books? Regarding the question if it is a pseudoscience, there are of course numerous peer-reviewed articles in the field (see Google Scholar) as well as for example this textbook by Yale University Press: [39]Miradre (talk) 21:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes I used it properly, try counting them if you really think there's more. There's twenty times as many 'scholar' articles on morphic resonance as well. As I said though the main thing is it has so little weight in the context. Dmcq (talk) 22:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is my search result for Google books: [40] There are about the same number or articles in Google scholar for "morphic resonance" and "Historiometry". But that Historiometry should be a pseudoscience is not a criticism I have ever heard. It is certainly more quantitative than most historic research. I note that "Anders Ericsson" and "Genius" gives 209 hits in Google Scholar and "Anders Ericsson" is mentioned in several paragraphs in the Genius Article.Miradre (talk) 22:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

And have a look at the last page of that [41], try with +'s instead. Charles Murray has a BA in history and a PhD in political science and works for a conservative think tank. You think I should deem his ratings of scientists over the ages with great respect? We haven't even fully accounted for the Flynn effect and that uses actual measurements rather than sticking a finger in the air. And the other one working on it went and stuck out ratings of the intelligence of the various US presidents. What else should I think except tabloid newspaper? The various cartoons making fun of that had it right I think. Dmcq (talk) 00:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Ad hominem is nor relevant. It is like dismissing political or historical research by Chomsky because he is far left and a linguist. I am not aware of any cartoons making fun of Historiometry. It certainly is not simple a measure of intelligence but includes various aspects such as creativity, ambition, luck, education, and whatever else makes an individual outstanding. I repeat that it is very strange to have several paragraphs about Anders Ericsson in the Genius article and not one about Historiometry.Miradre (talk) 00:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's a widely read cartoon [42]. Hmm so I've got to debate all the junk output by political think tanks on a case by case basis otherwise it is an ad hominem attack. As to political and historical research it is a stamping ground for everybody and their dog anyway so who am I to complain about anybody speaking their piece? However this was supposed to be scientific and as the article says "Dr. K. Anders Ericsson is a Swedish psychologist and Conradi Eminent Scholar and Professor of Psychology at Florida State University who is widely recognized as one of the world's leading theoretical and experimental researchers on expertise". I think that counts. Dmcq (talk) 19:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I accept that it is considered a science whatever about my opinions of it. I have experience in using statistics from unlikely sources and I just don't buy it all except for very broad brush work - this identifying individuals from different ages just looks like bullshit to me. I just see the study as a minor aspect and the number of references confirm that to me especially since it should be popular in newspapers with its findings, and that other author you mentioned gets results by actual measurements which is much more convincing. So no great development of the topic there just a quick summary and reference over is my feeling. Dmcq (talk) 08:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Web Sheriff

Web Sheriff reads like an advert. Four NPOV discussions have been started by different people in the last year, and all have been vigorously defended by a single babysitter who admits they do it because they are "the one who has put in the hours of work". They won't allow an NPOV tag to be put on the article, despite the obvious controversy. ··gracefool☺ 11:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

For the most part everything appears to be sourced to reliable secondary sources and the article seems to be written fairly encyclopaedically. Is there a more specific concern here. Is the editor you mention preventing you adding reliably sourced criticism for example? Alex Harvey (talk) 13:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

At first glance it seems reliably sourced but I see a lot of things there that give me concern, 1) 95% of all edits have been made by one editor who repeatedly "defends" his work on the talk page despite multiple editors saying the article needs POV pruning. I also notice that about a third of the sources have been cited 5-10 times each. Not a violation of any kind but a sign that someone is working overtime to squeeze all the juice out. Also the lead does not properly or neutrally summarize the article and there are two or three large sections that, if I had a WP magic wand, I would reduce by 75%. With this is mind, I have left a message on the talk page suggesting that the main editor, who has spent many hours in a courageous good faith effort to create a solid article, has over-invested themselves and is showing signs of ownership and would do themselves good, and the project a favor, by just stepping away for a few months.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I got started with the article, thinking I was doing a service for WP and for the principles of fairness and equality, in general, when I first viewed the article and saw that not any WP editor had reverted a very obvious case of vandalism that resulted in this erroneous report being filed using Wiki as a source: Rip-Off Report. (Wiki vandalised version) I reverted the vandalism and looked up info on the company. I truly felt like we as a community, were very lax in this instance. So, as a conscientious WP editor, I thought perhaps, we really should have a reliably sourced article that would present the company in a more balanced and truthful context. As far as 95% contributions, no one else wants to do anything other than delete reliably sourced material on the article. Agadant (talk) 20:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

@Keithbob: Thanks for your courteous message. Regarding your comments: One of the reasons that the sources have been cited more than once is often because I have referenced the lead for editors unfamiliar with the usual method of not having them there. (less controversy) I call it "defending" because others have used that term for it. It shouldn't be out of the ordinary or unexpected that the editor who wrote the content would be the one to explain and discuss it, if it is brought up on the talk page. The majority of the 'few', not 'multiple' editors who want to delete selective material of their choosing from the article (you call it pruning) have never even edited before, or very little, except on the Web Sheriff talk page. I don't think I should be asked to "step away" from this article that I am still working to get to the highest quality and standard I can, anymore than you would "step away" from the one that you have been main editor on and have nominated for GA review. Right? It goes without saying, (but I will anyway) that the Web Sheriff talk page would have more accusations and negativity because of the company's work on the internet. Does anyone dispute this? Agadant (talk) 04:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick note to mention that I went to the article to make some improvements. aprock (talk) 20:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Someone please help. This was under discussion and Aprock is deleting most of the article with no discussion or consensus of any kind. Agadant (talk) 20:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

If by "most of the article" you mean the various WP:LAUNDRY lists in the article, then yes, I did attempt to clean those up. aprock (talk) 20:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

It was more than that! It was a full scale assault on the article without any discussion, consensus and only your say so. Then you warn me about edit warring when I quickly tried to stop you before you went further. There is no good reason for you to have acted this way. I was letting you edit without any problem before this even though you did remove sourced info yesterday. Guess that was a mistage on my part to not question it then.Agadant (talk) 21:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

"I was letting you edit ..." It appears there may be some issues of WP:OWN with this article. aprock (talk) 21:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Taking my words out of context, are you? I was not objecting even though you removed reliable sourced material without any discussion. Agadant (talk) 21:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Will someone here in a NPOV manner as in the spirit of what this board stands for, please inform me of what happens to this process now? I refrained from editing on the article, as far as adding new content and even refrained for creating a controversy by reverting Aprock's deletions on the article yesterday. I thought this was to establish by a discussion if the article was NPOV? How can one bold and contentious editor steal the whole procedure away from everyone? It's not even about the article with me anymore or the hours I spent working on it, it's about fairness. I would like more information, please. I'm not informed at all but some editors here surely must be and surely will give me some assistance in understanding how this could happen right under everyones' noses, so to speak? Agadant (talk) 04:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Probably the most straightforward thing to do would be to discuss the content issues on the talk page of the article. Have you read WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle? aprock (talk) 05:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't ask for your information. I asked for the advice of these editors here. I am not in any condition to argue with someone who is playing a hurtful game and having fun baiting me. Agadant (talk)

The article is still written as is if it were an WP:ADVERT for Web Sheriff. For example it seems to be WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to include information on the fact that 3 of Web Sheriff's customer's had hits in the top ten in July 2011, etc. This is just puffery and unwarranted publicity for the company, even if WP:TRUE. This general point was made right at the beginning of the thread. The article does need pruning, possibly even stubbifying. Mathsci (talk) 06:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I think we have now gone beyond the realm of a balanced viewpoint and ventured into the area where all is possible and acceptable. Even the most avid TorrenFreak and Pirate Bay fans wouldn't go that far or would they? What about Alexh19740110 and all the other qualified editors who have seen the article? Can they be so blind and so wrong? If so, perhaps many of us should retire, we obviously are lacking in any kind of discretion and good judgment. Who here has read the TorrentFreak article of a short time ago, TorrentFreak targets Web Sheriff Wiki where they pokingly made fun of Web Sheriff's wiki article, in almost a jealous manner and linked directly to it. Of course, they should be taken seriously and completely unbiased in their remarks and judgment... hmm, seems like that's when the accusations became more than just ramblings from anon IPs and began in earnest, doesn't it? Has anyone looked at The Pirate Bay article, it more or less promotes all that the site stands for. Even the 30 editor, who had made a few edits on file sharing and The Pirate Bay didn't advocate stubbing the article. I hope some editors who have some sense of fairness and equality will step forward or has it now become just a free for all on getting rid of the present Web Sheriff article and paring it back down to the vandalised version it was when the Rip-Off report was filed using Wiki for a source? Rip-Off Report Notice how balanced and understanding Web Sheriff was toward Wiki, even though the Rip-Off article will forever be on file? I felt a sense of relief for that being a loyal wiki editor (as I still am) and I wasn't even writing on the article then and certainly not employed by them, as some have claimed. I guess I would be suspected of being compensated or crazy to have to go through this just to be allowed to edit on such a controversial and unpopular topic as an anti-piracy company. Agadant (talk) 10:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes I am still here. I agreed mostly with what KeithBob said. It does need to be pruned and I agree that it is promotional in tone. The article does appear to be written by a "fan", like a lot of articles. But a lot of articles, it isn't a complete mess, and is informative and well written. I look at articles about other IT companies and I don't find it obvious that this one is all that bad. And I do wonder whether or not this article would be quickly hijacked by vandals if Agadant stepped aside, which seems to be his concern. It doesn't need to be pruned overnight; I fail to see anything urgent about this situation, and if Agadant disagrees on the detail of what is being pruned, then I feel he should be at least listened to. It certainly doesn't need to be stubbed. Alex Harvey (talk) 11:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. And this does not refer to you at all, Alex Harvey but just a general question. What I don't understand and what no one has been able or willing to explain to me is why the very policies of WP:NPOV, would be thrown aside for this article? ----The policy states: "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage." Yes, that does take time to try to balance something or contribute, it is so much easier to remove something quickly that you disagree with. What has always amazed me about the complaining editors about this article is that they are never willing to do anything but delete, delete, delete. Oh, that is so easy and effective, if you don't like something in an article, isn't it? Let's don't dirty our contribution history with such a scar as Web Sheriff editing, but we can be applauded for removal of everything that is offensive to file-sharing enthusists. Sorry, to be sarcastic, and is not directed to you Alex Harvey. But I know for a fact and from viewing articles that file-sharing is promoted and advanced on Wikipedia. Specific instructions are even given for downloading for the uniformed. Agadant (talk) 12:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Even a ten second skim reveals prose like "The company has achieved a consistent success in helping to deliver highest ever chart placings or highest ever sales for many music clients, despite their albums leaking early." - it could come straight out of a glossy brochure. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

further investigation reveals that article is a real shocker and full of original research and novel synthesis - along the lines of "Bob Smith hired Web Sheriff"[ref 1]. "Bob smith's album was #1 on the chart"[ref 2] - set up to create the inference that the two are connected - they might be, but the reference in the article don't make that claim. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_Sheriff This can actually be done by each separate editor? Deleting reliably sourced material that has stood in place for sometimes a year? Is it because I have stated my case as I thought in a truthful manner and after being repeatedly attacked and maligned yesterday? Will someone tell me why this is being allowed on this article? I will not go away until some editor who is balanced and fair takes over and reverts it back until the discussion is resolved. Agadant (talk) 13:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an advertising medium. This article appeared to be more an ad than anything else. A "documented" ad is still an ad. Collect (talk) 13:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Web_Sheriff Is this really allowed? He is asking for more to get involved with this full scale attack? Agadant (talk) 13:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Asking for uninvolved editors (those who have not edited an article before) to get stuck into a article with problem is completely normal. I think at the least you have WP:OWN problems that we need to deal with. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I will not believe this is fair and I will ask for assistence elsewhere and higher up, if no one will stop this all out war on the article. Agadant (talk) 13:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Its not an all out war, but rather a release of a NPOV issue that has been building for many months. I have looked at the recent changes and deletions and they look to be proper clean up and/or deletion of documented, but very promotional, text. The editors making the changes are established editors and there is no one on this page who doesn't think the article read like an advert and needed change-- including Alex Harvey who says: "It does need to be pruned and I agree that it is promotional in tone. The article does appear to be written by a fan". Agadant, you are a good editor with many good contributions to Wikipedia so out of kindness and courtesy I suggest that you take a break and get some perspective on this. The more you pursue this, the more the focus comes back on you and the WP:OWN issue. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I will state my view, which is this process of removing with little discussion, except that it is an Advert, POV, etc., reliably sourced material even the fan reactions that are angry ones shows POV on the part of the editor. And all of the really good sourcing such as Rolling Stone, Esquire and of course, The Los Angeles Times had to be deleted. Rolling Stone was not POV at all in any form, just informational . But what about The Pirate Bay? It has the same in the long lead even a flattering Los Angeles Times quote. Oh, Why is that different? Agadant (talk) 21:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

My problem is Agadant isn't allowing anyone to tag the article as POV, even though most people agree it is. ··gracefool☺ 23:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure you believe what you say, but why don't you or someone tag The Pirate Bay. I got some of my ideas of what is allowable there! I put a quote from Los Angeles Times in the WS article because I saw one on The Pirate Bay lead and though it must be fine to put a similar one in WS that has been removed now and called POV. No way would you be allowed to tag Pirate Bay by the editors there, I'm very certain!Agadant (talk) 00:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

THE WEB SHERIFF ARTICLE HAS BEEN HIJACKED... ALMOST ALL MATERIAL HAS BEEN REMOVED.... TAGS EVERYWHERE! WITHOUT CONSENSUS AND EVEN MATERIAL THAT IS COMPLETELY NEUTRAL LIKE COMPANY EMPLOYEES IS BEING REMOVED. RELIABLE SOURCING HAS BEEN REMOVED AND NOW IT IS SAID IT IS NOT RELIABLY SOURCED!! SOME NEUTRAL EDITOR HAS TO STEP IN AND STOP RANDOM EDITORS WHO HAVE NEVER BEEN INTERESTED BEFORE FROM DESTROYING IT FURTHER. ONLY TALK ON THE TALK PAGE IS OF DELETIONS AND PLANS FOR FURTHER. CALLED BAITING ELSEWHERE. COMPLETELY POV EDITING AND NO ONE WILL STOP IT!!!!! Agadant (talk) 23:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Oops. Mathsci (talk) 23:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Terminology at female genital mutilation

Following a successful rename of what is now female genital mutilation, a user has replaced virtually all instances of "female genital cutting" (and FGC) with "... mutilation" (and FGM).

Some brief background. Google Scholar indicates that the term FGM is used more frequently than FGC; the gap has narrowed over time but the ratio is currently about 3:1. Having said that, among the sources that have specifically addressed the question of terminology, there is some controversy about the term "FGM". Sources have argued that it may not be regarded as mutilation,[43][44][45][46][47] that the term FGM is judgemental[48] non-neutral[49] and has been criticised as political[50]. Many of these sources favour the less loaded term FGC; some (eg., USAID, UNHCR, UNICEF, and UNFPA) use both together, in the form "FGM/FGC" or "FGM/C".

There are two main arguments for the edits noted above: that they are consistent with the new title, and that FGM is the most commonly-used term and should therefore be used by Wikipedia. I believe, however, that they are incompatible with NPOV's requirements that we "Prefer non-judgmental language", maintain an "impartial tone", and "Avoid stating opinions [ie., that FGC mutilates] as facts".

Attempts to find a compromise have so far been unsuccessful. Unfortunately substantial canvassing has taken place, complicating the consensus-building process; I'm therefore posting this to get input from uninvolved editors. Jakew (talk) 18:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I am involved, see Talk:Female genital mutilation. The long discussion on the article talk page, and this report, cannot progress unless a proposal is made. We need some wording in the current article and a brief explanation of why that wording might be an NPOV problem. It is not the role of Wikipedia to rule on whether "mutilation" is a neutral term in regard to this issue, although specific wording in an article can of course be assessed. Are you suggesting that an article on "female genital mutilation" should not use the term "FGM"? Johnuniq (talk) 02:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Obviously we need to use the term in the first sentence, in quotations, and in discussion of terminology. Elsewhere, however, it seems to me that a more neutral alternative should be preferred for use within the article. I'd also add that it is incorrect to imply that no proposals have been made; in fact, I've already made two proposals: first, to revert the edits in question, restoring the neutral term "FGC", and second, as a compromise, to use "FGM/C". Jakew (talk) 11:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Murder of Meredith Kercher: Can a short list of controversies be NPOV?

This dispute centers on a statement in the lede of the MoMK article that I and some other editors don't believe is properly sourced or NPOV. The paragraph in question is:

The case has received much media attention in Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States. It has been widely described as controversial, with questions raised over the validity of the convictions, coverage in the news media and the conduct of the police investigation and prosecutor.

The first sentence is unsourced, and the word "much" is subjective. However, the major problem is the second sentence. The word "It" suggests that the entirety of the case is controversial which is untrue. The phrase "widely described as controversial" exists in no source; it is a subjective assessment by editors based largely on U.S. media coverage. In my view it is WP:WEASEL, not least because the sentence goes on to list four "questionable" areas which just happen to be defence talking-points. It's a lawyerly way of saying, "Almost everyone thinks the defendants are being railroaded."

Other editors have made comments about the problematic nature of this paragraph. I would like to replace the original paragraph with the following sourced text:

The trials have received media coverage around the world, particularly in Italy, Britain and the United States, and aspects of the case are controversial.

I've not been able to work with the three who are reverting the article most of the time. I believe it's important to get this right because it is the lede in a highly-trafficked article and in a sense it sets the editorial standard for the whole page. I appreciate your input here and/or on the article talk page. Brmull (talk) 00:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

From my own view what makes the case controversial is unclearly stated. Yes there is a question of validity of convictions and police investigation but I would group that together as one item clearly in favor of the defendants. Coverage of media can go both ways but is vague. Really why is this case controversial? A disputed trial with competing stories? That's hardly unusual. What I see though that is not touched upon are the nationalist undercurrent and sensationalist aspect. Satanic orgy anyone? Lambanog (talk) 10:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice‎‎

This page basically looks like an attack page. There have been attempts on the talk page to engage in discussions, but to no avail. Some extra eyes/opinions would be helpful here. Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 20:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Coconut oil

The coconut oil article is not objective and attempts to improve it have been met with dogmatic resistance by editors who do not appear to have much knowledge of the subject but have a history of obstructing article development of articles not to their taste. Independent third-party editors are requested to have a look. Among the biases evident: the amount of warnings given about coconut oil making sections of the article read like something one would find on a cigarette carton despite the evidence not being based on coconut oil per se and there being controversy on the supposed consensus. One of the more positive things said about it in the article (good for frying) is false. One of its great uses (in soap making) is absent in the discussion.

From the links below one can see attempts at a better article have been made.

A link to a previous article version with more sources and information [51]. Diff with current version [52].

Reasons for not adopting that version despite being superior appear nebulous. Notice no attempts to significantly improve the article have been made by those editors responsible for blocking the more complete version despite there being ample time and information available to do so. Lambanog (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

We've been down this road before, see this archived discussion. Yobol (talk) 21:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The NPOV banner that was in effect at the time was recently removed. But consensus was never reached. I placed another NPOV banner to express dissatisfaction with the continued non-neutrality of the article but it has been removed without discussion—which is a similar tactic employed in the earlier attempts to reach accommodation, making this a live issue once again and why it has been brought up here. Compare the Wikipedia article with this New York Times article: Once a Villain, Coconut Oil Charms the Health Food World. The Wikipedia article fails utterly to address the controversy involved. Lambanog (talk) 07:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The version by Lambanog is well-written and provides more information, but it is definitely biased toward the "coconut oil is miracle substance" side of the debate. It also seems overly detailed to me as regards extraction methods. I think the ideal would be somewhere between these two versions. But that's just a non-expert's first take. Brmull (talk) 10:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Is it OK to have a billboard picture at Exit International?

At Exit International there is a concern that by including a billboard picture that was sponsored by the group it "changes the article from a neutral description into a platform of promoting the cause and the organisation".[53] Is it NPOV to include the billboard picture? Jesanj (talk) 02:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

It does not seem unreasonable to me. Just for reference, I went and glanced at NARAL (no similar pictures), Planned Parenthood (comparable pictures), Heaven's Gate (religious group) (no pictures) and Scientology ((comparable pictures). --Belg4mit (talk) 02:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

(I think I'm allowed to comment on noticeboards, please remove if not) It must be noted that the billboard has historical significance, representing the first ever in Australia to promote voluntary euthanasia. There was quite a long battle to get permission for it [54]. It would be ironic in the extreme to see it effectively banned from appearing in wikipedia, after the struggle to have it placed in Australia. Jabbsworth (talk) 03:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC) Striking comment, this is indeed in violation of the topic ban. -- Atama頭 16:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the billboard picture is okay, especially given it's historical significance. If this were, say, a billboard for sunscreen no one would have a problem with it. I also think the text of the article is pretty fair, but if there have been notable controversies regarding this group that could be included as well. Brmull (talk) 03:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the picture is ok, but the placement is not neutral and doesn't following our style guidelines. It would be better if the picture were lower down and not crowding the lede, and in a section covering the historical nature of the board, since that seems worthy of inclusion. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Stephen Garcia

Someone please keep an eye on this. I am fighting against some South Carolina homers that want to remove all references (properly sourced) about this athlete's criminal history. 216.117.11.39 (talk) 12:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, someone who wrote "he's more of a criminal than an athlete" in an edit summary is clearly seeking a neutral point of view. Underage drinking and discharging fire extinguishers hardly makes someone a "criminal". Oh, and this user is also using multiple IPs to avoid violating 3RR while pursuing this POV agenda. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 16:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

You'd have a valid point if the criminal acts weren't properly sourced. Remove your bias, and approach this with a neutral point of view. 99.65.186.186 (talk) 17:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Social Democrats, USA (SDUSA) and Reagan administration

Social Democrats, USA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

[ Social Democrats, USA ] had moved sufficiently right by 1980, that many of their members served in the Reagan administration.[Busky, Donald F. Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey. Westport: Praeger Publishers, 2000., pp. 163-165][55]

Is this "POV-pushing"? It appears to be the consensus view of observers of SDUSA. Reagan appointed Jeane Kirkpatrick ambassador to the U.N., and Carl Gersham was her assistant. Elliot Abrams was Reagan's Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and a major figure in the Iran Contra affair. Linda Chavez (the Fox News contributor) was Reagan's Director of Public Liason. Other leading members (including DSUSA chairmen and officers), who could be considered to have moved to the right include Sidney Hook, Tom Kahn, Rachelle Horowitz, Bruce McColm, Douglas Payne, Arch Puddington, Bayard Rustin, Penn Kemble, and Joshua Muravchik. While the term right-wing is relative, the Reagan administration would normally be considered to be to the right of the Socialist Party of America (the original name of SDUSA). TFD (talk) 15:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)