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

MEMRI

The inclusion of the category Propaganda organizations in the article Middle East Media Research Institute has been challenged on the grounds that it is a violation of NPOV. The two sources provided on the talk page to back the inclusion of the category are as follows:

• Brian Whitacker (12 August 2002), "Selective Memri", The Guardian:

  Earlier this year, Memri scored two significant propaganda successes against Saudi Arabia.

  The article then details those two incidents
• Achcar, Gilbert (2009), The Arabs and the Holocaust: The Arab-Israeli War of Narratives, Macmillan, ISBN 9780805089547

  p. 182: However, MEMRI is conspicuously—even more than the two book just discussed—a function of the Arab-Israeli conflict, acting like a subdepartment of the Israeli propaganda services. ... If such biased inventories and anthologies are of any use beyond propaganda, it is as a barmoeter of the ideological and intellectural regression currently under way in the Arab world. That undertakings of this sort no more reveal the "Arab attitude" than they do "the reality in the Arab world" does not mean that those who compile them invent the quotations they proffer. What they do is put manifestations of the regression on prominant display, while often taking them out of context; selected, assembled, and concentrated in a single stream, these exhibits project a deliberately distorted image of the Arab world's intellectual production. Nevertheless, as long as one keeps in mind that this material is being used for propaganda purposes ...

Is it a violation of NPOV to include MEMRI in this category? nableezy - 06:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The Brian Whitacker piece in the Guardian isn't a news article in any real sense. The Guardian may have classified it as such, but its language is clearly subjective, and news reports are supposed to be objective in nature. Whitacker also uses irony, which is inconsistent with factual news reporting. For example, he calls MEMRI "a generous institute" – but he doesn't mean it literally. This perhaps raises a deeper issue relating to the Guardian as far as its reliability, but it's safe to say at least in this case that the Whitacker article is not news in the manner news is typically defined and shouldn't be used for making far-reaching claims like labeling MEMRI's activities "propaganda."—Biosketch (talk) 07:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

By describing it as a "far-reaching claim" I think you have probably called into question your reliability in responding to this question to some extent. It isn't a far reaching claim to neutrally describe MEMRI as a propaganda organization. I can understand that some people have qualms about the use of the word propaganda because they imbue it with things that are absent from a neutral academic definition of the term. The Whitacker piece is discussed and taken seriously by a reliable source (i.e. not us) in the book Translation and conflict: a narrative account[1] by Mona Baker. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Random House defines Propaganda as "information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc." Labeling an organization a "propaganda organization" is therefore a far-reaching claim, regardless of your personal feelings on the matter. WP:YESPOV instructs us to "Avoid stating opinions as fact." The Whitacker article is underlyingly an opinion piece – his own opinion.—Biosketch (talk) 08:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

There is another source listed. And other definitions, such as the OED's The systematic dissemination of information, esp. in a biased or misleading way, in order to promote a political cause or point of view. The other source listed says that MEMRI acts like a subdepartment of the Israeli propaganda services and it, in a biased manner, systematically spreads information in order to promote a political cause or point of view. In other words, the definition of the word propaganda. Do you have any comment at all about the book published by Macmillan that says that this organization engages in propaganda? nableezy - 08:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Biosketch, I honestly have no idea how you go from the Random House definition to a conclusion that describing MEMRI as a propaganda organization is a "far reaching claim". Random House's definition fits MEMRI perfectly although it's OR for me to say that and of course there is many definitions of propaganda. Also, for the record, I don't have any feelings. This has nothing to do with me. It's to do with the nature of propaganda and how RS apply that term. Think of it like putting Hamas in Category:Islamic terrorism. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Biosketch. I suggest you stop discussing sources and start discussing core guidelines. I have personally tried adding a category calling a group of people terrorist and was met with:

• "Categorizations appear on pages without annotations or referencing to justify or explain their addition; editors should be conscious of the need to maintain a neutral point of view when creating categories or adding them to articles. Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy, then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is probably more appropriate." WP:CAT. So disregarding the discussion altogether: If you want to say it in a cat then you should be able to say it better in prose. Cptnono (talk) 08:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

What's going on here? Usually it's just me and User:Sean.hoyland at these hours of the day. But you're right, of course. There should be content in the prose of the article establishing whether or not or to which extent MEMRI is a propaganda organization. Cats are supposed to be derivatives of article content – all the more so controversial ones.—Biosketch (talk) 08:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

"...So disregarding the discussion altogether: If you want to say it in a cat then you should be able to say it better in prose"? Could someone please explain this to me? Prunesqualor billets_doux 02:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Explanation: Prose actually go into detail and have sources. They are not a definitive description in Wikipedia's voice like a cat could be interpreted as. There is no reason to rely (or even argue for the use of) a cat since the prose should do the heavy lifting. If something needs to be said: Say it in the article's text instead of the cat. I once disagreed wit this reasoning but the community appears to not have consensus on if a cat is a label or not while the reader certainly does not understand if it is a label or not.Cptnono (talk) 06:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, the problem with the statement that "Cats are supposed to be derivatives of article content – all the more so controversial ones" is that such a broad interpretation means that any organization that is accused of producing propaganda could potentially be listed in this category. Given that this category has only 27 organizations listed, all of which seem to be run by governments, terrorist organizations, or have long since ceased to exist, it seems that simple accusations of propaganda are insufficient to justify the inclusion of an organization on this list. Furthermore, the term propaganda, in addition to being extremely perjorative, is also a widely-used insult or accusation. MEMRI may be bias, but it hardly meets the requirements to be placed on this list.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 01:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC))

You are making a lot of judgement calls. Propaganda is not perjorative unless the propaganda organisation is extremist. It is not an insult when applied but a suggestion of fact. What percentage of MEMRIs reporting is negative to Arabs/pro Israel? Is MEMRIs free distribution of translations meant to influence the media. Can you find evidence that MEMRI reports objectively? And the most important of all, can evidence that the critism is unjustified be found? We need to look at MEMRIs reporting as a whole and answer these questions. Quite a few RS have been provided to support the category but to date, no one has supplied a RS to support MEMRIs objectivity. MEMRI has even been critisized by it's own supporters for misquoting pro-Israel Arab sources to cast them in a negative light. The Propaganda category is NPOV and relevant. Wayne (talk) 11:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• I'll deal with your above statements point-by-point:
  • First, several sources under the "Praise" have describes MEMRI as invaluable and reliable (this hardly sounds like a propaganda organization) and MEMRI's work is quoted by major Media outlets across the world - if MEMRI's inaccuracies and distortions are so obvious and easily refutable, why is their work cited so often?
  • Second, you argue that "We need to look at MEMRIs reporting as a whole" - Good idea: MEMRI has produced thousands for Media clips and releases, and of these a grand total of only about 6 or 7 have been questioned (and in some cases, the only source is the actual person who claims he/she was misquoted.)
  • Third, The RS that you have cited simply make broad statements that MEMRI produces propaganda while citing only a handful of alleged inaccuracies, or simply none at all. Making broad allegations such as this is both perjorative an insult. Also, all of these RS are actually just a handful of academics and journalists who are moderately or extremely anti-Israel. A few allegations from such sources aren't exactly the most convincing evidence.
  • Fourth, You ask the following questions: What percentage of MEMRIs reporting is negative to Arabs/pro Israel? and Is MEMRIs free distribution of translations meant to influence the media? These are rhetorical questions - Aside from the fact that it is extremely unlikely that anyone has done a percentage-based analysis of MEMRI's reporting regarding Arabs/pro-Israel, any such analysis would be complicated by the fact that the terms such as "pro-Israel" do not have universal definitions. Your second question Is MEMRIs free distribution of translations meant to influence the media? - Well, MEMRI's material is also freely available to the public, but more to the point: any organization that freely releases material is trying to influence the media or public in some way. Should they all be labelled as Propaganda organizations?
  • Finally, you have pointed out that MEMRI may not be completely objective. When it comes to the Middle East, very few media organizations can claim to be objective - it is a very dividing and intracable conflict. If you are arguing that a real or preceived lack of objectivity is sufficient to label an organization as propagandistic, then this category would contain hundreds of entries, and not simply 27.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC))

Your first three points are totally irrelevant strawman arguments. Being "invaluable and reliable" has nothing to do with propaganda and "inaccuracies and distortions" are not required for the classification at all. Propaganda can be accurate and reliable information presented in a one sided manner. Does the news MEMRI provides consistently promote a negative view of Arabs? Do they distribute extreme views not held by the average Arab? Do they omit news from the same sources that are more indicative of Arab views? Do they report events in a NPOV manner, ie:what percentage of published news is from Israeli sources that are critical of Israel? If you are making claims that anyone who makes a claim of propaganda is biased then supply sources. Some media (such as FOX) may not be objective but their overall reporting does not concern the middle east so editors bringing up other media is not constructive. Claiming that the term propaganda is perjoritive is likewise not helpful as that is a regional view not global. There is nothing perjoritive with the classification, it is purely a descriptive term to most of the world. Wayne (talk) 12:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

My Response:

• Your claim that there is nothing pejorative about the term "Propaganda" is incorrect. "Propaganda" is an extremely pejorative term; How many people identify themselves as propagandists? or enjoy being labelled as one or openly admit they produce it? Being accused of producing propaganda implies that a person or organization is dishonest, collusive, etc. (these aren't terms which are used in a positive light). Do you really think that MEMRI's critics who have accused it of promoting Propaganda simply mean it in a "descriptive" way and have no pejorative intentions?
• I will repeat that MEMRI's work is quoted by major Media outlets across the world - if MEMRI really is the massive and overt propaganda chimera that its critics say it is, why is they work cited so often by the mainstream media? Why do the only accusations come from comments (or a paragraph in a book) from a handful of academics and journalists who are hostile towards Israel?
• You repeat the rhetorical questions: "Does the news MEMRI provides consistently promote a negative view of Arabs? Do they distribute extreme views not held by the average Arab? Do they omit news from the same sources that are more indicative of Arab views? Do they report events in a NPOV manner, ie:what percentage of published news is from Israeli sources that are critical of Israel?" These are all extremely subjective questions. But more to the point, the RS you have cited can only cite a handful of examples (less than 10 out of several thousand) to base their conclusions on (some sources don't cite any examples). In other words, the questions you have asked haven't really been answered by your critics in a scholarly or objective analysis - only through accusations.
  • Also, with regards to your last question: "what percentage of published news is from Israeli sources that are critical of Israel", MEMRI usually doesn't cover Israeli news because Israeli news is usually available in English(as well as Hebrew). The majority of the Arab sources covered by MEMRI are not available in English.
  • Also, I doubt anyone has done a percentage-based analysis of MEMRI's reporting (if you can find one, please provide it).
• You imply that I am "making claims that anyone who makes a claim of propaganda is biased". I have never stated that "anyone who makes a claim of propaganda is biased." What I am arguing is that the term propaganda is widely used as an insult by opposing sides of a conflict to discredit each other (and I doubt their interpretation of word Propaganda is the same as yours - not everybody reads Wikipedia).
• You state that "Some media (such as FOX) may not be objective but their overall reporting does not concern the middle east so editors bringing up other media is not constructive." Really? I lot of people accuse Fox News of presenting information "in a one sided manner" (your words). They are certainly accused of doing this on numerous issues (not just the Middle East) but does that really make a difference under your definition? The fact is that under your definition, Fox news would certainly be added - the fact that it is accused of presenting information "in a one-sided manner" on more than one issue doesn't really qualify it for an exemption.
• And finally, (and I keep mentioning this), if every organization that is accused of engaging in Propaganda under your incredibly broad definition (i.e. "Propaganda can be accurate and reliable information presented in a one sided manner."), this category would contain hundreds if not thousands of entries since everyone organization that is accused of promoting "information presented in a one sided manner" would be present - yet it only contains 27. It seems you are making the assumption that the requirement for adding an organization to this category in Wikipedia is that it simply meets your definition. However, this is clearly not the case, given the very limited number of organizations listed.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC))

It is not my claim that the term "Propaganda" is not perjoritive, it is the dictionary definition. I'm not arguing that it can't be used in that way. I also dont see how the term implies dishonesty yet it seems to be a major point for you. Your point number two requires an answer. why is their work cited so often by the mainstream media? Because it is FREE. Several media outlets such as CNN have said they would not use MEMRI if they had to pay for it. Why do the only accusations come from comments from a handful of academics and journalists who are hostile towards Israel? Please provide sources for a claim of universal hostility (bias) as I have seen critism from very pro-Israel sources. "Under my definition" no mainstream media can be in the category. They are not primarily propaganda outlets no matter how one sided they are. They are in bussiness to make money, not direct public views. MEMRI on the other hand only publishes news that supports their own view. If they are not propagandists then give me refs for some of their pro-Arab articles. A small percentage of pro-Arab news in their overall reporting is all that is needed to avoid the category and save all the hollow arguments to keep them out. If they are not propagandists then that will be a very, very, easy task. Wayne (talk) 23:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

My response - point by point

• You have claimed that outlets such as CNN have said they would not use MEMRI if they had to pay for it. Really? Aside from the fact that this claim is original research, that doesn't imply that MEMRI's work is inaccurate or untrustworthy (or can be labelled as propaganda). If MEMRI's work was so widely accepted as being inaccurate or propagandistic (as its critics keep claiming), major media outlets wouldn't repeatedly cite it, even if it was free, to avoid condemnation and charges of bias. More to the point, MEMRI does charge membership fees to access much of its material - including all of its archives. Your broad claim that MEMRI is "free" is at least slightly disingenuous, if not incorrect.
• You are correct in the dictionary definition of Propaganda. However, "the term propaganda has acquired a strongly negative connotation by association with its most manipulative and jingoistic examples" (to quote Wikipedia). You seem to believe that this fact should be either ignored or isn't relevant to this debate. On the contrary, the way in which a term is commonly used (especially in a almost exclusively negative context) is someing that cannot be ignored in Wikipedia under NPOV. Being described as a "propaganda organization" would be considered to be derogatory and insulting by nearly anyone. Does MEMRI consider itself to be a "propaganda organization?" For that matter, does any organization? If the term propaganda is so innocuous, then why is it universally used in such a negative manner?
• You have argued that "no mainstream media can be in the category. They are not primarily propaganda outlets no matter how one sided they are. They are in [sic] bussiness to make money, not direct public views." Do you really think that organizations like Fox news isn't trying to influence people with their reporting? Your argument seems to be that as long as an organization is for-profit, then they can't be accused of trying to influence people and can't be accused of producing propaganda. If they are making a profit and influcing people, why don't they meet your definition? Along this same line, is every piece of material produced by MEMRI propaganda? (Not all of MEMRI's clips are even related to the Arab-Israel conflict - many deal with internal cultural and political issues within or between Arab countries). If not, then I guess MEMRI doesn't meet your definition either.
• You have stated "If they are not propagandists then give me refs for some of their pro-Arab articles." This would be original research and I'm not sure what you mean by "Pro-Arab." Do you mean providing an Arab point of view? - MEMRI certainly does this - your claim seems to be that MEMRI attempts to depict all Arabs as radical or extremist (i.e. anti-Western, anti-Jewish, etc.) If this is the case, here are links to transcripts of several MEMRI clips which are none of the above:
  • Abdessalam Jalloud, Former Libyan PM who Recently Defected, Calls Al-Qadhafi a "Throne-Sick" "Tyrant"
  • Syrian Journalist Samira Musalima Criticizes Syrian Army before Being Dismissed from Her Post as Editor-in-Chief of Syrian Govermnet Daily Teshreen
  • Facebook "Orange" - 75-Year-Old Illiterate Iraqi Woman Becomes Computer Savvy
  • Syrian Civil Rights Activist Ammar Qurabi: The Syrian Regime Is a Gang that Kills Children in Cold Blood
  • Syrian Blogger Milad 'Umran: "We Have Seen the True Face of the Regime" and It Can No Longer Hide the Truth
  • Egyptian Poet Ahmad Abd Al-Mu'ti Higazi Defends the Civil State: "Mixing Religion with Politics Is Dangerous"
  • Egyptian Screenwriter Wahid Hamed Attacks the Muslim Brotherhood and Says: Both a Military Regime and a Religious Regime Will Lead to Dictatorship
  • Syrian Liberal Intellectual Muhyi Al-Din Al-Ladhaqani Compares Al-Assad to the Godfather and States: "We Are Facing a Vague 'Democracy,' Adopted by All Those Who Do Not Believe in Democracy"
  • Former Saudi TV Host Rania Al-Baz: Bin Laden Was a Black Stain on the Lives of Muslims
  • Saudi Songwriter Alaa Wardi Sings of Lack of Opportunities for Facebook Generation in the Arab World: Help Me Get a Visa Before I Go Crazy!

None of these clips portray Arabs as anti-Jewish, Anti-Western, or as ruthless or irrational and none are related to the Arab-Israel conflict. Contrary to claims by its critics, MEMRI does not only cite extremists in the Arab world. Also, among those which do deal with the Arab-Israel conflict are:

Lebanese Performer Karol Saqr, Daughter of the Leader of the Guardians of the Cedar Organization, Demands Separation of Religion and State and Peace with Israel

• And finally, (again) if your intepretation of the requirements for Wikipedia's Propaganda category are correct, why does this category only contain 27 entries? Shouldn't it contain hundreds of organizations that are accused of promoting propaganda under your definition? Are there really only 27 organizations that fall into this category? (No. Probably because this category would otherwise become a dumping ground for every organization whose critics accuse it of promoting propaganda).(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC))

• How do you get "original research" out of something CNN said? Why have you mentioned "inaccurate or untrustworthy" again when it has no real bearing on this argument? Leave it out of the argument. MEMRI charging membership fees to access some of its material is irrelevant and doesn't change the fact that they supply negative material free. Your arguments seem to be a case of not seeing the forrest for the trees.
• Please supply a source supporting your claim that being a propaganda organisation is universally used in a negative manner. MEMRI is not advocating that Arabs be wiped out so how is distributing pro-Israel propaganda negative? I can point out that the majority of people in my country consider America manipulative and jingoistic but we dont view America negatively. Political campaign groups and lobby groups are all temporarily propaganda organisations that have no negative connotations attached to being so. If MEMRI want to portray Arabs in a negative light then they have the right to do so but we should call a spade a spade and avoid dancing around the obvious.
• The majority of Mainstream media content is not meant to influence how people see a specific area of interest. Leave it out of the argument.
• As far as your examples are concerned, how do you conclude that Arabs critisizing other Arabs is pro-Arab? Give me some links showing where MEMRI reports Arabs supporting Israel. I know they are around because I have read them and many people such Sari Nusseibeh are newsworthy enough that their speeches should have been picked up and distributed by MEMRI.
• Finally, an organisation should be notable to be included in the category to keep the number in the category low. However, the number at the moment does look artificially low and should be expanded. MEMRI is notable enough for inclusion. Wayne (talk) 02:27, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• • You have stated "Please supply a source supporting your claim that being a propaganda organization is universally used in a negative manner." I will answer as before: How many people or organizations call themselves propagandists or open claim they produce propaganda? How many people consider being accused of promoting propaganda to be a compliment? You keep citing the dictionary definition but as Wikipedia's entry on Propaganda notes that "propaganda in its original sense was neutral" but that "the term propaganda has acquired a strongly negative connotation by association with its most manipulative and jingoistic examples," You seem to believe that this should be ignored when applying the term. I disagree. Being accused of promoting propaganda (at least here in Canada) is taken as an insult. I would think it is the same in Australia.
  • So you saying that MEMRI is as notable as the state-run media outlets run by Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Terrorist groups, etc.? Really? I'm sure MEMRI would be flattered that you think they are that notable, but frankly, a tiny non-governmental organization doesn't even hold a candle to them in terms of size, historical significance, etc. Also, many of the smaller organizations listed have not existed for decades or more.
  • This category carries a pejorative label and its entries are limited for that reason – otherwise, any organization that is accused of promoting propaganda would be listed here. If MEMRI is notable enough, there would be hundreds of similar organizations whose critics label it propagandist for whatever reason.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 01:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC))

Agree with Hyper. Whole reasoning behind MEMRI status as a propaganda organization is predicated on a minority of extremely partisan sources. If MEMRI is the standard, then it will open the flood-gates for what constitutes propaganda in the minds of wikipedia editors. Virtually every news or media organization will be placed into the category as all have at one point or another been accused of promoting propaganda. Fox News, BBC, and The Telegraph were all exposed of promoting propaganda on behalf of governments during the Iraq War. Shall we throw those articles in the category? Wikifan^{Be nice} 02:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

what would you call an organisation that sources a significant proportion of it's reports from blogs and op-eds, supplies them free to not only the mainstream media, which then often publishes them as reliably cited (MEMRI) news...which by coincidence are mostly anti-muslim in tone, but also supplies them free to politicians and lobbyists? If not propaganda I cant see the point of providing this "news" to politicians etc. Again (how many times is it now...10...50..?) I ask SPA Wikifan to provide sources for his claim that only "extremely partisan sources" call it propaganda. I also ask him to stop continually pushing strawman arguments, mainstream media are not primarily propaganda outlets and it is dishonest to keep bringing them up as equivalent to MEMRI. If you have nothing constructive to add dont waste everyones time. Wayne (talk) 16:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I wasn't actually aware until today that Former head of the CIA's counterintelligence unit, Vincent Cannistraro, said that MEMRI "are selective and act as propagandists for their political point of view, which is the extreme-right of Likud. They simply don't present the whole picture." from this Forward article. While I guess he might qualify as an extremely partisan source he's probably not the kind Wikifan is referring to. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Cannistraro has been cited before...and dismissed as "only an opinion" although I dont see how opinions from notable experts dont count. Apparently only opinions from MEMRI supporters with no expertise in the area count as they are continually cited to support MEMRI's unbiased and reliable reporting. Wayne (talk) 03:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Editors should stop skewing the argument. We are not discussing if they are propaganda or not. We are discussing if it is appropriate to say in Wikipedia's definitive voice. WP:CAT says no. That is a guideline based argument. Nothing else matters. Since editors promoting continued inclusion have not made a clear argument based on policy or guidelines (the ones actually not related as opposed to whatever wikilink works while bickering) I will be removing the cat. I have already asked for this on another discussion where it looked clear so I am again mentioning it here. I don;t know why we cannot get away from multiple discussions in the topic area so I am just going to start pulling the trigger on all of them if needed. Ignoring other discussions about the exact same thing seems to have precedent.Cptnono (talk) 03:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The objective of discussing the extent to which RS describe them as a propaganda organization or not is to establish whether the categorization is "uncontroversial". Saying it is controversial doesn't make it so. Obviously there has to be an actual controversy evident in RS-world. That can only be established by sampling RS. It can't be established based on our opinions about the meanings of words and the nature of the organization. You already know that. As CAT says "editors should be conscious of the need to maintain a neutral point of view when creating categories or adding them to articles". That means that categorization must reflect and summarize in some sensible way what RS have to say on the matter since neutrality can only be achieved that way. Many useful categories that represent the way RS describe things aren't based on formally defined and objectively measurable properties. Some of them are far more complicated and wooly concepts than propaganda and yet we use them routinely because they're useful and match the way RS (and readers) model things. Articles are included because it's "clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories". It might be obvious to you that adding this category to the MEMRI article is inappropriate based on all sorts of criteria you use to decide these things but it isn't obvious to me by just looking at what RS say. I don't have a preference for whether it's included or not but I would at least like to be able to understand the decision procedure in terms of taking information from RS, applying policies+guidelines to it and producing a policy consistent and repeatable result that is useful to readers and works for this article and others. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Am I reading the wrong WP:CAT page? This page has three main bullet points for "Particular considerations for categorizing articles":

• Each article should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs.
• It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories.
• Categorize articles by characteristics of the topic, not characteristics of the article.
  

The MEMRI article seems to pass all three in spades and this discussion has been primarily on whether the RS are reliable enough to satify point two. I have attempted several times to "get away from multiple discussions" and concentrate solely on whether the category applies but Hyperionsteel (inaccurate or untrustworthy Vs accurate or trustworthy) and Wikifan (if MEMRI is categorised then so should Fox News, BBC, and The Telegraph) insist on keeping irrelevant arguments going.Wayne (talk) 16:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

How is it irrelevant to point out that this category only contains 27 entries? and how is it irrelevant to point out that the term Propaganda carries an extremely perjorative label? Listing MEMRI in the same category as the state-run media organizations run by Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union isn't something to be taken lightly.

Anyway, can we get a ruling on this soon? I'm really getting tired of arguing about this and its clear we can't reach an agreement. Should I submit a request for arbitration?

Why do you keep bringing up the two most extreme examples in the category? Let me paraphrase your example in a NPOV manner: "Listing MEMRI in the same category as the Voice of America isn't something to be taken lightly." As the Voice of America is restrained by U.S. legislation to be reliable news, this example is more relevant as a comparison. It clearly supports the case for MEMRI's inclusion and (slaps head) I can now see why Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union are continually used as examples. Wayne (talk) 07:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how other members of the category are relevant. The Military of Syria is in the same category as the Military of Singapore. There's no guilt by association. Categorization should be an objective source based process. Mobster is a perjorative label too but we use it extensively in categorization. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree, who is already in the category is irrelevant. However, Hyperionsteel has made it his most important talking point for MEMRI's exclusion and continually uses Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union to support his view. There is no denying that other examples in the category are less propagandistic than MEMRI so I hope he will now drop that argument and instead concentrate on the category guidelines as Cptnono has suggested. Wayne (talk) 14:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the MEMRI article should remain categorised as a propaganda outlet, as the pejorative interpretation of the word propaganda is only an aspect of its broader meaning. Propaganda can be and often is positive. Certainly, it is always positive to somebody. Binksternet (talk) 07:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Response to Wayne's Head slap

Voice of America is the official external broadcast institution of a federal government (i.e. it is run by a government, in this case, the United States). MEMRI is not a government organization - it is a private non-profit that is only run by itself. As I said before, arguing that comparing government controlled media outlets are the same as small privately-run non-profits is the issue here. If this category was that inclusive, there would be hundreds of entries, not just 27. I guess that when Wayne slapped his head, this difference must have eluded him (maybe he needs to slap his head again?).

Also, with regard to Binksternet's statement that "Propaganda can be and often is positive." Really? How many people or organizations call themselves propagandists or openly claim they produce propaganda? Are their any associations of Propagandist organizations? When someone states that you are producing propaganda, I don't think many people will take that as a compliment (or even as a neutral evaluation).(Hyperionsteel (talk) 21:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC))

Google 中共中央宣传部, the department run by Liu Yunshan. I think they're pretty proud of their work. Sean.hoyland - talk 22:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

This is also a government-controlled institution (all media in China is state-run). But, let's compromise: We will only add organizations to this category that actually admit they produce propaganada and are proud of doing so.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC))

Why does a propaganda organisation have to be state run? Organisations do not usually admit to propaganda simply because it invites more scrutiny to acertain the informations nuetrality. It has no bearing on the reliability or nuetrality of the information itself. Propaganda only becomes perjoritive when the information is not reliable or nuetral. All we need to do is determine if MEMRI satisfies WP:CAT. So far no argument has been supplied to support that it does not. Wayne (talk) 06:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

That's quite enough already. Lots of organizations are accused of being promoting propaganda, and attempting to include this source is just another skirmish in the interminable Wikipedia I-P propaganda wars. As soon as I see Nableezy or Wayne or Sean add Electronic Intifada to this same category, per the citations provided above, I'll take their views on the subject more seriously. Until then, please stop playing "I'm going to add a nasty category to an article about something I don't like" games here, and go edit productively instead. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Really Jay? You are free to edit Electronic Intifada in whatever way you see fit. My one edit at that article, ever, was to revert the sock of a banned user. I dont edit that article, and I dont intend to start to satisfy some unknown requirement that I edit to your satisfaction. The article that I do edit, MEMRI, does however have reliable sources saying it promotes propaganda. That is what is relevant here, not the always entertaining, but never valid, game of WP:OTHERCRAP. nableezy - 01:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Having never read the WP article or anything on the Electronic Intifada website (I assume it is a website) itself I have no opinion, but if it fits the propaganda organisation category then it should be listed. Making unfounded accusations and calling propaganda organisations a "nasty category" is not constructive. Wayne (talk) 07:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I see, you're both just going to continue playing these silly POV games. Shame! Very well. What reliable source states that MEMRI is a "Propaganda organization"? Please quote one that does so. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed this. The game here is the nonsensical argument that because I myself have not added a category to another article that means the argument for adding it to this article is somehow less valid. The sources have already been provided, if you feel that they are insufficient for inclusion you can make that point without hypocritical allegations of POV-pushing. To turn this around, as soon as I see you make an edit like this to an article like this I might start taking you seriously when you claim others are playing silly POV games. nableezy - 03:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Um, ok. Anyway, back to the topic at hand: what reliable source states that MEMRI is a "Propaganda organization"? Please quote one that explicitly does so, per WP:V and WP:NOR. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

If the Propaganda organization is not a "nasty category", how about we only include organizations that call themselves propagandists?(Hyperionsteel (talk) 02:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC))

Reliable Secondary Sources that states that MEMRI is a propaganda organisation :

• Gilbert Achcar, "The Arabs and the Holocaust. The Arab-Israeli war of tales", 2010, pp.286-287 in the French version writes -among other things and based on several arguments and other people opinions - that "[Memri] is an official office of the Israeli services of propaganda"... but here is a report in English (and in popular media, detritus from the pro-Israel watchdog MEMRI.
• Jérôme Bourdon, Director of the Media department at the University of Tel-Aviv, published a book in 2009 dealing with the "propaganda war" between pro-Israelis and pro-Palestinians. Title is : "Le récit impossible. Le conflit israélo-palestinien et les médias (The impossible record. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the media). p.67-68 also explains all this battle on the internet ; p.229, he also adds as propaganda webstes: www.adl.org and www.camera.org.

• An article in Le Monde diplomatique talks about "désinformation à l'israélienne" refering among others to Memri.

81.247.84.166 (talk) 12:08, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Interesting that Achcar would make that (fairly obviously false) claim that MEMRI is "an official office of the Israeli services of propaganda" - kind of detracts from the reliability of anything he says on the subject. Also, I doubt an opinion piece by Mohammed El-Oifi would be considered a reliable source on the topic. In any event, as stated before, what reliable source states that MEMRI is a "Propaganda organization"? Please quote one that does so. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Achcar is not saying MEMRI is "an official office". A better translation from the French would be that MEMRI behaves as if it was ie: may as well be so to speak. The Le Monde article for example says much the same. We have plenty of other RS that state that MEMRI is a Propaganda organization, with several speaking from authority such as Ken Livingstone and Vincent Cannistraro. What we need are RS that support that MEMRI should not be in the category if it is to be excluded. You cant keep dismissing as biased every source that makes the claim without providing proof of bias while at the same time refusing to supply sources that support your own case. Wayne (talk) 02:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

MEMRI is entirely formed by, composed of and funded by, people who support one side of the Arab/Israeli conflict - pro Israeli parties do not complain about MEMRI, yet pro Palestinians have near universal contempt for them (a Google search of "MEMRI propaganda" should satisfy editors on this point) – reliable sources overtly say they are a propaganda organisation, yet not one overtly says they are not. Prunesqualor billets_doux 03:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

reliable sources overtly say they are a propaganda organisation? Excellent! Quote them doing so. We need to see the words "propaganda organization" in the quotation. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

It is a fun word to throw around since it is so emotive. Of course you will find some sources saying something emotive (note that some are not at all good enough or expected to not be making a point). But it does not matter. All of the comments here are a waste since we already know it is controversial. That makes it a violation of WP:CAT. This ngoing discussion (of how many now?) shows that enough repeating of arguments will grind collaborative editing to a halt. People would really rather bicker for weeks over a cat instead of making sure the prose is clearer? Wow. Cptnono (talk) 05:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

So if it is a violation of WP:CAT, what course of action should be taken? Should MEMRI be removed from the category, or should the category be renamed to something like "Organizations accused of promoting propaganda"? Or should the category itself be deleted?(Hyperionsteel (talk) 05:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC))

The topic is only controversial with WP editors and arguably the uninformed public. If it was controversial in academia then it would be reflected in the sources which it is not. We have sources making the case that it is a propaganda organisation but there is an obvious lack of sources making the opposing case. If the claim was seriously disputed there would be ample refuting sources. Yes, the repeating of arguments is grinding collaborative editing to a halt but the repetition can be avoided if requests for RS are answered, only one side is providing the RS while the other relies on unsupported arguments. It is telling that opposing editors are quick to clutch at any excuse for exclusion short of actually supplying the RS per WP:V. Wayne (talk) 09:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Adding the article about MEMRI in any kind of category is not the real issue. The issue is whether to use MEMRI as a reliable source of information given numerous academic sources underline (or consider if some prefer these words) this as a propaganda organisation. There are several steps in NPoV. Neutral sources is the best to use but in some (or many) cases, sources disagree. When they have the same level of reknown (eg universitaries), that is not an issue : we take into account all the pov's. But when there are different levels of quality (academic vs journalists vs propagandist organisation/think thank etc), the most reliable must be given priority and others rejected. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedy : 1st pillar.

Anyway, if the issue is the category name anyway, "Media war in the Arab-Israeli conflict" could solve this because it doesn't claim if they are propagandists or if they re-establish the truth (re-inform as many of these say).87.66.164.103 (talk) 15:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I anticipated that you would make that claim, WLRoss, and precedent and a little common sense counters it. For example, this exact issue came up with the sinking of Icelandic whaling vessels at 1986 Hvalur sinkings where I argued your point. We had plenty of sources calling it "terrorism". We did not have any secondary sources saying it was not. But "terrorism" is a loaded term. Everyone knows it is. "Propaganda" is also emotion grabbing and sensationalist (something even RS sometimes do). It does not take a source to know that. If it was not controversial we would not be having this discussion and I can only assume you at least understand that.Cptnono (talk) 19:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, because of the game-playing, we've been forced to move to strict enforcement of policy. Has anyone yet found any reliable sources that describe MEMRI as a "propaganda organization" or "propaganda organisation"? If so, please quote them explicitly doing so. If not, it will have to be removed from the category, per WP:V and WP:NOR. No hand-waving either, thanks - we just need explicit quotes. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:00, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:CIVIL and stop wasting peoples time. Wayne (talk) 02:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC).

Your advice is appropriate for yourself only. Now, have you found any reliable sources that describe MEMRI as a "propaganda organization" or "propaganda organisation"? If so, please quote them explicitly doing so. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I thought keeping within the standards of a guideline was sufficient.Cptnono (talk) 22:00, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The issue here is that, in modern usage, the term propaganda is not only perjorative, but it is routinely used as a common insult to discredite those with opposing views. Countless organizations have been accused of promoting propaganda; Trying to use this category to sort out which ones are actually propaganda organizations and which aren't (especially since the Arab-Israeli conflict is a very devisive topic) isn't an appropriate use for an encyclopedia. The criticism section of an article - where the sources claiming that the person/organization promotes propaganda are easily identifiable - is sufficient for this purposes, and is certainly far more NPOV.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC))

Cptnono:Terrorism and propaganda can not equated. Terrorism is always a perjoritive term while propaganda is not. What I do understand is that there is no controversy in academia, MEMRI as a propaganda organisation is not disputed. If it were it would be easy to refute. The category is within the standards of the guideline. Hyperionsteel:As I have said before, propaganda is not perjoritive when the information is generally reliable and factual etc, or are you claiming MEMRI is not? Where do you get used as a common insult to discredite? I have never heard it used this way. All the category does is inform a reader that an organisation claims to be non partisan but holds a particular view and should not be used as the sole source for an area of interest. Wayne (talk) 02:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Have you read Wikipedia's Propaganda article? (i.e. "the term propaganda has acquired a strongly negative connotation by association with its most manipulative and jingoistic examples"). Do you really plan to ignore this reality? With few exceptions, being accused of promoting propaganda isn't take as a compliment or even as a neutral evaluation - Do you think any of MEMRI's critics who have accused it of propaganda don't mean it in a perjorative way?(Hyperionsteel (talk) 06:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC))

"hat I do understand is that there is no controversy in academia, MEMRI as a propaganda organisation is not disputed." Really Ross? Wikifan^{Be nice} 07:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

In order for the assertion that MEMRI is a propaganda organisation to be considered controversial, surly there have to be reliable sources which state that it isn't a propaganda organisation. Prunesqualor billets_doux 21:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

It's a logical fallacy. X, y and z say MEMRI is a propaganda organization - these people are among a very vocal minority. On the other hand, numerous organizations cite MEMRI and say it is reliable. Do sources have to explicitly refute accusations that MEMRI is a propaganda organization? No. If that were the case, every media organization accused of propaganda would have to be entered into the category. I doubt the wikipedia community is prepared to see Fox News, BBC, The Guardian, etc...in "propaganda organizations." But if MEMRI becomes the standard that is what must happen. Wikifan^{Be nice} 22:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

@Wikifan – You stated that " numerous organizations cite MEMRI and say it is reliable ". One does not have to provide unreliable information in order to be defined as a propagandist, as the dissemination of selective truth is an accepted propaganda technique (Wiki's propaganda article contains a short subsection on this subject). Ie your point says little or nothing about MEMRI's status as a propaganda organisation since they are accused of providing selective information. As for the BBC and others you mentioned, If you think the case for including them in the category is as strong as that for MEMRI, I can't see much harm in opening a separate debate, though I personally don't agree with your opinion that if MEMRI is included in the cat the others must be (they are very different organisations). Prunesqualor billets_doux 23:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The reverse is true Prune. A minority group of people label MEMRI as propaganda, yet we as editors accept their description, ignoring the challenges made by other sources? What makes Baker and Whitaker more reliable than someone else? I don't think editors understand the gravity here. If MEMRI is going to be the bar for propaganda organization, every media organization will be inserted into the category. BBC sexing up the war in Iraq, Al Jazeera taking orders from the government, Fox News acting as a sockpuppet for the Republican Party, etc. And far more reliable sources exist supporting these accusations than the condemnation from partisan figures against MEMRI. I doubt the wikipedia community will accept this. Wikifan^{Be nice} 00:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

This is all very interesting, and you're making quite valid points Wikifan, but the bottom line is that (and before anything else), for Wikipedia to categorize MEMRI as a "propaganda organization", we need reliable sources that explicitly describe MEMRI as a "propaganda organization", per WP:V and WP:NOR. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Well the problem is there is a conflict between respected sources and reliable sources. Mona Baker is a notable figure, but is she reliable for accusations against MEMRI? What about Brian Whitaker, a veteran Israel-Arab conflict journalist? MEMRI continues to sit in the category. If a minority opinion is required and this is acceptable than I would argue any organization accused of promoting propaganda be placed into the category. Wikifan^{Be nice} 03:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

RS have been supplied. Continually ignoring that refs have been supplied, and a blatant refusal to supply the requested refs to support your own view is disruptive. Wikifan12345 has made no valid points at all as they have all been refuted...multiple times but he inists on bringing them up gain and again and again. Continually highlighting a few marginally reliable sources while completely ignoring authoritative ones is dishonest. If you contend that the "minority" claims of propaganda have been challenged by other sources then I challenge you to prove it so I can move on. Bring substance to the argument not rhetoric. You have repeatedly been asked to supply refs...do so and refrain from disruptive argumentum ad infinitum. Wayne (talk) 03:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Any RS that explicitly describe MEMRI as a "propaganda oranization" though, per WP:V and WP:NOR? Continually ignoring this simple request (and policy requirement) might also be viewed as "disruptive". Or, to quote you: "You have repeatedly been asked to supply refs...do so and refrain from disruptive argumentum ad infinitum". Jayjg ^(talk) 04:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Wayne, I'm not the only one disputing MEMRI's status as a "propaganda organization" in terms of what known reliable sources tell us. The article contains positive reception of MEMRI and critical reception of MEMRI. Editors have decided the critical reception - and the select sources that describe MEMRI as a propaganda organizations - as definitive. The problem is MEMRI is not funded by a government. Hyper noted several times its status as a non-profit organization. If MEMRI is the standard then the community is opening the floodgates for what qualifies as "propaganda." I was responding to the questions made by Jayjg. Much of the discussion has been about the reliability of individuals like Mona Baker and Brian Whitaker in terms of credibility and neutrality. Wikifan^{Be nice} 05:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

If Wiki's "flood gates" must be opened in terms of the possibility that not all propaganda organisations are state run, then I think that is entirely healthy (ie private funding does not exclude the possibility of a skewed agenda). As for the validity of "RS" presented – yes we seem to have a division of opinion. Prunesqualor billets_doux 00:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no "opening of floodgates" as mainstream media obviously does not comply with the category requirements no matter how you spin them. Even if we exclude Mona Baker and Brian Whitaker we are still left with MEMRI's original mission statement that lends support for the category and other reliable sources that call MEMRI a propaganda organisation not to mention that the requirements of the category have been met. We have as yet no RS that refutes the claim. The state of play consists of six editors supporting the category and five opposing with one of those a SPA. As there is little chance of any of those five changing their view where do we go from here? I'd like more editors to weigh in but this appears to be one of those controversial topics that editors dont like to get involved in. Wayne (talk) 03:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

In their own words: "The Reform Project (www.memri.org/reform.html) is devoted solely to finding and amplifying the progressive voices in the Arab world." (from the letter sent to Professor Juan Cole, University of Michigan History Department, threatening him with a lawsuit over blog comments). Seems to fit the definition given by Random House, "information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc." DS Belgium (talk) 21:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Antagonistic sources and due weight at Catholics for Choice

(Brought over from RSN after discussion there established that it was more of a weight issue than a reliability issue.)

Background: The pro-choice Catholic organization Catholics for Choice has a campaign, called the "See Change" campaign, to designate the Vatican as an NGO at the United Nations. At one point, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a resolution against this campaign.

Our article's information on said resolution can be traced to three sources:

1. This page from the Washington Post. Part of a database that catalogs every vote.
2. This article from EWTN, a conservative Catholic network. EWTN describes the campaign as an "anti-Catholic attempt to expel the Vatican from the UN." Elsewhere, they describe Catholics for Choice as a "militant pro-abortion group" (with "Catholics" in scare quotes in the group's name) and a "pro-abortion Catholic cartel that operates within the Church for the express purpose of creating confusion," and state the wish to "destroy the credibility" of CFC. A significant part of their website is dedicated to advocating an anti-abortion agenda.
3. This press release from CFC themselves.

I argue that 1 and 3 do not confer weight on this event. 1 is a database of votes, not a news story; we don't write about every vote in that database. And 3 is a press release, not independent; we don't write up every press release from an article subject, since we are not a press release service.

Which leaves us with 2. A source that not only advocates an opposing agenda as a significant part of what they do - a source that not only disparages the subject at every opportunity - but a source that has explicitly stated a wish to damage the subject's reputation. I don't know, it just doesn't seem right to me to let such a source determine the article content.

--Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Anyone? Bueller? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

There's no reason to believe the EWTN source is false. NYyankees51 (talk) 15:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Relevance of this comment? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you questioning the content of the article or the notability of the See Change? NYyankees51 (talk) 19:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm questioning why we are including information on a House resolution that was only picked up by a source with a stated desire to take CFC down. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello? Anyone home? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Roscelese, you have misrepresented things. EWTN has not said that they should destroy the credibility of CFC. They have only answered, in a probably informal FAQ entry, that "The only way that something substantive could be done about Catholics for a Free Choice and their use of the word "Catholic" would be for the Bishops of the United States to make a concerted effort to destroy the credibility of the group and repeatedly focus on the fact that they are not Catholic.". They are talking here about something that the college of bishops could do, not something that EWTN does. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 02:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Second, the article would be poorer without that piece of information. It is very relevant. The fact that it hasn't been picked by many secondary sources is explained by the fact that it happened 7 years ago (so the newspaper pages, if any, have probably already been deleted from the web) and the fact that few people cared about the "See Change" campaign at that point. But when writing an article section specifically about the "See Change" cmapaign, that piece of information is very relevant. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 02:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

GNews archives stuff from much further back than seven years (as does LexisNexis), and the large amount of newspaper coverage cited in the article belies your claim that the lack of coverage is just because no one cares about the campaign. The failure, by any source that doesn't have a history of disparaging the subject and a stated wish for their reputation to be destroyed, to take notice of this event is evidence that it doesn't belong. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The EWTN article cannot be called neutral in any sense of the word. It uses charged terminology and gives voice to only one side of the issue. Its value to Wikipedia is nil. Binksternet (talk) 07:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but only Wikipedia itself has to be neutral. WP:NPOV doesn't apply to any of our sources - they are free to voice their own opinion. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 18:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't address the issue. It's not whether EWTN is a reliable source (we were already at RSN, which basically passed the buck to NPOVN) - it's whether a source with a stated desire for the reputation of the article subject to be destroyed should be the arbiter of the article content, ie. due weight. If no mainstream/neutral sources picked it up, why are we including it? (In the same way, a CFC press release certainly isn't a neutral source, but it's reliable for statements about CFC - nevertheless, if it's the only source on an event in CFC's history, what makes that event important enough to include in the article?) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

An attack published by an extremely biased source is undue weight. We should not give them the soapbox; we should wait until a more mainstream source discusses the event or discusses the EWTN article. Binksternet (talk) 19:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't for the life of me understand the objection. "Undue weight" arguments usually involve disputed points of view. This isn't a viewpoint issue; it's a simple matter of fact. There's no dispute that the House resolved to oppose CFC's campaign. There's no dispute that CFC considered it notable enough that it issued a press release specifically denouncing it. EWTN isn't the "arbiter" of what goes in Wikipedia. We are, and this is clearly relevant. Cloonmore (talk) 00:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Many things are factual that nonetheless, not having been picked up in mainstream/neutral sources, do not merit the weight they are given. I'm puzzled by your argument that the CFC press release attests notability; would you be arguing that if it was sourced only to the CFC press release? Because CFC has its own website. We don't cover each and every one of its press releases. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

EWTN, on the subject of CFC, puts out one hateful diatribe after another. Despite or because of this consistently acid vehemence they have been sidelined by the press: no other reliable source will touch their CFC attack articles. If the press has turned their backs on EWTN, I hardly think quoting them is appropriate regarding CFC. It is undue weight given to an extremist position. Binksternet (talk) 05:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

From the EWTN article: "The current effort to expel the Holy See from the Vatican". Is that really what he said? Maybe the accuracy of the source should be questioned, back to RSN anyone? ;-) ... DS Belgium (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Political positions of...

I think all of our Political positions of... articles violate NPOV because "neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints," while these articles encourage editing from one viewpoint. Similarly, WP:RS says we should include "all majority and significant minority views". What all these articles should be are Reception of... articles, such as this one on an organization. Reception articles would lead to a neutral article with encyclopedic value that encourages contribution. A comparison between an October 2010 and a current version of Political positions of Barack Obama is not inspiring. Consider, in contrast, how many words have been published in reliable sources analyzing his positions/performance. And the scant discussion at Talk:Political positions of Newt Gingrich was dominated by Gingrich's own communications director. These articles are all unencyclopedic soapboxes. Jesanj (talk) 20:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand your point, but I am afraid there is no systemic solution for it. "Politics of" and "Reception of" articles can be WP:COATRACKs or they can be legit WP:SUMMARY articles - this needs to evaluated on a case-by-case basis - we should be vigilant of coat-racking, but also understand that not all forking is bad, or that because some articles are forked it means all articles should be forked, as you seem to suggest. As to the Newt Gingrich COI issues, a quick look tells me the comm director for Gingrich is DOING-IT-RIGHT - and while we should be careful in the edits, his edits are indeed helpful and real improvements. NPOV never implies a "equal time" for all POVs, it implies a need to cover all views. For example, in the case of the edit regarding health care, correcting the reported position of Gingrich on the issue was a necessary edit, as indeed the article said something the source didn't say, however it could be tempered by commentary on this position that is sourced and verifiable saying this was not the case. Just because one has a COI it doesn't mean one cannot do good edits, it just means that the edits will never be in other direction of NPOV, it is up to other editors to provide the appropriate policy-based editing responses. I care very little for Gingrich, but we have a responsibility to make an NPOV encyclopedia, and that includes providing a fair view on his politics as he understands them, tempered by a due-weight response both in the form of criticism of these positions and support for them. --Cerejota (talk) 21:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

But my point is that these articles do not allow tempering "by a due-weight response both in the form of criticism of these positions and support for them" because they encourage editing from only one viewpoint—that of the subject. Jesanj (talk) 22:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I know, but I think you are wrong in this appreciation. They encourage editing on the topic, period. And there is nothing not neutral about the title "Politics of Candidate X". If someone argues there should be no criticism because criticism is outside of the topic, laugh at them, and then tell them to read WP:UNDUE. Its really like that, there is no way anyone can argue, sucessfully to keep criticism away under any rule in wikipedia. Even areas with "Reception of" or "Criticism of" generally do so as per WP:SUMMARY for article size reasons, not as coat racks. And the worse coat-racking usually gets resolved via AfD. My point is that unless you provide a specific incident to attend to, there is no systemic solution, because we already have the tools to deal with this bias. We just have to use them - and that in the only specific example you provided (gingrich), there seems to be no bias drifting that cannot be addressed - rules are no substitute for WP:BRD.--Cerejota (talk) 22:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I think Jesanj has a point: for instance the Political positions of Barack Obama article has a sub on Energy policy of the Obama administration which has a section Energy_Policy_of_the_Obama_Administration#Reactions_and_Analysis_of_Energy_Security which does not include much in the way of alternate opinions. I would think that on such a very notable topic, Wikipedia would have more to offer. Article naming is an important way to focus the content of an article. Content may be rejected or included purely because of the title. But what's lacking here is suggestions on what else we might call such an article which would allow or encourage more discussion of the debate-matrix surrounding Obama's political positions. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 23:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

@Cerejota: When you said "I know", did you conceed that the titles do not "encourage multiple viewpoints"? I think there is a big article title-NPOV improvement with "Politics of..." instead of "Political positions of..." articles. Reliable sources can publish many perspectives on the politics of a candidate, but much less so on what the political positions of a cadidate are. I know you said criticism of political positions can be and should be included in those articles, and I would agree with that argument, but by that standard can you point to one neutral article here? If not, then I'd just reiterate my main point that these articles suffer from POV titles which encourage editors to find one viewpoint. Even if a news story contained a political position that was completely ignored by the outside world, it would be suitable for inclusion in one of these articles. I don't believe that is the kind of editing a neutral article name encourages. (I still think a Reception of... article would be the most encyclopedic. They could cover things like speaking style [this article criticizes Obama's communication], or mannerisms, etc., other things voters care about.) Jesanj (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the article title "Reception of the political positions of X" could be split off of "Reception of X" articles if necessary. Jesanj (talk) 23:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

If no source (newspaper, organization, think-tank, academic, opinion piece, etc.) mentions a political position taken by a politician by demonstrating a reception to it, then I think that position is very likely unencyclopedic. Jesanj (talk) 00:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

In other words, because of the non-neutral titles (is this disputed?) I think all Political positions of... articles should be moved to Reception of... articles and tagged with the following template:

Jesanj (talk) 16:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

And I see that there is a way to request multiple page moves, but I'm asking for neutrality/(appropriateness) of article titles at this point. Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 17:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

In contrast to Political position articles, I think the article title of Political thought and legacy of Khomeini is neutral and encyclopedic. Jesanj (talk) 17:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

"Political positions of..." is a fine title. It's just that some editors working on those articles (and subsections of biographies) forget that all Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on secondary sources. I agree that positions which haven't been mentioned in secondary sources should receive little or no attention. But adding "Reception of..." to the titles would just make them longer without changing their intended focus.   Will Beback  talk  22:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I was suggesting renaming them to Reception of John McCain, instead of Political positions of John McCain, for example. If the rewritten sections on political positions grow to justify splitting as one article (perhaps doubful), I still think Reception of the political positions of John McCain, though wordy, would change the focus. The focus would then be on what others said, instead of what McCain said. Jesanj (talk) 11:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with "Political positions of politician X"... it's a valid topic area. I would agree that such articles should include a section on "Criticism of X's positions". Blueboar (talk) 12:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

It absolutely is a valid topic area, but I'm arguing the title is not netural because it does not encourage multiple viewpoints. I challenge anyone here to find a Political positions of... article that is neutral by the standards we have all agreed on. A "Reception of John McCain" article would necessarily cover the topic by instead encouraging multiple viewpoints and encyclopedic writing. Jesanj (talk) 15:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

That's really a very different focus. "Reception of..." indicates that it is entirely about how people perceive the subject, including personal issues, campaign style, etc. "Political positions of..." is clearly about just the policy statements and actions taken by the subject, reported through the filter of secondary sources (like any article).   Will Beback  talk  22:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm thinking that that goal is unencyclopedic. I don't understand why an encyclopedia would attempt to collect "just the policy statements and actions taken by the subject" in one article. That doesn't encourage editing from multiple viewpoints. Jesanj (talk) 04:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't. That's the inherent problem with such articles. However, as noted elsewhere, WP:CONSENSUS currently states that these articles may exist on Wikipedia, despite the clear non-neutrality and soapboxing permitted by same. As it stands right now, the ONLY way to move such articles back to a more neutral stance is to ensure that EVERY major or significant politician has such a page, and that each such page be written with extremely close attention to WP:NPOV. The biggest pitfall any editor can run into when creating or working on these articles is the incredibly tempting urge to move away from simply stating what the verifiable sources state and move into WP:SYNTH or WP:OR territory. This gains even more emphasis when one looks at how polarized American politics have become over the past decade. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 16:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Politics of...

As political position articles tend to suffer from a dominance of one viewpoint (the subject in the title), how about we, in order to "encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing", discuss the neutrality of renaming them to the more general "Politics of..." When named this way, authors will no longer have the incentive to incorporate only what the politician says (one viewpoint). Instead, authors will have the incentive to add new viewpoints, such as analysis on the why and the how of the politics of a politician. Jesanj (talk) 21:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

To my ear, "Politics of..." sounds like it would be mostly concerned with political deal making. That might be an appropriate topic in and of itself, though the sources may tend to be even more partisan than those talking about mere political positions. What about "Politics and political positions of..."? That covers the widest scope, though perhaps it'd be too broad.   Will Beback  talk  22:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking of politics in the general sense. Analysis of their communication style would be fair game in my opinion, as a politician's communication style is one part of their politics. And political positions would fit in too, as would a reception section, if needed or desired. I think the long name would be too wordy. Jesanj (talk) 14:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

At first glance, I did not perceive a serious problem with the wording, but after reading through this discussion, I understand how it could present issues. However, I am not sure how I feel about goals such as "analysis of their communication style". I may be taking the word "analysis" too literally, but that seems to saunter rather close to NPOV. Although there are problems with the wording of "political position" articles as is, I don't think anybody is arguing it's not an encyclopedia topic, and it at least has a clearly defined scope. Kansan (talk) 03:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

As I have noted elsewhere, I find the political articles on Wikipedia to be all too frequently affected by "political silly season" editing, where those favouring a politician seek to show the person in the best light, and those opposing - the worst light. Reaching an actual balance is nigh impossible, and I think it ill-serves the readers to see any such articles - there are plenty of other places to see campaigning, and Wikipedia ought not be used as "campaign literature" at all. Unless and until Wikipedia installs a true mechanism to control such pages, I fear I dilike them in the first place, and likely would support a special committee (not just "the closest admin") to rule on all disputes therein, with actual teeth in their mandate (and mandibles). Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Political positions of Ron Paul

In addition to the usual hagiogaphy problems of any Ron Paul-related article, this one suffers from big fat swaths, including entire sections, which consist primarily or completely of regurgitation of Paul campaign statements. I tried to take the "we" (meaning the U.S.) out of one little section, and got scolded as a foreigner messing with "us"! --Orange Mike | Talk 19:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC) (fifth-generation U.S. or more, on his white side; more on his Cherokee side)

I glanced at the article and found a number of problems. I'll go through it in more detail now, then post a review on the article's talk page, recognizing that you or somebody else may have changed some of it by then. Kansan (talk) 19:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

And I have done so. Kansan (talk) 19:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the floodgates for such articles as this were opened quite a while back. As an example, I brought Political positions of Newt Gingrich to AfD, but it was closed as a nearly-uncontested keep. I still think, as I did then, that such articles are non-WP:NPOV at their core, provide undue coverage, and are promotional at best. However, WP:CONSENSUS appears to disagree with me, so I simply avoid editing such articles. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 19:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you about the inherent POV, but it would be interesting to add specific comments pro and con to Paul's position on the issues in place of some of the extremely long Paul quotes. Do I think the pro/con views be allowed to remain? That's a different story ... Ravensfire (talk) 20:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

One specific editor, User:Snettie, keeps inserting lengthy swaths of cut-and-past from Paul's own writings, and includes angry edit summaries insisting that there is no copyright on Paul's works, along with the occasional sneer at me for my profession. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

He got a block as a present for his single-minded edits on two articles. I wrote at UT:Jimbo Wales about the "silly season" editing on political BLP articles. Collect (talk) 22:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

If anyone else is interested in this topic, perhaps the Wikipedia:NPOVN#Political_positions_of... section above could reach a more permanent solution to this perennial problem. (I contacted the five editors on this post already.) Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 04:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Skull and Bones

Currently has a trivia section ("in popular culture") which I think may be of exceedingly marginal value to the article. Another editor wishes to enlarge the section. I am unsure whether this is a POV issue, but this is the closest thing to the right noticeboard I found. Might others weigh in on the value of any "in popular culture" trivia sections in articles? Thanks. Collect (talk) 17:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Popular culture sections can be usefull. My rule of thumb sets the bar at whether the information will be of interest to readers. For example, in this article the first two examples appear to be of interest while the third needs to have a ref specifically making the connection as the name lends itself to these types of movies while any link to the real Skull and Bones is likely coincidental. Wayne (talk) 03:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with Collect. Generally, "in popular culture" sections are really a collection of (usually unsourced) trivia often some OR/SYNTH. In this case, it's not that way, but I don't see it adding much to the article either. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Since no one has mentioned it yet (perhaps because everyone is aware of it) the relevant guideline is WP:IPC. This actually sets a pretty high bar for the inclusion of pop culture references/trivia by stating that "passing mentions in books, television or film dialogue, or song lyrics should be included only when that mention's significance is itself demonstrated with secondary sources." This seems to suggest that just listing references that indicate there was a mention is not enough, the sources have to indicate that the mention is significant. Like a lot of editors I have struggled with these lists. Some editors just delete them on sight, but very often they are just gradually built up again. The best solution I have come up with is to turn them into sourced prose (as I did at Humpty Dumpty). The trouble of having to make grammatical and logical sense and provide sources is usually enough to discourage endless listing of trivia. Hope that helps.--SabreBD (talk) 07:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• To clarify, WP:IPC is an essay, not a guideline. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I rewrote a bit, with a new heading, see what you think. The bar is maybe a bit too high, asking for secondary sources for each mention. Doonesbury and The Simpsons are at the quality end of popular culture; they are easily verifiable and should be able to stand as their own references. There is never any reason to limit cultural references sections to popular culture alone. Are there no mentions in novels? Itsmejudith (talk) 08:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Occupation of the Baltic states

Has a POV tag. And no one who supports the POV tag has given any actual suggested edits (well - one seems to have an ultimatum that the lede must be written in a specific manner to reflect his own POV) (IMO, but his points are all thoroughly covered in the body in any case). Consensus oterwise is that the "tag in perpetuity" concept has outworn any utility on Wikipedia. Would additional neutral eyes kindly weigh in here? Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I see quite a few POV#Impartial_tone, WP:ALLEGED, MOS:NOTED, WP:EDITORIAL problems that need to be addressed, the way it is now, it reads like anything but an encyclopedic article.

Some examples to illustrate, on their own they're not really remarkable, but the article is full of them:

• followed by their forcible and illegal incorporation into the USSR as internationally unrecognised constituent republics.
• the Soviets pressured Finland and the Baltic states; The Estonians had no choice but to accept
• but still intended to rule through puppet regimes
• The Soviets organised a press campaign against the allegedly pro-Allied sympathies of the Baltic governments
• Lithuanian government had no choice but to agree to the Soviet ultimatum. President Antanas Smetona proposed armed resistance to the Soviets but the government refused
• new "popular front" governments were formed in each Baltic country, made up of Communists and fellow travelers.
• Under Soviet surveillance, the new governments arranged rigged elections for new "people's assemblies." Voters were presented with a single list
• The Baltic states, recently Sovietized by threats, force, and fraud, generally welcomed the German armed forces when they crossed the frontiers.
• The area was ruled by Hinrich Lohse who was obsessed with bureaucratic regulations
• the Nazis managed to provoke pogroms locally
• the Baltic states had no governments in exile located in the West. Consequently, Great Britain and the United States lacked any interest in the Baltic cause while the war against Germany remained undecided.
• The discovery of the Katyn massacre in 1943 and callous conduct towards the Warsaw uprising in 1944 had cast shadows on relations; nevertheless, all three victors still displayed solidarity at the Yalta conference in 1945.
• The period of stagnation brought the crisis of the Soviet system. The new Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev came to power in 1985 and responded with glastnost and perestroika. They were attempts to reform the Soviet system from above to avoid revolution from below.

To clarify my objections to some examples: elections with one list and opposition excluded, that's pretty obvious without mentioning "rigging the election" (especially when it doesn't even fit the description in the wikilink); no choice when they refuse an alternative? "Germans managed to provoke pogroms", denying responsability a bit?

The use of wikilinks is problematic, too many, and frankly, I got the impression I was reading the encyclopedia of communist terminology. And it doesn't help your NPOV claim when the wikilink calls it "a pejorative term" (fellow traveller).

You probably can defend every example I give in some way, but you cannot call this non-judgmental language. And that has nothing to do with the factual accuracy of the article. DS Belgium (talk) 02:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

NPOV does not mean no POV - but rather "no net POV" -- the examples you give fall on both sides of each issue. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying that partial tone and loaded language is ok when it's used to represent both sides? Not to mention that there are no two sides to this issue imo.

I also notice that most of these seem to come from Hiden & Salmon (1994). 30 references, from page 110 up to 191. Is it coincidence that the style is so consistent, or are these lines taken verbatim from the book? DS Belgium (talk) 12:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I have no diea about that comment. WP:NPOV however is clear. representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources means that POVs are to be presented, the requirement is that no specific POV be given disproportionate weight. 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 clearly stresses that the balancing process is achieved by adding material with other points of view, not by removing all points of view with some sort of magic wand. If you find a copyright violation or plagiarism, then it is proper to note that on the article talk page, on a copyright noticeboard, or simple excision of such violations entirely. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you just being stubborn? I'm talking about the TONE of the article, not the content! And I don't have the book, so I can't check if these are verbatim quotes, but they read like a book, not an encyclopedia. DS Belgium (talk) 13:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

As near as I can tell, the tone of the article is set by its sources. If one dislikes the POV of the sources, NPOV says to add other sources. Meanhwile there are certainly disparate sources with disparate POVs in the current article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Whatever. I've got better things to do. No one else is interested, so you win. Seems most people who believed in the NPOV policy have left years ago. Cheers... DS Belgium (talk) 15:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Here is a discussion about your comments on the article's language. GreyHood ^Talk 20:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll have to get this foot out of my mouth first .. DS Belgium (talk) 21:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to acquaint yourself with Baltic history. "Occupation" is a "bad" word, is judgemental, et al. has been used in the past to attempt to reduce representations of the Soviet assault on the Baltics as less bad than it really was. That's a bit of an old trap you step into. As I have explained at the article, there is no kinder gentler middle ground between two accounts of history, Russian nationalist-patriotic versus Russian liberal-democractic, Western, and Baltic, which are irreconcilable. Using words as they are used in reputable and reliable sources is the appropriate "tone" for an article. That said, if you have reliable/reputable sources which navigate a middle ground, those are welcome as are all reputable sources. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 23:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The dispute is not over the term "occupation", but over the term of "annexation" (or lack thereof in the title). Annexation seems a very reasonable middle ground between the Russian "joined freely" and Baltic "got occupied". How many reliable sources do you need in support of the use of the term "annexation"? (Igny (talk) 00:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC))

Annexation appears where appropriate in section titles. I've already explained why "annexation" does not belong in the title and why there is no artificial fictional middle between "joined freely" (legal) and "occupied" (illegal) in examining, in particular, the official Russian position regarding legality according to international law. Best, PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Rosalind Hursthouse

Rosalind Hursthouse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Conservative Philosopher (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Lone editor battling to include the highly subjective phrase "Hursthouse... is the world's best-known virtue ethicist working today." Managed to finally find out that the statement does exist, in the compilation of essays called "A Companion to Philosophy in Australia & New Zealand" which is fortunately available online in full from the publisher's site.[2] Its also the only source currently being used for the article; I would like to cleanup and expand this article but am stymied by the owner of this article who simply blind reverts any edits I try to make. We are now hung on this one bit of hagiography. Quote is from Daniel C. Russell, an associate professor of philosophy at Wichita State University. He's written two books; one I could find no reviews for and the other I found a lengthy review which was through, and serious, and was not very complimentary. Russell fails WP:PROF and does not have his own article. The issue, of course, is that it is an extraordinary claim; it is clearly a statement of value and as such must be both clearly sourced and attributed, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. User:Conservative Philosopher wants to include it as a statement of fact. I personally think that even including it as per policy as "Daniel Russell, associate professor of philosophy at Wichita State University, has stated that..." would be biased; it gives undue weight to the opinion of someone who is clearly not a leader in his field; but CP won't even discuss the matter. Note that although a Google search will turn up repeats of this claim, they are all Wikipedia clones or quotes; the book is the only source. Hursthouse, although notable and well-known, is not even mentioned by some sources regarding virtue ethics; she is granted mention in others; she is given prominence in this one instance. See talk page for more. See also other contribs for CP, most notably this gem here. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua provides a biased and one-sided account of this dispute. She is as much a "lone editor" at that article as I am, and no one has taken her side in the content dispute between us. I am glad that she has finally succeeded in finding Daniel Russell's statement that Hursthouse is the world's best-known virtue ethicist working today, but I note that she has falsely accused me of adding my "personal analysis or commentary" to the article. Inasmuch as the statement that Hursthouse is the world's best-known virtue ethicist working today is backed up by Russell, it is not my personal analysis or commentary, and KC's caution on my talk page was out of place. Note, incidentally, that KC's statement that I have reverted all her edits at Rosalind Hursthouse is false; I have reverted many of them (because they weren't good edits), but not all of them, as anyone who checks the article's edit history carefully will see. I would be happy to have some sort of compromise at the article to resolve this issue, but KC is having none of it. KC is also trying to drag in unrelated issues at other articles; I find this regrettable (and think it borders on a personal attack), but I'm not going to respond to it. Conservative Philosopher (talk) 07:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The phrasing "personal analysis or commentary" is from a standard user warning template which was placed on CP's page by me, a {{uw-npov2}}. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that WP:PROF deals with whether professors deserve their own articles, not whether they can be used as sources, so I do not think it is the best tack to be used (and KC's comment implying that the Wichita St. professor is a bad professor was certainly unfortunate, as "rate my professor" type sites are far from reliable sources, and a few undergraduates' opinions of their professors have no bearing on the work of said professors). Having said that, I agree with the argument made on the talk page to the extent that being the "world's best known" is somewhat subjective, and if only one individual is saying that, it's not enough if it's being challenged. I think the word "prominent" is more objective, and still accurately describes the individual. Kansan (talk) 18:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes thank you, I am well aware of what Prof is for; this is why I continued "...and does not have his own article." Perhaps you missed my meaning in your distraction over my comment on talk regarding Russell; the point is that he's not an authority about ethics and ethics philosophers so his singular and extreme view should not be given prominence in the article. I sincerely hope this has cleared up your misunderstanding abotu my meaning. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 23:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

For a compromise, perhaps could we introduce wording similar to that of "Professor XXX of YYY University has described her as the world's best known..."? That would not extrapolate beyond what he said (as I certainly would not approve of simply citing him as one with the authority to speak for the entire field). Kansan (talk) 05:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I have in fact suggested that two or three times already. I do not think it is the best approach, but I have suggested it as a compromise. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 23:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I think this issue has more or less been resolved. ArtifexMayhem has resolved the sourcing issue (correcting the inept and destructive editing being done by KillerChihuahua), and I am prepared to live with the result. Conservative Philosopher (talk) 01:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I will add that I am glad that someone has chided KillerChihuahua for her unfortunate comments about Daniel Russell, and her use of a grievance-mongering website to attack him. Conservative Philosopher (talk) 01:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The reliability of a source is not determined by the notability of the writer but by the reputation of the publisher for fact-checking. Sources of course can be wrong, but the correct approach would be to find another source that claims something different. TFD (talk) 02:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to comment, but I believe you have misunderstood the problem. In this instance, that approach is useless, as the statement is a value judgment. In other words, an opinion. Thus, it is owned by, and relates to, only the author (or speaker) of the opinion. If the statement were spoken, we might want to know the reputation of the publisher, if there were any question that the person actually has that opinion. However, as he wrote it under his own byline, that is not a question. The opinion of citizen X is exactly as notable as X in that field, neither more nor less. Hence, the author's level of authority is of paramount importance. We must attribute the statement, as it is a value judgment, something CP has not discussed doing, although I brought it up several times. He wished to include the statement as fact. This is not permissable, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. And we cannot "fact check" an opinion, except to confirm someone actually holds a stated opinion, and this is not in question. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

• This is exactly the situation described in WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. That policy is very clear: we shouldn't make subjective judgments (e.g. "world's best-known virtue ethicist") in Wikipedia's voice. We have the choice of either a) attributing the view (e.g. "one essay describes Hursthouse as the world's best-known virtue ethicist"), or b) excluding it completely if we feel that the source in question isn't particularly strong or notable. I don't know which of those is the correct approach, since I'm not familiar with the source or subject. MastCell ^Talk 16:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Just noticed this and wanted to chime in. It's unclear to me why Conservative Philosopher is so anxious to promote a claim about Hursthouse's notability. However, contrary to what some editors have claimed, I don't think that the statement in question is either a "statement of value" or a "subjective judgment" (if the term "subjective" is being used the way I think it is). On the contrary, it is a matter of empirical — social-psychological, to be specific — fact whether Hursthouse is the best-known virtue ethicist: the statement is true if and only if more people are familiar with Hursthouse than with any other virtue ethicist. Of course, I doubt that anyone has actually conducted a scientific survey to test the statement, but that does not change the statement's status as a social-psychological (as opposed to value) statement. The problem isn't that the statement is a value judgment or a subjective judgment. Rather, the problem is that it is, as some here have pointed out, an "extraordinary claim". As such, it must be either left out until a large number of sources can be found for it or clearly attributed in the body of the article to its source.

Of course, the dispute seems to have been resolved by now, so this comment comes a bit late. I just want to caution people to be careful when using terms like "value" and "subjective". --Phatius McBluff (talk) 17:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

new essay: Wikipedia:Be neutral in form

Hello everyone. I wrote a new essay called "be neutral in form". I see neutrality disputes as coming from three sources:

• An article about a topic that naturally attracts controversy (pseudoscience, Israel-Palestine)
• Someone adds a POV statement to an article. (Opinions masquerading as fact, a fringe theory, an unattributed viewpoint)
• An article that is neutral-in-fact, but organized to give undue weight to one aspect.

The essay focuses on the third one. I would appreciate some feedback. If you basically agree and want to add or tweak anything, go ahead. If you basically disagree, I'd ask that you raise it on the talk page so that I can address it and make it better.

Thanks everybody! Dzlife (talk) 16:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

International Marriage Broker Regulation Act - Neutrality Dispute

Bit of an edit war going on at International Marriage Broker Regulation Act, an obscure bit of legislation that has a group that really hate it (specifically, men who order mail order brides). The article was previously highly anti-IMBRA to the point that someone on the talk page complained; I rewrote the article, and now an IP user is complaining that the article should be more anti-IMBRA again. Input appreciated at Talk:International Marriage Broker Regulation Act#Complaint. SnowFire (talk) 03:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the IP user is not requesting for the artical to be written anti-IMBRA. The IP user wants to artical to be neutral but as it stands now, the artical is mostly pro-IMBRA. The law is contoversial and is considered to be very unconstitutional. The author refuses to answer questions, for example as to why the most important element of IMBRA that effects the MOST people (the regulation of all communication by consenting adults) is not mentioned in the first, introductory paragraph? He seems to be afraid of explaing how draconian the law actually is. The author has a problem with the word 'contoversial' and mentioning the fact that there are 'thousands upon thousands of loving, happy, successful international marriages between Americans and foreigners'.

One more thing, the author continues to use the DEROGATORY label 'mail order brides" (example right in his first sentence. This is considered a false, offensive label. When two consenting adults decide to join an international penpal service, nobody is being shipped thru the 'mail', nobody is being 'ordered', and nobody is neccessarily getting 'married'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.26.30.5 (talk) 04:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

SnowFire, do you really think that "men order mail order brides"? You are badly misinformed, which explains why you have a biased opinion. You do not understand how 'international corresponding' works. When two consenting adults decide to join an international penpal / matchmaking service, nobody is being 'ordered' or neccessarily getting married. In fact, after the first person decides to introduce himself/herself to the second person, the second person is free to decide to answer back or not, which is similar to the way large-American dating services work. Also, you are oblivious of the offensive label: 'mail order bride'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.26.30.5 (talk) 23:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

John Edward

Is it neutral to simply do this and plainly state that this television personality is a psychic medium without qualification? Since the definition of mediumship is someone who speaks with the dead and there are those who say that John Edward is not speaking to the dead, is it okay to simply call him a medium? Isn't the previous wording more neutral? I ask here, because it looks from the history of this article that this wording is EXTREMELY contentious with one editor (User:Dreadstar) seeming to want simply call John Edward a medium and leave it at that without any qualification.

76.119.90.74 (talk) 17:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

that edit corrected grammar - "...whose works as a medium." does not make sense. If you want to propose modifiers preceding the word "medium" I suggest you use the article talk page. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

well, you get the picture, "who works as a medium" seems to be a fair way of putting it. The question I put before you is, "Is that a more neutral way of describing John Edward than just saying he's a psychic medium?" Is there something I'm missing here, because Dreadstar's edit summary says that it's simpler to just say "medium", but it seems that there is a long history in that article of Dreadstar removing such qualifiers from the lead. I just wanted another opinion from a NPOV expert. See Talk:John Edward#The controversy over calling him a psychic for more of this controversy. It seems to have been going on for years and I thought that it might be better to bring it up to experts. 76.119.90.74 (talk) 18:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Eternal life (Christianity)

• Eternal life (Christianity) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This recently created article has been subject to what appears to be extended non-neutral lobbying by one user (Alan347). In my opinion the article has become far less neutral as a result, despite very extended discussion on the talk page. Having been blocked for 31 hours already, the pattern of behaviour by Alan347 leads me to expect they are likely to be blocked again, but I would appreciate any independent opinions on the article talk page or direct advice for Alan347 on policy and how he can get his viewpoint in the article without blanking alternative views as this may help re-introduce calm improvement rather than relying on edit-warring followed by blocks. Thanks Fæ (talk) 09:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I fear "theological articles" are far from amenable to "NPOV" intrinsically. Collect (talk) 11:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that they attract disputes, but actually it is quite possible to write NPOV articles on such topics. As always, it's a matter of finding the best sources and summarising what they say. WikiProject Christianity can usually advise. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Florida Legislative Investigation Committee

Florida Legislative Investigation Committee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a particularly disturbing incident in US history, but the article is not up to Wikipedia standards. There are a number of sentences like: "Victims of the witch-hunt felt differently, however" which at a minimum, need to be rewritten. I'm also concerned that most of the links in the inline citations are no longer accessible. There's also a very heavy reliance on a student documentary film as a source which should be examined. GabrielF (talk) 22:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Occupation of the Baltic states

Has had a POV tag. The rationale for which has boiled down to [3]

I have looked over the long discussion on the POV tag above, and have failed to see that the dispute was resolved. If anything, it demonstrated that several ways to resolve the dispute was rejected by the pro-Baltic-POV editors here. I guess we would have to wait for more reasonable editors join the discussion to break an apparent impasse. (Igny (talk) 04:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC))

Query: Is an eternal POV tag [4] (for well over a year) which has been discussed at length on a talk page, and where clear and substantial consensus is that the POV tag is not warranted, proper where the real argument is clearly stated - that the tag sttays until the "pro-Baltic" editors are someday outnumbered in some distant future? And that the current editors and their consensus is not "reasonable"? I note that I am not "pro-Baltic" and added an edit specifically suggested by Igny, and which he apparently finds quite insufficient. I would also note that the number of POV tags placed by some of the participants here on other articles is substantial, and might indicate that the POV problem does not necessarily lie with the "pro-Baltic" editors. Noting that the aim of the POV pushers is to state that there was an "annexation" of the Baltic states by the Soviets in accord with the wishes of those states as stated by:

However, the USSR never formally acknowledged its presence in the Baltics as an occupation, and considered the Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republics as its constituent republics. The Russian government and state officials maintain that the Soviet annexation of the Baltic states was legitimate

Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Aspartame Controversy

Neutral Point of View, Verifiability and No Original Research are the 3 basic principles of Wikipedia. I maintain the NPV basic principle is violated in the article titled “aspartame controversy”. One side of this controversy is that there are many government and industry supported studies that show that there is no harm from the use of aspartame. This side is covered very well. It does however have a bias in that a paper published by Ajinomoto (a manufacturer of aspartame) is referenced 20 times.

The other side is the tremendous number of people who have had what they profess are bad experiences with aspartame. Your reference 8 ( from many years ago) mentions 3340 people who have sent complaints about ill effects and 250 who claim to have had seizures. In addition there is research that supports the assertion that aspartame is dangerous. The problem aries when the NOR principle is used to block the personal testimonials of people about items that were never intended to be research. In this case the NOR causes the NPV principle to be ignored.

Thus if I stepped on a rattlesnake, got bit and got sick from it i would be banned from advising others on Wikipedia to refrain from stepping on rattlesnakes. This does not make sense. I maintain that there is a difference between original research and testimonials acquired from life's everyday experience when no specific outcome is desired but it occurs anyway. Furthermore I am not advocating broadcasting the principle that steeping on rattlesnakes is bad but only wish to be heard and have my point considered.

I believe the health of people should be the driving force and while published peer reviewed articles are of much importance They should be balanced with articles that amount to testimonials from thousands of people who have had serious health issues from using aspartame. In a court of law testimonial evidence is admissible yet Wikipedia does not allow it’s use. Instead it adopts the term antidotal to suppress the fact that these are personal testimonials.

The article needs to present both sides of this controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arydberg (talk • contribs) 21:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

What you are asking for would require fundamental changes in the way wikipedia assesses the merit of sources - and this is governed by policy. If you wish to argue for such changes of policy, this isn't the place to do it. And were you to propose such changes, I suspect that there would be vigorous opposition - it would open up the project to all sorts of dubious claims from snake-oil salesmen and the like, all of which can supply 'testimonials' in bulk. Anecdotal evidence is quite rightly rejected by science as it is self-selected, and incapable of objective assessment. If you want to campaign against aspartame, Wikipedia isn't the place to do it. Sorry. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

How would I get a second opinion? Arydberg (talk) 13:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

You can get more opinions here. I agree with Andy, and would also point out that your rattlesnake example isn't all that good, because Wikipedia isn't here to give health warnings. Does anyone have a different take on this? Itsmejudith (talk) 14:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that, Judging from the comments on Talk:Aspartame controversy, I've already given you one - or more likely a third or forth opinion at minimum. Numerous contributors have indicated what Wikipedia policy is regarding this issue - and as I say, if you want policy changed, this isn't the place to argue for it. Still, if anyone disagrees with my interpretation of policy regarding the use of anecdotal sources regarding medical issues, they can of course reply here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I gave you my perspective at your talk page, but I thought Andy's answer was sufficient, so I didn't bother saying anything until you asked for a second opinion. Jesanj (talk) 14:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Arydberg was topic banned from aspartame related articles for three months after prolific WP:TE. This has been explained to him multiple times but he doesn't seem to grasp it. Third opinions, forth opinions and tenth opinions will tell you the same thing, if you can't edit Wikipedia without obsessing over aspartame then we're going to have an issue again. N^oformation ^Talk 16:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

And he has been told a large number of times that testimonials are useless, and that we don't do 'present both sides' when the evidence suggests one side is not correct and has no data to back it up. However, he keeps this up, this is tiresome in the extreme. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not refering to postings I have made. I am refering to postings others have put up. I do have data to back up what I say from Harvard, Government Reports, NIH and others.  : here here here here here here here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arydberg (talk • contribs) 03:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Second link is http://www.health-report.co.uk/aspartame-toxic-effects.htm Arydberg (talk) 03:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

WE HAVE DISCUSSED THIS BEFORE. STOP THIS PLEASE. I encourage others to read the talk page archive of Aspartame Controversey.Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I would very much like to stop. It’s just that i cannot when accusations are made against me that are demonstratively false. Also, Would someone kindly tell me why this thread does not appear until the user signs on, Does Wikipedia have two active versions of this thread?Arydberg (talk) 13:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

This is the NPOV noticeboard. You asked why anecdotal evidence wasn't permitted in the aspartame controversy article, and policy was explained (again) to you - it doesn't matter who is trying to incorporate it, it still isn't going in. If you have concerns about 'accusations' being made, you should raise them on the appropriate noticeboard, rather than here. As for your problems with seeing the thread, I'd suggest you ask at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) - it sounds like a glitch to me, probably something to do with purging the cache or the like. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes you explained it and I was remiss in not thanking both you and Jesanj. Thank you. It was the statement that said “ He has no data to back it up” that was untrue and prompted me to post links. Was I out of order? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arydberg (talk • contribs) 17:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

As someone wholly uninvolved, the simple fact is that first-person testimonials are never reliable on Wikipedia. A small number of people disagree with this, but, it is probably one of the most widely accepted requirements on Wikipedia (that is, the WP:OR and WP:V policies). But if you want to know why, think about it this way: in your example, you assert that it's okay to mention on the Wikipedia article about rattlesnakes that you stepped on a rattlesnake, and got hurt, so people should be careful not to step on rattlesnakes. Would it also be okay for me to add a statement that says that I stepped on a rattlesnake, it bit me, and then after that I became significantly stronger, healthier, and more morally upright? And what if I had thousands of people that said the same thing? Because, in fact, some Christian groups, who practice snake handling, claim exactly that. Would that be okay to include in the article on snakes? No, certainly not, except perhaps as a minor, single sentence, pointing out that the practice exist, just like in Snake#Christianity right now. The key question, which WP:NPOV addresses, is that we may only represent information in proportion to its real life importance; and, for medical articles, we have the stricter standard that medical info should whenever possible come from secondary "meta-studies" and research reviews. Now, you may not like this policy, and if you want it to change, the place to go is WT:V or WT:OR, and ask for some sort of special exemption written in for personal testimonials. Of course, you'll never get the community to agree, but technically that is what you have to do. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes I can accept that OR is and will be ignored. I understand that you really mean well in implementing this rule, but the links I posted strongly suggest that the use of aspartame may be dangerous. I simply want to suggest that an article titled “controversy” you tell both sides of the controversy . Again this thread disappears when I try to access it and do not sign on? Arydberg (talk) 19:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Are Becker's Hospital Review lists worth including at hospital pages, and if so, how much weight is due?

Becker's Hospital Review seems to have nowhere the level of acceptance as U.S. News and World Report hospital rankings, so I'm of the opinion it's probably not worth including (until other reliable sources give us an independent assessment of its worth). I looked for such an assessment in newspaper archives and google scholar but came up empty. If we do include it I think giving it equal weight with U.S. News and World Report is undue. A google scholar search comparison of "Becker's Hospital Review" hospital rankings vs. "U.S. News & World Report" hospital rankings yields 1 hit from a random website vs. many hits in respected medical journals. Sure, some of those hits in medical journals could criticize U.S. News and World Report, but it appears nearly no one cares about Becker's to cite it. So how can we cite it without being undue? I had a previous discussion with a new editor (User talk:Tgoldst5) about this and I just saw this version of a hospital page, prompting this thread. Jesanj (talk) 02:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Query concerning article talk page post

[5] shows what I think might be an interesting way of handling POV accusations at Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes. Is such a post a proper means of handling a NPOV dispute where the person does not have nor does he seek WP:CONSENSUS for his edits?

If no fresh arguments will be presented in close future, I'll revert the changes made with violation of the edit restrictions. If these changes will be restored, the AE request will be filed against the editor who restored them. We already have an opinion of one experienced admin that confirms that the procedure had been circumvented by the users who made this edit, so the request will likely be successful.

This is a query and not a complaint, by the way. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Perpetrator

Is the term "perpetrator" in Maxim restaurant suicide bombing for the person who committed a suicide bombing WP:NPOV, as in this edit [6]? The term "perpetrator" usually applies to someone who committed a crime. I think it could be replaced with the more neutral term "bomber". What should I do to avoid an edit war? --Nbauman (talk) 19:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Priority for the concept of the constant speed of light

A discussion has occurred on the talk page of the speed of light article, about who has priority for the idea that the speed of light in vacuum is independent of the source or inertial frame of reference. We have a reliable source showing that Lorentz was the first to deduce this and show its relevance to relativity: "Lorentz was justified in asserting that: . . . the chief difference [is] that Einstein simply postulates what we have deduced ..."[7]. In fact the only significant difference between Lorentz' 1904 paper, "Electromagnetic phenomena in a system moving with any velocity smaller than that of light", and Einstein's 1905 paper, "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", is that Einstein formally discarded the concept of the ether. Whether or not the ether is exists is irrelevant to whether or not the speed of light in vacuum is independent of the source or inertial frame of reference, as Poincare published in 1889: "It matters little whether the ether really exists: that is the affair of the metaphysicians. ..., whereas, no doubt, some day the ether will be thrown aside as useless."[8] Thus, Einstein's paper is not notable for making a significant step forward regarding the subject of this article, which is the speed of light.

Another editor and I have attempted to demonstrate this point on the talk page. The discussion has devolved to editors refusing to engage in discussion, and simply editing what they want to see into the article without sufficiently demonstrating its validity. It would be helpful if some outside eyes could review the situation and at least restart discussion. 이방인 얼라이언스 (talk) 11:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

You might actually want to read footnote 30, of the source you quote. This states quite clearly, that although Lorentz could have deduced that the speed of light is independent of the frame of maotion from his 1904 paper, he didn't do so until 1909. End of discussion.TR 11:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

In fact it was Maxwell that first deduced that the speed of light was constant, as the lead states: "In 1865, James Clerk Maxwell proposed that light was an electromagnetic wave, and therefore traveled at the constant speed c appearing in his theory of electromagnetism." The lead then goes on to state:"In 1905, Albert Einstein postulated that "the speed of light with respect to an inertial frame is independent of the motion of the light source",[4] and explored the consequences of that postulate by deriving the special theory of relativity and showing that the parameter c had relevance outside of the context of light and electromagnetism." The constant speed of light (which by definition is independent of inertial reference frame) was taken as a postulate by Lorentz and used to derive his theory of relativity in 1904, ie. "showing that the parameter c had relevance outside of the context of light and electromagnetism", as can be seen by his use of the constant throughout the paper[9], in 1904. This sentence is demonstrably misleading. 이방인 얼라이언스 (talk) 13:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)