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

Rujm el-Hiri: in 'Israeli-administered' or 'Israeli-occupied' Golan?

Requested remedy: We request independent evaluation of this issue. If it is decided that 'administered' (or some other term) is a preferable non-partisan term over the more prejudicial word 'occupied' then we request that this replacement be used (and protected) to describe 'Golan' in the "Rujm el-Hiri" article.

The article may be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rujm_el-Hiri The article's talk page may be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rujm_el-Hiri Though the issue of 'occupied' and related language is discussed in various places on this talk page, the most current discussion (between Nableezy, Zero0000, and myself) is in the section titled: "Partisan Politics does not belong here: WP:POV and WP:OR"

Summary: The article's topic is a 5,000 year old archeological site which has nothing to do with the modern Arab-Israeli conflict (since the site was constructed before 'Israel' or "Arabs' even existed :-). A group of editors, e.g.: Nableezy, Zero0000, Tiamut, Supreme Deliciousness, have insisted on using the phrase 'Israeli-occupied' with a link to the Wikipedia article on the political history of 'Israeli-occupied territories' to modify 'Golan' in the Rujm el-Hiri article. Some editors find the term 'occupied' to be violation of NPOV in this context, since the Israeli government considers the area to be a part of its own country, and (as the map displayed within the article shows) it may be better described as 'disputed' territory. This NPOV issue has become the focus of a small edit-war. I recently did a quick 'google' search and found others who had similar conflicts with these editors (and others who have a reputation of working with them as a concerted group on anti-Zionist issues) over the same prejudicial use of the word 'occupied' and found that some other editors in the past have proposed that 'administered' would be a more neutral alternative to the more politically-loaded term 'occupied.' The use of 'administered' was rejected by Nableezy, et al, who reinserted the 'occupied' language and link, just as Zero0000 had done the previous day.

............

The diffs of the two edits may be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rujm_el-Hiri&diff=569666323&oldid=569660529

The (edited for compactness) text of these diffs:

Rujm el-Hiri: Difference between revisions ...

Revision as of 01:53, 22 August 2013 (edit) 143.232.129.69 (talk) [Note from Ronreisman: '143.232.129.69' is listed because I forgot to sign-in before making the edit] (Changed 'Israeli-occupied' to more neutral phrase 'Israeli-administered' in an effort to minimize biased language -- see talk page)

Rujm el-Hiri (Arabic: رجم الهري, Rujm al-Hīrī; Template:Lang-he-n Gilgal Refā'īm) is an ancient megalithic monument, consisting of concentric circles of stone with a tumulus at center. It is located in Israeli-administered Golan Heights ....

UNDONE: Latest revision as of 02:47, 22 August 2013 (edit) (undo) (thank) Nableezy (talk | contribs) (Undid revision 569660529 by 143.232.129.69 (talk restore accurate terminology)

Rujm el-Hiri (Arabic: رجم الهري, Rujm al-Hīrī; Template:Lang-he-n Gilgal Refā'īm) is an ancient megalithic monument, consisting of concentric circles of stone with a tumulus at center. It is located in the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights ...

............

This insertion of 'occupied' has occurred in other parts of the article and stimulated editor controversy in the past. For instance:

Revision as of 12:39, 26 November 2011 Biosketch (Rmv "recently" commentary not in any of the sources.) ... The site was cataloged during an Israeli archaeological survey carried out in 1967-1968, after the Six-Day War....

Revision as of 18:37, 26 November 2011 Tiamut (talk | contribs) (→‎History and purpose: missing detail about occupation of syrian territory)

The site was cataloged during an Israeli archaeological survey carried out in 1967-1968, after Israel occupied Syria's Golan Heights during the Six-Day War.

.............

Link to the current Talk:Rujm_el-Hiri#Partisan_Politics_does_not_belong_here:_WP:POV_and_WP:OR section. (copied text replaced by link) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronreisman (talk • contribs)

To me, the term "administered" implies consent on the part of the governed; and we don't need to debate census data in light of the thumb of Israel and its military on the scales of Golan's demographics because.....

(A) "Occupied" is consistent with UN views of the matter and

strike out by original author, explanation for strikeout is in later commment in the tree down below (B) Neither term belongs in an article about an archeological site, unless it is related to RS-based disputes over the integrity of the science being performed.

Out of curiosity, are the news reports that Israel will pay students to defend it online involved in this dispute?

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 06:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Sadly, no one is paying me anything for my time spent on Wikipedia. My opinions, actions, and words are solely my own responsibility. If, OTOH, *you* would like to send me a check to help support my wife & kids .... well drop me a line, maybe we can work something out :-)Ronreisman (talk) 00:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Three points (a) WP:TLDR; (b) the Golan Heights is no exception to any other territory occupied by Israel in 1967. It is accepted that it and the West Bank, and East Jerusalem, is technically, in law, 'occupied', as even the Israeli Supreme Court admits; (c)kerfluflfle is spelt 'kerfuffle', and 'fussing' to get things said neutrally and correctly, without POV finessing to push a national euphemism into texts, is part of our remit as editors. Nishidani (talk) 10:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

To clarify the issue, it is entirely about the phrase "Israeli-occupied Golan Heights" used to indicate the location of this archaeological site. None of the other political issues mentioned above are relevant since nobody is proposing to mention them in the article. The reason "Golan Heights" by itself is insufficient is that only a portion of them was occupied by Israel in 1967 and so it does not properly identify the site. The reason "Israeli-administered" is undesirable is that "administered" is an adjective invented by Israel to euphemise the fact of occupation (which would contradict Israeli's denial that the Geneva Convention applies, etc). The phrase "Israeli-occupied" is far and away the most common description in English and is the overwhelming opinion of the nations on Earth (few political issues are voted on repeatedly with such near-unanimity at the UN). The UN always calls it the "Occupied Syrian Golan", but I don't propose using that. Though it is much less common, I could live with the phrase "Israeli-controlled" as an alternative to "Israeli-occupied". Zero^talk 13:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that 'Israeli-controlled' is a neutral alternative.Ronreisman (talk) 00:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Though 'controlled' does not imply either 'settlement' or 'production' which is a good part of what takes place under the control. It's best to go with the term in most general use internationally,'Israeli-occupied', if only to remind Ms Rudoren of the New York Times, and their bureau chief in Jerusalem, when she or others visits the Golan, that it is not a part of Israel in international law, something their fact-checkers are beginning to ignore.Nishidani (talk) 14:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• Agree with Zero000, say "occupied"; Zero's reasoning is strong enough that it persuaded me to change my mind, specifically the part when Zero said that "The reason "Golan Heights" by itself is insufficient is that only a portion of them was occupied by Israel in 1967 ...". To help educate others on the same fact background that tripped me up, I would make it explicit saying the site "is located in that portion of the Golan Heights that has been occupied by Israel since the 1967 Arab-Israeli War".NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

First of all, it would be extremely helpful if the talk page section was linked instead of copied and pasted. It was insanely difficult for me to make sense of the text. Also, could the original poster please clarify what is being requested? Thanks! Leujohn ^{(talk, stalk me?)} 18:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm the 'original poster' and the 'request' is to reach a respectful consensus regarding a 'neutral' alternative to the partisan use of 'occupied' -- and accompanying link to a controversial political-territorial topic -- inserted into an article where none of these political issues are mentioned (eg 'Rujm el-Hiri' is an archeology topic). I agree with Zero000 that 'controlled' (*without* political article link) is an acceptable alternative. Do we have consensus? Ronreisman (talk) 00:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I should add that I only suggested "Israeli-controlled" because I agree with the general principle that archaeological articles should avoid modern politics where possible. There are very few other Golan-related articles where "Israeli-controlled" is appropriate. Zero^talk 00:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

In my view, it would create a silly WP:EGG to write this as "[[Israeli-controlled|Israeli-occupied territories]] portion of the [[Golan Heights]]". Resolution of this should be through what the RSs with the greatest amount of weight say. And I don't know of any greater-weight RSs than Israeli courts and the UN, where "occupied" has been at least acknowledged in one and is common usage at the other. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:31, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

"Occupied" is the correct and neutral word. Anything else is misleading. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 03:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree. As an outsider with no personal stake in the P–I issue, I find the phrase "Israeli-occupied portion of the Golan Heights" entirely neutral and helpful. I can understand that "occupied" may strike some as a political assessment, but I suggest they are reading more into the text than what it says. Johnuniq (talk) 03:52, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe the best solution would be to simply state "the Golan Heights" without further description. Any interested reader should click on the wikilink. However, "controlled" seems acceptable if a description must be included. Leujohn ^{(talk, stalk me?)} 17:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

That's like saying Machu Picchu is in South America, instead of specifying that it is in Peru. The Golan Heights is neither a nation nor under one-nation control/occupation/whatever. We don't say SS Edmund Fitzgerald sank in Lake Superior, we specify that it was in "Canadian waters". Likewise, this site is not just randomly on some unclaimed bit of geology. It is on a specific part, a region that in geopolitical RSs with greatest weight is called "Israeli-occupied". There is such a thing as false neutrality, when we make these calls from the seat of our pants instead of comparing the way different RS speak of them. To paraphrase the little old lady in the classic Wendy's commercial, "Where's the RS?"NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Leujohn: I agree with Zero000 and NewsAndEventsGuy(strikeout added by NewsAndEventsGuy because this falsely characterizes my position) that we need to specify Israeli-Golan, vs Syrian-Golan. The location is relevant; the recent political and military history, however, is not relevant. For instance, Syrian-Golan could be further subdivided into the different polities who currently militarily control and occupy it. In fact, territory very near Rujm el Hiri has been recently disputed between the Syrian government, several rebel groups, and the UN). The nature of the Syrian-Golan occupation, however, is irrelevant to this article's topic. Inserting them where they don't belong is a violation of SYNTH and OR. This issue is not about ethnic over-sensitivity. It's about allowing compromise the Neutrality principle with controversial partisan political rhetoric. Topic ledes should only contain language and links that are mentioned in the article. I agree with Zero000 that 'controlled' is preferable to the disputed term 'occupied.' Ronreisman (talk) 20:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not controversial partisan political rhetoric to describe any of the Israeli occupied territories as Israeli occupied. It's not prejudicial either. It's editors doing what they are absolutely required by policy to do whether they like it or not. It maximizes policy compliance. It's the most neutral and functional solution. No one is to blame. It's just what happens when you take the sources and apply Wikipedia's decision procedures to them. This issue has needlessly caused disruption to hundreds of articles for years. Editors just need to have the humility to switch off their personal views, simply follow the rules and everything will be as it is meant to be. Sean.hoyland - talk 21:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Sean.hoyland's observation that 'This issue has needlessly caused disruption to hundreds of articles for years' is a clear indication of the controversial and political nature of this issue. This is partially because Golan's status is both complex and disputed; e.g.: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14724842. A significant minority object to 'occupied' as the exclusively acceptable term because this masks real and relevant differences of opinion. The 'Wikipedia decision procedures' do *not* automatically dictate imposition of the dominant majority opinions at the expense of minority rights. The suppression of minority rights in this context is not compatible with Wikipedia's emphasis on consensus and etiquette. Of course, these concerns take a back seat to the larger issue: don't compromise the quality of an article by importing extraneous issues that don't pertain to the topic. That's why political language and links in the lede of a non-political topic should, as a general rule, be considered a violation of Wikipedia Neutrality Point of View. Ronreisman (talk) 22:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Ron, when you review RSs beware of reading in what you want to hear. That's called Confirmation bias. Try going to the BBC RS link you cited, and read the whole thing, i.e., click on the tab that says "status", and you'll find the BBC describes the place as "Israeli-occupiedcontrolled". (Correction by original author NAEG, sorry... kid distracted me)NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

You mean BBC Facts tab = "Status: Israeli-occupied" and Overview map = Occupied by Israel (1967). There is really nothing controversial at all, not even slightly, about referring to the Israeli occupied Golan Heights as Israeli occupied. Of course, the BBC's reliability on these issues is always challenged. One of my favorites from an editor is that the "BBC has an Arabic station. The Brits create Jordan, so of course their national station is not reliable." Sean.hoyland - talk 12:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

It isn't "a clear indication of the controversial and political nature of this issue". It is a clear indication of the powerful effects of ethno-nationalist imprinting on human beings. It takes a long time to do that. Wikipedia can only ask people to do their very best to follow the rules here and if they aren't able to do they should walk away or be helped to walk away. The Golan's status is not "complex and disputed" on this question. There are no "minority rights" here, there's just the sources and our policies/guidelines. It would be entirely inconsistent with policy to put "is Great" after the word "God", or "Saves" after "Jesus" or "is just a theory" after "Evolution" just because a significant minority of Wikipedia contributors have learned to prefer it that way. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

@RonReisman, your comment at 20:55 today falsely characterizes my position because I explicitly oppose saying "Israeli-Golan" for the reason that this phrasing would be an NPOV violation departing from the RSs of greatest weight. I have modified your comment by striking out my name. Please do not ascribe false positions to me. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy: my apologies for any misunderstandings that may have offended you. To be clear: I was explaining to Leujohn that I was *agreeing* with others who point out that we should not just leave 'Golan' without some adjectival language that distinguishes whether it's on the Israeli or Syrian side. I did not mean to imply that you agreed with the specific language we should use (since you favor status-quo 'occupied'), just that you did agree that unlabeled 'Golan' is not sufficient. No offense intended. Also: my other response to your question about whether I was a paid Israeli student was my attempt to make a friendly joke; we do *not* seriously expect you to send me a check. I'm just trying to reach consensus by incremental agreements (whenever possible :-) until we reach a final settlement.Ronreisman (talk) 23:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no "Israeli side" of Golan, there is a free part of Syrian Golan and then there is an Israeli-occupied part of Syrian Golan. Rujm el Hiri is in the Israeli-occupied part of the Syrian Golan, so that is what we will use.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

@Ron, no harm done, thanks for apology and clarification of your intent.

@Supreme Deliciousness, no your opinion about the facts (even if right) is not why we should use that expression. Rather, we should use that expression because that is the way it is described in the RSs of greatest weight. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I also believe the best solution would be to simply state "the Golan Heights" without further description. I'm bit frustrated that neutral editors enable POV pushers to turn apolitical articles into turf-war zone. Yeah, making this into Derry riot does not help. Some editors just love "not in Israel" game. When I looked for reliable sources about the site, its location was described as Southern Levant, or Golan specifically. I am talking about Archeological surveys.The high quality academical sources used do not specify political authority on the ground or use occupied word. Le'ts not pretend the current wording in the article is sourced. The sources that do use such wording, like BBC source are news and not related to this subject, i.e. do not mention the Archeological site, thus such sources are quite useless. We mark the point on the location map in the infobox and wiki link Golan Heights, that should be enough, for non-POV pusher. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Generally, when some RSs are offered to make a point, when one wishes to advocate for a different outcome they produce specific alternative RSs to consider, not an entire paragraph of opinion. I've an open mind. Put up some RSs to back up your opinion please. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

AgadaU. Reflecting on this, I thought that this might be a reasonable proposal, actually. But then, as usual, when I have to make a close call, I discern the underlying principle, and generalize it by analogy to see how it would act, if a precedent is established, on other articles. The proposal would, if enacted, have a wide impact within wiki. Are you suggesting that all archaeological sites in foreign territory occupied by Israel should be classified by archaeologists' usage? I.e. archaeologists never use words like ' located in the Palestinian West Bank' of a place like Tell Balata. Archaeologists often use terms Jewish terms like Samaria and Judea, to describe their sites. We, by established principle, don't, because it is recognized that such loaded words in political usage have an appropriative connotation. Nishidani (talk) 19:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Could someone provide a quote from sources currently used? Do we still pretend the current wording is supported by reliable sources?

Let's make a 5 mins survey of top three results for Google scholar search "Rujm el-Hiri location":

• Rujm el-Hiri, a Bronze Age megalithic monument in the southern Levant.
• Rogem Hiri a megalithic monument in the Golan.
• 1988-1991 Excavationa at Rogem Hiri, Golan Heights

Still in doubt? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

A bit, since all three are behind a paywall. Meanwhile, dig director refers to the location as "in Israel" in the "heart of the Golan". http://digs.bib-arch.org/digs/rujm-el-hiri.asp NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Right. If the phrase used in the original documents referenced by current article content:

• Jerome Murphy-O'Connor (15 April 2008). The Holy Land: an Oxford archaeological guide from earliest times to 1700. Oxford University Press US. pp. 457, 478. ISBN 978-0-19-923666-4. Retrieved 30 March 2011.
• Avraham Negev; Shimon Gibson (July 2005). Archaeological encyclopedia of the Holy Land. Continuum International Publishing Group. pp. 207, 443, 518. ISBN 978-0-8264-8571-7. Retrieved 30 March 2011.

is occupied then that would seems to me to be the best language to use.

Not knowing the language used in these documents could potentially be a problem. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The most reliable sources and the international community use "occupied". Case closed. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

First, I agree with the result, but disagree with the reasoing of Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs) above. In my view, this isn't a battle of which is RS is more reliable than the other RS's. Rather, this debate has to do with which RS's carry the greatest WP:WEIGHT.

Second, AgadaUrbanit (talk · contribs) seems to imply that the professional archeological literature generally has the #1 claim to "greatest weight". I disagree with this implication for the following reasons.

(A) Wikipedia is a resource for everyone, not just for professional archeologists. Whereas expert-level readers would be able to make the leap from geo-coordinate to contemporary geopolitics, elementray school readers can not do that.

(B) Wikipedia is not a hard-bound resource but a dynamic encyclopedia. Were I a hard-bound publisher of materials that had to talk about contested boundaries, I'd be slow to write "x" when tomorrow the boundary issue might be "y". Being a dynamic encyclopedia, we don't have that problem.

(C) Professionals writing in professional journals have a vested interest in gaining access to the site, which has been under Israeli control since 1967. As such, they have a motive to not kick the gatekeeper in the political tender parts when they publish their findings.

For those reasons, I do not agree that the professional archeological RS's are the RS's of "greatest WP:Weight".

Third, as a general principle, intellectual integrity admits the possibility that omission of well-documented facts can, in some circumstances, be a form of POV. In this case, Israeli occupation of this specific locale is well-documented in a wide range of RS's. Since we are neither a professional journal writing for experts nor a hard bound resource, we should describe locations in a way that makes sense for the widest general audience. For Lake Superior shipwrecks, that means stating whether the locale is in US or Canadian waters. That's easy, because it doesn't push emotional political buttons. If that logic makes sense for Lake Superior shipwrecks, true NPOV requires applying the same logic for locations in regions of conflicting international claims. In the article under discussion, that means a simple statement of the widely-documented fact that this spot is in the "Israeli-Occupied" part of the Golan, rather than a well-intentioned omission of this fact. Plus we are supposed to avoid ambiguities if possible. The site is not in the Syrian controlled/occupied/claimed/whatever part of the Golan Heights, but the Israeli. Instead of the ambiguous "Golan" why not just say "Middle East", or for that matter "Planet Earth"? No, our task is to be NPOV matter-of-fact and avoid ambiguity. This spot is considered, by nearly the entire international community, to be "Israeli-occupied", and omitting this is at worst a form of POV-by-intentional-omission and at best creates a good-faith-but-nonetheless-impermissible ambiguity.

Fourth, upon the suggestion of this Wikipedia guideline, I took a peek at the CIA World Factbook, which says "Golan Heights is Israeli-occupied". They appear to have less motive to say one thing and not another than professionals writing for other professionals in such a way that greases the wheels with the controlling authorities when they want to do field research at the site itself. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I note that Gamla nature reserve, Hamat Gader, Katzrin ancient village and synagogue, Kursi, Golan Heights, Nimrod Fortress, and Umm el Kanatir all refer to their location simply as "the Golan Heights" on first mention, though more details are in some cases provided further on. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

So more thoughts? Maybe it is a good idea for uninvolved administrator to formally close this discussion, so we sill not have to guess about the consensus established. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Whatever the geographic location, all articles from all subject areas should inform readers who are from some other country (relative to the article) where they need to book passage and to what government they need to seek visas/permits in order to visit. If these articles do not distinguish between Syrian Golan and Israeli-occupied Golan then these articles need improvement, and their failure to include that matter-of-fact information is not a reason to omit that information from the example article under discussion. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

According to Southern_Levant#History referenced content, "The term "Southern Levant" is used by archaeologists who wish to avoid taking a modern geo-political stance in a region rife with border disputes".

I looked into sources referenced for "occupied" language:

• Jerome Murphy-O'Connor (28 February 2008). The Holy Land:An Oxford Archaeological Guide from Earliest Times to 1700. Oxford University Press. p. 531. ISBN 978-0-19-164766-6. Retrieved 9 September 2013.
• Avraham Negev; Shimon Gibson (July 2005). Archaeological encyclopedia of the Holy Land. Continuum International Publishing Group. pp. 207, 443, 518. ISBN 978-0-8264-8571-7. Retrieved 30 March 2011.

The sources *do not* use occupied to describe the site's location. So not sure why occupied is being re-added lately unsourced and without consensus again, again and again obsessively to Rujm el-Hiri's lead?

Avraham Negev source used occupied term often, though not in reference to the Rujm el-Hiri site, but in the meaning of "some ancient people occupied some geographic region". Jerome Murphy-O'Connor includes "Visit" section, so I might add this info into the article. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Some time had passed from my previous post,. Does anyone have new thoughts ? Or maybe sources that mention this archeological site (Rujm el-Hiri) being "occupied"? If no response here I would request uninvolved admin to close this. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 03:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

A request for closure. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

"Gay people" vs. "persons with homosexual inclinations" or "with a same-sex attraction"

Which is more neutral: "gay people" or "persons with homosexual inclinations"/"with a same-sex attraction"? Discussion here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I think my view would probably be that "gay people" would be more neutral, but it may all depend on the context. Why is the issue being raised here? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Answered here [1]. Cavann (talk) 18:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

They are not the same thing.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The term civil society as used in 1990s in U.S.: a result of communist Polish propaganda. Neutral? Factual?

Hello all. Civil society currently states that "The term entered public discourse in the United States and around the world in the 1990s in effect of intensive work of communist propaganda in Poland" in the lead. Aside from the "in effect of"... it sounds like the sort of claim that needs good sourcing. Is this neutral? Biosthmors (talk) 09:12, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

It's in the body of the article now. I moved it down, but it's still there. Biosthmors (talk) 17:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I was only able to find one of the two sources used, and it does not support the claim. Also, the it does not make sense. Why would Communists in post-Communist Poland use propaganda to popularize this term in the U.S.? The article also says, "However, research shows that communist propaganda had the most important influence on the development and popularization of the idea instead, in an effort to legitimize neoliberal transformation in 1989." That seems garbled as well. Why would Communists want to legitimize neoliberalism? TFD (talk) 17:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Strange indeed, I have removed it. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Well analyzed, eh? Without pointing fingers, POV pushing is continuing... AgadaUrbanit (talk) 04:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Jewish Bolshevism

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

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

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

There is a discussion at Talk:Jewish Bolshevism#RfC: Is Jewish Bolshevism a conspiracy theory?.

TFD (talk) 16:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Jewish bolshevism, according to the reliable sources that discuss the term, was a theory that the Jews were behind the Communist conspiracy which, along with Jewish capitalists, bankers and mainstream media, Masons and the illuminati, was plotting world control. The main issue is whether we should restrict our sources to publications that discuss the theory, or provide detailed information about the "disproportionate representation" of Jews in Communism, which according to some editors is the reason why the theory developed. TFD (talk) 21:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The way how this is tried to be presented (claiming that people with some Jewish ancestry) are by definition Jews is racist. The claim that Bolshevism was Jewish conspiracy is racist conspiracy theory which and can not be redefined or remodeled.--Tritomex (talk) 17:24, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: The title of the article seems to imply the legitimacy of the basic notion, which is at odds with the lede's assertion that "Jewish Bolshevism" is a paranoid conspiracy theory. Assuming there's general agreement about that among scholars, a more neutral title might be "Jewish Bolshevism" or "Jewish-Bolshevism" Theory, with quotation marks to indicate that the term is employed by way of quoting the theory's advocates (because there's no other recognized name for the phenomenon), and not as a matter of choice or endorsement by Wikipedia.

Surely the stated question regarding sources comes down to a choice between secondary sources and original research? Sources should discuss the "Jewish-Bolshevism" theory, not Jewish Bolsheviks or Jewish Influences on Bolshevism or whatever else is being offered. An even-handed treatment of the theory would presumably touch upon whatever factual basis its proponents may have had, as well as its opponents' rebuttals; but the focus of the article ought to be on the theory itself, as formulated by its leading proponents (including major variants and any controversies over its formulation); its origins and history, and the historical context or contexts in which it arose and developed; important proponents; actions or policies influenced by the theory; criticisms and counterarguments; important opponents; and so forth.

Attempts to load the article with proofs of the theory's correctness (or, for that matter, incorrectness) would seem almost by definition to constitute advocacy and original research. Scholarly sources examining the factual basis, vel non, for the theory might conclude that it is or is not well-founded, and if they are creditable sources they should be acknowledged in the article; but their arguments and evidence should not be set forth at length.

Some of the passion that's been expressed in connection with the article might be defused a bit by putting "Jewish Bolshevism" in quotation marks, as suggested above; and by expressly acknowledging that different states, institutions, communities, families, and individuals have differed widely, and sometimes violently, over who is a Jew and what it means to be a Jew. Except when quoting, it may be best to avoid the unqualified terms Jew and Jewish, and instead to speak of "persons of Jewish ancestry" (as when referring to culturally assimilated persons who are nevertheless classified by the state as Jews), "members of the Jewish faith" (if religious practice is at issue), "ethnic Jews" (or some better term, e.g., with reference to unassimilated Jews, perhaps confined to ghettos, who share a Jewish ethnic identity, but who may or may not practice the Jewish religion), and so on. I'm sure editors more knowledgeable of the subject will be able to improve considerably on these suggestions.

Jdcrutch (talk) 06:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Aesthetic Realism

The article Aesthetic Realism is in violation of WP:NPOV in numerous ways. This has been a long-term problem. I will describe its recent history. Beginning in July 2013, I started trying to improve the article, believing that it was both poorly written and biased in favor of the controversial philosophy it is about. I initially made 38 edits. Some of them simply corrected grammar and formatting. Others were more substantial, removing unsourced claims (for example, that gay men and lesbians succeeded in changing their sexual orientations through studying Aesthetic Realism) and eccentric and unencyclopedic language (such as the use of the expression "changed from homosexuality" to describe these alleged changes in sexual orientation). All of these changes were reverted by LoreMariano here, with the excuse that they had not been discussed beforehand. Note that her edit, in addition to restoring numerous errors of grammar and formatting, also restored the following unsourced text: "Some men who began to study to change from homosexuality discontinued their study. Others, who at one time stated they had changed, later decided to live a gay lifestyle. Still others indicate that the change from homosexuality they first experienced in the 1970s and 80s is authentic and continues to the present day." LoreMariano subsequently edit warred in an attempt to restore that material, as seen here. Eventually, the material was removed by Cavann (seen here) and LoreMariano and other editors accepted this. I was also able to correct the article's formatting and some of its grammar (although Aesthetic Realist editors insisted, for no good reason, on retaining some incorrect grammar, as seen for example here).

The article still has numerous problems. I shall describe only two of the worst.

The first involves the removal of a link to the Sexual orientation change efforts article. The link was initially added by me here. The link was removed here by Nathan43, one of the most aggressive and disruptive editors at Aesthetic Realism. Nathan43's edit summary ("Link removed because it deliberately diverts attention to article supportive of editor's own views") indicates that his removal of the link had no basis in policy, and was simply motivated by his own personal dislike of and disagreement with the contents of the Sexual orientation change efforts article (this was what led me to describe his edit as vandalism). The removal of the link was discussed on the talk page. The archived discussion can be seen here. As can be seen, I made several arguments for including the link, arguments which the Aesthetic Realist editors ignored. I pointed out, for example, that despite the insistence of Aesthetic Realist editors that Aesthetic Realism has nothing to do with conversion therapy or sexual orientation change efforts, the Aesthetic Realism article is within the Sexual orientation change efforts category and the link should therefore be perfectly appropriate. No reply to this argument was ever made.

The other problem concerns the fact that much of the article is written in the peculiar jargon favored by Aesthetic Realists, rather than in neutral and encyclopedic language. This has been the subject of a long, inconclusive discussion that can be seen here.

The continuing problems with the article have a simple cause, which frankly is that most of the editors interested in it are Aesthetic Realists and edit in an extremely biased fashion, removing any material that they perceive as being critical of Aesthetic Realism. It is a disgrace to Wikipedia that they have largely been able to get away with this. I would encourage other editors to take an interest in this article's problems and see what can be done to rectify them. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Liberty University, Jerry Falwell and Sun Myung Moon

In August 2007 an editor added a paragraph[Sun Myung Moon] concerning financial aid given to [[:Liberty University]] ([[Special:EditPage/Liberty University|edit]] | [[Talk:Liberty University|talk]] | [[Special:PageHistory/Liberty University|history]] | [[Special:ProtectPage/Liberty University|protect]] | [[Special:DeletePage/Liberty University|delete]] | [{{fullurl:Special:Whatlinkshere/Liberty University|limit=999}} links] | [{{fullurl:Liberty University|action=watch}} watch] | logs | views) through two Unification Church organisations. Although other critical or controversial material has been removed along the way, this stayed in the article, with modifications, until it was removed 6 days ago with an edit summary stating "Removed debt buy-out as only founding endowments are typically included in university entries and not individual contributions". I reinstated and the original editor, rather than revert me, started a discussion at Talk:Liberty University. He revised his objection, saying that ""Removed debt buy-out as only founding endowments are included in university entries and individual contributions outside of endowments are never included" and pointing out that it isn't in our university guidelines or in any other university page. I suggested that that was not an argument that would hold weight and that the only argument against it would be NPOV, specifically WP:UNDUE and since then that has been the main focus of the debate. As I understand the discussion, we have people who are saying that this is not a real issue nor controversial (or at least it hasn't been shown to be so), and would not be of interest to readers. There's a side debate about whether the main report as published in the LA Times is WP:PRIMARY and if so it shouldn't be used (and at the moment it isn't in the article anyway), but I think it can be used.

It's also been suggested that "The involvement shifts to Jerry Falwell and Moon, and Falwell is not Liberty. "

The current version says that "the school was not aware of News World's connection to Moon when it obtained the loan through a broker" and that Falwell said the source would not affect his ministry. I'm not suggesting that it did.

The story is reported in a number of reliable sources. The LA Times article which is by [[Robert Parry {journalist}]], the Washington Post by their own staff writers who use Parry but also discovered a later loan[2], Christianity Today[3] are just three. Parry says (and this is not in the article) that " Desperate for an infusion of cash, Falwell and two associates made an unannounced trip to South Korea in January 1994, where they solicited help from Unification Church representatives, according to documents on file in a court case in Bedford County, Va. Months later, Moon's organization funneled $3.5 million to Liberty University through a clandestine channel. The money was delivered through one of Moon's front groups, the Women's Federation for World Peace. It then passed through the Christian Heritage Foundation, a Virginia nonprofit corporation that was buying up--and forgiving--Liberty's debt."

Both the Washington Post and the LA Times articles say that the University was in a financial crisis, although our article only says "helped to financially stabilize".

I don't think that WP:UNDUE or WP:SCOPE are reasons to remove this from the article. It doesn't appear to have been a minor issue (or a non-issue as it's been described on the talk page). I've just noted a section on Finances which mentions only current finances. In fact, this help from Moon came after a serious financial crisis caused by the 1991Virginia Supreme Court ruling that Liberty University was ineligible for a tax-free bond issue because of Liberty's "pervasively sectarian" religious character. This was covered for a while in the article, but removed[4] with an edit summary saying ": I simply deleted the 1989 bond issue section. There were no citations at all for the section, it stated falsely that Liberty was named in the court case, and the second paragraph did not even mention Liberty University." That seems to be inaccurate, the university was named.[5]. It could easily have been cited and if I'd seen that I would have reverted and cited it.

It's my view that these issues should be reflected in the article somewhere - and if we don't, their omission will be what violates our NPOV policy. As an aside, the editor removing the Moon material and I had a discussion about another issue last year which you can see on the talk page, where we both agreed that if a lawsuit was noteworthy it should be included, but that at the moment it wasn't. I think that principle applies to this issue. Dougweller (talk) 13:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Well summarized, but there is a bit more to the argument. I suggested as a compromise to move the paragraph to the Jerry Falwell page since any connections suggested in the sources are between Falwell and Moon. The discussion was then moved to NPOVN. The current form of this paragraph is in the Controversies section of Liberty University's page. However, the editors in favor of keeping the paragraph had difficulty on the Talk page of explaining why this paragraph is controversial or interesting to the readers of the article.

One editor stated: "I'm not sure how this debt buy-out information improves the understanding the topic of Liberty University. If anything, it seems more appropriate as a brief mention in the history section, at least in the context of overcoming financial difficulties, but I'm still not sure that wouldn't constitute undue weight. Someone with more expertise on Liberty's history would have to weigh in as to whether or not that would be the case. As far as it being controversial, the debt buyout only seems controversial to a portion of the university's own constituents, not with society at large, as no ethical or legal lines seem to have been crossed."

Another editor stated: "The mere fact that something happened and is noted in reliable sources is insufficient reason for us to include that information in an encyclopedia article. The burden is on those who want to include the information to justify that the material is particularly interesting or relevant to the subject of the article. So far, you haven't met that burden."

I stated that possible controversies that may only be interesting to a small minority of readers violates WP:UNDUE. Ultimately, the paragraph is about an Evangelical university that accepts money from a cult leader and the university spends it as it sees fit, with no further allegations of untoward influence from the cult leader. It's a donation. No one is denying the fact that the donation took place. All of the references given do not prove or even suggest any involvement between Liberty and Moon outside of the donation.

Furthermore, the amount donated was (and is) trivial. At the time, Liberty University was $120 million in debt and near bankruptcy [6]. In light of this large amount of debt, $3.5 million is a small donation that neither financially stabilized Liberty University nor rescued it from bankruptcy. Additionally, in 1997 Liberty University received a $70 million donation from businessman Arthur Williams [7]. The claim that "although the money given then is a fraction of its assets today, it was significant at the time" is not accurate. Compared to the Williams donation just 3 years later, the 1994 debt buy-out is not important or significant. In 2007, Liberty received another $34 million from Falwell's life insurance policies, which was used to pay off the last amount of debt [8]. This also trivializes the Moon donation. This is another reason why the paragraph violates WP:UNDUE.

The reason I said that "Falwell is not Liberty" is that in all of the sources suggested on the Talk page, Liberty's involvement appears to be peripheral and trivial. Instead the sources shift to Jerry Falwell and Moon and their common conservative ideology, not on Moon's influence or involvement with Liberty University. That is why this also violates WP:SCOPE.

Liberty is a private university that is allowed to accept donations from anyone. "Private universities receive private donations every day of every year and they (rightfully) do not make Wikipedia." Since the sources and the paragraph seem to find controversy in Falwell's involvement with Moon, then a compromise would be to move the paragraph to Falwell's page.

I cannot speak to the 1989 Bond Issue paragraphs, other than the deletion summary appears to be in good faith. When I looked at the history page containing that paragraph, it was not sourced, and was not interesting or controversial. The court case named the Lynchburg Industrial Development Authority, whose involvement with Liberty University was not apparent at a quick glance at news sources. It is still not interesting or encyclopedic.Wolfy54 (talk) 08:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Question of the NPOV of article-page regarding "astro-turfing"

After an unsolicited and purely curiosity-based reading of the page on internet astro-turfing my personal impression was that the page, while very elaborate and well-footnoted, still left the reader with a distinctly less-than-nuetral impression of the article's point-of-view. One must acknowledge the presence of sourced and properly-presented factual evidence from a number of opposing perspectives the overall narrative remained overtly favorable to one particular POV. This commenter was appreciative of the efforts obviously employed by the author(s?) to maintain the NPOV but felt that those efforts fell only slightly short and since the page had received such responsible attentions it deserved to be informed that it might have over-compensated in one direction away from the ideal of a NPOV. Sincerely, and w/o prejudice, tobiathan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.81.166.102 (talk) 23:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

RfC on proposal to merge WikiProjects characterized as "Fringe"

This RfC would benefit from comments by uninvolved editors. David in DC (talk) 18:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Fraz Wahlah

Article: Fraz Wahlah
Discussion: Talk:Fraz Wahlah#Problems with the article

This article is in poor condition and some IP editors (probably its one user using 2-3 IPs) regularly add non-neutral content that even fails verification. I have tried to address the apparent issues with the article but these IP regularly revert back. I have tried to explain the problems on the talk but to no avail. Can someone please take a look whether this article in current shape adheres to NPOV, specially the last section titled "The Flag-bearer - BBC". --SMS ^Talk 17:01, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

White Hispanic and Latino Americans

A new editor and editor of this article White Hispanic and Latino Americans insists on inserting personal opinions, own life experiences, blog content and blog references into this article. He needs more help/guidance than I can provide. Thanks Hmains (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• This was handled at ANI. Thanks Hmains (talk) 04:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Grammarly

This article was apparently created by searching for "Grammarly" and using all results regardless of the quality of the source or the appropriateness for use in an encyclopedia article on the subject. While we've made some progress in previous discussions, there are still many NPOV and related (WP:NOT, WP:RS, WP:PSTS) problems.

A detailed breakdown of all the remaining problems is here. I'm recommending this version. The talk page is covered with previous attempts at addressing the concerns. --Ronz (talk) 16:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• Contrary to Ronz's assertion, the Grammarly article was well researched, properly sourced and written in neutral tone with proper referencing, complying with WP:NOT, WP:RS, WP:PSTS and WP:REF. The current revision as of 16:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC) and made by Ronz himself is OK for keep. A look at the talk page and the history showing the many times that Ronz had to undo himself makes it look as if he is using this article as a 'testing ground' or trying to suit an ego. May be he has never had his contributions challenged before or he is facing a substantial dispute for the first time, because I have asked him several times to wait for third-parties to clean-up whatever mess that he claimed there are in the Grammarly article, but he would not, he rather keep pushing his own side of the argument by removing disputed contents. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 10:16, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

  As editors can see from the above, there are WP:FOC and WP:OWN problems as well. --Ronz (talk) 16:44, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Inslaw

Convoluted article about several trials and investigations during which "the Department of Justice was accused of deliberately attempting to drive Inslaw into Chapter 7 liquidation; and of distributing and selling stolen software for covert intelligence operations of foreign governments such as Canada, Israel, Singapore, Iraq, Egypt, and Jordan; and of becoming directly involved in murder." It has wording such as "Yet beneath the surface of this background was a belief that the primary focus of certain top-level individuals within the DoJ was to perpetuate international, covert intelligence operations" sourced to [9] and "Meanwhile, the government began highly suspicious activities to force Inslaw into Chapter 7 liquidation" sourced to [10] (which I'm loathe to add, seems copyvio) and a mirrored version at [11] and [12]. There's more pov language and the whole article seems to be making a point. I've also removed some material added evidently just to attack a BLP. Dougweller (talk) 10:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment. It looks like it will need a great deal of work to bring into line with NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 23:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Deepwater Horizon oil spill response fund section

Hello, I would like to ask that someone review the final paragraph of the Spill response fund section of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill article. This paragraph was added a few months ago and relies primarily on an op-ed piece from The New York Times. Myself and another editor both raised concerns that the wording is not neutral and may need to draw from other sources. Would editors from here be able to review the material and see if it seems appropriate and neutral, particularly with regards to the source used?

I have tried to address this using the article's talk page and, but the discussion has not been very active and a consensus has not been reached. Can an editor here please look at this and let me know what they think? I should also note that I am BP's representative on Wikipedia, so I have not and will not make any edits to this article. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 16:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

If a source says contributions to "organizations that fan the flames of Islamophobia" can we say " philanthropy to organizations opposing islamization "

At Nina Rosenwald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) an editor changed a sentence in the lead which read "Since 2000, Rosenwald and her sister, Elizabeth Varet, have donated over $2.8 million to "organizations that fan the flames of Islamophobia." to one that read "Since 2000, Rosenwald and her sister, Elizabeth Varet, have donated over $2.8 million to organizations that are staunchly pro-Israel." I revised this and objected on the talk page. The same editor has changed it so that it now reads "Rosenwald's philanthropy to organizations opposing islamization has led her detractors to label her as "anti-Muslim" and "islamophobic"". The source[13] doesn't say 'opposing islamization' and 'islamization' is in fact an extremely pov word often used by anti-Muslims, so clearly not appropriate here.

In addition, an new section has been created, "Critics of philanthropy". That's clearly a pov section heading, the criticism is that she funds anti-Muslim groups, and using 'philanthropy' to mean funding anti-Muslim groups is not exactly NPOV. The text has gone from one pov statement - " Commentators have criticized Rosenwald for her support of pro-Israel organizations"(which is the editor translating 'anti-Muslim' to 'pro-Israel' to another statement that repeats the bit about "organizations opposing islamization". Again, this is misrepresenting the source (same source) in a pov manner. Dougweller (talk) 20:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Using The American Muslim as a critic is extremely bias, so it's really not suitable to be in the lead of the article, unless it's been covered by some third party sources.--Loomspicker (talk) 21:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The section in question was sourced to The Nation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

And in answer to the second question, it is self-evidently a violation of NPOV policy to describe support for contentious political organisations as 'philanthropy'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Max Blumenthal in The Nation quotes the Center for American Progress saying her family has "donated more than $2.8 million since 2000 to “organizations that fan the flames of Islamophobia.”[14] We cannot describe donations to political groups as "philanthropy." I see nothing wrong with calling these groups "anti-Islamism", that is their stated position. They oppose "Islamism". An article in FrontPageMag, which is run by David Horowitz, who is a recipient of the donations, is called "None Dare Call it Islamism".[15] Apparently she also funds pro-Israel groups, which should not be described as "anti-Islamist", and her father supported the United Jewish Appeal, which is correctly described in the article as philanthropy. TFD (talk) 21:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

"Their stated position" clues us in to the problem here: that's the non-neutral language used by the groups and people who promote them. It also obscures the entire effect of the sources: no one is criticizing her for supporting anti-Islamist organizations, but for supporting anti-Muslim organizations. (An analogy: to be sure, the Know-Nothings opposed a Catholic takeover of the United States. Because they were bigoted against Catholics generally, not because such a takeover was imminent, and to whitewash their anti-Catholicism as legitimate opposition to a takeover is ridiculous.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

While self-proclomations can't be taken at face value, neither should the partisan opinions of her opponents. Both should be in the criticism or controversy section. The lead should be factual without editorial, sourced or otherwise. Jason from nyc (talk) 01:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

You misunderstand what a Wikipedia lead is meant to do. Many people only read the lead, so the lead "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." Dougweller (talk) 11:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it is WP:OR for us to decide which donations to which organizations are philanthropy or not. Philanthropy is for the love of humanity. Blumenthal's family is certainly doing it for what they perceive as the benefit of humanity. We may disagree with her interpretation thereof, but that is opinion, just as we may disagree with the goals or methods of any charity or non-profit. Further, the meaning of the word has morphed over time to generally cover endowments, trusts and other donations, or involvement with non-profits. . There is no question that these are in fact endowments and trusts. from or own philanthropy article "By the early 21st century the word "nonprofit" was generally accepted as synonymous with philanthropy". These are non profits. That said, consensus may certainly determine what wording to use that is supported by the sources - but there is no policy based reason against using that term. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

"it is WP:OR for us to decide which donations to which organizations are philanthropy or not". Yup - so we don't describe it as such without sources... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The section that was titled critics of her philanthropy was changed to 'critics of her largesse', I've just changed it to criticism. The criticism isn't of the fact that she is donating money, it is about the organisations that she is choosing to get the money. Dougweller (talk) 05:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The reason that section is titled "Critics" is because it tells us much more about Sheila M and The Nation than it does about Nina R. (lol). --72.66.30.115 (talk) 06:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

And this sort of comment by the IP, "(we're not permitted to call donations to organizations lefties don't approve of, "philanthropy"" smacks of a personal attack and is certainly not the type of content that should be in an edit summary. Dougweller (talk) 05:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that comma after "of" does look a bit off, doesn't it? Bad form on my part, I suppose. --72.66.30.115 (talk) 06:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Monkey wrench (spanner)

Pursuant to Dougweller's concerns, I've been looking at the report that Max Blumenthal used from the Center for American Progress, called "Fear, Inc.". A couple things: 1) the quoted phrase "organizations that fan the flames of Islamophobia" does not occur in "Fear, Inc." at all, let alone in relation to the Rosenwalds. The closest thing to it is on page 94, "Yet MEMRI’s selective translations of Arab media fan the flames of Islamophobia." AFAICT, the "Fear, Inc." report does not link MEMRI with Rosenwald largesse. 2) Nina Rosenwald is not mentioned in the "Fear, Inc." report. --72.66.30.115 (talk) 02:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Although she isn't mentioned, two of her family funds are, and she is one of the people controlling them. "“the Anchorage Charitable Fund and William Rosenwald Family Fund contributed $2,818,229 to Islamophobic organizations,” including more than $2.3 million to ]Daniel Pipes]’ Middle East Forum. Other beneficiaries flagged in the report included Frank Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy, the Clarion Fund, the David Horowitz Freedom Center, and Zuhdi Jasser’s American Islamic Forum for Democracy". Dougweller (talk) 05:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I've been very flexible and made practically every change you've recommended and still you're not happy. --72.66.30.115 (talk) 06:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Hardly flexible and definitely not made practically every change I recommended. Dougweller (talk) 11:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

It's probable that the opening quote mark in the Blumenthal article was misplaced and should have read

Rosenwald and her sister Elizabeth Varet, who also directs the family foundation, have donated more than $2.8 million since 2000 to organizations that "fan the flames of Islamophobia."

While this may be a mistake on the part of the copyeditors at The Nation, it doesn't change the sense of the quote for our purposes, so it's not a problem for us. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Gaijin42, by your definition Bin Laden was a philanthropist - he gave away money for what he saw as a good cause. Roscelese, I suppose the more correct term would be "Islamophobic", but my reading of WP:LABEL suggests we not use it. Even though the term "anti-Islamist" is what they call themselves, I do not see it as a problem. The term "anti-Communist" for example could imply that they were the only ones opposing Communism, but the term itself implies an extreme form of opposition. TFD (talk) 07:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understood the substance of my objection. The problem isn't that these organizations are the "only ones" opposing Islamism, but that their opposition to Islam is, to all evidence and to the substance of the criticism, just part of a larger project of opposing Islam and Muslims generally. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The lead section should not be written with quotes from those of the opposite side of the political spectrum, i.e. the Nation. This is highly inflammatory and partisan. It should be generic "supports conservative causes" with controversy within the article if we aspire to being an encyclopedia and not a tabloid.. A good example of an encyclopedia-type lead is in the George Soros article: "Soros is a well-known supporter of progressive-liberal political causes." It would cheapen the article if we put "Radical anti-American billionaire George Soros is a major backer of a left-wing group that is funneling money to the Occupy Wall Street movement" from the right-wing and venerable conservative journal Human Events [16]. Let's take the high road. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Keeping controversy out of the lead is against our guidelines. "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies". Dougweller (talk) 15:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC) (signing later than I wrote this)

Prominent is the operative word. This is partisan. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia not an activist vehicle to rally the troops. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

You seem to believe that prominent and partisan are mutually exclusive, but they aren't. If criticism of her donations to bigoted groups has got that much attention, it belongs in the lede, because the lede reflects the body and the body reflects the weight given in reliable sources. (Note: I have not read the article, I'm just responding to your fallacy.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm reading prominent in a general sense of widely respected, not merely widely known nor widely respected in partisan quarters. I'm hoping we'd all respond to the aspirations of general scholarship and not partisan attacks. Although I personally believe partisan criticism has a place within the articles along with a reply from the subject or her supporters. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I don't think that's what the policy is trying to say. Not "criticism from respected sources may be included," but "noteworthy criticism may be included." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Matilda the Musical

This article's Reception section consists of a statement that almost all the reviews of this musical theatre production have been raves, followed by 17 pull-quotes of rave reviews for various productions. That isn't a "critical reception" section of an encyclopedia article, that's marketing. I removed the quotes as violating WP:PROMO and WP:QUOTEFARM, but another editor edit-warred to restore them. Since such unrelenting postivity concerning the show (which I haven't seen, but which I'm sure is just fine) cannot possibly be allowed under the WP:NPOV policy, I'd like editors from here to take a look. It seems to me that material that violates three different policies should be removed, but the editor who restored them (who seems to have ownership issues with the article) insists that because they are referenced, which they are, they must stay until someone writes a balanced Reception section. I disagree - they should be removed and the writing of that section can start from scratch. As long as that extensive list of positive quotes is in the article, there is no impetus for anyone, especially a fan of the show, to write a policy-compliant section. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's possible that reviews have been overwhemingly positive. It shouldn't be difficult to find evidence otherwise if it's not the case. Simply removing reviews and blanking the section does not seem an appropriate response. Paul B (talk) 10:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

However the current section is somewhat over the top: I see no reason to include in the article verbatim quotes from every review under the sun. Trimming the section down to the opening sentence plus a slightly trimmed pile of references (perhaps with quotes in the references?) might be the way to go. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

It should be noticed that user Beyond My Ken is now Forum shopping. He has posted on the article talk page, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musical Theatre and now here all within a few hours. He has already been advised that blanking wasn't the correct option by me and now two others. He should of converted into prose but as he has commented at Talk Musical Theatre he has no interest in doing so. User:Ssilvers has offered to do it if no one else is interested in doing so. A reception section is always included in these articles and the correct route would be to tag and allow an edior who has an interest in verifiability to do so. What User:Beyond My Ken is deliberately forgetting to say is when he removed he left one line stub with no sources making claims such as all received positive reviews, which is even worse than what we have. It should be noted it was he who started edit warring as was invited in first revert to take to talk page, he failed to do so initially but has now decided that Forum Shopping is the way to go.Blethering Scot 19:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Jonathan A Jones that would be against the MOS as a critical review section featuring Quotes, including positive or negative is needed. The included sources or others which there are many more reliable ones should be converted into prose as is always done rather than simply blanking or a one line stub that doesn't cover the varying productions. Someone has offered to do so which wouldn't of been needed if Beyond My Ken had put as much work into fixing rather than spending all that time forum shopping. The tags added less than 24 hours ago are more than appropriate until this has been completed.Blethering Scot 19:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Re you referring to MOS:FILM? This specifically refers to quoting "a reasonable balance of these reviews", not the huge number currently used. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Revert war over NPOV warning tag at Federal Assault Weapons Ban article.

Today, within 81 minutes, my NPOV warning tag at the article Federal Assault Weapons Ban was reverted. I would appreciate a third opinion. Am I being unreasonable to think that my opinion of a NPOV violation involved in an difficult ongoing discussion on the article talk page deserves a warning tag in the article space? I am of the opinion that the NPOV tag is a good thing in that it alerts readers of the article to the ongoing NPOV discussion on the talk page. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 16:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Where are the specific NPOV concerns presented? --Ronz (talk) 17:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The specific problem is systemic editor bias, going on for at least five years seen commonly in Wikipedia on contentious issues is the human nature of editors of one personal point of view being disproportionately drawn to edit articles personally interesting to them. In this case editors with a personal interest in the topic of 'pro-gun' politics are drawn to a 'gun politics' article. (Largely this is subconscious.) This systemic editor bias problem is made worse by the dominance of male editors versus female editors in among Wikipedia volunteers, with US males disproportionately favoring 'pro-gun' politics. I have found it very difficult editing in that environment, with my attempts to get specific being met with hostility, and personal character attacks. I have failed to resist the temptation to rise to that bait which has served the purpose of getting me topic banned. One very specific problem in the article is the non-neutral 'framing' of the topic as being about itemized firearm features as outlined in that piece of legislation being politically characterized as mere cosmetics. The implication being that the features in the legislation are not important distinctions. This topic framing has been advanced by the 'pro-gun' politics involved. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 18:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Please see the talk page. We asked Salty to give some specific examples of the alleged "POV" problems, and they refused to do so while barraging us with more general accusations and insults. A part of why they were subsequently topic banned. North8000 (talk) 18:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Attempting to discuss the effects of systemic editor bias at Wikipedia is not an insult. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 18:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

This was discussed pretty thoroughly over the last few days at wp:ani. SaltyBoatr, Talk:Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban and at the talk page of the article. North8000 (talk) 18:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Water Fluoridation

The water fluoridation article is written as if water fluoridation is not a controversial topic. It's tone is to present as fact the benefits of water fluoridation, without giving weight to contradictory studies. Campoftheamericas (talk) 19:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The article is a featured article that has been vetted by many different editors. If a top-tier medical journal (e.g. JAMA, Lancet, etc.) published studies questioning its safety, then there would be room for contradictory views. Andrew³²⁷ 19:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

religious views of Albert Einstein

The lede of the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_Einstein is reverting between-

Albert Einstein's religious views have been studied extensively. He called himself an agnostic, while disassociating himself from the label atheist, preferring, he said, "an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."[1]

and

Albert Einstein's religious views have been studied extensively. He said he believed in the "pantheistic" God of Baruch Spinoza, but not in a personal god, a belief he criticized. He also called himself an agnostic, while disassociating himself from the label atheist, preferring, he said, "an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."[1]

Einstein said once in a single letter that he was pantheist. People with pantheist pushing agenda are keen on keeping this in the lede, even though it's such a minor part of his religious views. 149.254.56.143 (talk) 21:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC) What do you recommend? I'm happy for that comment to be in the body, and to be more prominent than it currently is in the body. But it feels "too strong" to be in the lede. 149.254.56.143 (talk) 21:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)