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

Featured Anarcho-capitalism article is being held captive to left-anarchist editors.

Anarcho-capitalist editors are underrepresented among so-called "anarchist" editors, and the latter (more properly "left-anarchists") have been holding the page captive for several months to inclusion of their POV about anarchism "proper". This does not necessarily imply that anarcho-capitalists are a documentable heterodoxy (which would be irrelevant anyway, since anCaps have no desire to be counted among them), nor that there even exists an official definition of "anarchy" (which, even if it were the case, would not apply to an article that is not about anarchism "proper"). The early POV subtly writes off anarcho-capitalism as "illegitimate".

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anarcho-capitalism&diff=607632560&oldid=607397020

Currently there is a NPOV tag gracing the article (which as of now is, I believe, npov)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anarcho-capitalism&diff=616525121&oldid=616514970

and edit protection expired today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anarcho-capitalism&diff=618531990&oldid=616619670

While I have made every effort to resolve the conflict by attempting to clarify the nature of the dispute - not only in the body, but already in the lede - they insist that their definition of "anarchism" is "correct", since various prominent left-anarchists claim the title, and that said POV be included in the lede. My hope is that objectivity ultimately takes precedence over majoritarianism.

While I believe that mention of the conflict among anarchists need not be included in the lede in order to satisfy npov requirements, the following compromise text addresses the issue of definition to the extent possible in a few lines without compromising neutrality:

Anarcho-capitalists distinguish themselves from minarchists, who advocate a small night-watchman state limited to the function of individual protection, and traditional anarchists, who typically reject private property and market processes, in favor of collective ownership arrangements. In contrast to left-anarchists, who believe that economic relationships tend to be hierarchical, anarcho-capitalists believe that hierarchies can only be flattened in a naturally competitive marketplace to the extent that states and state-sponsored monopolies are abolished. As a result, there is disagreement between anarcho-capitalists and left-anarchists over the nature of "anarchy".

JLMadrigal (talk) 13:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Our friend JLMadrigal has put so much spin on the dispute that the true problem is blurred. JLMadrigal uses the label "Featured article" to lend an air of high respectability to the current version of the article, which is however very, very different from the 2006 FAR version, the version which resulted after a lot of different viewpoints were applied to the article during the 2006 FAR discussion. After the 2006 discussion, the article was eventually taken in hand by ancap adherents who gave it a much more subjective and promotional tone. This discussion started by JLMadrigal should instead have the heading Featured article Anarcho-capitalism has been changed to a subjective in-universe style and is being vigorously defended by adherents of a minor viewpoint.

To anyone who asks nicely I will say that I am a fan of big government—a strong central government—for reasons having to do with historically ugly social problems such as racism, sexism, and economic inequality. So to find myself characterized by JLMadrigal as a "left-anarchist editor" is entertaining if not ridiculous. This shows the degree of WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude which has been applied by ancap adherents to the dispute. During the dispute, one such editor was blocked for 36 hours for "personal attacks, incivility and battleground behaviour". None of the mainstream editors was blocked.

Instead of being a battle between ancaps and leftist anarchists, the problem here is one of the article having lost its former objectivity, having lost touch with the mainstream literature. The dispute is between ancap adherents and everybody else in the world, that is, the general mainstream viewpoint. The current dispute is about beginning to restore a mainstream viewpoint, and it is just a start. If ancap adherents are resisting this strongly then we have a real neutrality problem. Binksternet (talk) 17:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

After briefly skimming the talk page for the article, it will become immediately apparent that the disputed text is just as I described it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anarcho-capitalism JLMadrigal (talk) 00:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, the article is just as worthy of the honor it has received - if not more so today - and continues to evolve. It is exemplary of encyclopedic text. JLMadrigal (talk) 11:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I suspect the phrasing of this thread as opened should clear up any confusion as to where the neutrality problems lie here. As noted, "neutrality" does not consist in having a page written to the perspective of adherents of the philosophy it describes (nor of course does it consist in having it written to the views of opponents – which no one is asking for). Instead it consists in having third-party description and analysis in reliable and authoritative sources noted and reflected with due weight, which is all that was being asked for here, in respect of simply one or two sentences, relating to the fundamental definition and classification of the topic. JLMadrigal also conveniently forgets to note that there was an RfC about the disputed text, which closed in favour of including it. Since then, they and "User:Knight of BAAWA" have tried to reignite a tedious edit war and to remove or change that text. People seeking relief really ought to come with clean hands, as they say in the legal world. And, finally, no, the article is not FA worthy. With or without the disputed content, it is badly written, sprawling, confusing, full of badly sourced material etc. After all the absurd fuss over this one sentence, I'm loath to institute another formal process in the form of an official FA review, but I'd happily have an FA reviewer look at it, even informally, and assess whether it is "exemplary of encyclopedic text". Oh, and I'm not an anarchist either. N-HH talk/edits 10:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I am an involved editor who disagrees with JLMadrigal's portrayal of the situation. It appears that there are a few editors on the Anarcho-capitalism page who believe the subject needs to be composed from an anarcho-capitalist POV: [1] [2] [3]

The Talk page is also filled with uncivil remarks toward dissenters: [4] [5] [6]

These same editors have marked content removals—the same content in dispute—as minor edits: [7] [8]

Contrary to JLMadrigal's claim that we "insist that [our] definition of 'anarchism' is 'correct'", it is JLMadrigal who wants additions to be couched in his POV: [9]

When it comes to verifiability, robust secondary sources on anarchism explain that anarcho-capitalism is a relatively recent, US phenomenon that opposes much of traditional anarchist theory (see Peter Marshall's Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism and Colin Ward's Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction; Daniel Guérin's Anarchism: From Theory to Practice, written in 1970, doesn't even mention anarcho-capitalists). This dispute is not about sources or relevance; it's about anarcho-capitalists wanting a fluff piece in place of an academic encyclopaedia. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

And now, we have those same editors reverting inclusion of the disputed material after a RfC was closed in its favor. No discussion, just reverting. [10] [11] [12] — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 13:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Nor are the most comprehensive secondary sources on anarchism sufficient for Netoholic, who demands an extra guarantee that these sources aren't "cherry-picked". — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Exactly! We should not host a fluff piece as if it were Featured Article quality. Binksternet (talk) 16:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, back to the issue. Discussion of the debate among various anarchist strains IS included in the article. Not advancing it to the lede does not compromise neutrality. Further, a clear definition of the anarcho-capitalist philosophy is prerequisite to an understanding of the differences among the schools of thought in question. JLMadrigal (talk) 09:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The headline of this section is basically correct. The fundamental problem with the (left-)Anarchists here is that they misunderstand, or are intentionally misrepresenting, the root word of "anarcho-capitalism" which is "anarchy" (a society which rejects rulers or governments), not "Anarchism" (the political movement). Anarcho-capitalists advocate anarchy, but do not claim to advocate for the Anarchist movement (which traditionally has been anti-capitalist). As far as I know, there is no AnCap literature that attempts to imply that AnCap is a sub-type of the Anarchist movement, so all this defensiveness from left-Anarchists is unwarranted... its pointless and misplaced to refute something which is not even being proposed. The issues here would clear up if, instead of trying to shoehorn even more anti-capitalist disagreement into an increasingly diluted and unclear article, we clarify the terminology and explain that the only thing AnCaps and Anarchists have in common is the desire for anarchy. Let this article stand on its own two feet and be a clear explanation of the philosophy, without putting tripwires of unfounded disagreement in every section which come off as Anarchists inserting "Nuh-uh!" every few lines. -- Netoholic @ 19:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

To rectify Netoholic's incorrect statements: 1) the root of both anarcho-capitalism and anarchism is ἀναρχία (anarchia), meaning "without rulers" or "without leaders" and 2) the article states clearly that the founder of anarcho-capitalism believes his philosophy to be the "true anarchism" ("In other words, we believe that capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism, and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism. Not only are they compatible, but you can't really have one without the other. True anarchism will be capitalism, and true capitalism will be anarchism." [source]). — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Its adherents make the claim, and the page as written clearly asserts anarcho-capitalism to be a form of anarchism (ie the political theory/movement, if we're going to get into semantics). Did people miss the huge "Anarchism" template plonked in the lead? Or the first sentence which explicitly says "also referred to a free-market anarchism, market anarchism .." etc? The idea that the page can state all that while ignoring the significant dispute over that classification/description noted in third-party objective sources beggars belief. Also, did people miss the fact that at least two people commenting here, myself included, have explicitly said they are not anarchists? The very fact that this is persistently being cast, by the latter, as a dispute between left-anarchist and right-libertarian editors is part of the problem and says more about those who seem, for some reason, to think that that is what is going on here than it does about those who are in fact arguing for genuine neutrality and objectivity. N-HH talk/edits 10:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I guess I should state explicitly that I am a "left-anarchist" (not really a notable term, but whatever), but only added the article to my watchlist after witnessing the uncivil comments and battleground behavior from the three aforementioned editors (on 20 June 2014). — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm fairly new to this debate and am neither an involved editor nor an anarchist of any sort. I'm puzzled by the notion that acknowledging that debate exists as to whether an-cap is an expression of anarchism amounts to an endorsement of the view that it is not anarchism (which is what the originator of this post seems to believe, though the originator apparently does NOT believe that all of the descriptors noted by N-HH above amount to an endorsement of the view that it IS anarchism). It appears that the argument against including the debate in the lead amounts to: "An-cap defines itself as anarchism, so its view and only its view should be reflected in the lead; reflecting any other views amounts to diluting the description of an-cap." But that (1) isolates the legitimate purpose of defining the topic to the exclusion of other purposes of the lead, which include "establish[ing] context"; and (2) assumes that NPOV requires that descriptions of an ideology are made only by adherents of that ideology. Both of these are counter to Wikipedia policies, as other editors have noted. Dyrnych (talk) 18:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Binksternet

Binksternet is right. The issue is not one of so-called left-anarchists holding the article hostage, but of anarchocapitalists apparently demanding ownership of the article. The timing of this report shows evidence of forum shopping. A Request for Comments was open with two parts, one on an expansion of the article, and one on a sentence in the lede stating that other anarchists did not consider anarchocapitalism to be anarchism. On 25 July, I closed the RFC, with no consensus on A, and a weak yes on B, the sentence in the lede. The RFC was intended, like any RFC, to determine the consensus of the Wikipedia community, not of a political movement. On 26 July, after the RFC was closed, this report was opened. It appears that the right-anarchists or right-libertarians didn't like the consensus and chose to forum-shop rather than either to accept consensus or request closure review. At about this point, also, edit-warring began, and a Featured Article Review was initiated. In my opinion (and my involvement was limited to the closing of the RFC), the anarchocapitalists are seeking ownership of the article. At least the edit-warring appears to have ended. There was an RFC, and weak consensus has been determined, unless closure review is requested. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:19, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Robert, I concur with your assessment; I am now curious as to what can be done about it. I asked an admin for assistance and was told that few of these NPOV noticeboard discussions receive official closure. If this is the case, how do we resolve this situation? — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

A helpful measure would be topic bans for disruptive editors. Another would be for someone to rewrite the article in userspace, and initiate an RfC on the article talk page as to whether the mainspace article should be replaced with the user draft. Or this second suggestion could be implemented piecemeal such that specific sections of the article are tackled one by one. Binksternet (talk) 15:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

JLMadrigal on the issue of neutrality

If you review the article Anarcho-capitalism as it is written, without any prejudice, you will find that nothing in the lede in its current format is slanted away from the topic of anarcho-capitalism, and that other schools of thought are presented in the body in a neutral way. Currently there are neutrality tags on these sections that clearly don't belong there. The topic of left-anarchism needs to be treated (where it is relevant to an understanding of anarcho-capitalism) as an ideology distinct from anCap. Anarcho-capitalist never make the claim that anarcho-capitalism is part of the leftist school - as these editors posit. Anarcho-capitalists seek to eliminate the collectivist state. Left-anarchists seek to eliminate capital - which anarcho-capitalists believe would require a state. To anarcho-capitalists the premise of left-anarchism is contradictory (which is explored in the article along with the views of opposing schools). JLMadrigal (talk) 11:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear, no one has argued that "anarcho-capitalism is part of the leftist school." That's absurd. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 13:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

JLMadrigal: is it your contention that the lead should reflect only views of an-cap that are held by its adherents? Dyrnych (talk) 16:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

As I stated on the FAR, anarcho-capitalism is not presented as a "form of anarchism" in the lede. It would be premature to commence (much less settle) the argument before it is adequately presented. JLMadrigal (talk) 23:36, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

The opening line of the lead reads, in relevant part: "Anarcho-capitalism (also referred to as free-market anarchism, market anarchism, private-property anarchism, libertarian anarchism)" (emphasis added). There is an anarchism sidebar on the article. I and other editors have noted that this does in fact present anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism. How would you characterize these indicia if not as presentation as anarchism? Dyrnych (talk) 04:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Capitalism is held, by Rothbard and others, to be the fullest expression of anarchism (and anarchism the fullest expression of capitalism) - which is discussed in the article. This concept (along with opposing concepts) is explored in detail in the body - once the anCap definitions of "anarchy" and "capitalism" (and opposing definitions) are clarified. JLMadrigal (talk) 11:50, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

So it is anarchism? — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

That would depend, MisterDub, on how one defines the term, "anarchy". If the absence of the state is the determining factor, then yes. If suppressing capital is required, then no. The sidebar includes a broader definition of anarchism in general as used by anarcho-capitalists: "Anarchism: any philosophy that opposes all forms of initiatory coercion (includes opposition to the State)" JLMadrigal (talk) 02:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Let me get this straight... you're arguing here that anarcho-capitalists believe they are anarchists (perhaps even in a purist sense), but the article does not present their political philosophy as anarchism (despite the many signs) because there is an internal controversy over the definition of anarchy, with anarcho-capitalists disagreeing with all other anarchists? But you object to introducing this crucial point in the lead? — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 01:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

"Anarcho-capitalists are distinguished from minarchists, who advocate a small night-watchman state limited to the function of individual protection, and from anti-capitalist anarchists and socialists who advocate cooperative ownership and worker management of resources." JLMadrigal (talk) 00:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone ever look at this?

Is there ever going to be a resolution for this ongoing issue? Why the hell would anyone bring their POV problems here if no one is going to do address them? This is extremely frustrating! — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

God knows how you lot would have got on at the Ebro _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 20:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Ebro??? That's a new one for me. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Just re: the topic, nothing imparticular. Por vida!!!_Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Occupational Health Psychology article grossly biased

The occupational health psychology article is grossly biased in mine and other independent editor's opinion. I have tried discussing issues on the talk page, to no avail.

4 months ago, a number of independent editors had all agreed that the article needed to be completely re-written. Nothing was ever done. I have tried to detail my concerns as per Wikipedia policy, again, to no avail. Some of the main reasons why I believe it to be biased and written from a POV perspective are these: It is a non-neutral article, that does not fairly represent the balance of perspectives of high-quality, reliable secondary sources. No other editors can add reliably sourced material, without it being blocked by iss246 & colleague psyc12. It has been written solely from a USA perspective, from a USA OHP Society perspective only, without providing a worldwide view on the topic. It does not present the controversies surrounding OHP. Controversies of origin and overlap. Presents OHP as a distinct field within psychology. It does not give due weight to other reliable secondary sources. Points of view are not recognized internationally within the psychology community. I tried adding alternate titles, as is commonly found in other Wikipedia, (also known as occupational health: psychology and management 'United Kingdom' and occupational health, safety and well being psychology 'Australia'). But iss246 quicly censored these reliably sourced, neutral titles also. Posting here is a last resort. This extremely controversial coatrack article desperately needs to be entirely re-written, or even deleted?Mrm7171 (talk) 01:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

This "occupational health psychology (OHP)" seems to be about the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health type in particular. If that's the case, it should be US-centric, because that's a US federal agency. If the article is meant to have a broader scope, the definition in the lead shouldn't be sourced to the American one. I've explicitly mentioned NIOSH in the lead now, to give context. That doesn't mean I think it should be that way, but if it is, it should be clear. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:07, July 30, 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree and the change is fine with me. The whole article is written from a USA perspective. I just added the UK and Australian titles often used. Hope this brings some solution at least to the different titles used worldwide. However the US definition remains a major concern if the article does not clearly specify it is a US-centric article only.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

In a sense, a lot of the content isn't particular to one state or the other. It's more about very specific groups of humans that other specific people observe and report upon, hoping to gain insight into general human behaviour. If other governments have similar concepts, I'd think they'd be deserving of their own articles, but it's not like Australians or Cameroonians can't learn something here.

A problem I've noticed is the article tends to relay what studies "suggest" as what studies "show" instead. You can't learn anything for sure about the US (or Zaire or Italy) by looking at a sample. It's a little more complicated than just changing those words, more of a running theme here. But I'll change those exact words, for now. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:25, July 30, 2014 (UTC)

Fair points. I'm also wondering why entire sections (eg.Occupational stress and 'cardiovascular disease') of the article are based solely on research quoted from other disciplines, while the authors of this article refer to this research as being "OHP research" or "OHP researchers" etc. Examples are research drawn from separate fields such as occupational medicine? Also, as far as I can tell, the field began in 1990? (it looks like)? but again, the 2 main article authors psyc12 & iss246 quote research from decades before even, and again call it OHP research? Anyway, I'm not sure if I'm missing something here? Would appreciate other editors points of view. I would really like to work through these issues and bring the article up to standard, if possible.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The term OHP is not just American, but it is used/recognized throughout the world, e.g., the UK journal Work & Stress refers to occupational health psychologists on the inside cover. NIOSH cannot be equated with OHP--it is just a government funding agency that has funded some OHP grants in the U.S. There is no NIOSH, Society of OHP or American-specific versions of OHP, and this OHP article includes references from all over the world.

InedibleHulk. I would delete mention of APA and NIOSH in the opening paragraph of the article. Their involvement in OHP is just in the U.S.--they had nothing to do with development of the field in Europe and elsewhere. It adds clutter to the opening which is rather cluttered now, and there's repetition between the first and second paragraphs. The article now mentions them in the history section, which seems to best place. Psyc12 (talk) 13:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I totally disagree. I think this edit is fine. It also highlights the obvious point that this article is almost entirely USA-centric. NIOSH, CDC. You and your close friend/colleague outside of Wikipedia, have authored this grossly biased article from start to finish. You are both from the US OHP society. How on earth is this article representative of a worldwide view psyc12?Mrm7171 (talk) 14:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The OHP entry is built on research from Sweden, the UK, the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, Finland, Canada, the US, and elsewhere. The entry is not narrowly focused on a US point of view. I remind readers that US researchers, like researchers in other countries, do not have one point of view on any topic. That the definition from the CDC was settled 7 months ago. Iss246 (talk) 15:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Again I ask why entire sections (eg.the Occupational stress and 'cardiovascular disease' header) of the article are based solely on research quoted from other disciplines, while the authors of this article refer to this research as being "OHP research" or "OHP researchers" etc. Examples are research drawn from separate fields such as occupational medicine?

I answer your question. Occupational medicine has traditionally been concerned with physical factors that affect health (e.g., heavy lifting; exposure to toxic chemicals). OHP is concerned with psychosocial factors that affect health (e.g., decision latitude; the supportiveness of coworkers). Iss246 (talk) 03:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, as far as I can tell, the field began in 1990? (it looks like)? but again, the 2 main article authors psyc12 & iss246 quote research from decades before even, and again call it OHP research? Am I missing something here?Mrm7171 (talk) 16:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Psyc12 & iss246. These 2 questions/points are left unanswered still? They are in addition to the other clear points above that I have specifically detailed, outlining exactly why I believe the article is biased. However you both keep avoiding answering them and then say I don't give reasons why I believe the article is biased? Very odd. Will await your detailed reply please. As a courtesy please don't remove correct tags from the article until these issues are fully resolved.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Mrm7171. Research on OHP topics is done by people in different disciplines. For example, Tores Theorell is a Swedish physician who does research on occupational stress and health. Citing him in the article does not reflect an American bias--he's not an American. As for work prior to 1990, the study of OHP topics goes back well before the term came into use. Barling (a South African now in Canada) and Christie in their "A Short History of Occupational Health Psychology" (In A-S Antoniou & Cooper New Directions in Organizational Psychology and Behavioral Medicine) traced some "of the most seminal contributions to the field" that predate 1990. This included Robert Kahn's work on occupational stress in the 1960s, Jeffrey Greenhaus and Nicholas Beutell's work and family conflict in the 1980s, and Dov Zohar's work on occupational safety climate in 1980.

Citing work outside of psychology or work published prior to 1990 does not constitute an American or Society of Occupational Health Psychology bias. Furthermore, you have not given us any evidence that such biases in fact exist. Apparently, Houdmont and Leka (from the UK) don't seem to think it exists. They say in their 2010 book Occupational Health Psychology, "debate on the nature and scope of OHP has crystallized and consensus has developed among academics and practitioners on its aims and objectives" p. 2 and later "despite the absence of a shared heritage across the international OHP community, broad agreement on the nature of the discipline can be found in the definitions advanced by the discipline's European and North American representative bodies." p. 5.Psyc12 (talk) 12:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Mrm7171 was blocked for six months for edit warring. Dougweller (talk) 09:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

a similar discussion is being held at wikiproject medicine and relates to health care planning. certainly important to include other countries perspectives in articles is it not. looks like this article is based on the united states of america and does not include other countries. niosh is a united states of america organisation like the editor pointed out above. reading through this debate seems like the issue is that it has been written only from that perspective. maybe this could be stated more clearly.Docsim (talk) 01:42, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

is this field specific to the united states of america. if so, looks like this point needs to be made clearly would be my suggestion. is it represented in asia pacific. i dont think niosh should be mentioned at all if it is actually an international disipline which it does not seem to be. maybe others may have some better solution here.Docsim (talk) 05:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Read through this article again as it relates to my field of medicine and my husbands physio profession. as commented earlier i think it is written with a united states of america slant. for example in the asia pacific niosh is not at all recognised. i will note that in the article i think.Docsim (talk) 06:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

first line in article needs to be changed to reflect american influences from united states niosh. not applicable to asia pacific region. will do so. also appears that some conflicts of interest in this article are at play after reading thru history on talk pages. can others comment here.Docsim (talk) 02:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Women in science

Hi fellow editors. I am wondering if this article titled Women in science is expressing a POV or NPOV. I just read some interesting comments on the talk page and although I disagree with the editor stating it is POV I thought it may be good to get other peoples opinion on the article itself. As a woman and a scientist I think that the article is worthwhile. Thanks to any one who offers comments in advance.Docsim (talk) 13:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

i have noticed no comments on this topic so far. on that article page there is another editor complaining that there is no equivalent men in science article. not sure if this whole issue is too controversial? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Docsim (talk • contribs) 01:49, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any current controversy. That single talk page comment from an IP is from November of last year; I think the concern has been responded to adequately on the talk page, at this point. I don't see any serious challenge to the article as a whole, as it represents a neutral description of clear and source-recognized academic topic, based on and sourced to wide range of published and cited work from better academic sources.__ E L A Q U E A T E 18:40, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I saw a number of comments on that talk page. main thing is that the editors that did comment in 2013 are wrong. the article does not seem like a POV to me either and seems very good.Docsim (talk) 13:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Not sure how this would work but can we show on the article page that this point has been established, other wise it may come up again on articles about women in science or women in medicine and so forthDocsim (talk) 03:06, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Docsim - seems somewhat POV to me, but mostly it seems rambling about things instead of describing the field of study or presenting RS positions with cites in proportion. The Talk has some mentions of POV concerns, mainly whether this is a topic suitable for article, whether the lead is stating opinion as fact, whether the image is misleading, and it doesn't help give impression of neutrality to have a big feminism symbol. I would look for opposing views fairly stated with proportion, but it does not seem to have enough focus or substance for that kind of a check so again I'm more at the concern that it lacks substance other than a lengthy list of names which seems better done by the Category:Women_Scientists. Markbassett (talk) 03:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

thanks for your comments. could you please explain where/why you believe this article is POV. those other comments from last year also did not explain why or how the article was POV. i don't know how to replace the symbol. will check it again, was not aware it was a feminism symbol in any case. also you mentioned if it was a topic suitable for an article, I think it is at least.Docsim (talk) 04:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

would still be interested in hearing others opinions here.Docsim (talk) 05:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

just reread the article page and took note of comments made. for the life of me cannot see why there is any POV. okay so comments were made in 2013, but as far as i can tell noreal basis to them.Docsim (talk) 05:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

final words here is article may lack substance rather than POV.Docsim (talk) 02:25, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Malaysian Airways Flight MH 17

I wish to raise concerns about Stickee who appears to be using the lead to give the impression that the airliner was brought down by Pro-Russian separatists when in fact an investigation is under way. They are taking sources which report 'beliefs' and trying to present these as though they are established facts. It really would take too much time to argue with him. A balanced opening should begin with facts and then have claim and coutner claim, that's neutral and responsible. Please intervene. See talk and recent edits on this article Sceptic1954 (talk) 09:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

First things first, it's Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, not "Malaysian Airways".

I absolutely agree that factual and objective coverage is the way to go here. But I'm just as convinced it can't possibly happen. Theoretically, sure. But it goes way beyond Stickee, Wikipedia, this plane or any one state's disinformation machine. I suggest surrender. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:19, August 6, 2014 (UTC)

The bulk of reliable sources favor the widely held opinion that MH17 was shot down with a Buk missile from rebel-held territory. The sources that claim otherwise are generally the Russian media and some conspiracy-oriented web papers in the West. There is considerable opposition on the article's talk page to inclusion of any suspected cause for MH17's crash on the grounds that "not all the facts are in", etc. This is false balance and contrary to the guidelines. WP is not a court, there is no due process here, and this isn't a BLP article. There is no good reason to avoid including facts that are widely covered by RS. Self-censorship on those grounds is a terrible idea and contrary to the way we do things here. I do not oppose including Russian perspectives on the matter, but we should not even consider censoring the views of Western governments when those seem to dominate RS, whether it's for "fairness" or "world peace" or any of the other suggestions that have been floated there in the short existence of the article. Geogene (talk) 18:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I think that makes a lot of sense. western intelligence all points to russian involvement and complicity.Docsim (talk) 01:47, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Without going deeply into it, allowing all claims of how the aircraft was shot down given their due weight and clearly stating who reported what, is better than no information at all saying "the investigation isn't done yet". Allow the readers to judge for themselves after looking at the sources and evaluating it. If pro-Russian media wants to say X, state it so, if all other non-pro-Russina media wants to say Y, state they said so.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

This is a "oh nos! They won't let me push my POV in peace kind of complaint". The current article is about as balanced as you can get, unless you think that WP:FRINGE defines the nature of an encyclopedia. Sceptic1954 just has a bit of a problem with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT (as exemplified by a recent block for 3RR and talk page abuse).Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think any reliable sources make claims about what happened although they report opinions on what happened. And we can mention those opinions if they are properly weighted. I haven't seen the opinion expressed that the Russian government ordered the downing of the plane, although they might have provided the technology. Nor do any claim that the rebels deliberately shot down a passenger jet. TFD (talk) 03:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

"Opinions" is not the correct word here. Anyway, none of the potential theories you discuss are mentioned in the article so I'm not sure what the relevance is. But yes these kind of opinions have been expressed, by Ukrainian officials for instance, mostly based on the fact that the BUK system has Friend or Foe capability, the theory being was that the Russians were hoping to blame the Ukrainians and have a pretext for an invasion. Not saying I buy it, but it's out there. But not in the article lede. Or maybe not even in the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Creation Museum

Has a current RfC on the expertise of A.A. Gill to write a review of the museum. The material was deleted from "criticism" and is now in the "In the Media" section. Outside eyes are invited to note whether the A. A. Gill paragraph meets WP:NPOV. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Is the concern the paragraph itself, or the section in which it now occurs? I ask because of the context. The section includes media portrayals that are sympathetic as well as critical, and if there are other sympathetic media portrayals, it might be better to add those, than to delete the critical ones. In evaluating WP:NPOV for this particular page, I think that WP:VALID and WP:FRINGE are also applicable. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The actual source is (in your edit) described as "sarcastic." I happen to think sarcastic sources are not precisely the best sources for NPOV, nor does "it is a fringe topic" allow violating NPOV last I checked.

Are you asserting that

In February 2010, Vanity Fair magazine sent critic A. A. Gill and actor Paul Bettany (who portrayed Charles Darwin in the film Creation) to visit the museum on the 150^th anniversary of the publication of On the Origin of Species. Gill wrote a scathingly sarcastic account' of his visit: "now seems like a good time to see what the world looks like without the benefit of science. Or spectacles... Adam comes on looking like the Hispanic bass player for a Janis Joplin backup band, with a lot of hair and a tan... And he has what looks suspiciously like a belly button."

comports with the policy of WP:NPOV, or that the topic is simply not subject to WP:NPOV because the "Creation Museum" is so fringe as to not be subject to WP:NPOV? By the way, the section contains 31 llines of clear criticis,m .. and six lines comprising:

An 2008 episode in the first season of the TLC reality series 17 Kids and Counting (now known as 19 Kids and Counting) features the Duggar family's trip to the museum, including a personal tour they were given by Ken Ham.[128] Jim Bob Duggar, the family patriarch, said, "We wanted to bring our family here to teach our children about creation and to show them all these great exhibits of how the world was created, and also to reinforce to them the fallacies of evolution and how it was impossible for this world just to all happen by chance."[129] The episode featured interviews with several of the Duggar children, who made statements supportive of young Earth creationism, as well as other museum visitors who expressed skepticism and disbelief at the museum's claims.[130] The Washington Times reported that the episode's airing "sparked reaction on both sides of the cultural debate" on Internet message boards.[131]

Which does not appear on its face to be excessively pro-Creation Museum as far as I can tell, nor is it particularly a "sympathetic media portrayal", but apparently counts as "praise" per your comment on balance here. I am absolutely not a creationist, but NPOV does not say we ought to bash them either. Collect (talk) 22:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

You might better help editors who look at your post by not putting in bold font things that are not originally in bold font, so that those editors can decide for themselves. It sounds to me like you are arguing that the "sarcastic" source has a POV. It does. That does not violate NPOV, when we attribute the POV to the source. And your line-count seems to me to go against WP:VALID. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

• I don't see where there's a violation of NPOV here. There would be one if this was a case of trying to shoehorn obscure criticism into the article or give a particular piece of criticism undue prominence. But, compared to the other sources used in the section (for example, a college radio show and a reality TV show on TLC), an article by a well-known critic in Vanity Fair is not obscure and, since less space is devoted to it than any other source in the section, it doesn't seem to have been given undue prominence. I'd question, though, whether "sarcastic" is an appropriate characterisation for WP - skim-reading the source, I can't see any actual sarcasm in it. Formerip (talk) 23:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I've subsequently added the museum founder's response to what Gill said. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

And, per what you said about "sarcastic", I changed it to "mocking". --Tryptofish (talk) 23:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia's voice needs to be neutral and the "scathingly mocking" portion is a violation of NPOV. It suffices just to include that Gill wrote/said, we don't have to invoke WP:Editorial to characterize what he wrote as mockery or sarcasm. How would people against Gill's point of view feel if we characterized Ken Ham's response as "pathetic excuse making"?Scoobydunk (talk) 01:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

That's a good point, and you've made me change my mind about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• Now, I have some concerns of my own. Editors seem to be battling over whether or not Gill is a Christian, and whether or not he is "notorious". --Tryptofish (talk) 20:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The source an editor used for saying Gill is a Christian is specifically about him being a "notorious" restaurant critic (wording from the Guardian, which is the source proffered). If we use one claim (actually an aside) from a source, it is hard to deny the primary claims in the same source. Collect (talk) 20:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

So, you started this post at NPOVN, but now you are OK with summing up a living person as "notorious". --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

"'Notorious' critic" is not the same as implying he is a criminal of some sort. In fact it appears Gill quite relishes his reputation. If the source is used in a Wikipedia article, we do not "pick and choose" to elide parts of it that do not fit a desired outcome. We are stuck with the entire source, warts and all. Collect (talk) 22:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

He was a restaurant critic, and is now a contributing editor to Vanity Fair. We don't describe John Boehner as a bartender just because he once was one. TFD (talk) 21:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

If Boehner still tended bar - he would be a bartender. Gill remains a restaurant critic. Actively such. VF is a side job. [13] at least as of yesterday. Collect (talk) 22:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I see the problem as being one of relevance and NPOV. People can merit all sorts of titles, but the titles that should be used are the ones that are relevant to the topic/article. Is this topic about food? No, so it doesn't matter that Gill was/is a food critic. People can be fathers, brothers, friends, siblings, chefs, critics, hobbyists, entertainers, jerks, so on and so forth, that doesn't mean all of those descriptors deserve inclusion into the article. The ones that do are the ones relevant and, in this capacity, Gill is acting as a journalist for vanity fair. Any other irrelevant descriptors can be seen as violations of WP:NPOV as they'd carry a certain stigma. For example, for Laura Bush quotes, if we always described her as "person killer, Laura Bush" then it would carry a clear connotation and affect the neutrality in how readers review her quote. Describing Gill as a "food critic" can cause readers to have a negative perception of his opinion because they'd feel he's not qualified to make such observations.Scoobydunk (talk) 23:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how this violates any of the above cited policies and guidelines. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 14:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Dashavatara

There is serious issue with neutrality with Dashavatara and this has been ongoing for almost a year.

While it is also noted that Balarama is the one of the 10 incarnations of Vishnu, Redtigerxyz is always removing the name from the list and falsely adds it to the first image of the article without having any sources.

Mahabharat (written before 4th century BCE) considered Balarama to be avatar of Vishnu[14] and it is commonly assumed that Buddha was getting popular so around 4th - 8th century, he was included by Hindus as one of the avatar in one or two of the Purana, though he had to do nothing with the religion. There are sources such as [15], [16], [17] that gives similar priority to both of these names and many of sources considers Krishna to be 9th and Balarama to be 8th, because Balarama was elder.[18]

It is also confirmed that sources have been misrepresented on this articles, for example, these[19] [20] sources were used in article for claiming that Buddha is 9th avatar,[21] but they included Balarama. But Redtigerxyz is still reverting to wrong information.

We previously had more neutral version for the particular list section,[22], although it seemed that only Redtigerxyz disagreed with the version, but it was still more balanced and recognizable than the current one. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Its a factual error that is being pushed in the page for a long time. According to hindu religious scriptures and according to popular beliefs, Balarama is considered as the eighth avatar of Vishnu. Buddha was born in kaliyug and hence therefore can't be classified as an avatar. According to holy scriptures there is only one avatar in kaliyug that is Kalki which is the 10th avatar. Numerous sources are presented to support this argument by various users. The Image in the page, a picture of Rajaravi varma about Dashavatara actually represents a different version that includes vithoba as the 9th avatar. It is misused to support the argument of including buddha. Rameshnta909 (talk) 17:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

• @Bladesmulti: The ref book Hinduism: An Alphabetical Guide you provide has following stuff. (Sorry! The book doesn't have page numbers on it to cite.)
  • The standard and most accepted list in the puranas and other texts is: Matsya, Kurma, Varaha, Narasimha, Vamana, Parashurama, Rama, Krishna, Buddha and Kalki. (Note the words "standard", "most accepted" and "Buddha".)
  • However, there are several different lists of ten, as well as different depictions. One list in the Mahabharata provides the following names: Hamsa, Kurma, Matsya, Varaha, Narsimha, Vamana, Rama (Bhargava), Rama (Dasharathi), Satvata (Krishna or Balarama), Kalkin. (Note the words "several different lists", "Hamsa", an "or" between Krishna and Balarama.)
  • Balarama: A deity, who is the elder brother of the god Krishna, and an incarnation of Vishnu. He was alternatively said to have been an incarnation of Ananta Naga.
  • The Brihat Samhita states that he [Balarama] supports the world on his head and lives in the nether regions, thus confirming his identity with Ananta.
  • Mahabharata describes him as "..... he [Balaram] is called Ananta."
  • In the Vishnu Purana, Samkarshana or Balarama is identified with Ananta.
  • Krishna is missing in several early Sashavatar reliefs, and in some later ones.
  • In later texts, in the list of the ten main incarnations of Vishnu, he [Balarama] is often replaced by the Buddha.
• So this book actually points out numerous references of how Balarama is related with Ananta. He also states how Buddha got his entry in the list quite later than Balarama had his.
• Another ref About.com is hardly reliable for any form of list they put. It bases its content on online websites that also include Wikipedia itself.
• Another ref book World Religions in Practice: A Comparative Introduction lists the 9th entry as "Buddha (or Balarama)" and further in footnotes writes "In some Hindu sources it is recorded as Balarama, the brother of Krishna. However, in the more common version it is the famed Indian prince who forsook the comfort of palace life, found Enlightenment under the Bodhi tree, and became founder of one of the world's great religions."
• Another ref book Nelson's Illustrated Guide to Religions: A Comprehensive Introduction to the Religions of the World lists the 8th rank as "Balarama or Buddha".
• The next ref book The Origins of English Words: A Discursive Dictionary of Indo-European Roots calls for Balarama as 8th avatar and Krishna as 9th. But please note that this book doesn't deal with Hinduism as the main topic but only in passing mentions this.
• Now the question is; should we put forth the most common list that has lasted for longer years or should we put forth the list that Sri Sampradaya popularizes?

• @ Rameshnta909: Which Raja Ravi Varma's painting shows Vithoba? The painting of Varma am seeing File:Vishnu Avatars.jpg shows a man in Padmasana on right top corner, who should be construed as Buddha who is popularly depicted in this asana. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I never used about.com for the reference of my information. It just happened that either redtigeryx or anyone else was misusing that source for claiming that buddha is 9th incarnation when about.com wasn't even supporting such information, same with 2 other sources. We have already agreed before that Krishna and Balarama are considered as 8th or 9th avatar.

These sources, including this [23](oxford) provided similar importance to both buddha and balarama. So why can't we? If you have to mention vithoba it can be done on subsection or we will need to provide bigger description for the 9th, right now the added introductions are almost meaningless because many of them don't mention that why they are considered as avatar. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Bladesmulti and Rameshnta909 both claim that Balarama is part of the popular list, but have not presented RS to support the statement. Several RS (see Dashavatara#cite_note-7) include Buddha as part of the popular list; Devdutt Pattanaik says explicitly "In the more popular list of ten avatars of Vishnu, the ninth avatar is shown as Buddha, not Balarama." as does Dalal: "The standard and most accepted list found in Puranas and other texts is: ... Rama, Krishna, Buddha and Kalki." I have WP:AGFed so far, but Wikipedia:Cherrypicking is apparent. See Talk:Dashavatara#Buddha_is_not_a_Avtar. Bladesmulti cites Dalal to include Balarama, but refuses to read the "The standard and most accepted list..." line. Another source Carman cited again and again; says "Many such lists, ... include the Buddha as an incarnation." and then lists Srivashnava version, not the "popular" version - these lines are again ignored. Also, note that Balarama is included in the Krishna para of Dashavatara#Popular_list.Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

How about 16 other reverts by other users or IPs made against your preferred information? You have been provided about 7 reliable sources and there is nothing like 'popular list'.. You had changed the title of the section just for pushing your own POV. Anything that you consider to be popular list is POV pushing and not neutral for this type of page. We all know that there is a list of "Avatars" and there is no established order. If you want to talk about actual order then you will have to look at the list that was presented before the addition of Buddha to the list. Buddha was added because of his popularity not because he had to do anything with religion.

Carmen clearly wrote that Balarama is Avatar, your assumptions are simply beyond the common understanding since the source is reliable. Now if someone has to comment on your sources, then it can be simply said that none of them provides any references or any meaningful understanding behind the list that they have copied from other. So just stick to content. Let me inform you that this board is not for copying and pasting your refuted arguments that you had made on the talk page. But it is for hearing the opinion from non-involved editors. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ How can anyone just 'construe' that? The avatar shown in padmasana is vithoba which is the deity's popular position in temples and murals. Rameshnta909 (talk) 12:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

See FA Vithoba. He is always arms-akimbo. Shocked. :O Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Not like any traditional descriptions of buddha. It is more similar to Vithoba than buddha. Rameshnta909 (talk) 13:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Show us one definite depiction of Vithoba in padmasana and I will show you 10 with his arms on his waist. Show us one definite depiction of Buddha with arms on his waist and I will show you 10 of Buddha in padmasana. Please, we need WP:COMPETENCE. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Rameshnta909, Pure WP:OR. See traditional depiction of Buddha in padmasana [24][25][26][27][28] as avatar.Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Let us talk about the actual dispute. As long as you don't provide source for any information about particular historical image, it is malformed and Original Research. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Bladesmulti, before you allege OR and revert, do bother to see Talk:Dashavatara#V.26A_image_caption (posted 13:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)).Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Redtigerxyz Image issue is resolved. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

Other than restoring to [29] I have got another proposal. As we have to agree that there are different scriptures and they have considered various names, what if we use a template instead for implementing the different versions of list? Like we did Template:Periodisation of Indian History for different versions of dating. It can be a better option as current list has redundant introductions and it is not presenting other important versions. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose complete removal of current popular/standard list; a brief summary is needed so that the topic is understood by non-Hindu audience. Saying Matsya avatar is a fish, doesn't make any sense (Why did Vishnu take avatar as a fish? a non-Hindu may think). The reader needs to know the basic tale of Matsya in max 5 sentences IMO. Adding a scripture wise list in addition to the standard list, is a good idea. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Aug 12 2014 "Major Edit" of Revolutionary Communist Party, USA

On August 12 2014, after several years of relative stability, most of the content of Revolutionary Communist Party, USA was replaced by a longer article.

I would characterize the new text as erudite but overly-focused on the struggle of the RCP and its longtime leader toward what one might call "revolutionary truths", as opposed to the reasonably neutral and genuinely historical, encyclopedic approach of the prior text. I raised discussion of this event on the main talk page [talk page], as well as the editor's User talk:EyesWhyde. They replied on my page [talk page]

After 24 hours — moved by knowledge that the RCP is a highly active organization at present, in the news for its organizing activities amidst the civil unrest in Ferguson, MO, among other places , , and that the edit itself was wholesale, disruptive, and disrespectful of process — I reverted to prior text. I also encouraged the other editor to work via discussion to incorporate their depth of knowledge about the internal development of the RCP into the historical overview of the existing article. In response the Aug 12 Major Edit was restored in its entirety. The diff showing the major Aug 12 revision is here diff June 26 - Aug 12 2014

Prior text excerpts, beginning with opening lines:

The Revolutionary Communist Party, USA (RCP, USA), known originally as the Revolutionary Union, is a Maoist Communist party formed in 1975 in the United States. The RCP holds that American imperialism will never end peacefully, and that the only way for people to liberate themselves is through Communist revolution....

RCP today

The RCP had recently undergone a split in its ranks, concentrated around the role of revolutionary leadership. In published documents, the RCP has characterized this split as ultimately a struggle over the character of the party, between forces dedicated to revolution and those that have given up on making revolution in a country like the US....

Avakian's "promotion and popularization"

Others have charged that the RCP has created a cult of personality around Avakian, with dissenting voices driven from the organization. The RCP has countered that....[those who left advocated] "abandoning the outlook and aims of the communist revolution, accommodating to the system of imperialism and settling for, at most, reforms within this horrific system".

New text excerpts, also starting with opening lines:

The Revolutionary Communist Party, USA (RCP,USA) revcom.us is a nationwide revolutionary communist party in the United States. Bob Avakian is the Chairman of the RCP, USA and has led the party since its founding in 1975. Avakian's body of work is taken by the RCP as its ideological and political foundation and framework...drawing particular inspiration from the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in China and Mao Tsetung.

Strategic Approach to Revolution

The stated goal of the party is revolution in the United States as part of revolutionary struggles worldwide aimed at ending the capitalist-imperialist system on a world scale.... The party refers to this strategic approach as "hastening while awaiting" the changes in the objective situation which will make a revolution possible.

A Cultural Revolution Within the RCP

Avakian and the RCP openly write about and discuss the struggle within the organization over what is represented by Avakian's leadership and the new synthesis of communism.... "cultural revolution" eventually resulted in some members leaving the organization. The RCP has summed up that in its most essential aspect, this "cultural revolution" resulted in a "revitalization of the communist and revolutionary outlook, objectives, spirit and culture" of the party and a deeper unity around and appreciation for Avakian's leadership and the new synthesis of communism.

Thank you for any and all discussion, feedback, and assistance with this matter. Praghmatic (talk) 21:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The edit is indeed quite a comprehensive rewrite. Such a huge rewrite needs to be discussed, not imposed. I find the so called "explanation" on the talk page no explanation at all, except to insist that the edit is right. It might be right, but it has to demonstrated. To essentially rewrite the whole article and not discuss challenges, while reverting changes, is essentially to act as in WP:OWN. The editor has clearly put in a lot of time into researching and creating, but the responsibility doesn't stop there. There is a lot of material in his edit and it can still be used -- but following proper procedure.

Here is my suggestion. The starting point should be the original stable article. And one by one, some sections can be either replaced, or added or modified in line with the new text, while answering any challenges. Kingsindian (talk) 22:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

It is entirely unacceptable to have an article based mostly on primary sources as it is now. If readers want to know more about what the party says beyond what is reported in reliable secondary sources, they can click on the link to their website. I notice too that the history section is missing some important information. Avakian came from the New Left, which most leaders of communist splinter groups came out of other communist groups. Also missing is their social views - their opposition to school busing, the equal rights amendment and same-sex marriage. And allegations of a personality cult and their support of North Korea. TFD (talk) 02:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I concur with The Four Deuces' point about primary sources. Kingsindian (talk) 03:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Concur, if the content is significant, it should have been reported on by non-primary sources. This is not about plot about a fictional story, but about an organization that exist in the real world, and this is subject to WP:VER.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:18, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you all for the additional eyes on this one. As I have already done the first revert, my understanding is that - in the absence of obvious vandalism, which this is not - for me to do the revert again would be succumbing to edit warring. If no one else feels moved to do another edit, should I consider next Wikipedia:Third opinion? Of course, I can and will also attempt further discussion. But in the meantime, the Aug 12 edit remains the text visible to the world.Praghmatic (talk) 23:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The prior article was not all that well-sourced, but the "bold edit" produced a longer article with worse (IMO) sourcing. WP:CONSENSUS is clearly applicable, and it is reasonable to assert the editor has not obtained a consensus for the massive edit. Collect (talk) 13:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Type in "Robert Avakian" to Google books. There are lots of sources and there is a chapter devoted to the party in Nazis, Communists, Klansmen, and Others on the Fringe. They have been in the news lately for participating in protests in Ferguson. TFD (talk) 23:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

References

Is it neutral to say a sports team player was "poached"?

See Queensland rugby league team and its Talk page.

Simple issue really. In Australia there are four codes of football played professionally (and a few others played at amateur level). User:Gibson Flying V and I are having a discussion on whether the word "poached" is neutral, or a loaded POV one. Two Rugby league players in Australia were encouraged via lots of money to play Australian Rules Football instead. Gibson Flying V wants the article to say they were "poached". I feel that's a loaded word with pretty negative overtones. He feels it's fine, and cites a lot of media reports where that word is used.

I'm interested in others' opinions please, here or on the article Talk page. Thanks. HiLo48 (talk) 03:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Poached has specific negative connotations, including, but not limited to, attracting an employee from a competitor, and to trespass in order to take something. Where a less loaded term can be used, it ought to be used. "Recruit" is a general less loaded Americanism for such acts with regard to seeking employees from a competitor (to persuade (someone) to join you in some activity or to help you). Collect (talk) 13:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Football organisations "recruit" players from their usual talent pools routinely. If they go for the first time well outside this norm, and into a competitor's stable of established superstars, brandishing unusually large sums of money, "recruit" doesn't quite tell the whole story. This is probably why sources (on every side of the issue) consistently call it "poaching". If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck (and reliable, published sources consistently call it a duck), then it probably is a duck. --Gibson Flying V (talk) 20:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually they do not appear to be "competitors" in the sense of being in the same sport. Rather it is like an NBA team "poaching" a football player from the NFL -- that is not considered "poaching" as they are not the same specific sport. Collect (talk) 21:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

So we're to believe that WP:SOURCES covering the topic somehow have it wrong?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 22:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I have seen sports articles saying one team "massacred" the other. Yet we would not think of using the colourful term as a claim of fact on Wikipedia. The idea is to use wording which is accurate and represents factual claims with neutral wording. Thus we must, perforce, end up with less colourful language than some of the sources presented. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Of course I would agree with you wholeheartedly if the use of sports teams "massacring" one another was up for discussion, but it isn't. And I think you'd be hard pressed finding anyone attempting to use that word in that way anywhere on Wikipedia. However, the use of "poaching" in regards to athletes is already widely used here, just as it is in sources. That's because it is not over the top and falls perfectly within the bounds of its dictionary definition. For this reason it is not only used widely in news articles, but also in books.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 01:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I provided dictionary definitions in our earlier discussion. They use words like "steal" and "without permission". That clearly makes it a negative word. The activity is only a negative one when looked at from the perspective of the organisation losing those players. It's obviously a positive for the organisation gaining them. "Poached" does not have any positive sense at all. It's inappropriate. That it's used elsewhere in Wikipedia is a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Not proof that it's the right thing to do. We need a word that does indicate the positive aspect of the activity. "Recruited" works for me. HiLo48 (talk) 03:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Like the countless authors who have used the word in published sources, I too understand exactly what it means. But thanks anyway. A word being percieved as holding negative connotations for some party involved does not preclude its use on wikipedia (see "murder" vs "kill", "suicide" vs "death"). Having pointed out WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I trust you'll have read the part that says, "Though a lot of Wikipedia's styles are codified in policy, to a large extent minor details are not. In cases such as these, an "Other Stuff Exists"–type of argument or rationale may provide the necessary precedent for style and phraseology." What this means is that the prevalence (not isolated incidence) on Wikipedia of "poach" with regard to portspeople implies a wide-reaching consensus that it is perfectly acceptable. You appear to now be trying to change that consensus. Since you've chosen the Neutral point of view Noticeboard, the key policy (not essay) is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Let's look at the very first line: Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. It is quite obviously a significant view that has been published in reliable sources that Karmichael Hunt and Israel Folau (along with countless other cross-code footballers) were poached, so we would be failing this policy if we did not represent that. If there are any cases in which a sportsperson is said to have been poached and there are significant views that have been published by reliable sources contradicting this, then there's a discussion to be had. When debate about whether an athlete was poached or not begins and ends with a lone Wikipedia editor and appears in zero published sources, it's a non-issue. --Gibson Flying V (talk) 04:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Many times in my life I have been in a minority, and right. You seem to agree that "poached" has obvious negative connotations, and no positive ones. That makes it non-neutral. Next? HiLo48 (talk) 04:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Your own views on how right you consider yourself to be are well documented. Your argument here seems to boil down to the fact that because the word "poach" has negative connotations it follows that it is "non-neutral" and therefore obviously must be banned from Wikipedia. This is pretty fascinating, so yeah, I can't wait to see what comes out next.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 04:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

"Poached" has obvious negative connotations, and no positive ones. That makes it non-neutral. Discuss. (That post, not me.) HiLo48 (talk) 05:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

When using Wikipedia's voice, we try to use neutral language, but if a RS says "poached", we cite them accurately, trying to preserve the spirit of the source. We don't engage in censorship. If most RS use such non-neutral terms, then we can often begin to use the same term in Wikipedia's voice. It all depends.... "Terrorist" and "terrorism" are examples, which we sometimes now use in Wikipedia's voice, because RS use them. See Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Follow the sources, and when in doubt, quote and attribute. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The problem would be determining whether it's most sources, or just a small subset. There were hundreds, possibly thousands of articles written about the move of the two players from Rugby League to Australian Rules Football. (It had never happened before at that level.) It was very controversial, and definitely upset fans of the code they left. GSV has found a handful which suit his cause. I wonder about the rest. It's also worth noting that neither of the articles on the two players involved uses the word poached or anything like it. If we get that close to the players, and the word isn't used, I suggest it's being used for POV purposes in the Queensland rugby league team article. HiLo48 (talk) 08:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Lynda Thomas

This article has been tagged for lack of sources for the better part of a decade. It makes assertions of notability, but most of them are sourced to Spanish-language sources I can't judge. More to the point: it is an unabashed fanpage fawning and fullsome in tone, full of namedropping and assertions that this teenaged performer I never heard of blazed a trail for pop divas now known across the planet. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Mr. Orange Mike, i just read your message, thanks for your attention, thats right, years ago, this article has been tagged for lack of sources, recently it has been provided of that, most of them in spanish language; I think the lead does mention about she had her breakout in the music scene before such pop divas did so, but, no blazed a trail for them, the article remarks she did it for later latin divas. So, I think thats not a fan page. However, i think this article can be improved in many ways, meanwhile, by my hand, I will try to fix some points that may be ambiguous or confusing and also some peacock terms.

Only I apologize if I can't answer right away, some activities absorb me all day. Greetings to all of you Ajax1995 (talk) 19:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Usage of "Cult" in Dorje Shugden Controversy article

Attempt at resolution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dorje_Shugden_controversy#Protected_edit_request_on_22_August_2014

Dorje Shugden Controversy In general the concern is over the usage of "Cult" which is thrown around this article. 1. When a point isn't being made that a certain group is a cult but throw the word around casually, should we instead use other quotes to establish the same point? - E.g. According to Kapstein, the 14th Dalai Lama is '...focused upon the role of Shugden as a militantly sectarian protector of the Gelukpa order, and the harm that has been done to Tibetan sectarian relations by the cult's more vociferous proponents.[31] -It is a WP:Label and its not the main point here, just appealing to emotion. Also WP:QUOTE 4. "Where a quotation presents rhetorical language in place of more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias, it can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject, and should be avoided."

-Robert Thurman for example states "The cult and agency attack campaign is futile since its main claims are so easy to refute."[17] Again.. the 'cult' part isn't the main part, but is constantly being edit-warred and put back into the article, even when the main point isn't relating to it.

-Thurman explains that members of the cult want: This seems like WP:ASSERT, as its implying this is a given fact, even though its just an opinion, and is manipulating a way to lead into a quote. Its just another editor's research/opinion, instead of saying Thurman explains members want.. or Thurman explains they want.

-Dodin also states that 'The NKT can be described typologically as a cult on the basis of its organisational form, its excessive group pressure and blind obedience to its founder. The organisation’s extreme fanaticism and aggressive missionary drive are typical cult features too' 1. Dodin doesn't seem qualified to say such a thing? 2. Seems like [[WP:Label] 3. Doesn't qualify these statements or cite them, as they are from a one-off interview with a blog-type website in retaliation to demonstrations going on (www.info-buddhism.com).

-A major problem also is, at least with Dodin and Thurman, is that they are deeply tied into the issue. Dodin's interview was in retaliation to demonstrations taking place in May and is a fighter for Tibetan Independence. Thurman runs into WP:IMPARTIAL , as he is a warrior in this issue, calls the group in question "The Buddhist Taliban", and tweets negative things about it. He also had an op-ed published in retaliation to demonstrations going on by the group.

-Main question: Is this use of 'cult', especially when not being qualified, a violation of NPOV and in particular WP:W2W ? It is not a 'widely used description' of the group, which seems to be a necessary aspect, and is used extremely liberally in these cases. Thanks for any help in advance. Prasangika37 (talk) 23:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• The use of the word cult is only being used in 3 direct academic quotes in the body of the DSC article. It is certainly not "thrown around".
• Buddhist scholars speak of cult of Amitabha, Padmasambhava cult, cult of Tara etc. And these are not even sectarian deities like Shugden.
• Similarly, Matthew Kapstein and Robert Thurman are not referring to specific organizations. The WP:LABEL subsection of WP:W2W mentions "calling an organization a cult". In these 2 instances, there is no organization being called a cult. Moreover, the policy does not seem to be about direct quotes in the first place.
• Dodin, yet another Tibetologist, does say the New Kadampa Tradition organization specifically fits the criteria for a cult, with the word cult being used in that other definition. The part of WP:QUOTE Prasangika37 cites does not apply here to Dodin. He not using "rhetorical language in place of more neutral, dispassionate tone". He is giving reasons why the NKT fulfills the criteria for being a cult.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 23:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Its important for others to recognize this user above has been repeatedly including this edits for months, so is not some anonymous editor helping out :) The point re: incidentally using it, further strengthens WP:W2W and WP:QUOTE listed above. Its a loaded word and should be avoided in general, unless widely used. The usage of 'cult' by Thurman is also in a section about an organization, and thus implies the organization is. We've also discussed this in the main page, so lets allow other neutral editors to lend their help. Feel free to keep the conversation going there if you would like, but I am coming here because the dispute hasn't been resolved there in the first place. Prasangika37 (talk) 23:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

You are supposed to notify other users involved. Read the top of the page.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 23:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: So long as NPOV, RS and V are met, which I think they are or will be, the word "cult" by itself is not the issue, it's the context: As I said on a couple places, it is OK to say "organization foo has traditionally been part of the foo cult as described by expert Schmoo."(with citation). It is possibly problematic, but acceptable if sourced and balanced, to say, "Experts fee, fie, foe and fum have called organization foo a cult due to the presence of a charismatic leader, an exclusivist paradigm, and yada, yada, yada.)with citation But on the other hand, oorganization foo says they are not a cult because yada, yada, yada..."" (with citation) It is wrong for us as wikipedia editors who use the word "cult" as a perjerative label, as in "The foo cult claims it's not a cult because..." Montanabw^(talk) 01:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
• Therefore my take is that the material by people like Thurman and Dodin meet RS, but we must be meticulously careful in how we use their writing and not take it out of context. While Prasangika37 calls Thurman in particular a "warrior," Thurman is a highly respected Buddhist scholar. Rather than whitewash the article of criticism, it is more appropriate to say "Thurman says X because of reasons A, B and C, but in contrast, Gyatso say Y because of reasons D, E and F."
• Further: I have become recently involved on this article in an attempt to sort out what is legitimate opinion and what is POV-pushing. My take is that there are several editors who have the suffix "37" on their names, (including Prasangika37) who are all aggressively pushing a pro-NKT POV, possibility tag-teaming. One created a sockpuppet which was blocked. In contrast, there are long term editors such as @CFynn: and @Cullen328: who are trying to keep the tone neutral. There has been a lot of work done by @Joshua Jonathan: , that appears appropriate and well-researched to RS though awkwardly written at times. VictoriaGrayson, who articulates a more pro-Dalai Lama position and has sort of been "taking point" against "the 37s" and has been targeted by them rather viciously, including a thread on my talk page (uncollapse to read). At the end of the day, I think that "the 37s" are trying to whitewash legitimate criticism of the NKT and other Shugen practitioners while misstating the positions of the Dalai Lama and the mainstream Gelug school. Montanabw^(talk) 01:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 03:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment by JJ: I think that Dodin's statement is relevant; it provided a context for the behavior of some Shugden-practitioners. Thurman's use of the word is suggestive, as it is ambiguous; I read it as a qualification, not as a neutral description as in "the cult of Tara". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

All three editors above are those from the discussion on the page itself (JJ, MontanaBw, and VictoriaGrayson). Is there anyone out there that isn't already involved in the discussion that could give some insight? I came to the Noticeboard for help from third parties, not to have the exact same discussion. Montana, I do see your points and think some of them are reasonably helpful and same with you JJ. I'll respond for further discussion later back on the main page. Thanks. Prasangika37 (talk) 15:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

It seems everyone is actually helping reiterate the issue with the usage of the language. By demonstrating cult has different meanings (e.g. cult of Tara) and sometimes its not even intended as the main point and just used casually, it shows the word is too vague to be used. Sometimes its scholarly, sometimes derogatory, sometimes just a slur of sorts. Thus, we should use different quotes to establish similar points if the points themselves are so important. Dodin's quote is bizarre to be supported especially because it uses other W2W like extreme and fantacism. And does he mean 'cult' as in Cult of Tara or does he mean Cult as in Jonestown? This, again, is why the word is problematic.

See a quote by User:John_carter elsewhere re the word:

"There are basically three reasons, so far as I know. One is our guideline WP:W2W. The word "cult" in this context is both somewhat vague, as there is so far as I can tell no specific clearly agreed upon definition of the term, and because, at least in this content, the use of the term tends to prompt more heat than light. Poorly defined language is at best dubiously encyclopedic, and so is rather unnecessarily inflammatory language. Lastly, the academic community has stopped using the word lately, replacing it with new religious movement, so we use the currently used academic language instead."

• "Cult" should only be used in quotations, which would mean removing one use from the current protected text. To say (above) "cult is only being used in 3 direct academic quotes in the body of the DSC article..." is simply untrue - cntl-F shows 3 uses in quotes in the main text but also "Thurman explains that members of the cult want:" in Wikipedia's voice, which needs to be changed. There are a further 4 uses in quotes in the notes, plus some in the titles of sources. Johnbod (talk) 18:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. Its very helpful and appreciated. Anyone else out in the Wikisphere? Prasangika37 (talk) 02:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hulk's here, thinking it's fine if it's a quote. Wikipedia's voice has plenty of better words to use, though. Or no words, just "Thurman explains that members want...". Readers know which members. Can't do much about the titles of sources. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:08, August 26, 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. What about in the cases where its not the main point of the quote? Like it is just thrown in there as a random word, when the same point can be made without the word 'cult' being used? It seems to violate WP:QUOTE, no? //Also, re: Dodin, I find it challenging also because in that interview, which is done with a website with huge sections devoted to criticizing Dorje Shugden and the New Kadampa Tradition, Dodin uses the word 'cult' in quite a brief interview [23 times]. There are also no citations present for the research or POV, Dodin definitely doesn't have a PHD, and perhaps doesn't even have a masters? He is called a "Tibetologist" but I am not sure what that means in this context or how that makes his POV Academic? reliable, or relevant to the situation (The New Kadamp Tradition is not Tibetan or in Tibet..) Seems like he is just someone with an agenda, no? Prasangika37 (talk) 03:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Academics don't advertise their PhD's. Most webpages of South Asian / Tibetan studies professors don't even mention their PhD at all. I can provide examples if you wish. Dodin is a known expert and spoke at the recent academic Shugden conference. Read the comments of Montanabw above, before you accuse Dodin of having an agenda.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 03:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The Dodin quote makes entirely clear why he uses the word 'cult' - he isn't just throwing it around. And as Google Scholar demonstrates, his work has been cited in multiple academic publications. [30] As to whether he has a doctorate or not, I don't know - but he has certainly acted as a lecturer at the University of Bonn ([31] - see p 51). I can see no reason why his opinion should not be included in the article. It is about a controversy - and accordingly, our readers need to know what the controversy is about, and what the opposing viewpoints are. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 03:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: Sorry, wasn't clear on my part. I wasn't referring to the Dodin example of 'throwing it around'. I was talking to the Thurman and Kapstein examples where its not the main point of the quote, but just a word used casually when talking about another point. And thanks for the answer re: Dodin. Prasangika37 (talk) 12:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Your assertion that Dodin 'seems to have an agenda' was clear enough. As was your attempt to discredit him as a source, based on little more than supposition. There is no requirement that individual sources cited in articles be 'neutral.' What matters is that the article as a whole reflects the balance of opinion amongst relevant reliable sources. Attempting to invalidate an academic source because you don't like their opinion (which is cited as such) isn't acceptable. As for the remaining sources, I've not looked at them - but any arguments against citing them need to be based around more than vague claims of 'an agenda'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah that is useful clarification. I see that pointing out an agenda is not helpful. I've made that mistake before and I think I've gotten it down now. Sorry. So let me get this completely clear, so I don't make this mistake in the future: From what I can tell, I don't see it is as academic, but my understanding about 'academic' on Wikipedia was 1. a PHD 2. Formal training in the topic they are speaking about (widely considered a scholar). This is wrong, though, because he has edited a text that has been cited by others and has lectured at a University? Prasangika37 (talk) 19:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

In addition WP:EXCEPTIONAL and WP:LABEL made me think we would need more support in general to include claims of the sort, (Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution) But the fact that its a quote makes okay to use the Label even though its exceptional? Is that right? This is helpful in understanding in what is an acceptable citation or point for an article, though and will be useful in the future. Thanks for being patient. Prasangika37 (talk) 19:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Re the other quotes, the quotes definitely are from reliable sources. The issue is not the sources themselves, but the usage of quotes within the article. I was thinking that for NPOV we should use quotes that make the same point, but without the word 'cult' casually used. E.g. "The point the cult is making is wrong because this and that" can be replaced with "The point the organization is making is wrong because this and that", if the replacement quote exists? Prasangika37 (talk) 19:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

There are two issues here. Do the sources cited frequently use the term 'cult', and is the usage of the term common in other sources? If the sources have been cherry-picked for isolated usages of the term, then it could be argued that they aren't being fairly represented. Likewise, if these sources have been cherry-picked for their opinions, there might be a NPOV problem. However, you will have to come up with evidence, either way - your repeated insistence that sources cited have 'an agenda' is not only entirely lacking in evidence, but it is becoming more than a little irritating. The article is about a controversy, and we aren't going to avoid citing the opinions of legitimate sources because you don't like what they say, or the words they use. Instead, you should be looking for evidence of scholarly sources representing an alternate point of view, if they exist. If they don't exist, then it would seem reasonable to assume that the existing article is accurately representing the scholarly consensus. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: Thank you for your time and help. I'll stop asking questions for now. Very, very helpful. And again, sorry for being a bit of a moron on procedure. Prasangika37 (talk) 22:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Relationship between Efforts to impeach Barack Obama and United States House of Representatives v. Obama

Is this the appropriate noticeboard to raise disputes about relatedness of article content? There is a low-participation dispute at Talk:Efforts to impeach Barack Obama#"Lawsuit in lieu of impeachment" section about whether the authorization of the lawsuit in United States House of Representatives v. Obama is sufficiently related to the article to merit inclusion in the article. Everyone agrees, so far as I can tell, that the lawsuit is reliably sourced, and that reliable sources have asserted that the lawsuit was filed in order to divert pressure favoring an impeachment vote. Is the assertion in these sources reason enough to mention the lawsuit, and the motivation that the sources have asserted, in the article? The counter-argument has been made that since the lawsuit is not itself an effort to impeach, then it should not be mentioned in an article about efforts to impeach. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes as far as NPOV being an issue. But no - it is not up to Wikipedia to make a connection based on editorial opinions even from reliable sources. If and only if an effort to impeach is made, which very likely would directly mention the lawsuit, would it, IMHO, be a clear fit. Collect (talk) 08:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

So mention should be limited to connections made by the sources themselves? bd2412 T 22:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the reason you are seeing "low-participation" in this matter is because the two Wikipedia articles you linked in your header are about subjects which do not exist (yet?). There have been no "efforts to impeach"; only rhetoric and political theater so far, and the linked article even says as much. There is also no "House v. Obama" lawsuit; only a partisan resolution in the House described as more political theater, with experts saying such a proposed lawsuit isn't likely to see the inside of a court. So your question appears to be: Can the speculation conveyed by opinion pieces about a nonexistent lawsuit be introduced into an article about a nonexistent effort to impeach the President?

If an actual effort to impeach is ever made, we certainly should have a Wikipedia article on that. If an actual lawsuit is filed and prosecuted in a court of law, we should have an article on it. If, should those hypotheticals become realities, reliable sources convey connections between events, we can include that information at the appropriate location. That is a bunch of "ifs". One serious concern right now should be that Wikipedia not be used as an unwitting participant in partisan echo chamber transmissions by producing articles based only on routine political gamesmanship, rhetoric and election season grandstanding. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

2014 Ferguson unrest

2014 Ferguson unrest and to a lesser extend the related Shooting of Michael Brown need some new eyes and a thorough scrubbing for POV material. The 2014 article is rife with POV language and a few occasions has warped what the references say to present the "facts" towards a POV point of view. The language used tries to portray the protesters in a sympathetic light and the authorities in a negative light. IMO two things need to be done:

1. Review each source to verify the statement being made accurately, and neutrally matches what text in the article says
2. Remove all weaselly modifiers such as "peaceful" or "authoritarian" unless specifically stated in the source

It's a big plate, who wants to help take a bite?Two kinds of pork (talk) 17:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, happy to help a bit. Maybe not extensively, but if you post on my talk page a few directions then I can help. Thanks for the notification. Prasangika37 (talk) 22:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

again there seems to be a lot of emotion affecting this article which is understandable but agreed that for a NPOV emotive language should be removed.Docsim (talk) 06:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Lack of NPOV in Al-Khair University

I came upon this article while patrolling CAT:UNCAT. It seems to really degrade the subject without mentioning anything positive, though I'm not sure if G10 is appropriate or not. I've tagged with {{POV}}, but it would be good to get another opinion. --Jakob (talk) 23:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The current version is a overly negative version by an ip (Diff1), which contrasts with the previous flowery version (Diff2), copied largely from the official site. A balance needs to be found.--Auric talk 11:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Shooting of Michael Brown

Hi, Shooting of Michael Brown needs some neutrality help from some experienced editors. There is a pretty well entrenched group who are keeping the radicals at Bay, but still the compromise that has been struck retains an unencyclopedic tone and subtle bias toward inflaming passions. I've tried to work on people with the Lede, but frankly the more neutral editors are tired and a group of editors who seem to focus on current events and SPAs are pretty solidly in control. These types of article are often the first impression that people get of WP, and the reputation of the project suffers when NNPOV is lost. --Kevin Murray (talk) 00:15, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I may be overly sensitive and a few other neutral opinions may be good. If I'm wrong on this, I'd like to know. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 00:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

When something's popular for being controversial, the talk page gets much bigger than popular or controversial topics' combined. When something pro-1% or pro-99% is omitted in the interest of neutrality, whichever side is going to see that omission as pointed in the other direction, because it's pointed at the center. It's bigger than Wikipedia, which may be why these types are often new editors' first impressions.

Is there a specific thing you'd like resolved? We can't make the general problem go away. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:00, August 29, 2014 (UTC)

(A) I am looking for a reality check to see if there is NPOV, and (2) if I'm right, some fresh opinions on the talk page RfC or some clean up of the article. I think that the information in the lead section is basically accurate, but there is a bit of a sensationalist spin. I think it has been improving though. --Kevin Murray (talk) 02:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is always a work in progress, and certain parts of certain articles will always appear to lean one way or another from certain vantage points. It helps to clearly define things, rather than say "bit of a sensationalist spin".

One thing I noticed, for instance, was the first sentence contrasted a white police attacker with a black male victim. That lent undue weight to one's job and one's gender. Now they're parallel, and a wider aspect of the case (the coverage) is implied to boot. But even that was (maybe still is) met with some resistance. Seems like it seemed like I was trying to say he wasn't a man. Universal neutrality is extremely difficult to achieve, especially among strangers. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:03, August 29, 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. It has gotten better in the last few days, and I appreciate your work on this. You definitely broight some fresh ideas and style to the Lede. From the talk pages, it looks like editors are understanding neutrality better and the difference between contemporary journalism and encyclopedic tone. Best regards! --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Men's Rights UK and Marital Rape.

Page: Men's Rights

Section:The Criminalization of Marital Rape

Talk Page:[32].

The issue is with the depiction of the the Men's Rights Movement in the UK in the following statement:-

• "Legislation and judicial decisions criminalizing marital rape are opposed by Men's rights activists in the United Kingdom the United States and India."

The supporting source concerning the UK is here [33], the substantive part of which is a quoted statement from 1993, (I do not dispute Whitcomb made the statement):-

• "The conservative and unashamedly patriarchal nature of the men's rights lobby .. is well illustrated by some statements by one of its self-proclaimed spokesmen in the UK, Roger Whitcomb .. he reserved particular anger for the House of Lords ruling on marital rape in 1991 ('a long-standing feminist dream') and for the Child Support Act"

The notion that Mens Rights Activists in the UK are against the crimilisation of Marital Rape is being supported solely by a comment, made in 1993 by a person speaking for himself, who has not been politically active for a decade or more. No other Men's Rights Activists in the UK supporting this statement can be provided. The source's author is not making any claims concerning the MRM UK and Marital Rape in general. I feel that no reasonable person could claim that the disputed statement together with its source satisfies WP:UNDUE, in particular the principles outlined by Jimbo Wales:-

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

Finding one person in favor of the legality of Marital Rape is not sufficient to attribute it to a whole group. Which is what we have happening here. There are also libel issues here, in particular as there is a proposed Parliamentary Party standing in the UK on a Men's Rights Platform [34].

I respectfully submit that the disputed entry does not satisfy WP:UNDUE and the reference to the Men's Rights Movement in the UK should be removed. CSDarrow (talk) 18:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Yep, that's probably fair enough. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

First of all, I don't know why we're relying on a source from 2000. Certainly, what might have been true 15 years ago isn't necessarily true today. Don't we have more current sources for this content? Second, I don't see how the cited source remotely supports the content. Nowhere on that page does it say anything about Men's rights activists opposing the criminalization of marital rape. It's hardly even mentioned. At best, we can say, "Roger Whitcomb was angry about the House of Lords ruling on marital rape in 1991." What specifically Whitcomb was angry about, it doesn't say. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

• While I agree that source alone is shaky the use of this board to remove content is not appropriate. Furthermore the source is not alone in its identification of the UKMM (the organization Whitcomb belongs to -- see the pages before and after the single quote referred to by CSDarrow) as campaigning against martial rape. In fact they listed themselves as doing so. IMHO the article should use the past tense in relation to UK men's rights movements or better yet idenify the UKMM specifically rather than imply incorrectly that all UK men's rights groups currently oppose it(unless there are sources for that), however all this does not warrant removal. The point about the UKMM is corroborated by other books The New Politics of Masculinity: Men, Power and Resistance (page 60) (published 2007) and the UKMM is also reference as campaigning against rape in relation to domestic violence and family law in Feminist Perspectives on Family Law (published 2007) as well as in Violence, Gender and Justice by Wykes & Wels (published 2009)--Cailil ^talk 19:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

If you have other sources then you should take them to the talk page for discussion. If they satisfy WP:UNDUE and are not merely reflecting the view of Whitcomb then they will be considered. The bar is fairly high to attribute a view to a group, either as a majority or a minority view. As it should be. CSDarrow (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry CSDarrow you seem to misunderstand UNDUE. A source doesn't satisfy due weight. It's how that info is presented that relates to WP:DUE, not whether or not it is included per se. Wikipedia has a crystal clear standard - it reflects information based upon its reliability, so if multiple reliable sources say the UKMM campaigned against marital rape (and they do) then the article MUST reflect that. Attempting to discredit clearly reliable sources isn't a good idea. Just BTW if in fact you're correct its best *not* to respond to every single view that disagree with you, the result will be clearer that way--Cailil ^talk 20:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank for your reply. The short hand intent of my language seems to be entirely clear to others. If you feel you can prove your case, then please take it to the talk page rather than try to lecture me. The intention of this discussion is clearly laid out above. I, and possibly others, are not especially interested in your off topic musings.CSDarrow (talk) 21:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

• This content dispute is part of an edit war on Men's rights movement. Bbb23 locked the page because of the edit warring in its pre-edit war state and asked users to discuss the dispute. This does not appear to be an appropriate use of this noticeboard as it is circumventing discussion on the article's talk page. An RfC seems like a more appropriate avenue for resolving this dispute. I request this discussion be closed as it fails the very first bullet point on WP:NPOVN that states Before you post to this page, you should already have tried to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page. Include a link here to that discussion. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I just want to clarify the record here. Generally, when an administrator locks an article because of an edit-warring content dispute, they do so in whatever state it happens to be in at the time. The exception to that is if there's an obvious violation of policy, in which case the administrator can both lock the article and remove the policy violation. This article is unusual because it's subject to community sanctions. I can't say what I would have done had the article been in the "other" state because I didn't have to consider it, but the fact is that it was coincidence that I locked it in its present state.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion, which you played essentially no part in, has being going round and round for sometime. An impasse has clearly occurred. CSDarrow (talk) 19:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there is no discussion happening on the page, merely editors who wish to keep the current flawed article state, and are displaying ownership over it. These refuse to join the conversation in a productive manner. In this case, I asked if the reference provided for the assertion that the Men's rights movement is against criminalisation of marital rape, was correc (since it didn't indicate this at all), and I am still waiting for a response. Meanwhile, the article is displaying incorrect information based on a fake reference, and has been frozen like this awaiting consensus, which won't happen because of the ownership issues and the reluctance for discussion. Outside comment is required. Zambelo; talk 20:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

• I want to remind the editors here that this discussion involves the MRM. Therefore, the discussion itself and editor conduct during the discussion may be scrutinized with that in mind. I don't have a problem with the discussion at the MRM talk page having been brought here, but I'm not pleased with the repetition of the sniping at the talk page also being brought here. I am particularly concerned about the such comments as CSDarrow's response to Cailil about WP:UNDUE. Cailil's response was absolutely responsive, whether you agree with it or not. To dismissively call it "off topic musings" is not constructive to healthy discussion. I am also concerned about Zambelo's comments like "fake reference" and "ownership issues". This is fair warning. I'm cutting people some slack because this is a discussion, but I will not hesitate to sanction editors if they cross the line. Finally, just in case anyone thinks I'm posting this message because of Cailil's comment on my talk page, they would be wrong. I was planning on doing this but I was consumed by my duties at SPI and couldn't get to it until now.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23, I will heed your advice. I think we should all bear in mind that this is WP:NPOVN and I have made a request for an opinion, ie does a statement together with the provided source violate WP:UNDUE. This is the purpose of the discussion here, and I think it is important that we keep on track. If the consensus is no then the statement should be removed, unless in the meantime other more suitable sources are found. If after the fact sources can be found then it can be replaced.

It is important we maintain some structure to the larger discussion, else we will go round in the circles and tempers may get flared. If others have suitable sources, then they can present them under a new section in the talk page and we can discuss them there. This way we will keep various logical components of the discussion separate and avoid an unilluminating wall of text. If we have specific questions or need general clarifications of policy then we can refer them back to here. Maintaining a logical structure to larger discussion will allow us to see the wood for the trees and aid us greatly in coming to a consensus. This will also aid you in keeping track of what we are up to. CSDarrow (talk) 01:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

just as many topics posted in this section of wikipedia emotions appear to be taking hold rather than policy. maybe someone could simply detail the main points of dispute here and go from there.Docsim (talk) 14:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

RfC at Landmark Worldwide

I have posted a Request for Comment at Talk:Landmark_Worldwide#RFC:_Has_the_neutrality_of_this_article_been_improved_or_degraded_by_recent_wholesale_changes.3F DaveApter (talk) 13:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

After reading there appears to be a number of conflicts of interest at play. NPOV has been compromised.Docsim (talk) 02:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)