Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 218: Line 218:


{{od|}} No wonder I couldn't find it. [[User:Jenhawk777|Jenhawk777]] ([[User talk:Jenhawk777|talk]]) 15:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
{{od|}} No wonder I couldn't find it. [[User:Jenhawk777|Jenhawk777]] ([[User talk:Jenhawk777|talk]]) 15:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

== very unprofessional text under the Afro-Bolivian page under History. ==

Am a new person and this is my first time ever using the noticeboards so please forgive any mistakes.

I noticed while reading a page this paragraph under the History tab of the Afro-Bolivian page:

"Okay, there is a flaw in this. bogota was really far away from the coast so why the heck would people transport slaves all the way across that land? there is a damn flaw to your logic. [2]"

the source was just a link to google maps. regardless of whether the person had a point, I really think this type of text violates wikipedia's neutral dialog policy.

Thank you for your time,

Revision as of 19:20, 30 March 2018

    Welcome — ask about adherence to the neutral point of view in context!
    Shortcuts
    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:
    Start a new discussion

    Anti-Punjabi activity

    Sock blocked. --NeilN talk to me 13:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    It has come to my attention that GSS-1987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been participating in anti-Punjabi activity on Wikipedia. Removing the term Punjabi from articles and deleting Punjabi pages. This sort of editing is disruptive and bias against Punjabis. I request this users activities be reviewed and necessary steps be taken to stop this type of behavior. JassiDosanjh (talk) 10:05, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking through GSS-1987’s contributions, I am not detecting any anti-Punjabi pattern in the behavior. Blueboar (talk) 10:34, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @JassiDosanjh: Can you please stop personal attacks and socking around. Thank you – GSS (talk|c|em) 10:58, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Blueboar: Why has GSS-1987 recently deleted List of highest-grossing Punjabi films and redirected the page to List of highest-grossing Indian films?
    Why has GSS-1987 recently deleted:
    Why has GSS-1987 recently removed Punjabi from the lead of:
    I sense a bias against Punjabis and disruptive editing.
    JassiDosanjh (talk) 11:08, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @GSS-1987:Personal attack? Where?
    Sock? How? These are serious allegations, please explain. JassiDosanjh (talk) 11:16, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @JassiDosanjh: has raised some good questions. There is not much in the edit summary neither. @GSS-1987: what is the reason for deleting the lists and other editing? 144.202.98.240 (talk) 12:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Why is a "new" editor advocating for the edits of a blocked sockpuppet? --NeilN talk to me 12:51, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @D4iNa4: from GSS-1987's contribution log: 08:35, 13 March 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+105)‎ . . User:GSS-1987/CSD log ‎ (Logging speedy deletion nomination of List of Punjabi films of 1978. (TW)) JassiDosanjh (talk) 13:12, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @NeilN: [1], [2] JassiDosanjh (talk) 13:15, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Anthony Appleyard deleted one of them. Give me a moment and I'll sort this out, JassiDosanjh's another sock. Doug Weller talk —Preceding undated comment added 13:25, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Doug Weller: Can you please check your mail? GSS (talk|c|em) 13:27, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    RFCs on Third Party inclusion in the election infobox

    FYI, there are two RFCs asking about third party inclusion in election infoboxes. Aspects of these issues touch on NPOV and may be of interest to editors here. Please join the discussion at the project talk page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:33, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Realphi is pushing POVs

    The user is making strong POV edits again and again even after repeated reminders. Mainly, he is pushing sectarian RPOV, that the Kanji Panth ideology he believes in is the rightest thing out there which needs to be pushed on all pages and templates related to Digambara sect of Jainism. -Nimit (talk) 03:13, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The user also appears to be a candidate for topic ban per WP:CIR. User’s talk page is full of warnings and notices. [User’s contributions] aren’t constructive and articles created by him are characterised by fanciful content and unreliable sources. -Nimit (talk) 07:53, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked indefinitely. It's amazing sometimes how much patience we have with tendentious, uncommunicative, policy-violating editors here. They may be unblocked if they start communicating on their talkpage, and pay some attention to the warnings, especially against copyright violations. Bishonen | talk 13:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]

    Topic of Polish collaboration during WW2 - Content forking

    Forum shopping. Go to the AfD if you have anything to add. 03:57, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

    I'd like to voice my significant concerns as to what's going on with the topic of Polish collaboration in WW2 on Wikipedia. In this case, I keep thinking about Criticism of Wikipedia, and how this problem translates to the topic of Polish collaboration. Perhaps admins should look into the issue and assess if Wikipedia's neutrality is not being affected.

    At this point we have three LONG texts on Wikipedia regarding this subject matter:

    Yet, only one or two editors voiced reservations when on 14 March, 18 [3] a new article was created Polish collaboration with Nazi Germany, on top of the already long texts on this subject in two other articles. This happened exactly when due to a heated content dispute [4] on Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II#Poland, the admins blocked the article [5]. I'd also like to point out no other country has so much text on this subject raising the issue of Content forking in regards to Poland. This creates unchecked issues of UNDUE WIEGHT, BALANCING ASPECTS, and EQUAL VALIDITY which are ignored by a group of editors and dismissed as irrelevant — instead you just hear a numbing mob call that this is a VALID TOPIC by several editors who for whatever reason think that more content is needed on this.--E-960 (talk) 12:37, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I think you will find that most of the arguments were of the "very contentious issue needs its own article, so as not to clog up other articles" rather then "WE NEED MORE STUFF". Another of our rules is AGF, which is not helped by misrepresenting other users positions.Slatersteven (talk) 12:44, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Slatersteven, very simple... QUALITY over QUANTITY, this is nothing more then Content forking, instead of improving the two text that already existed some editors though the problem will be solved by creating a new article on this subject, or perhaps in bad faith they just wanted to give this subject matter undue weight. --E-960 (talk) 12:46, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No it is not, as has been explained. The collaboration article had become a battle ground because the argument was being made we should not give more weight to Poland then any other nation. So to avoid this another article was created to discus what is a complex and contentious issue, Your argument was "we should not have too much information on Poland here as Undue and Weighty" and now it is " we cannot have a seperate article as undue and weighty". Also lets see [[6]], [[7]], [[8]], [[9]][[10]][[11]][[12]][[13]], are all articles that talk about some form of Russian collaboration (for all I know there may well be more).Slatersteven (talk) 12:54, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No, no no... sorry, but only two of these items cover specifically the broad topic of "Russian collaboration", Russian_collaborationism_with_the_Axis_powers and Collaboration_with_the_Axis_Powers_during_World_War_II#Soviet_Union, the others pages cover individual collaborationist organizations. See, again this is how this issue is being blurred and misrepresented. --E-960 (talk) 13:11, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    So would you rather then we we did this with Poland, and had separate articles on separate aspects of collaboration?Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    We have those already: Blue Police, Jewish Ghetto Police, Żagiew, Group 13, Volksdeutsche, etc. The point is how many repeating duplicate articles/sections are we gonna have about 'Poland' collaboration. --E-960 (talk) 15:29, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    As many as we have for many others? Now you have a point that many of those sections are too long, now we have an article that covers the topic. But that is separate from whether those articles should exist at all. As I said you objected to the length of the Polish section in Collaboration with the Nazis, so a new article was created to have that material. Now what do you want, one article that holds it all or have it split off?Slatersteven (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Might be best to let others chip in before I reply again.Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Uninvolved editor here. If there are multiple pages which are more specific elements of a larger subject, then it is appropriate to have a "main" or "overview" article to cover the matter briefly and link to the specific articles via the main template. For example, see the article on World War I. There are multiple more specific articles about certain topics, and most of those are linked via use of the main template (in fact, there's hardly any section/subsection title which doesn't have such a link.

    Of course, the article about WWI is massive (270 kb) and invovles a very complex subject, so it's natural that is be split. The articles about Polish collaborationism are smaller. However, having all information about a specific topic grouped in a certain place is very useful (and good practice). Therefore, IMHO, the "overview" article should be kept, and material from other articles should be merged or briefly summarised and combined with a Template:Main link. WP:NPOV also explicitly states that it's okay to treat "minority viewpoints" (in this case, it's a cold hard fact which happens to have been the action of only a minority, but I digress: it happened and is covered in reliable sources) with separate articles. Example: Evolution (accepted science) and Creationism (scientifically, that is utter bollocks) both exist as articles since they are notable. Hell, there's even an article about the controversy (given it has became a matter of debate (to the detriment of other, probably more important topics), at least in some spheres of American politics). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 03:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    In light of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polish collaboration with Nazi Germany, this appears to be forum shopping. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:48, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Apparitions

    Is it necessary to qualify an individual apparition of Mary, e.g. 1988 Lubbock apparition of Mary as a "reported" or "alleged" apparition, as in this edit? If an apparition is defined as a claimed sighting or experience, then this seems a bit redundant bordering on pedantic or critical. Marian apparition had a similar change made in 2016. And Our Lady of Zeitoun also changed in 2017. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:33, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, I think it is appropriate to add the "reported" language to make sure Wikivoice is not saying they factually saw something. "Apparition" doesn't need to be claimed or not, so its not redundant but necessary for clarity. --Masem (t) 15:39, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    In common usage, to say an apparition was witnessed would likely imply an endorsement of a supernatural phenomenon. My edits regarding that are an attempt to avoid that. I agree with Masem above about this. Best wishes. Hoktiwe (talk) 16:18, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    'Imposing' as WP:WEASEL

    An example of peacock terms

    I find the following should be changed:

    Memorial Hall, immediately north of Harvard Yard in Cambridge, Massachusetts, is an imposing[1][2][3] High Victorian Gothic building honor­ing the sacrifices made by Harvard men in defense of the Union during the American Civil War‍—‌"a symbol of Boston's commitment to the Unionist cause and the abolitionist movement in America."[4]

    to

    Memorial Hall, immediately north of Harvard Yard in Cambridge, Massachusetts, is a large[1][2][3] High Victorian Gothic building honor­ing the sacrifices made by Harvard men in defense of the Union during the American Civil War‍—‌"a symbol of Boston's commitment to the Unionist cause and the abolitionist movement in America."[4]

    References

    1. ^ a b King, M. (1884). Harvard and Its Surroundings. Moses King. p. 41. Retrieved 2017-01-29.
    2. ^ a b American Architect and Architecture. Vol. 25. American Architect. 1889. Retrieved 2017-01-29.
    3. ^ a b The Dublin University Magazine: A Literary and Political Journal. Vol. 92. W. Curry, jun., and Company. 1878. p. 503. Retrieved 2017-01-29.
    4. ^ a b Shand-Tucci, D.; Cheek, R. (2001). Harvard University: An Architectural Tour. Princeton Architectural Press. p. 158. ISBN 9781568982809. Retrieved 2017-01-29.

    per WP:WEASEL and WP:PUFFERY.

    There has been no talk-page engagement despite my efforts at Talk:Memorial Hall (Harvard University)#Imposing_is_WP:WEASEL. Carl Fredrik talk 20:19, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Architectural examples are literally used by the dictionary entry for the term. The word is used by the 3 cited sources, which are describing the building in greater terms than its physical size. The suggestion to replace it with "large" cheapens the text, and the article. TheValeyard (talk) 20:37, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The alternative is cheapening Wikipedia, which I find considerably worse. This is about neutrality and avoiding puffery, not whether certain adjectives are used when expressing subjective judgement. Carl Fredrik talk 00:09, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    As the first sentence of the article, it is definitely falling into Peacock territory - we don't want to be subjective in that sentence. It is fine to later say that the building is considered "imposing" by those sources, when there's more space to explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masem (talk • contribs) 20:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly what I said. Carl Fredrik talk 00:06, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Most university halls are large, even imposing, particularly those at large universities, particularly those that merit their own Wikipedia articles. The infobox image pretty much screams "imposing", and |alt= could be added for benefit of the vision-impaired. I don't see much value in or need for any adjective there. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:03, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Paul Erickson

    Caroline456 and I could use some eyes on the new article Paul Erickson, where we've run into a whole bunch of neutrality-related issues. This is an article about a South Dakota Republican operative who's received a lot of news coverage recently in connection with Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:31.154.71.87 and Israel-related edits.

    This IP, which can be traced to Israel, might not be adhering to NPOV, at least it seems to me. All these edits take place in the last month. 90% of their edits have been on Israel related pages. User unironically cites NPOV in many edit summaries but respective edits themselves are misleading or disruptive. I have left messages on the user's talk page, but there has been no response, and editing pattern is continuing.

    1. Unrecognized city status: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Knesset&diff=prev&oldid=830972380&diffmode=source. User claims that the correct information is not NPOV, removes it, also saying it's "unecessary." East Jerusalem has never been recognised as part of Israel in the international community at large (they annexed it in 1980).

    2. Inaccurate edit and misleading summary. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Church_of_the_Nativity&diff=prev&oldid=831948510&diffmode=source. User says "per NPOV, better leave this empty." This is a blatantly misleading edit. Not only is the Church of the Nativity commonly known to be in Palestine, but the cited link to the UNESCO.org page even says "Palestine" as it's location.

    3. Removing "Palestine" / replacing it with "Israel." Here in these next 7 edits ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hani_al-Hassan&diff=prev&oldid=832261745&diffmode=source , https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edmond_Bonan&diff=prev&oldid=832261774&diffmode=source , https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yehoram_Gaon&diff=prev&oldid=832261790&diffmode=source , https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shlomo_Aronson&diff=prev&oldid=832261927&diffmode=sourceedits , https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A._B._Yehoshua&diff=prev&oldid=832261945&diffmode=source , https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yaakov_Ades&diff=prev&oldid=832261959&diffmode=source, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moshe_Safdie&diff=prev&oldid=832261977&diffmode=source ) the user removes "Palestine" from the infoboxes of articles, or other sections, even though it is historically appropriate. "Palestine" is replaced with "Israel" in many instances, even though the State of Israel did not come into being until 1948. User offers no edit summaries for any of the edits.

    4. Addition of weasel word (WP:ALLEGED): In these two edits: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ireland%E2%80%93Israel_relations&diff=prev&oldid=832807663&diffmode=source & https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ireland%E2%80%93Israel_relations&diff=832813508&oldid=832810111&diffmode=source , User continually adds "alleged," a commonly used WP:weasel word to the sentence: Prior to that, Ireland had refused to establish relations due to Israel's <<alleged>> violations of UN Resolutions. This is common knowledge. Israel has a long history of ignoring the UN and many times has been condemned for violating resolutions. R9tgokunks ✡ 02:46, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Violation of UN resolution is disputed - it should be alleged. With some of the figures in question (3)- stating that this was in the Palestinian territories (a term that came into being following 1967) is incorrect - in [14] - placing Haifa in the Palestinian territories?! It should be Mandatory Palestine - or blank.Icewhiz (talk) 06:28, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You are joking right? That's basic historical ignorance and I'm unsure if you're being serious or not. We even have a Wikipedia article about this. Also, It's unencyclopedic to add weasel words, per WP policy. I think it's maybe telling that you are trying to defend these disruptive edits. R9tgokunks ✡ 18:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I am not. Placing Haifa in the Palestinian territories?! That was in one of your edits. Haifa was in Mandatory Palestine - it is not part of the West Bank and Gaza. I did not go over all of your examples, but tthe ones I did - e.g. the location of Haifa in Han al-Hassan, the IP was correcting an error (not perfectly).Icewhiz (talk) 18:21, 29 March 2018 (UTC) Struck your, as it was in Cakerzing's edit that the IP reverted.Icewhiz (talk) 21:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Take this to ANI.Slatersteven (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Christ myth theory

    Christ myth theory and Talk:Christ_myth_theory#Fringe_theory Christ myth theory

    This is a fringe theory article and falls under theory guidelines, however, in taking full advantage of some of the leeway Wikipedia generously allows, it has failed to live up to Wikipedia guidelines in these ways:

    • (1) "Wikipedia aims to summarize significant opinions with representation in proportion to their prominence, a Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is." The manner in which this article is written presents the theory from the point of view of its proponents--without including responses to those views--making it seem these ideas are not seriously challenged. Majority view is given a token mention only.
    • (2) "a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight"; the small amount and absent detail of the majority view in approximately 80% of the article, along with the absence of any real critique of this theory, makes it seem as though this is a more notable theory than most academics in the field consider it to be.
    • (3) "reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner." Most of the sources used are dubious. For example, there are no peer reviews available for Richard Carrier's book because it was not seen as worthy of reviewing by academics in the field. Yet Carrier is referenced repeatedly. Massey, even Wells, and more--they are all proponents of the theory. Not a one of them is critiqued.
    • (4) "Ideas that are of borderline or minimal notability may be mentioned in Wikipedia, but should not be given undue weight.
    • (5) Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community. If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance; ideas should not be portrayed as accepted unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources." This article does state this is a fringe theory in the intro and overview--then it fails to proportionately demonstrate or explain--or mention--that in the rest of the body.
    • (6) "Inclusion and exclusion of content related to fringe theories and criticism of fringe theories may be done by means of a rough parity of sources." There is no parity.
    • (7) "In an article on a fringe topic, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer reviewed journal. ...By parity of sources, critiques of that material can likewise be gleaned from reliable websites and books that are not peer reviewed. ...Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals." The views of the group are shown clearly and thoroughly--without criticism.
    • (8) claims may contain or be followed by qualifiers to maintain neutrality – e.g. "Although Halbronn possibly knows more about the texts and associated archives than almost anybody else alive (he helped dig out and research many of them), most other specialists in the field reject this view." The few qualifiers in this article are applied primarily to the mainstream view.
    • (9) "Fringe theories should be discussed in context; uncontroversial ideas may need to be referred to in relation to fringe theories. Discussion of mainstream ideas should be sourced from reliable mainstream sources. Links to non-fringe articles in fringe articles can also help aid the reader in understanding and remove the threat of creating a [walled garden]." This is a prime example of a fringe theory that is not discussed in context.

    In short, this article is misleading, imbalanced and non-neutral. The authors of this article have made it clear they are believers in this theory and as a result, it is more like a personal blog from a proponent than a Wikipedia article. Approximately 80% of the article never mentions majority view. What mention there is of the "Traditional view" is highly qualified, has little detail, with no direct critiques of the theory or responses anywhere. This article includes no serious challenges to this theory--and they exist. I've talked and talked and gotten nowhere. We need a neutral assessment of these issues. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:38, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The Christ myth theory article has been discussed multiple times... both here and at WP:FTN. Has anything changed since the last discussion? Blueboar (talk) 22:43, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Jenhawk777 made their first contribution to the talk page of this article on 24 March and their first edit to the article itself the next day. Basically s/he (sorry I don't know whether they are male or female) immediately demanded that the article be re-written. As someone who has watched this article, argued about it and made desperate attempts to keep it neutral for at least five years rather than five days, I think this is being unrealistic and rather impatient. What basically happens now in the article is that there is a definition arrived at after years of wrangling about it, then the mainstream view is stated, then for the majority of the article, yes, about 80% as Jenhawk says, the myth theory proponents are allowed to make their case. Then near the end of the article, in a section "Scholarly reception" it is made clear that the idea that Jesus did not exist " finds virtually no support from scholars."Jenhawk says there are "no direct critiques of the theory or responses anywhere" but this is not the case, in the following section "Lack of support for mythicism" there are a number of quotes from historians (most of which I put in and had to fight to keep in over various periods) which say why no historian takes this idea seriously and that is that there is actually much more evidence for Jesus than there is for most other personages from antiquity, for instance "Graeme Clarke, Emeritus Professor of Classical Ancient History and Archaeology at Australian National University has stated: "Frankly, I know of no ancient historian or biblical historian who would have a twinge of doubt about the existence of a Jesus Christ—the documentary evidence is simply overwhelming". Jenhawk seems to want to go through the body of the article, the 80% s/he doesn't like, and refute every point made by the "mythicists" as it goes along. This would make the article far too long, apart from anything else and virtually unreadable. I think this discussion should be taking place on the article talk page rather than here and I recommend Jenhawk slow down a little and try to do a little bit at a time rather than re-write the article all at once.Smeat75 (talk) 23:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Smeat75 is correct. There is a huge lack of support for the CMT. It's not just fringe, many sources see it as not even worthy of debating. It's like "asking a professional astronomer to debate with the authors of a book claiming the moon was made of green cheese". Others are even more harsh. I can provide abundant sources should the need arise. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:54, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Totally agree with Smeat75. Jenhawk777 has been abundantly replied in the talkpage-section, where it has been explained that the article has a fringe-theory as its subject. That talkpage-tread started with a discussion about Stout, presented as a writer who has a mainstream view, yet turned out to be an author who explicitly questions a mainstream view, while promoting Evangelical Christian views. Not exactly what we need, when someone argues that the mainstream-view is underpresented.
    Regarding the policy-citations above:

    • 1 - this applies to 'regular' articles; nevertheless, the Cmt-article makes it very clear that the Cmt is not just seriously challenged, it is outright rejected by virtally all scholars.
    • 2 - this article is about the Cmt.
    • 3 - Cmt is not related to 'the quest for the historical Jesus'?
    • 4 - yep. So, the Cmt does not receive undue weight at articles on Jesus.
    • 5 - how many times does one have to repeat that the Cmt is a fringe theory? One time should suffice, actually; the article mentions it in the lead and in a section on the scholarly reception, with explanation and explication; that's enough.
    • 6 - again, this article is about the fronge theory; it's not a presentation of a fringe-theory in a 'standard' article.
    • 7 - Doherty and Carrier are cited from websites, the ctitics are cited from printed sources - what's the point here?
    • 8 - "Critics of the Christ myth theory question the competence of its supporters" - how strong a (dis)qualifier do you want to have?
    • 9 - the article starts with a section on "Jesus and the origins of Christianity", which gives the main research questions, the mainstream view, and then the Cmt.

    I think that Smeat75 is right, when he writes Jenhawk seems to want to go through the body of the article, the 80% s/he doesn't like, and refute every point made by the "mythicists" as it goes along. This would make the article far too long, apart from anything else and virtually unreadable. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:02, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Smeat75: If you want to make a case for being the reasonable one, don't misquote people. Basically s/he ... immediately demanded that the article be re-written. Untrue. Find a dif where I said any such thing.
    Please acknowledge dif: [Revision as of 04:41, 28 March 2018] which says:Please note I have not at any time disputed the validity of this article's existence. and There is also nothing wrong with the structure of the article in my opinion. There is nothing wrong with its representation of the CM theory. It does a very thorough and careful presentation of mythicist arguments. Please note--I have not requested that a single word be removed from this article--not even Massey. Because I believe it is well written, clear--and though not at all concise--I like it and think it is mostly a good article. I don't see anything wrong with the introductory section as it stands. It presents the CM view with clarity and in this article I find it appropriate. The problem I have is that there is nothing representing the mainstream view in the rest of the article--80% of the body. And what that produces is neither neutral nor balanced and as a result, the article is misleading as to what the views on this theory actually are.
    You say, "Jenhawk seems to want to go through the body of the article, the 80% s/he doesn't like, and refute every point made by the "mythicists" as it goes along. This would make the article far too long, apart from anything else and virtually unreadable." Length is not a good reason for non-neutrality. That can be handled in many ways. I have no desire to refute every point, but I would like to see at least some of the specific refutations included in the same locations claims are made. You say "there are a number of quotes from historians" and your example is a good example of a general statement with no specifics: "Graeme Clarke, Emeritus Professor of Classical Ancient History and Archaeology at Australian National University has stated: "Frankly, I know of no ancient historian or biblical historian who would have a twinge of doubt about the existence of a Jesus Christ—the documentary evidence is simply overwhelming". It doesn't actually address any specific claim or refute anything does it? It would be a problem if specific responses were presented disconnected from the arguments they refute--but it's even more of a problem that they are not there at all.
    Instead of guessing what it "seems like I want" how about just asking--or better yet--actually responding to the specifics that I do remark upon? It is my suggestion that some counterpoints in the body would be sufficient--nothing that's already here needs changing. Really. It's a good article. I have no problem with what's in it--I only have a problem with what isn't. So let me fix that one issue. in that same dif.
    @Joshua Jonathan: "Jenhawk777 has been abundantly replied in the talkpage-section". That is a true statement. Has any one of those replies--once--expressed a willingness to address my concerns? Repeatedly saying no isn't the spirit of consensus. "That talkpage-tread started with a discussion about Stout," also true. And how did I respond to your concern? I removed him. I responded to your observation with cooperation. Find me a dif where you did the same.
    "it's not a presentation of a fringe-theory in a 'standard' article." That allows some extra leeway indeed--but it does not excuse or allow non-neutrality. "In an article on a fringe topic parity is still required. It is not present in this article as it stands.
    Gentlemen, this comes down to a difference of opinion on what constitutes a "sufficient amount" of majority response in an article on a fringe view. Since there is virtually nothing but a few general comments, I say the majority view should actually be there for there to be enough of it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:48, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I have had a look at the article and the discussion above and I am unable to figure out exactly what it is that Jenhawk777 wants to do that they think would improve he article. It would be much better to be specific about some changes than to start putting in various principles in bold without specific proposals. If the idea is to write "he said she said" on every statement I would oppose that. It is made clear that the theory is fringe, we don't need people making it completely unreadable just because it is fringe. Wikipedia's primary purpose is to describe what is out there - not to fix the world's ills. We should make it clear that fringe is fringe but it should still be properly and readably described. Dmcq (talk) 07:22, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dmcq:, I have articulated what I think the problem is. Line 215-223 Latest revision as of 07:13, 30 March 2018 there is not a single reference to the mainstream response--which was forceful--listed in the 18th-19th century section, or in the early twentieth century, or in modern proponents--which really should be modern views and include them all. There is virtually no mainstream view included in this article from the Gospels section on down. That looks like about 80% of the article. This leads any reader to the conclusion Imaginatorium has erroneously reached: that the argument "goes very quiet when it comes to producing actual evidence" and "the independent historical evidence consists of about three short paragraphs in Roman history books (Josephus et al), written a century after the event, and not actually very convincing. None of this makes CMT true, but it is a very weak counterargument." He has actually proven my point. That's exactly what this article conveys through omission. No one can dispute that surely when the authors themselves state it.
    But I have not been able to get agreement that there is a problem--there seems little point in making detailed suggestions to solve a problem there is no agreement on. I have no desire to do a detailed he said-she said, but for parity to occur and for there to be some genuine substance to "due weight" there does need to be some detailed response somewhere--there is none. There are only a few general statements that "tradition doesn't like it." Even a single paragraph per section would be better than nothing--and might be entirely adequate.
    It is made clear up front the theory is fringe. I agree. The length can be dealt with by making what's there more concise--but really--it's already so long, what difference will a few more paragraphs actually make? Imaginatorium's comment on line 213 is appropriate: I think the fact that this is a minority view should be reflected by a compact article; I agree it should be more compact than it is, but long or short, it should still be neutral.Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Dmcq, a suggestion was made by user [74.138.111.159] that a new article on the history of Cm be created. It would solve the problem of length here by moving the historical material and offer the opportunity for including a more comprehensive view elsewhere. See line 327 Revision as of 05:13, 29 March 2018. I did so. The response was negative. The article is too long--but that's solvable isn't it? Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:29, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    We hear you. Regarding Find me a dif where you did the same, see diff: added info to note; thanks, Jenhawk777! Regarding The problem I have is that there is nothing representing the mainstream view in the rest of the article - the mainstream view on Cmt, or the mainstream-view on the historicity of Jesus etc.? Both are clearly articulated. Regarding "difference of opinion," see WP:CONSENSUS ; see also WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:TRUTH, and WP:SHOUT. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:23, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, and I would add WP:BATTLEGROUND. Being active on the article for less than a week,immediately making numerous insistent demands at length, opening this discussion here and adding not one but two "neutrality disputed" tags to the article.Smeat75 (talk) 13:42, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This is just more misrepresentation. Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You thanked me once at the start? That's your evidence of cooperation? Really? You know I agreed this is not an article on the historicity of Jesus: Latest revision as of 07:13, 30 March 2018. Are editors allowed to reach consensus on neutrality? Isn't it correct that there are some issues where consensus is not the only thing relevant and Wiki policy takes priority? I think it is. Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Keeping Barnett's quote is good. Thank you. See--we can cooperate. diff. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:24, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, that is one. I should have included that. I stand corrected. Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you learn how to put your reference to a diff into your reply properly please. A long and incoherent argument with broken references is not a good start for getting your point across. Dmcq (talk) 11:20, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize for my carelessness. Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Line 335 [15] Line 215-223 [16] It was past my bedtime. :-) Sorry. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Jenhawk above quotes editor Imaginatorium: "the independent historical evidence consists of about three short paragraphs in Roman history books (Josephus et al), written a century after the event, and not actually very convincing". As I responded to this comment on the talk page, the fact is that this three times more evidence than there is for almost any other "ordinary" person (ie not a king or empress or military leader) from antiquity and although a lot of people who know nothing about ancient history may not find it convincing it convinces every historian on earth. There are Christian, Roman and Jewish sources that confirm the existence of Jesus and the crucifixion and multiple independent attestation of an event from antiquity is exceedingly rare. That is the reason why no historian takes this idea seriously and it is really quite simple.(Editor Imaginatorium is not an "author" of the article by the way). Jenhawk also says the problem is "a difference of opinion on what constitutes a "sufficient amount" of majority response in an article on a fringe view... there is virtually nothing but a few general comments" but in fact what constitutes the "overwhelming documentary evidence" referred to by the classics professor I already quoted is stated over and over in the article - Bart D. Ehrman..states that the existence of Jesus and his crucifixion by the Romans is attested to by a wide range of sources including Josephus and Tacitus.....There are three non-Christian sources which are typically used to study and establish the historicity of Jesus—two mentions in Josephus and one mention in the Roman source Tacitus...... According to John Dominic Crossan: That [Jesus] was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact. How many times can you say it? If believers in the Christ myth don't find that convincing or don't want to find that convincing there is not much we can do about it.Smeat75 (talk) 12:44, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize, but I can't find that comment from you. Could you send the link to that dif so I can figure out why I can't find it myself? What people believe is not the issue in my mind. Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    [17] "three short paragraphs in Roman history books" is three times as much evidence for a person's existence than we have for hundreds of personages from antiquity"Smeat75 (talk) 15:10, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    No wonder I couldn't find it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    very unprofessional text under the Afro-Bolivian page under History.

    Am a new person and this is my first time ever using the noticeboards so please forgive any mistakes.

    I noticed while reading a page this paragraph under the History tab of the Afro-Bolivian page:

    "Okay, there is a flaw in this. bogota was really far away from the coast so why the heck would people transport slaves all the way across that land? there is a damn flaw to your logic. [2]"

    the source was just a link to google maps. regardless of whether the person had a point, I really think this type of text violates wikipedia's neutral dialog policy.

    Thank you for your time,

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&oldid=833305934"