Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

Editors can post questions here about whether article content is compliant with the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy, and editors interested in neutrality issues will give their opinion. If you are satisfied with a response, please tag your thread at the top with {{resolved}}.

For general questions about the NPOV policy, please go to the Neutral Point of View talk page.

Guidance on how to make articles conform to Wikipedia's neutrality policy can be found on pages listed in Category:Wikipedia neutral point of view, primarily the policy pages Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ. For a list of articles that have been marked as potentially containing a NPOV problem, see Category:NPOV disputes

If your question is about whether material constitutes original research, please use the No original research noticeboard. For review of whether a source is reliable, go to the Reliable sources noticeboard.

See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Neutrality and Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias whether these would be better venues for the issues you're trying to address.

Click here to post a new topic or discussion. NOTE: This noticeboard is intended for advice concerning specific NPOV issues. Please be concise. Post what is wrong with what content where, what you think it should say, and why. This board is intended for NPOV inquiries of a simple nature. For complex issues, please consider an article RFC or mediation. Be sure to provide evidence--links to sources, passages, etc.

1434: The Year a Magnificent Chinese Fleet Sailed to Italy and Ignited the Renaissance

This article on the history book written by Sir Gavin Menzies is the recipient of continuous numerous biased personal attacks against Gavin Menzies by Dougweller, ClovisPt, Nickm57. Despite many efforts to explain the usage of non-POV and neutrality in this article and following two articles Dougweller, ClovisPt, Nickm57 and several other editors refuse to follow Wikipedia policy on academic neutrality and persist in their personal attacks against Gavin Menzies in an effort to discredit his discoveries.

1421: The Year China Discovered the World

This article on the history book written by Sir Gavin Menzies is the recipient of continuous numerous biased personal attacks against Gavin Menzies by Dougweller, ClovisPt, Nickm57. Despite many efforts to explain the concept non-POV and neutrality Dougweller, ClovisPt, Nickm57 and several other editors refuse to follow Wikipedia policy on academic neutrality and persist in their personal attacks against Gavin Menzies in an effort to discredit his discoveries.

Gavin Menzies

This article is the recipient of continuous numerous biased personal attacks against Gavin Menzies by Dougweller. Despite many efforts to explain the concept non-POV and neutrality Dougweller, ClovisPt, Nickm57 and several other editors refuse to follow Wikipedia policy on academic neutrality and persist in their personal attacks against Gavin Menzies in an effort to discredit his discoveries.

Narayan Dutt Tiwari

In the introductory para the statement 'With his recent sex scandal whole nation is angry and burning like any thing', reflects a more personal point of view. The para on Sex Scandal again contains statements that are non-neutral. Requesting a check on this.

article on Human_rights_in_the_United_States

The article Human rights in the United States needs balancing to increase mention of direct and indirect human rights abuses within the country and decrease the "patriotic" feel of the introduction and other major sections. Please see the Talk page for my suggestionsKikodawgzzz (talk) 02:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

SOFIXIT. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

This is the POV Messageboard, where people are permitted to bring POV issues on articles to the attention of others so that those issues may be dealt with collectively. If everyone was capable of doing everything themselves, and didn't need to do anything in a collectively-sanctioned way, we wouldn't need each other, but we do need each other, and that's how it is. Please butt out if you don't want to help in that regard. I have done plenty of my own work on Wikipedia. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 07:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I offer here an update on the behavior of User talk:72.39.210.23, who immediately engaged in threatening language when I so much as stepped a single toe on the talk page to even suggest that the article might need re-balancing to restore NPOV. When I listed those suggestions, his immediate response was:

No. You won't be doing that. I'm sorry, but you cannot get away with that per NPOV. Anti-capitalist information you want to add? There's very little, if any, anti-capitalist sentiment in the United States. There are no reliable sources (leftist fringe websites do not count) that state capitalism is linked to racism or forms of oppression. Anti-immigrant sentiment is not isolated to the U.S. it is an issue in many western countries, especially in the U.K. however in the U.S. it is generally only an issue of illegal immigration. Illegally entering the United States and staying beyond the legal time frame specified to remain in the country is a violation of federal U.S. law. Anyone who engages in such a violation is a criminal, therefore it is not racist or wrong for people to be opposed to criminal activity. You will not be editing this article to suit your biased views. I'll make sure of that. 72.39.210.23 (talk) 01:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

This is gonna be a rough ride....! :) Any help please? Kikodawgzzz (talk) 06:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You really didn't help yourself when you brought WP:OSE into it and then proceeded to further shoot yourself in the foot by referencing the Black Book of Capitalism. That being said, your "additions" are both laughable and ridiculous. You might have had points with treatment of African Americans and indians in the past, but your penchant for hyperbole as you describe "mass arrests of left-wing dissidents," your insistence that the "current treatment" of African-Americans includes "widespread death and destruction" (last I checked we didn't have a genocide going), and the claim that reservations today are "oases of murder and horrendous poverty" (aren't a lot of them building casinos?) seriously discredit your arguments. What you say has a grain of truth to it to be sure, but you need tone down the rhetoric and actually try to hide your anti-US pov. Soxwon (talk) 07:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

While areas of the article can be improved, it should mention treatment of aboriginals and immigrants including attempts by the US to protect their human rights, the article does appear to show neutrality. The IP's comments are unfortunate because they do not reflect the tone in which the article is written. The Four Deuces (talk) 10:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

@Soxwon, actually, technically (and realistically) speaking, no, I don't need to do that. If I did need to do that, then the article on Human Rights in Cuba would have to tone down its "anti-Cuba rhetoric", which it certainly does not do, and no one actively goes up much against that article over there-- at least not actively. Your other points are textbook fundamentals of stuff spoken by pro-U.S.-system people (patriots or whatever it is you call yourselves; I have no respect for you and never will) and as such, I will ignore them and everything like them when talking about this topic. Separately, as far as The Four Deuces's comments, I would actually argue that it's entirely possible the article needs a simple rearrangement of paragraphs positioning to start, followed by sourcing and re-sourcing of proven accusations of the many horrendous negatives in the US's internal human rights record, which of course have nothing to do with their actions overseas and are thus much less in number than the latter, but do include things like MKULTRA. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 05:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Then instead of throwing out fantastic claims here and screaming bloody injustice, why not actually go to the article and (using reliable sources) actually add the material you claim is so readily available. However, I stand by the fact that we are A) Not jailing left-wing dissidents en masse, B) Actively killing off our Black population. As for the reservations, while what you say may be historically accurate, it is not necessarily true today. And again, the article about Human Rights in Cuba has nothing to do with Human rights in the United States so if continue to use that as a reason to insert material you will most likely be reverted. Soxwon (talk) 05:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

You keep talking like I've already made changes to the article.

And I've been to the rezzes. Have you? No. So STFU. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 06:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm addressing the changes you've insisted need to be made. And actually, yes, I've visited Indian Reservations, please refrain from uncivil comments like STFU. Soxwon (talk) 17:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

They do need to be made. That's why I've posted the thing here as something to be worked on. Do you have a problem with the probability that the democratic process when applied to this article might result in quite a bit of the more unsavory aspects of internal US history coming out? Too bad. That's what happens when a country behaves as the US has. Gotta be able to tolerate that "freedom and democracy" shticks are gonna get balanced with other truths and perhaps even outweighed by those other truths. That's ultimately what the Soviet Union had to do, what Europe's imperial powers had to do, and the US is no different. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 20:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I await these so called truths that you have yet to produce. Soxwon (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

As do I. I've been following this thread and I've yet to see a reliably sourced claim to back up the hyperbole I've been reading. I don't mind debating issues & facts, but as this isn't a freshman Philosophy course I won't debate rhetoric. Rapier1 (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

(←) I am curious to know why the Black Book of Communism is considered by many to be a WP:RS while the Black Book of Capitalism is not. Simonm223 (talk) 22:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Then I would suggest going to WP:RS and inquiring. Soxwon (talk) 00:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It is, of course, and very expected, often the position of defenders of capitalism and imperialism that "first, nothing is wrong", and then to go from there in order that the "burden of proof" then supposedly be shifted on to the left-wing critics — which is very convenient for those defenders to do. If you can claim innocence or relative innocence despite the truth, despite those repeated transgressions of all sorts of stripes (from reservations to murder of activists in the sixties to mind control in the fifties exposed in the seventies etc etc) that have cost and/or ruined millions of lives worldwide and tens of thousands of lives internally over the past 50 years alone, you wind up with a smugness among those defenders of the system that is self-congratulatory and self-sustaining. It's like repeatedly stating that evolution has not won over creationism or that global warming doesn't exist, no matter what papers and facts shoved in that person's direction constantly, over and over and over, show creationism as bunk and global warming as actively existent. There was a point in human history where people were entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts, and then somewhere along the line the people making up their own facts began to cry angrily about their "right" to believe those new facts, and also the "right" to propagate them. All I have to say to that is "pfffffff." Kikodawgzzz (talk) 01:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

USCCB Comment

"Quote:"

In 2007, Office director Harry Forbes was sharply criticized for giving a too favorable rating on the Golden Compass movie, which strongly attacks the Church's teaching and Magisterium.

"End Quote"

Is this a quote from a particular article or person? The way it is worded now states as a fact that The Golden Compass is anti-christian. From what I understand most people, including myself, believe that this statement is of an opinion, rather than fact - and that there are also many who would disagree. If this is a quote, it should be presented as such, with citations. Otherwise, it should be removed.

Also, I would recomend changing "the Golden Compass movie" to "the movie The Golden Compass," as it is a title and should be written and italicised properly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Conference_of_Catholic_Bishops'_Office_for_Film_and_Broadcasting

Sexual abuse scandal in Selwyn House School - appropriately named?

Is this article's title appropriate NPOV? How do you define "scandal"? If it is not, can a user move it to an appropriately titled article space? Thanks! (As a non-registered user, I could not start a talk page to bring my concerns there.)207.69.137.27 (talk) 01:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not think it is appropriately named and that it would be more appropriate to include the information in the main Selwyn House article. I had set up a discussion thread at the article's talk page. The Four Deuces (talk) 07:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the title fits perfectly with the existing category about school sex abuse scandals. Many of these types of events involve a large number of people over an extended period of time, with multiple arrests, inquiries and trials, therefore it is more than appropriate to refer to it as an abuse scandal of sexual nature. Besides, there are very similar article titles like this that were written for Catholic sex abuse cases, such as the sexual abuse scandal in Boston archdiocese for example. ADM (talk) 01:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I have nominated the article for deletion.[1] The Four Deuces (talk) 08:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures

Edits are being made to advocate or hide a position here and removing relevant material. And actually seems to have engaged in retributive edits on other pages I have touched.

--Outsider10 (talk) 12:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Outsider10 has accused me of non-neutral editing at this article. It is not entirely clear what their point is, however the user's initial edits of the article in question involved removal of statements from the article that were supportive of the article's subject. Please see Talk:New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures#Kingdom Interlinear.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes I did remove those. Anyone who works with linguistics will know that one language doesn't translate precisely to another language. When arguments that language can be translated precisely are made they should be taken with a grain of salt. Regardless that tidbit has very little to do with your removal of cited information and is not much more than a red herring which I did not attempt to propagate. They were afterall cited sources. I was certainly in error to remove them. As have you been to remove other cited sources and to attempt to redefine things for sake of your own concept of relevancy.

--Outsider10 (talk) 13:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

You've demonstrated that there is little point in direct discussion with you. I will await comment from third parties both at the NWT request for comment, and at this noticeboard.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Both of you should add some difs demonstrating your points. It will make it easier for third parties to understand the timeline of events. Sifaka ^talk 22:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

After User:Glenn L removed a dissimilar translation from the list of existing renderings similar to the NWT, User:Outsider10 created a separate list, which was useful as a method of contrast, but not useful in the manner the user proposed, including vague criteria for inclusion: "Other notable; for comparison, contrast or other usage, English translations". The user's inclusion of the JW's Kingdom Interlinear Translation in the new list was inappropriate as an item contrasting with the second list, because 1) it is a word-for-word translation of Westcott and Hort's source, not the NWT's actual translation (which the KIT uses), and 2) it implies that the KIT does not agree with the NWT's rendering. (The user's previous edits in the article demonstrate removal of information supporting the NWT's rendering[2][3][4][5] and adding information sources detracting from it,[6][7][8][9][10](where the KIT is included in a list of translations not supporting the NWT)[11] but never the other way around, suggesting there may be an ulterior motive for listing the KIT's rendering among translations that do not support the NWT. The user's edits to the article not included here are the editor's reverts to their preferred list.) In addition to User:Glenn L, User:Sungmanitu also objected to the proposed changes.[12] Talk:New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures#Kingdom Interlinear, provides chronological attempts at discussing with User:Outsider10.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Waterboarding

Regarding the first sentence of the article: It says "Waterboarding is a method of torture..." There has been much debate as to whether or not this is neutral. The current sentence is sourced by a "political dictionary" that was found from a google books search for "waterboarding torture and death" (it can still be seen in the link for the reference). I propose to change this to the Merriam-Webster's dictionary definition, in the interest of neutrality, but this is seeing resistance on the talk page for god knows what reason. The Merriam-Webster definition says that it is an "Interrogation technique" instead of "method of torture". The first sentence essentially defines the word in a way that has proved to be very controversial (as can be seen on the talk page), without even using a neutral dictionary definition. Is it in the best interest of neutrality to define waterboarding as "torture", or is it better to define it as an "interrogation technique", as is in the dictionary, and discuss the different viewpoints of whether or not it is torture in the rest of the article? Swarm^Talk 04:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

This has been raise previously in this noticeboard here and here. Most editors were of the opinion then that the lead as it stand now is in keeping with the NPOV policy. There is no controversy among the reliable sources. The majority view among RS is that waterboarding is a form of torture and the minority/fringe view is that it is not. Notwithstanding the proportionality clause of the NPOV, the minority view is discussed in over 2/3 of the article. Sadly the Merriam-Webster's dictionary definition is incomplete by omitting the term torture. The other 188 RS explicitly define it as torture. So to summarise as I last counted 188 RS state categorically that it is torture. 6 RS that is is not and the Merriam-Webster's dictionary definition is neutral but omits the term torture. Given this facts I still believe that the lead as "Waterboarding is a form/method of torture" is in keeping with the NPOV policy.--LexCorp (talk) 04:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, but:

1. I'm not disputing the fact that waterboarding is widely considered torture, nor am I disputing the reliability of any of the sources
2. Neither of the previous discussions are helpful in this manner
3. You can't dispute a dictionary definition
4. You are heavily involved in this debate and have a clear opinion. That is unhelpful to the purpose of this noticeboard. If you want to debate this, please keep it on the talk page of the article. I'm looking for outside advice from uninvolved users. Swarm^Talk 05:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I contributed to this noticeboard long before involving myself with the waterboarding article. In fact I came to known of the waterboarding issue because a previous post here on this board. I hold no involvement in the waterboarding article other that on NPOV matters. So in that sense I am an outside advice from this very noticeboard no less. Anyway lets see what other editors have to say on the matter.--LexCorp (talk) 06:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe the phrasing is neutral: it's taking a side on a hotly contested issue. NPR and the US government are not "fringe" sources. While I view waterboarding as torture, that I view it as such does not make my point of view neutral. Go with the dictionary, state that it's widely viewed to be torture, and note the controversy over that classification. THF (talk) 06:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments and questions:

• WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPoV aren't about making minority positions incorrect ex definitione. The fact that only a small minority dispute something isn't sufficient basis to define it as fact (though matters for which there is sufficient basis may be disputed by minorities).
• Much of the debate over whether waterboarding is “torture” is one where the legal definition of “torture” is in dispute.
• The relevant lay definition is “the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure”. Do “reliable” sources report that the sensation of drowning includes intense pain? Does any “reliable” source dispute this?

—SlamDiego_←T 20:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

IRCT Senior Medical Consultant and former member of the UN Committee Against Torture is one of the most relevant RS at [13] stating:

“It’s a clear-cut case: Waterboarding can without any reservation be labelled as torture”, says Prof. Sørensen. “It fulfils all of the four central criteria that according to the United Nations Convention against Torture (UNCAT) defines an act of torture.” He explains:

“First, when water is forced into your lungs in this fashion, in addition to the pain you are likely to experience an immediate and extreme fear of death. You may even suffer a heart attack from the stress or damage to the lungs and brain from inhalation of water and oxygen deprivation. In other words there is no doubt that waterboarding causes severe physical and/or mental suffering – one central element in the UNCAT’s definition of torture”.

There are a few more RS that state that the method causes pain. Also totally unrelated you can read many accounts online of near-drowning experiences where the common factor is intense chest pain. Many people state this to be the worst pain they had felt in their lives.--LexCorp (talk) 21:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

One comment here, namely that dictionaries aren't in my opinion WP:RS. WP:RS are preferably secondary sources, whereas dictionaries are, at best, tertiary ones. If there are almost 200 WP:RS (I haven't checked them) saying it's torture and only a handful saying it's not, then the case appears to me very clead indeed: as far as Wikipedia is concerned, it's torture. Wording in the body of the article saying it is torture, but this is disputed by some would be OK. The "not torture" view should not be given much space in the article based on that breakdown of sources. --Dailycare (talk) 21:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

This page maintains (no sure how uptodate it is) a list of RS with comments by editors as to their merits. If you go to the Waterboarding article you will find that about 2/3 is dedicated to the controversy.--LexCorp (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The UN source here is a good one. But please keep in mind that we're not arguing the Truth of waterboarding being torture, so your reference to “Many people” gets us a bit off track.

Now, do we have any “reliable” sources that dispute the claim that waterboarding causes intense pain? —SlamDiego_←T 23:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Mu. You're asking the wrong question and attempting original research and synthesis. "Torture" is a term of legal art whose parameters are the subject of controversy, and it's inappropriate to try to gerrymander the lay version of the term to provide a definitive encyclopedic answer to the controversy of whether waterboarding fits within that term. Wikipedia is supposed to report, rather than decide. If your reliably-sourced arguments are as strong as you believe, and the other side's arguments are as weak as you believe, then no harm will be done to any intelligent reader who reads an article on the subject that complies with NPOV and fairly represents the controversy. Again, the USA government and NPR are not "fringe" sources, so there is a real debate here. THF (talk) 02:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The US government has a huge conflict of interest in denying that it's torture. Its reliability is suspect in this case. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I dispute that the US government has a conflict of interest (the actual waterboarding took place after the internal determination that it was not torture, and stopped when that internal determination changed), but even if it did, you prove my point. There is a dispute, and the neutral point of view acknowledges all of the major positions without taking sides. THF (talk) 08:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

THF, The issue of the legal definition is here entirely a red herring. The word “torture” lives mostly outside of legal discourse. (And the present status of the article “Torture” is most unfortunate.) The article on waterboarding should discuss the legal status, and can address the issue of whether it meets the legal definition, but the article is not principally on matters of law, and the relevant definition is not draw from law books. —SlamDiego_←T 04:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not a red herring in the slightest. It's the entire crux of the controversy. THF (talk) 08:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It's the entire crux of the legal controversy. But most people are more immediately concerned over whether waterboarding is torture than whether the law would use the word “torture” to describe it. If waterboarding causes intense pain, but the language of the law would not identify with the word “torture”, this would mean that it were legally permitted torture. (One of the consequences of confusing matters of law described in the language of law with matters of fact described with ordinary English is that lawyers who answered questions of law are condemned as if they'd said something very different from what they had.) —SlamDiego_←T 08:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The claim that the dictionary is not a reliable source is absolutely absurd. When defining a word, the definition should not be inferred based on the number of sources that support the statement, but actually taken from a dictionary. The dictionary, of course, shouldn't be used to cite entire sections, but it is absolutely valid when simply defining a term in a single purpose sentence. Not using the dictionary definition, instead favoring a definition based only on the sources for the body of the article is nothing short of synthesis. Swarm^(Talk) 02:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Swarm, as I read your remarks, you are trying for nothing more than wording that doesn't guide the reader towards a value judgment; and I for one appreciate the predisposition that would drive your effort. But consider the article “Torture” itself. How could we equivalently neutralize it? I think that the difficulty in answering that question may speak to an underlying problem with the sort of neutralization that you're seeking here. I quite agree that dictionaries are “reliable” sources for aspects of this article. I think that, if we look at the definition of “torture”, then what remains is simply whether there is sufficient, unchallenged support in “reliable” sources for the notion that waterboarding causes extreme pain, that it may be treated as something like a plain fact that waterboarding is torture. I believe that, if you wish to argue against declaring waterboarding to be torture in the lede (or elsewhere), then you should present reliable sources that argue that it is not intensely painful. —SlamDiego_←T 04:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

How could we equivalently neutralize torture? You start with the dictionary definition, and then you have sections going through various legal definitions: how it's defined by the Geneva Conventions (discussing disputes over the scope of the definition there), how it's defined by US law (discussing changes in US law over time), other major sources of law, etc. The torture article shouldn't imply there's a single agreed-upon definition, and if it does, it violates WP:NPOV. THF (talk) 08:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you propose to remove the word “torture” from the article “Torture”? The article on waterboarding can explain legal language, but its meta-language is English, and in English “torture” includes the infliction of intense pain to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure. Regardless of what the language of the law may say, if the “reliable” sources somehow all agree that waterboarding causes intense pain, then en.wikipedia.org can baldly call it “torture” except when discussing legalese. —SlamDiego_←T 08:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't propose to remove the word “torture” from the article “Torture”, and no reasonable reading of my comment could suggest that I did. It's been explained to you multiple times why your proposed approach violates WP:SYN and WP:NPOV, but you seem not to want to address those arguments and instead just repeat the argument you've already made that's been refuted. That's not fruitful discussion. You can have the WP:LASTWORD since it seems to mean so much to you. THF (talk) 09:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Your comment implied that you proposed to remove the word “torture” from the article “Torture”, or that you'd missed the fact that repulsive things cannot be clearly described and discussed without causing repulsion, or that you were entangled in a confusion of legal language with the language of en.wikipedia.org. What I propose doesn't involve violating any part of WP:OR. What I propose is that legal language not be confused with the language in which Wikipedia itself is written, and that “reliable” sources be consulted as to whether waterboarding causes intense pain. If they are in remarkable agreement that it does, then those who would use the word “torture” are on solid ground; if they are not in agreement, then Swarm or some other editor should cite the dissenting “reliable” sources, and then the article should not declare it to be torture. Evidently, you believe that those who are not simply for your position are simply against it, as you've not discerned that I haven't said that the word “torture” should be used (nor that it should not be used). —SlamDiego_←T 09:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

SlamDiego, you've made your point. Please stop repeating it, and let others contribute. THF (talk) 08:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that there's a class of editors who are to comment once, and then depart, which includes me, and then another class who are more free to continue, which includes you. —SlamDiego_←T 08:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

You have me completely wrong, by the way. I’m not proposing we remove the word “torture” from the article. I’m not proposing that based on the dictionary definition, it shouldn’t ever be called torture. I’m not proposing to use the dictionary definition to dispute the many reliable sources that call it torture. The only thing I suggested was that in one sentence, the sentence that defines the word, we should use the dictionary definition. The lead goes into great detail that it is widely considered torture. The body of the article goes into even more detail. I don’t have a personal belief that it isn’t torture. I don’t want to promote the opinion that it is not torture. Using the dictionary definition of the word is not going to mislead anyone. The dictionary does not take the viewpoint that it is not torture. It’s completely neutral. It is widely considered to be torture by many sources, but this is also disputed by a large number of people. You can't define a word based on legal opinions from reliable sources. You can't come to the conclusion that the opinion of many reliable sources is neutral to define it as such in an encyclopedia. It's clear to me -- the most neutral way to define a word is to use the freaking dictionary! Swarm^(Talk) 17:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that you would have us remove the word “torture” altogether from either article, and I certainly wasn't taking you as seeking to deny that it were torture; I was taking you to want it removed from the opening sentence of “Waterboarding”, and to want references to it couched always as opinion, regardless of what your opinion might be. (Again, I simply read you as “trying for nothing more than wording that doesn't guide the reader towards a value judgment”.) And my points are: (1) that the desire to avoid repulsive description can be taken too far; (2) if you want the matter presented as opinion, then you need to present alternate opinion; (3) that legal definitions are not principally relevant; and (4) that, given the relevant meaning of “torture”, if no “reliable” source denies that waterboarding causes intense pain, then the lede can fairly refer to it as torture. I am not suggesting that you want or must prove that it does not cause intense pain; I am suggesting that you either identify “reliable” sources which claim that it does not, or accept the wording of prior local consensus. —SlamDiego_←T 23:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:You_are_probably_not_a_lexicologist_or_a_lexicographer expressly recommends against using Websters in this case:Dictionaries are extremely conservative in what they recognize, and are descriptive of an existing definition, not creators of it. More immediate sources, like books, academic writings, or others are often more direct and accurate, especially when they are responsible for the definition in the first place. Stephen Colbert is a much better source for a definition of truthiness than Webster's. That pretty plainly says not to use Websters in cases where better sources for the definition are readily available, such as from the UNCAT or the like. RTRimmel (talk) 18:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I can imagine few things more ill-advised than letting states or super-states entities such as the UN determine our use of terms drawn from natural language. —SlamDiego_←T 23:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Above is an example of a constructive edit, the scarcasm is designed to improve the overall tone of the debate. More seriously, per lexicologist, are any of the 188 sources better than the dictionary? If so Swarm may have a case, but I doubt it, further the Webster's definition was missing more than a bit of critical information concerning waterboarding last time I checked. If we use a definition from a dictionary, could we at least use one that actually describes waterboarding as it is commonly performed? 74.219.88.102 (talk) 00:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I was not engaged in any sarcasm whatsoever; I am perfectly sincere. Most of us are aware of the pitfalls of allowing the government of any given nation to redefine a word such as “torture”, and the UN is entirely the creature of such entities. Before you again infer sarcasm, please assume good faith unless there is no other explanation. —SlamDiego_←T 04:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd argue that having a common treaty that clearly spells out a very broad definition of torture that was well supported by a majority of world governments would be a good object to reference against, but YMMV. What would you prefer in this instance? The side debating that its not torture or an interrogation technique are arguing using 'natural language' so given the ability to interpret that definition for your own ends, broadly accepted international definitions should be satisfactory. RTRimmel (talk) 12:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I've repeatedly cited what I think is the appropriate definition: “the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure”. It is from an authoritative attempt to define words in the language in which this encyclopedia is purportedly written. And the question of whether waterboarding is torture turns entirely around whether it causes intense pain (as there is no reasonable doubt that it is used to punish, to coerce, or to afford sadistic pleasure), which is a medical question. While there may be some people using natural language to argue that it is not torture, what I have seen is only argument by reference to legal definition. The UN is not a gathering of Wise Men; it is a congress of states; and its definitions are to settle questions of international law, which is not the proper primary concern of the article or of discussion of torture more generally. —SlamDiego_←T 19:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, as a newcomer coming into this debate, it looks like everyone is trying to solve the issue here, rather than determine how the issue should be explained in the article. Let me attempt to save everyone a lot of time with the following conclusion (admittedly, it is an opinion, so feel free to accuse me of original research if you want...): We will not answer the question as to whether or not waterboarding is torture on Wikipedia, nor should we attempt to do so. The Wikipedia project is designed to catalogue and preserve knowledge and make it accessable to all. We are not here to solve the problems of the world. Simply state that there is a heated debate as to whether or not waterboarding is considered torture, cite the opposing sources, and leave it at that. My 2 1/2 cents... Rapier1 (talk) 03:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

That strategy is prone to a number of pitfalls. For example, outside the scientific community Evolution is a hotly debated topic, inside of the scientific community there is no serious debate at all. Do we reflect that in the lead? 9/11 has a significant number of theories involving governmental plots and the like, do we lead off with that, do we remove it based on not solving the debate here? There are, unfortunately, many cases where despite all expert sources saying one thing, we have another group saying another and therefor we must follow policy to figure out what to do. In such cases, WP:NPOV states pretty clearly to go what the, in this case, overwhelming majority of WP:RS state. That is unfortunately the kicker, something like 3% of the waterboarding sources debated if its always torture and the rest all say it always is. Given WP:Undue it makes little sense to bow to the 3%, especially when those 3% are locked into a specific subset of one specific nationality and the 97% reflects a broad world wide consensus. The problem ultimately is that there really isn't much of a debate about water boarding status, so inflating that status of it to some sort of heated debate is against wikipedia's mission statement. RTRimmel (talk) 12:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not my intention to debate numbers with you. Simply allow me to state that if the numbers were as conclusive as you believe there would be no debate on the issue, so you may want to dig a little deeper. Again, you are attempting to solve the issue of defining waterboarding as torture one way or the other. I repeat: That is not our purpose here. Yes, Wikipedia does not put forth fringe arguments, but in cases where there is massive and heated debate such as; abortion being murder, man-made climate change, evolution v. creationism, and defining waterboarding as torture (along with many others) it is not the purpose of the Project to put forth one opinion or the other. Define the debate, and leave it for the reader to draw their own conclusion. Rapier1 (talk) 16:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem with debating the numbers is that there are hundreds of sources in the article and they say at a ratio of 188 to 6 that waterboarding is torture. Perhaps you'd like to provide some new sources to bolster the concept that there is a debate. Wikipedia policy is pretty clear here, we have WP:GEVAL and WP:Weight. Neither support 'defining the debate' when it is this lopsided. RTRimmel (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you're not familiar with the debate, but this isn't what this thread is about. There are many notable people with the opinion that waterboarding is not torture. WP:WEIGHT and WP:GEVAL are not "broken" by using the dictionary definition. We also have WP:NPOV, by the way, and I'm pretty sure it says something about being neutral. Defining a word just because it's a majority view is absolutely not neutral. You define a word based on what it is called in the dictionary. Someone above completely missed the point of the essay, but Wikipedia:You are probably not a lexicologist or a lexicographer puts it nicely: "The dictionary is a better source than you are." Swarm^(Talk) 01:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Strange, I'm sorry that you are trying to place WP:Undue on the limited number of sources available on the Waterboarding article to support your viewpoint when they rank at 3% of available sources. Are we to understand that your argument is that since 3% of sources and websters say otherwise, we are to ignore the 97% of sources that say that waterboarding is torture? The Webster's definition is, unfortunatly, not as accurate as many of the definitions of waterboarding on the page and as such, its use is certainly a WP:GEVAL violation. It doesn't even match up with the description of the act very well. If you want to use a definition, you may want to find one that accuratly repersents what the process is. Waterboarding is an interrogation technique in which water is forced into a detainee's mouth and nose so as to induce the sensation of drowning does not mention the requirement that the head be inclined or that the person needs to be restrained, nor that its a form of torture. Given, that Wikipedia:You are probably not a lexicologist or a lexicographer states not to use a dictionary definition in this case, I don't see your argument here. WP:GEVAL and WP:Weight are both part of WP:NPOV policy. You may want to read the entire thing rather than summing it down to 'its all about neutrality', much like summing your argument about the lexicon essay down to 'use the dictionary definition,' which is an essay and not policy anyway.

RTRimmel (talk) 13:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, are you trying to say waterboarding isn't an interrogation method? Are you trying to say the dictionary definition is incorrect because it doesn't use the word "torture"?

Taking the word "torture" out of one sentence, to match the actual definition is certainly not undue weight. Writing multiple paragraphs about the flat earth theory in the earth article is undue weight. Using a dictionary definition is not overly-emphasizing one side of a viewpoint, nor is it asserting the claim that "waterboarding is not torture". It doesn't say it is, it doesn't say it isn't. It's a neutral definition.

You seem not to understand why it's defined as torture in this article in the first place. It's doesn't say "Waterboarding is a method of torture" because the majority of the reliable sources say it is. It's defined that way because someone did a google search for "waterboarding torture and death", and came up with a political dictionary that matched the search. Is that your idea of neutrality? Wikipedia isn't here to say "waterboarding is torture", just like it's not here to say "waterboarding is not torture". Put it this way: Earth does not begin with "Earth (or the Earth) is a round planet" just because the majority of reliable sources (of course) accept the fact that the earth is round. It just says Earth (or the Earth) is the third planet from the Sun. The sentence in question is only there to DEFINE the word. What don't you get? Swarm^(Talk) 20:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I now fear that an attempt will be made to change “Earth” to begin “Earth is a non-flat planet…”. —SlamDiego_←T 21:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

However, I would point-out to Swarm that if a planet were found between Sol and that which we now call “Mercury”, we wouldn't start calling Venus “the Earth”. We really define Earth in terms of what we inhabit. The reason that it is appropriate for the lede to claim “Earth is the third planet from the Sun” is because the propositions that it is third planet is sufficiently well sourced (though I don't know that sources are cited in the article for that point). The question for waterboarding is whether it is sufficiently well sourced that it causes intense pain. Again, if you wish to establish reasonable doubt that waterboarding is torture, then present some “reliable” sources that argue that it does not cause intense pain. —SlamDiego_←T 23:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

SlamDiego, I don't know how many times you're going to make me say it. I don't wish to establish "doubt" that waterboarding is torture. I don't wish to give the impression that it isn't torture in the article. You act as if I'm proposing the word "torture" not be used in the article. As if I'm trying to remove all the reliable sources that claim it is torture. I'm simply proposing we use the dictionary definition (damn, did you really skip over this part the 10 times I said it already?) in the sentence that defines the word. Swarm^(Talk) 03:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how many times that you are going to say it either, but the only reason that you are saying it is because you aren't attending to what I am actually saying. I am not suggesting that you want to endorse or defend or even in the least way mitigate waterboarding. But if there is no doubt that waterboarding is torture, then calling it torture in the opening sentence is no different from calling the Earth the third planet from Sol. You literally need to deal with that, one way or another. Stop telling me that you don't have the motive that I've never thought or said you to have. Attend to the logic. If you can produce the relevant “reliable” source, then I'm all for you here. Otherwise, your clearly well-intentioned efforts are mistaken. —SlamDiego_←T 04:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the definition that is currently used on the page was chosen because it matched 97% of the reliable sources on the page and was deemed an acceptable definition. You see, different dictionaries define different words differently, especially controvertial ones. Websters, as seen in the archive, was debated and ultimatly shot down under the same criteria by a concensus of editors. Its unfortunate that you disagree with the critically aclaimed dictionary that was chosen, but as you've freqently mentioned Wikipedia:You are probably not a lexicologist or a lexicographer and the respected author of that book, William Safire, actually is. And Safire's Political Dictionary from the Oxford press had waterboarding in it for longer than Webster's recent addition of the word. So your argument has changed from use the definition to use the definition that you like? I prefer look to the definitions and take the one that most closly resembles the majority of reliable sources, especially when 97% of them support the definition. RTRimmel (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Question: What are we debating here? Seriously. Waterboarding is an interrogation technique that causes the sensation of drowning in people. Can that be defined as torture? Of course it can! However, is waterboarding defined under US Law as torture according to USC Section 2340A? There has not been a legal decision made on this point. Are we debating that because waterboarding makes you feel like you are going to drown it's torture, or are we trying to assert that anybody who does it is violating the law? This is a very important point, and is one of the reasons I suggest simply defining the debate. If Wikipedia is to assert that waterboarding is in violation of USC Section 2340A, then we are accusing people of a crime in a public forum. That is NOT cool people. You have the right to speak your opinion, but if a group tries to claim that because several third-party sources that are protected by the First Amendment have printed similar opinions, they can use those printed opinions to accuse others of violating the law in a public forum (when there is in fact no LEGAL evidence of this), then it is entirely possible that the source could be held liable for that. Define the debate, don't get involved in the legalities! Rapier1 (talk) 00:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I reïterate that whether it is torture under law is not the proper principal issue. The language of law defines things differently. Identifying something as torture in the lede is not the same thing as saying that waterboarding meets any legal test. —SlamDiego_←T 00:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Actually, we are following the 97% of the sources that indicate that Waterboarding is torture. As one of torture's primary uses is interrogation, waterboardings use as an interrogation technique is obvious. Its use for coersion, blackmail, punishment etc are also common uses of torture. The debate is over waterboarding's classification as a form of torture in the United States of America only and from a certain political group only. And in every recorded case of waterboarding brought to the US legal system, Waterboarding has always been declared torture. The last case resolved in Texas quite plainly called it torture and Governer of Texas elected not to pardon those torturers. RTRimmel (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
      • By your previous account, it was 97% of the sources cited in the article. Unfortunately, with a hot-button issue, this is especially unlikely to be 97% of a representative sample of the literature. I suggest that the “97%” figure not be invoked. —SlamDiego_←T 22:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Whether or not waterboarding is torture is not the question. Please stay on topic. If you've gotten off track, the question is whether it's in the best interest of neutrality to use the dictionary wording in the sentence that defines waterboarding (nothing more). The current sentence was inserted awhile back after someone searched waterboarding torture and death on google books and came up with a political dictionary that matched the source. I hold that it would be more neutral to use the Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition. Swarm^(Talk) 05:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPoV certainly doesn't require or advocate daintiness, evasion, or euphemism, amd Wikipedia seeks to be an encyclopædia rather than a dictionary. If there is no doubt amongst “reliable” sources that waterboarding is torture (as defined for natural language) then, given the fact that most concern is focussed on it as an alleged form of torture in recent use, the article may as well tell the reader right off that waterboarding is torture. Absenting some editor citing a “reliable” source that asserts that waterboarding does not cause extreme pain, it is time to close this discussion. —SlamDiego_←T 06:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, you've answered the question. Since reliable sources express doubt, then there is a controversy, and the lead should identify the controversy rather than take sides in it. Your insistence that Wikipedia side with your point of view on the matter violates WP:NPOV. THF (talk) 01:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Even if the sentence told the reader that waterboarding does not cause extreme pain, that would be as bad as saying it is torture. This type of thing can be addressed outside of the sentence in question. Swarm^(Talk) 05:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, the debate, such that it is, is framed in such a manner as "Waterboarding is a form of torture" or "Waterboarding is a form of interrogation" so calling it interrogation is siding with one of the two viewpoints, just the one with far fewer WP:RS to back it up. Googling 'defintion of waterboarding' has every definition of waterboarding over the webster's declaring it torture and afterwards if they actully define the term at all so 'waterboarding torture and death' seems to be an exageration at best. Of the 6 or 7 definitions I've seen, all are more reliable than websters in terms of matching the sources on the page so at minimum websters should specifically be avoided due to obvious inaccuracies when there are more accurate definitions readily available. The main problem is everything else in the sentence, Websters waterboarding ("an interrogation technique in which water is forced into a detainee's mouth and nose so as to induce the sensation of drowning") that would replace the current wikipedia lead of ("is a method of torture that consists of immobilizing the victim on his or her back with the head inclined downwards, and then pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages, causing the captive to believe he or she is dying.") is at best a very poor replacement that a quick glance at the lede, let alone the whole article, contradicts or shows an obvious lack of understanding of waterboarding. (waterboarding is used for punishment, coersion, blackmail, and interrogation, IE all the usual applications of torture, the victem must be restrained, the head must be inclined, etc) Its the equivilent of defining a hammer as "a blunt object that hits stuff". It omits so much information as to be useless. RTRimmel (talk) 05:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. Whether or not waterboarding is torture is disputed. Whether or not waterboarding is an interrogation method is not at all. "Waterboarding is an interrogation method" is simply fact. Swarm^(Talk) 06:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, Waterboarding is used just as commonly for coercion, blackmail or simple punishment. So are you saying that none of the other common uses are as important as interrogation? "Waterboarding is a coercion technique" is just as accurate as saying its an interrogation method, or "waterboarding is a method of punishing prisioners who refuse to cooperate" as some of the secret legal memos from the Bush administration suggest? Both of those are 'facts' as well, so which one do we use, all are just as well supported as the interrogation claim and all fall under common uses of torture so your simple argument that a source that says its torture support that waterboarding is interrogation, also supports it being any of the other common uses of torture. If we bother with "Wateboarding is a technique used for interrogation, coercion, blackmail and punishment of prisioners involving..." why not just call it torture and be done with it? 151.213.210.214 (talk) 12:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

No reason not to include that in the article. However, again, this is the sentence that defines waterboarding. That's why we're talking about dictionary definitions. Swarm^(Talk) 19:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Ya, but if were going to define waterboarding, why not try to be accurate and use an accurate definition as opposed to the Webster's definition? RTRimmel (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The Webster definition is perfectly accurate. A proper definition, as such, carries no inessential detail. Waterboarding would not cease to be be waterboarding were it proved not to cause intense pain, hence torture is not intrinsic to its true definition. However, Wikipedia is an encyclopædia, rather than a dictionary, and it needn't begin with a proper definition; rather, it may begin by presenting a encapsulation which goes beyond definition and into wider fact. —SlamDiego_←T 21:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)\

However, given the WP:RS in the article, it is missing essential detail, and therefor is a poor definition. IE if you performed waterboarding per webster's definition... it would not be waterboarding. Waterboarding, when correctly performed, holds the victem in a state similar to drowning causing an immenent fear of death which is a form of torture. It would be akin to describing Striking without including that physical contact is required. Waterboarding requires a sensation of drowning to work. RTRimmel (talk) 00:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Do not confuse that which is essential to a concept with that which is essential to whatever rôle the concept may play in a larger structure. It may be that the issue of waterboarding causing intense pain is essential to the article; it is not essential to the definition of “waterboarding”. It is not a tautology to claim that waterboarding causes intense pain, whereas it is a tautology that striking entails physical contact. Your analogy is thus utterly wrong-headed. —SlamDiego_←T 01:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I suppose you can misuse logic just like the rest of us. The definition of striking is a seperate concept from the word striking, saying striking requires physical contact is obviously a tautological device as striking means to make physical contact with an object, however the definition of to strike is a seperate concept that must include that the object struck must be a person or thing, go check out websters they have a very good definition of to strike. Likewise, waterboarding is a torture technique and that it causes intense pain is a requirement for it as otherwise waterboarding is little more than placing someone on a slanted surface and pouring water on them. Breathing requires the inhallation of air, should you attempt to breath in a vacum you cannot. You cannot waterboard without the sensation of drowing. Thus the infliction of pain is critical to the definition. RTRimmel (talk) 05:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not abusing logic, and you're confusing words with concepts as well as essentials with facts. And you are leaping from “the sensation of drowning” to infliction of intense pain. Indeed I could not breathe in vacuum, but we are discussing the sensation of drowning, which has at some times and places been believed to be a humane way of killing people. Experience or expert testimony might perhaps establish that it is instead a ghastly way of killing people; definition does not. —SlamDiego_←T 05:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

break no. 2

Swarm— It is only merely “as bad”, rather than worse, to claim in the lede (or anywhere else) that waterboarding does not cause extreme pain if there is a “reliable” source that says that it does not. So far, all of the convtroverting sources presented have concerned legality rather than medicine. Again, absenting a controverting “reliable” source on the claim that it causes extreme pain, it is perfectly fine to encapsulate the assertion that it is torture in the opening sentence. —SlamDiego_←T 22:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but it does not change the fact that it would be more neutral to use a neutral dictionary definition that doesn't take sides one way or another. I don't know why you think we need a reliable source that states that it isn't legally torture. Swarm^(Talk) 00:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I go back to your own example of “Earth”. That article declares at its outset that the Earth is the third planet from the sun, not-withstanding that it was once seriously hypothesized that there was a planet within the orbit of Mercury. So long as “reliable” sources entertained that hypothesis, it would violate WP:NPoV to declared the Earth to be the third planet; but, absenting such sources, it doesn't violate WP:NPoV to declare that the Earth is the third planet. If it were truly somehow a violation of WP:NPoV to declare waterboarding to be torture in the lede, then it would be a violation to do so anywhere in the article; likewise, if it is not a violation to do it elsewhere, then it is not a violation to do so in the lede. “The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article.” If the article can and does declared that waterboarding cuases intense pain, then not only is the article not more neutral for moving that from the lede; it runs against one of the guidelines. —SlamDiego_←T 01:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

If Wikipedia were being written at a time when Vulcan was not a fringe theory, then, yes, it would be a problem to call Earth the third planet unambiguously. Similarly, the NPOV of the phlogiston article looked a lot different back in the 1700s version of Wikipedia. I fail to see why you're wasting space on this--especially since the debate over whether waterboarding is torture is not a scientific question. THF (talk) 02:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Wrong; the debate over whether it is torture is a scientific one. The debate over whether it meets the legal definition of “torture” is a distinct issue. Confusing the two in spite of the distinction repeatedly being explained is not helpful. —SlamDiego_←T 03:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

THF— I've not told you my view of whether waterboarding is torture. Stop the “Those who are not for me are against me!” rubbish. After I noted that the real issue was not a matter of law nor of the legal definition of “torture”, but over whether waterboaridng was the infliction of intense pain to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure, I expected that someone would produce some “reliable” source that denied that waterboarding caused intense pain. But, so far, no editor has, and the assumption of good faith is beginning to bear ugly stretch marks.

The “reliable” sources of dispute that have been presented have been over whether waterboarding fits the legal definition of “torture”, but the legal definition of “torture” is like the legal definition of “insanity”. —SlamDiego_←T 21:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Please stop playing Argument Clinic and please stop misrepresenting my position, which you have yet to address, though you've made this section entirely unreadable by repeating yourself over and over and over and over without once addressing the crux of the issue. I don't personally dispute that waterboarding is torture. But my personal opinion doesn't resolve the issue of NPOV. The issue is whether there exist reliable sources that reasonably disagree with me, and there do, so Wikipedia can't take a position agreeing with me. This is rising to WP:TEDIOUS because you refuse to address this fact. (Also, you're being disingenuous when you claim you haven't stated your view: you're stating that it's indisputable that waterboarding is torture--how are we not to infer what your personal opinion is from that false premise? And if you're not stating that, why are you insisting on a violation of NPOV?) THF (talk) 02:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

THF— I've not misrepresented your position, and I have got right to the heart of the issue as you've tried to distract the reader with legal controversy. Cite any “reliable” source that denies that waterboarding causes intense pain, regardless of whether anyone here agrees with it, and you've established that the lede should not call wateboarding “torture”. Fail to such a source, and it's plain that your argument holds no water.

Show me anywhere I've said that it is indisputable that waterboarding is torture, and I'll apologize and withdraw from debate. When I entered this discussion, I asked for a “reliable” source that disputed the point. Subsequently, as no editor has cited one, I've noted that no editor has cited one. I've also noted relevant policy and guidelines. Show me anywhere I've said that it is indisputable that waterboarding is torture, and I'm gone; fail to do so, and you ought to be the one apologizing and withdrawing. —SlamDiego_←T 03:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Webster's definition of torture is not the only one. The United Nations Convention Against Torture is far more authoritative in this regard and it defines torture as "Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person..." Since waterboarding is primarily a US issue at this time, U.S. criminal law on the matter, 18 U.S.C. § 2340, can also be relied on: "'torture' means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;" Mental suffering is further defined under the statute to include "the threat of imminent death." Finally note that the official position of the U.S. Department of justice is that waterboarding is torture under US law. This has all been discussed at length on the article talk page and a consensus there supports the current lede.--agr (talk) 05:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, every one of these references are concerned with points of law. There is controversy about whether waterboarding is meets the legal definition, even if one can cite multiple legal sources that say that it does. (The lawyers who pored-over the law and said that it did not were neither incompetent nor generally wicked; they were providing honest, expert opinions on the what the law said, regardless of what they might have felt that it ought to have said.) But Wikipedia should never use the peculiar language of the law except where it makes it plain ab initio that it is doing so, and readers will typically want to know whether it is established that waterboarding is torture before they concern themselves over legalities. The law has on multiple occasions claimed that madmen were “sane”; the language of the law is different. —SlamDiego_←T 05:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not established, so it doesn't belong in the lede. This isn't hard. WP:LEAD addresses this question: there is a controversy, so you don't take sides on the controversy, just describe it. THF (talk) 05:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Again: The legal controversy is virtually independent of the question of whether waterboarding is torture. Given that some “reliable” sources claim that waterboarding causes extreme pain, you need to cite a countervailing “reliable” source if you would argue that it is not established. Only “reliable” sources count for Wikipedia to see controversy. —SlamDiego_←T 05:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

One can find a similar definition in non-legal sources, e.g. Britannica online: "the infliction of severe physical or mental pain or suffering for a purpose, such as extracting information, coercing a confession, or inflicting punishment. It is normally committed by a public official or other person exercising comparable power and authority." But I reject the notion that the UNCAT definition is irrelevant here. Torture is one of the few internationally recognized crimes. The entire controversy over waterboarding in the U.S. revolves around its legal status. If anything, the ordinary meaning of the word torture is much broader. Definition 1 in the Mirriam-Webster online edition reads:"a: anguish of body or mind b : something that causes agony or pain". I've seen reading Wikipedia talk pages referred to as torture. --agr (talk) 15:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

We're discussing a neutral definition of waterboarding. Please focus on that so we don't get too off topic. If there is any controversy, be it legal, political, moral or all of the above, that sentence shouldn't take sides. And there is no requirement anywhere that says something needs to be debunked by a reliable source before its neutrality can be disputed. The article shouldn't tell them that waterboarding is torture at all. It should convey what reliable sources say, regardless of what "the reader wants". Don't be ridiculous, since when would we take the viewpoint, "don't concern yourself with the legalities of this extremely controversial issue, just accept this highly controversial statement as fact."? Swarm^(Talk) 20:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Swarm— The opening sentence can be an encapsulation, rather than strictly a definition. Hence, if you would over-turn prior local consensus, you must show that more than that the opening sentence is not definitional. And, it is equivocation for either side in this argument to act as if it is-or-is-not controversial whether waterboarding is torture by referring to a legal definition of “torture”. One controversy is not the other, and the lede should not reject or embrace the word “torture” based upon the writhings of lawyers. —SlamDiego_←T 20:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

ArnoldReinhold— So far, no one has proposed that the article not have discussion of the legalities. But the article is “Waterboarding”, not “Legal status of waterboarding”. And the real-world controversy is not confined to the legal applicability of the word “torture”. People seriously argue over whether waterboarding is torture. However, for that controversy to be recognized by Wikipedia, it must be recognized by “reliable” sources. (After all, I've heard people seriously arguing over the sex of worker bees.) —SlamDiego_←T 20:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the place to agree is that without reliable sources there is nothing to discuss. If new sources are found they should be brought to the article talk page, not here. This discussion should be ended.--agr (talk) 00:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. —SlamDiego_←T 01:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

break no. 3

The United States government and NPR are both reliable sources. There is therefore a legitimate controversy that isn't just FRINGE. I've added a NPOV tag to the article because of the dispute; I do not believe the current LEAD complies with NPOV. Given that even the article acknowledges there is a notable controversy, there is no reason for Wikipedia to "resolve" the controversy in the first sentence of the article. THF (talk) 00:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, the legal controversy is distinct from what is relevant to a claim about whether waterboarding is torture. The article should make it plain that there is a legal controversy, but the infliction of intense pain to coerce is torture. Show controverting “reliable” sources to the claim that waterboarding causes intense pain, and you're done. Fail to show them, and you're equivocating. —SlamDiego_←T 02:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

One controversy is not the other, and the lede should not reject or embrace the word “torture” based upon the writhings of lawyers.
You act as if there's a minor legal debate going on, while waterboarding is otherwise universally accepted as torture. Nearly a third of respondents in this poll don't think waterboarding is torture. Former Attorney General John Ashcroft told a House committee that waterboarding does not constitute torture. [14]. Marc Thiessen publicly stated that he doesn't think waterboarding is torture.[15] Scott Brown has publicly stated that he doesn't believe waterboarding is torture.[16] The White House formerly held the official position that waterboarding is not torture.[17] You may not agree with it, but don't try to act like the controversy is limited to the "writhings of lawyers". It's a contentious political issue. Swarm^(Talk) 01:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

No. I said nothing about the magnitude of the legal controversy, and I act as if someone needs to cite a “reliable” sources that waterboarding does not cause intense pain. Citing “reliable” sources that demonstrate that non-“reliable” sources controvert the idea that waterboarding is torture isn't sufficient. Ashcroft is a “reliable” source with respect to matters of law, but not with respect to the experience of drowning. Thiessen is not a reliable source for law or medicine (and his argument that it is not torture because Hitchens submitted to it is absurd). A polling of non-“reliable” sources, no matter how large the sample size, doesn't add weight to either side. In the context of some “reliable” sources asserting that waterboarding cuases intense pain, to overturn the prior local consensus, you need a “reliable” source to itself controvert the assertion. It's no skin off my nose if you find lots of them, but over the course of this discussion I've stopped expecting anyone to cite one. —SlamDiego_←T 02:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

While you repeat this argument for the twentieth time, you still haven't addressed the fact that it is premised on inappropriate synethesis. THF (talk) 02:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This is getting a bit circular and as always discussion is being fragmented between here and the Waterboarding Talk Page. The function of this noticeboard is exhausted in this case IMHO. Please continue the discussion on the Waterboarding Talk Page. To any editor that wants to help please do so in the Waterboarding Talk Page.--LexCorp (talk) 02:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's more a cul-de-sac than a circle. ;-) —SlamDiego_←T 03:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

No, THF. First, synonymy is not synthesis. Second, it isn't even original synonymy, as some “reliable” sources assert directly that waterboarding is torture because it causes intense pain. —SlamDiego_←T 03:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You've stated many times that the legal issue is a separate issue. So I present several examples from reliable sources covering the non-legal aspects of the debate, and you tell me they're not reliable sources? What the hell do you want? Swarm^(Talk)

As I explained: “Citing “reliable” sources that demonstrate that non-“reliable” sources controvert the idea that waterboarding is torture isn't sufficient. […], you need a “reliable” source to itself controvert the assertion.”

One could find many non-“reliable” sources that claim that whales are fish, and “reliable” sources that report the existence of these non-reliable sources. That doesn't mean that “Whale” should be rewritten to begin “Whale is the common name for marine mammals creatures of the order Cetacea.” —SlamDiego_←T 05:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You continue to insist that a fuzzy question of legal definition where reasonable minds can disagree about the scope of the definition can be equated to a binary question of scientific definition. This false premise is leading you to incorrect analysis that is not helpful to the discussion. Since this has been pointed out to you repeatedly, I fail to understand a good-faith reason that you keep raising the strawman. THF (talk) 06:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

No, you continue to attempt to substitute controversy over whether waterboarding meets the legal definition of “torture” for consideration of the definition principally relevant to this encyclopædia. It isn't my good faith that should be questioned here. —SlamDiego_←T 06:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The Merriam-Webster dictionary definition does not define waterboarding as torture at all. Swarm^(Talk) 21:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

True; but, again, the opening sentence of the lede can encapsulate more than a definition of the subject, and the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “torture” with “the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure”. You two have been bouncing-around repeatedly amongst already exploded arguments. —SlamDiego_←T 23:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Horus and Jesus comparisons

There is an ongoing content dispute at the article of the Egyptian God Horus, which dates back to 2005 [18]. It involves comparisons to the Egyptian god Horus, and Jesus. This comparison has been around since the late 19th century, and was most recently made in the 2008 Bill Maher documentary Religulous. Several attempts have been made to include this comparison in the Horus article, but the sources have been questioned as "unreliable," and reverted. Unfortunately, there are no reliable responses to this comparison, either from Egyptologists, or Theologists. I recently attempted to address the issue with this edit [19], which was reverted by User:Farsight001 [20]. I agree that the basis for this comparison is profoundly flawed, but at the same time, I also believe that it needs to be addressed and debunked in the Horus article, because Wikipedia is exactly the place where individuals will go to confirm or reject the logic behind the argument. I need advice on how to strike the balance between giving a significant minority view undue weight, while maintaining a neutral point of view on a topic that's been largely ignored by the scholastic community without synthesizing rebuttal data from verified, reliable sources. Any suggestions? ColorOfSuffering (talk) 20:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

This article [[21]] makes it clear that twenty leading Egyptologists — in Canada, USA, UK, Australia, Germany, and Austria were asked about Mr Harpurs book. The responding scholars were unanimous in dismissing the suggested etymologies for Jesus and Christ. The Bill Maher Comedy/documentary is not a serious piece of reseach, nor was it carried out be someone with expertise in the field. Indead (and to take up one theme in the above post), no reliable Egyptologists has backed up this claim. Unlike the Osiris claim which was (and maybe still is) supported by a number of reputable scholers.Slatersteven (talk) 21:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Aesthetic Realism

Aesthetic Realism is a philosophy advocated by a very small group in New York City. It is barely notable, and there are few independent sources about it. The only editors interested in it, besides myself, seem to be either current members, or former, disaffected members. They and others call the group a cult while current members say it's a just a philosophical association. The topic is highly polarized by folks using it as a battleground. After a lot of editing years ago the article had been quiet, but it's gotten active again. During the first round of the recent fighting I threatened to stub the article, which is surprisingly long considering how few sources there are. A current member, and long-time editors here, has just re-written the intro in a highly POV fashion,[22] which makes me inclined to carry out the promised stubbing. Any other thoughts or suggestions?   Will Beback  talk  21:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Just that the article is indeed too long and I endorse your stubbing of the lede. There are some sources though. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I tried to work on that page impartially a long time ago; as I recall it was an ungodly headache. maybe I should check in again. but yeah; that lead is awful. chop away. --Ludwigs2 20:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Medco Health Solutions

I stumbled on the article about Medco Health Solutions [23] while researching about lobbying. Apart from the section I added it reads like ad and i suspect it was written by an employee of said company. Could someone please have a look at it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.0.83.119 (talk) 20:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The article was radically changed on 7th Jan , removing all referenced info which incidentally included details about a lawsuit. The two IP's167.211.190.11 & 167.211.190.10 responsible for these edits are registered to Medco itself. Rather than stay with this version created by company PR flacks, I'm going to rv back to before their edits.I do think the info you found about lobbying expenses very interesting [24] ( jeez, nearly 1 billion USD for 3 months lobbying expenses?!?) and would like to incorporate into the article, but I'm not sure if this counts as a primary source? Perhaps someone else can weigh in on this matter. thanks --Rootless Juice (talk) 01:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

CEPR

Recently added to Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) was this, of which the key sources (10 and 11 respectively) are National Review [25] and a primary source (letter to an organisation in response to a report).[26]

According to a 2004 National Review article, the Venezuela Information Office (VIO)—a lobbying agency whose goal is to improve the perception of Venezuela in the US[9]—"coordinates a media response team" that includes "representatives from the Center for Economic Policy and Research".[10] CEPR representatives signed a letter to the editor of the Center for Public Integrity, saying that their statements about the VIO were "highly misleading"[11]

Is the sourcing OK? Is it due weight? I'm a bit on the fence (leaning to OK), but I'd like someone not involved with the topic to say so. Rd232 ^talk 11:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Coming from an editor who believes venezuelanalysis is perfectly reliable and ok, but National Review is undue. Sigh. NR is a highly influential, highly significant, notable and mainstream magazine and is a reliable source. --Defender of torch (talk) 14:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

National Review is mainstream and reliable... Huh. And the debate about VA being reliable or not is ongoing at WP:RSN#Venezuelanalysis. Rd232 ^talk 16:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It is because National Review is a notable and really significant magazine. Although it is a partisan source, expressing conservative viewpoint (being a fan of Nina Hartley, I find their view on cultural issues like LGBT rights or pornography extremely irritating). But hey, on economic issue we can certainly use this homophobic and pornophobic magazine as a reliable source because it is not promoting any fringe economic theory as VA does. Center for Economic and Policy Research is to economics what Discovery Institute is to science, IMHO. Tell me why NA is unreliable on economic issue? --Defender of torch (talk) 17:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

National Review is very notable, but due to it's "US-establishment" perspective it may not be 100% objective when dealing with topics such as Venezuela's current government. I don't quite follow the quote however, does the letter refer to statements in the NR article? --Dailycare (talk) 20:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't - it's a response to this report. Rd232 ^talk 16:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

More eyes on this situation are most welcome. Editors looking in to this issue may want to be aware of the full picture:

1. Manuel Rosales
2. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#BLP violation
3. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Venezuelanalysis
4. Mark Weisbrot
5. Thor Halvorssen
6. Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Mark Weisbrot

and a resolved AN/I report where Rd232 harassed me with threats of libel, for which he apologized.

Also, noting here for the record, since the egregious BLP vio at Rosales was uncovered, admin Rd232 has semi-retired and is now editiing under an alternate account, Disembrangler (talk · contribs). It will take some to check all the BLPs the two accounts have edited, and I can't get to it all myself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, Sandy. Keep up this smear campaign and I might just get angry enough to do something about it. "Harassed with threats of libel" indeed! And what, in fact, does any of the above comment have to do with the subject of this thread, and the purpose of this board? Nothing. It is another part of your relentless and extraordinarily repetitious campaign of misrepresentation and deceit. Rd232 ^talk 11:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

PS It might dissuade you somewhat from continuing your campaign to know that I'm keeping track of it: User:Rd232/notes. (No doubt no-one else cares, but if they do, the truth is there.) Rd232 ^talk 11:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Scientific opinion on climate change

Following on from the discussion about the article Scientific opinion on climate change and it being a possible content fork, I am seeking some input from other editors about the unsourced content in the hatnote and lead of the article that define this topic. The current version of the hatnote and lead read as follows:

This page is about scientific opinion on climate change. For recent climate change generally, see Global warming. For debate on scientific consensus, see Climate change consensus. For opinions of dissenting individual climate scientists, see List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming.

Scientific opinion on climate change is given by synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. This does not include the views of individual scientists, individual universities, or laboratories, nor self-selected lists of individuals such as petitions. National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming.

The problem I have with this lead are as follows:

1. Original research has been employed to provide a defintion for what is the "Scientific opinion on climate change", rather than reliable sources that are directly related to the title of this article, and that directly support the information presented in the article itself. There have been many alterations to the hatnote and the lead, but the issue that the starting point is original research, no matter how many times it has been altered to "make the lead fit the article", has not been resolved by citing sources to support it.
2. None of the sources cited in the article define what is ""Scientific opinion on climate change", nor do any of them use or address the title of this article directly or in detail.
3. The effect of the lead is artifically segregate Scientific opinion from other sources of opinion.

My view is that no matter how innocuous the lead is, it is wholly unsatisfactory to segerage one source of opinion by creating a seperate article whose subject matter is defined by analytic or evaluative claims that that are based on original research. In short, this is a type of intellectual apartheid. My conclusions are that:

1. The lack of a recognised definition, one that is defined in terms of reliable source which would provide context to the reader, is absent. As it stands, this article can only be understood within the context of the over arching article topics (e.g. Climate Change, Global Warming etc.), and cannot be read as a seperate topic on its own. Its content, while in the most part, is referenced and ordered, address topics which are dealt with in other articles, and has expanded with no logical rationale other than to fit all of the content that has been added to it.
2. To establish the notability of this topic, and to refute the criticism that this article is a content fork, requires significant coverage from reliable secondary sources that address the article title directly and in detail, which are absent from the lead or the body of this article. For instance, the articles Climate Change, Global Warming and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are addressed directly and in detail, usually by sources which are expressing some form of opinion, whether it is scientific, economic, political or otherwise.
3. If this article topic can only be defined in terms of original research, then what purpose does it serve? One answer might be that it is simply an unintentional content fork, whose subject matter(s) are dealt with directly and in detail elsewhere by articles topics that are recognised by the world at large. Another is that this article, is in effect, a POV fork, designed to segrate scientific opinion from other forms of opinion that provide commentary, criticism or analysis about Climate Change, Global Warming etc., perhaps to avoid criticism or commentary that are the hallmarks of balanced coverage.

In short, the basis for inclusion of this topic as a standalone article is based on original research. Clearly there are several editors that disagree with the assertion that this article is a content fork (fair enough), but if the main issue is disputed, then at least consider the symptoms that are the badge of a content fork. The hatnote and lead to this article are original research, and do not define the article's subject matter in any meaningful way. Has any editor a view on this matter? Am I mistaken? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

This was originally posted at WP:OR/N. I replied there. Pcap ping 15:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

If people here disagree with you would you stop pursuing this dispute even if you are not convinced? Dmcq (talk) 16:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

In short, this is a type of intellectual apartheid

Gah. What a horrid metaphor. Trying to relate this to the apartheid is like Godwinning the discussion. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen the rules for Godwin's law, but assuming it is the misère version of Mornington Crescent as described in NF Stovold’s Mornington Crescent: Rules and Origins' he hasn't actually lost with that. Dmcq (talk) 20:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Tangent - Godwin's Law doesn't state that the person who mentions Nazis first loses; but that once Nazis are invoked, it's likely to inflame the situation and distract from the real issue. Essentially, it's a quick way to derail the thread of conversation. End Tangent — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hah - you lose! ;-) Dmcq (talk) 10:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that scientific sources should be seperated from other forms of commentary, criticism or analyis. For the sake of balance, all viewpoints and all sources should be admissible in an article - I think this is an important principal set out in the WP:NPOV. Whether seperating scientific sources from other coverage is intellectual apartheid or low level discrimination given to certain sources is a matter of debate, but the metaphor illustrates the issue that is probably covered the example used in WP:NPOV#Article naming:

Alternative article names should not be used as means of settling POV disputes among Wikipedia contributors. Also disfavored are double or "segmented" article names, in the form of: Flat Earth/Round Earth; or Flat Earth (Round Earth). Even if a synthesis is made, like Shape of the Earth, or Earth (debated shapes), it may not be appropriate, especially if it is a novel usage coined specifically to resolve a POV fork.

The use of a "segmented" article name is clearly an issue here, as no meaningful distinction can be made between some of these variants. Perhaps we should added Scientific opinion on the Earth's shape to the examples given above? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The article is about what the scientific opinion is on climate change. That is expressed by the various scientific bodies that have expressed an opinion and surveys of scientists and synthesis studies of the various articles published by scientists in the area. The article is separate as it forms a separate subject and is referred to in that way by other higher level articles. Surveys by groups like gallup would be perfectly okay for describing the subject of the article but newspapers have not done surveys when they write their versions of what the scientific opinion is so they aren't sources never mind reliable. It is not about the science and whether it is right or wrong, that is for the global warming and global warming consensus articles. It is not about the public perception of the scientific opinion, there is a separate article climate change consensus about the public perception as reported in newspapers and as informed by pressure groups and individual scientists. The climate change consensus and global warming consensus articles refers to this article instead of being cluttered up with long lists of the various scientific bodies when people reading it are interested in the controversy. Dmcq (talk) 19:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Whilst this is a detailed explaination (and thanks to Dcmq for that), it is, nonetheless, just a personal opinion on the matter. The fact that none of the sources in the article itself even mention the term "Scientific opinion on climate change", let alone define what this is. This makes it impossible to validate what Dcmq's statement against a reliable, third party source. If "Scientific opinion on climate change" is truely a standalone article topic in its own right, surely there must be some source cited in the article that would support this view? It seem me that there is not, which is what leads me to suspect that it is a content fork. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Well Naomi Oreskes, who is referenced in the article, talks about the scientific consensus on climate change with practically exactly the definition used in the article in that hatnote and the opinion article in its section on scientific opinion says something very similar. The Science Council have scientific opinion statements on climate change, creationism and intelligent design, and on the use of animals in scientific research and I can see other papers in google like 'The Structure of Evolving US Scientific Opinion on Climate Change and its Potential Consequences'. So I don't see exactly why you think the term is not well defined. I might have been better I think if it had been called scientific consensus rather than scientific opinion as consensus occurs more frequently, but are you really saying that it is not a notable subject because of that? The hatnote is only saying the meaning of the term as commonly understood and used in dictionaries. Dmcq (talk) 14:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

If Naomi Oreskes takes about Climate change consensus, then in fairness, that is not the same as Scientific opinion on climate change. The fact that the term "Scientific opinion on climate change" is not cited once in the article indicates that this may not be a notable subject matter in its own right. What is needed is significant coverage that address the subject matter directly and in detail. It seems to me that there is no meaningful distinction can be made from the article Climate change consensus, which as you have pointed out, is the subject of at least on reliable secondary source, where as Scientific opinion on climate change is not. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Naomi Oreskes talked about the scientific consensus on climate change. Other publications have talked about scientific opinion. Naomi Oreskes also talked about the public perception of the scientific consensus but they were not mixed up together. Have you actually read any of the references? Naomi Oreskes describes scientific opinion and its basis totally separate from the public perception. Dmcq (talk) 11:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Her paper, cited in both articles, is entitled "The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change"[27]. If her paper were to be used as evidence of notability, I would say it provide evicence that Climate change consensus is a notable topic, and that Scientific opinion on climate change is a content fork. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

{undent}As far as the content fork goes if we have to eliminate an article it would be Climate change consensus since it is the less well developed article and the newer article. I think the sources are sufficient to support the title of the article and for the most part the content of the article as well. Personally I don't see a reason for both articles to exist with some rewriting I think either one could sufficiently cover all the material involved, however, since they do, I don't think this is a clear enough content fork to get rid of what is otherwise a reasonably good article. And in that light WP:DEL is not a good method for trying to improve an article. Gavin Collins, it appears that your attempts to get this page deleted are bordering on WP:ZEAL. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 17:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The two subjects are quite separate and if they were stuck into a single article they would form practically two completely different subsections. For instance scientific societies don't refer to anything about the popular perception when stating their opinion and that Oreskes reference above deals with the scientific opinion separately from the popular perception. It is like the separation between global warming and global warming controversy, in that case one talks about the science and the other alks about all the controversy surrounding it. In this case one is about what the scientific opinion is and the other is about all the pressure groups and suchlike, though neither in this case is directly about the actual science itself unlike the global warming ones. When other articles refer to it they sometimes want to refer to what the actual scientific opinion is and sometimes they want to refer to both the scientific opinion and the controversy. Besides the sizes of the articles and that they would be far too big together the biggest problem I see about mixing them is that either the bits in the climate change consensus article would have to be kept to the same standard of peer review as the scientific opinion article or the scientific opinion bits would have to allow all sorts of newspaper blog stuff like the controversy one, anything else would have the weight badly wrong. Either way would be quite detrimental to the article contents. We should be aiming at improving the content of wikipedia not trying to shoehorn things into some strange idea of what the forking policy is. Dmcq (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Whilst I accept that many editors have expressed disagreement with views about whether or not Scientific opinion on climate change is a content fork,the fact remains that the sources in the article don't identify it as being a standalone article in its own right. If there are sources that address the subject matter of "Scientific opinion on climate change" directly and in detial, then my opinion on this matter can be dismissed, but there aren't any cited in the article. Instead, the lead of the article, which defines what the article is about, fills the gap left by a lack of sources on the subject with original research.
WP:V says "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it", and it seems to me that the article does no cite a single source that actually uses the term "Scientific opinion on climate change", nor does it define what this term means. I think possible that I could be mistaken on this issue, but I am not. If there is a body of coverage that addresses my concerns, then I stand corrected. But at the time of writing, there is a distinct lack of significant coverage suggest to me that this topic can only be differentiated from related topics by the opinions of its contributers. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Gavin, it seems obvious that you are basically the only one interested in pursuing this argument. You are not going to achieve anything here. Why not drop it and move on to something more productive? -- ChrisO (talk) 09:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The reason is simple. Without setting meaningful distinctions between what articles cover, articles could be split and split again into many content forks all addressing the same subject matter from arbitrary viewpoints. For example articles with titles such as "Scientific opinion on..", "Scientific concerns about...", "Scientific views on..." are content forks because no meaniful distinction that can be externally validated can be drawn between these terms . --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Verifiability covers the contents of an article not the title or topic, that's covered by WP:notability. And anyway this is the neutral point of view noticeboard. Dmcq (talk) 10:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It is indeed. Go back to the start of this thread and you will understand why this discussion has been initaited. The article topic Scientific opinion on climate change is defined by the original research in the lead of the article, not by external sources. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

So exactly what is your point? the article is notable as it satisfies WP:NOTE, the title does not have to satisfy WP:V in itself and in fact many policies explicitly forbid the title to reflect the straightforward name that most people know in the first instance because of neutral point of view concerns until it has become history and well established. WP:V is just a wrong policy to be quoting here if you want to establish the article title or topic as violating neutral point of view. As it is the title can be verified in its exact form with opinion instead of consensus but it really isn't important for this noticeboard and I see no point in doing anything about that as the article is about what it is obviously about. Though I see you have problems, you should say 'scientific view' rather than views and you'd also get the same thing. Or perspective. They'd all be the same and all have been used. Dmcq (talk)

In fairness, the article does not satisfy WP:NOTE because the sources cited in the article do not address the article's subject matter directly or in detail in accordance with WP:GNG. In actuality, the term "Scientific opinion on climate change" is not even mentioned in passing, let alone being the to subject of significant coverage. The title of the article is not externally validated at all. The sources in the article address other topics, such as climate change or global warming. The fact that the sources are mainly scientific organisations suggests that this article could be easily be retitled "Scientific pronouncements on climate change" does not address the issue that the article lacks a proper definition to identify it as a seperate standalone topic. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Validation is a wikipedia term for a proposal where edits to some articles aren't shown until a trusted editor checks them. The title should follow WP:TITLE and it does, your idea of a 'validation' requirement is irrelevant. The title describes the topic concisely so people can find the article. The topic is defined in the leader which also summarizes the article, that is as per WP:LEAD. The topic itself is very notable and so satisfies WP:NOTE. As to your comments about the sources, they in general describe scientific opinion about climate change rather than being about climate change directly. The opinion statement of a scientific association is not peer reviewed, it is not science, it is a statement of scientific opinion. The only peer review needed for an opinion survey is that it s carried out right, not that the opinions expressed are correct scientifically. Dmcq (talk) 14:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Dmcq here, the article seems to satisfy all relevent policies. As for Gavin Collin's assertion that the article name must be mentioned specifically word-for-word in the sources, I disagree and that I don't see that requirement in the relevent policies. WP:IAR seems to apply anyway, as the current title seems to be the best way to clearly express the subject of the article. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 17:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yet WP:GNG says for a topic to be notable, it has to addressed directly and in detail without the need for original research, but this is not the case. The only instance of the subject matter of "Scientific opinion on climate change" being addressed in this article directly and in detail is in the lead, which is comprised of original research. This is the key to understanding why this article conflicts with Wikipedia's content polcies. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 19:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you must be referring to this bit ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." That is pretty obvious for some of the sources for instance Oreskes on the scientific consensus on climate change or the survey on the scientific perspectives of climate scientists on global climate change. For instance the survey in [28] explicitly refers to the changing scientific opinion when comparing their results with an earlier survey by gallup. They don't give a paragraph what scientific opinion is because they assume their readership will know what such a thing is. Dmcq (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Neither of the sources you have cited use the term "Scientific opinion on climate change", either in the title nor content of these papers. For instance, the title of Oreskes paper is "The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change"[29], which is probably why it is already cited in the article Climate change consensus. The survey that you have cited actually uses the term ""Scientific opinion on global warming"[30]. I don't think we can infer from these source that "Scientific opinion on climate change" is a recognised topic in its own right, because it is term that is not widely used, if at all. There is just no evidence to support your assertion. It seems to me that you are trying to "stretch" the sources to fit the title. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You are drawing some artificial distinction between scientific opinion, scientific consensus and scientific perspective and seem to be repeating your incorrect idea about what is in WP:TITLE. Nothing you say is supported by policy. And I don't see anything sensible about your points even ignoring the policies. And even supposing there was some difference that was of any notable type which there isn't what has that got to do with neutral point of view which is what this noticeboard is about? Dmcq (talk) 11:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I would tend to view your argument from the other way around: if any artificial distinction is being made, it is that that Scientific opinion on climate change is a seperate article topic in its own right when there is no evidence to support this view. The fact that this 10,000 word article does not use the term even once in any of its 100 citations suggest to me that the article title contravenes Wikipedia:NPOV#Article naming. This is a "segmented" article name, that relies a novel usage coined specifically to resolve a POV fork. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The article includes public statements made be scientific institutions stating their opinions on the subject. If we were just looking at research done by individual scientists and citing that as their opinions then that might be original research. A prepared press release is explicitly a statement of the opinion of the organization. They are scientific organizations giving their opinions in articles that have the express purpose of giving their opinions on Climate Change. This isn't WP:OR, it's not WP:SYNTH there isn't really any interpretation going on here. This is exactly the kind of discussion that many of the statements cited in the article are meant to address.Voiceofreason01 (talk) 13:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

In answer to Voiceofreason01, if a significant opinion has been expressed by a scientific institution about climate change, then I would expect that opinion to feature in the article, such as Climate change, about which the opinion is being expressed. I would not expect a scientific opinion on any subject to feature in its own article, such as "Scientific opinion on global warming", "Scientific consensus on climate change" or any number of combinations and permutations that can be made to form a "segmented" article title.
In some ways, I can sympathise with your position: here is a group of article topics (climate change, global warming et al.) for which there is an almost inexhaustible range of reliable secondary sources, many of which come from various scientific institutions. However, citing them in one or more article topics may not be feasible: perhaps they address the same issue, or address the same issue in slightly different ways. The question is, what are the article contributors going to do with all these extra sources? There is no ready answer to this question, for as you know, there are many disagreements about which sources should or should not feature in hot topics such as Climate change or Global warming as an examination of their talk pages shows.
Insead, the approach used to deal with this problem of which sources should be featured or not is to create a content fork, and to dump all of the unwanted sources into it. Since there is no clear defintition for the entirely original and novel article title Scientific opinion on climate change (original and novel, since no external source uses this term), other than the title itself, it is easy to add sources to it without having to ask questions such as, "Is this source relevant?", "What subject matter is the source addressing?" or "Is the subject of this source duplicating what has been said elsewhere?" Put togeher, all the coverage in the article do not address any one specific subject matter at all. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I would just like to dive in here before passing through and make this comment: I have not read the article but going by the title alone, what the exact subject matter of the article is is ambiguous. Is the topic "Climate Change in the Opinion of Science" or is it something that could accommodate a subtitle like "An Article on the History of Scientific Opinion of Climate Change and How It Has Evolved Over the Years"? Just want to make sure the meaning behind the terms being debated are clearly understood by both parties and are in synch. Lambanog (talk) 16:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The article is the current scientific opinion on climate change, the article specifically addresses what the current scientific consensus is regarding anthropogenic Climate change.

Gavin Collins, what you're talking about sounds like WP:SYNTH, but the article has reliable sources saying that there is in fact a scientific consensus, which largely defuses any arguments based on WP:SYNTH and justifies including statements from scientific organizations to describe what the consensus is. Personally I don't like that the article is mostly quotes, but the article seems to maintain a reasonably neutral point of view and more importantly the article has been through AFD and consensus very clearly is that the article should stay. The relevent policies are WP:SNOW, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:IAR. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 17:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

If the article has reliable sources saying that there is in fact a scientific consensus, then why does it not address this fact directly? Whether the article title is "Scientific consensus on climate change" or "Climate change consensus", then it needs to say so in the title and define what it means in the lead that provide it is a notable topic in its own right. Just because it is balanced, that does not provide a free pass for inclusion.
I agree with Lambanog, the exact subject matter of the article is is unclear, and the original research in the lead does not help. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wey Valley School

Resolved

I've reviewed the evidence and restored their contributions to the article. Swarm^(Talk) 04:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I am Deputy Head at The Wey Valley School and have a "Conflict of interest" in the article. There has been some ping pong editing with an editor who is posting inaccurate and misleading information with the intent of impacting on the school's reputation. We believe it to be an ex-member of staff. I have acknowledged that I am not neutral but would like the accuracy and POV issues addressed. Following administrator advice I have started to post evidence led points with citations, on the talk page. Please would neutral editors help return this page to a fair balance and encyclopedic content.

Paulsnorman (talk) 18:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Loonymonkey

User:Loonymonkey is, against consensus, systematically removing categories and adjectives identifying organizations as liberal or progressive after having failed multiple times to delete the category. It would be one thing if he did this for organizations of all political stripes, because then it would be a good-faith application of a personal rule against consensus, but as he is only doing it for left-wing organizations, it is a severe NPOV violation in addition to the general disruptiveness of it. (For example, in ProgressNow, he deleted the adjectives for left-wing organizations, but kept the adjective "conservative" in the article's discussion of the Independence Institute.) I've tried to reason with him on his talk page, but he refuses to defend himself. Need a third opinion (or more) on his editing, since he's simply edit-warring when I try to correct the problem. THF (talk) 04:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

First of all, you're on the wrong noticeboard for this. Second of all, longstanding consensus and practice has been to only include organizations which self-identify in these categories, otherwise the category is subject and fails WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. As for "reasoning" with me, I'm not sure that many editors would agree, considering that this is how you opened the discussion. --Loonymonkey (talk) 04:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I've dealt with LoonyMonkey in the past and I've found that he is extremely uncooperative and appears to only be here to push an agenda. I sympathize with THF. Perhaps you should take this concern to WP:ANI. --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh great, sniping personal attacks from another less-than-neutral editor. You guys do know this entirely the wrong forum for such things, right? --Loonymonkey (talk) 05:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

For those wondering what the issue is (or whether this is just an attack thread against me personally) THF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) has been adding the category American Liberal Organizations to a variety of articles incorrectly. Longstanding consensus and practice has been that organizations must self-identify to be included in this category, otherwise the entire category fails WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. In fact a number of similar categories (such as Liberal Websites and American Liberal Politicians) were deleted because there weren't enough self-identifying examples to justify a category which is otherwise completely subjective and arbitrary. I've explained this to THF but they continue to add this category based solely on their own POV rather than any objective criteria. Any attempt to correct this is reverted, usually with a personal attack in the edit summary. Further, attempts at discussion have met with extremely nasty comments, immediate assumptions of bad faith and numerous other personal attacks. For example this is how a discussion was started on my talk page. I encourage anyone interested to read through this discussion and make their own judgements. --Loonymonkey (talk) 05:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

For the record I haven't "added" the category anywhere. I've reverted incorrect deletions made by Loonymonkey. THF (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay,more specifically, another editor added it a couple days ago, I reverted that and you've since re-added it. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Depopulating categories is not a valid means of handling "category for disvussion" discussions. The categories are descriptive and not pejorative in any place I know of, and mass detagging does not help your case when you ask that the categories be deleted, Really. Collect (talk) 11:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't depopulating the category. All of these inapplicable articles were tendentiously added to it two days ago and I reverted that. THF has repeatedly re-added it without any evidence of applicability. And are you really claiming that the label "liberal" is never used pejoratively in American politics? --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with William S. Saturn's comment above, and in my opinion THF's statements are steadfastly civil (contrary to Loonymonkey's accusations). In contrast, "the vast majority" of Loonymonkey's 'contribution' to WP is deletions, reversions,[31] and unjustified attacks claiming violations of inapplicable policies.[32] The purportedly 'liberal' POV being pushed actually runs contrary to many liberal sources[33], and is most like that of the three monkeys who see/hear/say nothing; left unchecked, Looneymonkey's deletions can end in whole articles being deleted.[34] On the other hand, engaging takes a lot of time and research (unlike Looneymonkey's deleting!) and can be counterproductive.TVC 15 (talk) 22:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I see four different editors who take issue with your editing tactics, Loonymonkey, and none who support you. It's too much to ask you to self-revert, but will you at least stop? Add tags if you feel there is a problem, rather than engage in wholesale deletions; if no one addresses the {{fact}} tag in ninety days, then you have a basis to delete. Again, please stop your current tactics, or we'll need to ask for community intervention. THF (talk) 22:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Ameriprise Financial article

Fair Disclosure: I am an Ameriprise advisor, and have been since last April. Before that I worked for a company called John Hancock. Since I have an obvious WP:COI issue editing this article, I'd like some other input. There is a single individual that seems to have an issue with the company, and his only edits are on this article. There is an article tag citing neutrality issues, and I would like others to look at the article and see if it is warranted, and if it is, please correct the issues. Again, I'd be happy to do this myself, but there have already been accusations of the company editing its own article, I don't want to compound the issues. Thanks Rapier1 (talk) 18:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I actually worked on that article before. I'll have a look. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Ugh. That was one which needed help but I wasn't familiar with the field/jargon. The laundry list of fines etc is totally haphazard, and too detailed. I'll do what I can. Kudos for being upfront about your affiliation, and soliciting outside input. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Eldridge Cleaver

Hi all. There is somewhat of a dispute at Eldridge Cleaver, involving NPOV issues among other things. The article doesn't appear to have many editors keeping an eye on it, so any and all input there would be welcomed. Life is pulling me away from Wiki at the moment, so I'm hoping some other editors can take a look at this. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 20:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Can the US government position on legal-political issues ever be WP:FRINGE?

Discussion currently taking place at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#United_States_government_redux. THF (talk) 05:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of American foreign policy is huge (200kb) POV/Original research essay

The article Criticism of American foreign policy is full of highly POV, uncited statements like But many of the good things and positive influences it has had have a tendency to be overlooked, as the news media has a tendency to accentuate negative results particularly when they're more attention-getting and tends to focus on critics, while overlooking subtler, slower, and more benign but positive aspects of foreign policy which are less likely to sell newspapers., and U.S. taxpayers are seen as subsidizing the defense of allied peoples who fail to carry their fair share of defense spending., and In the history of the world, the U.S. has an enviable record of accommodating peoples from around the world , and so on ... The author (the entire page was almost created by a single author) has mixed these statements in with several claims that he has cited, in order to make it look as if the article is well-sourced, and not OR. But both the numerous uncited OR statements such as the above, the choice of wording, the structure of the page (such as the categories that the author stated that most arguments fell into, without citing a reliable source that says that these categories are appropriate), and the choice/selection of topics covered are unacceptably biased and unsourced. I just noticed this article, and am about to have to step away from the Internet for a few days, but wanted to notify other people so they can start working on this as well. I'll get to it when I return. Thanks -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

POV in the ranking of box office records across decades without addressing inflation

I am referring specifically to Avatar (2009 film) to this discussion but this also applies to other articles that reference box office records in terms of "highest gross ever". The heart of the issue is that not clarifying whether a box office "record" is or is not adjusted for inflation is violating NPOV, as it implies Wikipedia has chosen one record as more valid than the other. Pertinent to the topic is Real_versus_nominal_value.

By way of example, Movie A from 1940 has hypothetically earned $200 million in dollars unadjusted for inflation (1940 dollars) & $1.5 billion in adjusted dollars (2010 dollars) whereas Movie B has earned $600 million in 2010. In real dollars (adjusting for inflation) the record holder is Movie A $1.5 billion to $600 million. In nominal dollars (not adjusting for inflation) the record holder is Movie B $600 million to $200 million. Given this, when one refers to the record of "highest grossing film ever made" you could mean either Movie A or Movie B. When dealing with differing dollar values across differing time periods for the purposes of "records," inflation becomes incredibly pertinent. Especially if it creates TWO different records. In my opinion, and the reason for creating this notice: Wikipedia should not and can not arbitrate the issue and decide which film is the true record holder. Both films hold different records, and this should be clarified where necessary.

Backing that up, the closest thing to an "authority" on box office records is Box Office Mojo (BOM), which prominently provides a domestic chart as well as a domestic chart adjusted for inflation. Also, take for instance this news article from Variety which states that Avatar will overtake Titanic for the record "highest grossing domestic movie," but also clarifies in the last paragraph of the article that the real dollar record will still be held by Gone with the Wind. BOM & Variety are not taking a stance on the record, so why should a Wikipedia article? The content in the lead for the Avatar article unequivocally states that Avatar holds the record. The issue is clarified in a section below, which is great, but the lead should be able to stand on its own per Wikipedia:Lead_section.

The recommended change is to clarify that Avatar is the "highest grossing film ever made" in "nominal US dollars." Proposed text (v2...v1 had "constant dollars" & was agreed by both parties as poor terminology) in the discussion link from above contains what I think is a good solution to ensure NPOV. Arkane2 (talk) 06:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is a paper that address the issue of ranking movie grosses across decades without addressing inflation. The movie industry does this for marketing reasons, but here at Wikipedia we have alternative sources aside from film industry PR so we should mention that inflation is not taken into account in the movie industry rankings: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/3582132/How-the-motion-picture-industry-miscalculates-box-office-receipts Cshay (talk) 16:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The actual discussion can be found here. DrNegative (talk) 16:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Additional discussion an be found in the same talk page, here (please read all of it):

Talk:Avatar_(2009_film)#.22Highest_Grossing_Film_of_all_time.22_in_Intro_Needs_to_be_Qualified_by_Mentioning_Inflation Cshay (talk) 16:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I wrote this last night and haven't read the subsequent links, but I fully support the "nominal" or "adjusted" qualifiers in the lead. However, I would point out several problems with these comparisons. For one thing, surely Gone with the Wind holds the record largely due to re-releases, no? Because if not, if Gone with the Wind holds the record based on initial run in theaters, why does it not also hold a weekly or monthly gross record, or a "most weeks in the top 5" or whatever? Is it because Box Office Mojo does not offer adjusted dollar figures for any record but total gross?

The other problem I see with it is that we are comparing vastly different audience pools. U.S. population in 1939 was 132,164,569. U.S. population in 2010 is estimated at 315,534,716. It seems to me that the most honest attempt at determining relative gross of a film would be the revenue per capita in the window of time of its initial box office release. Anything less is inherently misleading and intrinsically meaningless. Nobody would accept a direct comparison between the gross of a film in the U.S. in 2010 with another country with a 2010 population of only 132,164,569, and nobody should compare domestic gross from different eras either, even adjusted for inflation, unless they correct for population size. So your hypothetical $200 million in 1940 dollars—prior to adjustment to 2010 dollars—would actually be more like $550 million adjusted for 2010 population size. Then when you adjust it for 2010 dollars, it goes to the neighborhood of $4.25 billion.

But that's assuming the $200 million Movie A from 1940 has earned was all from a 1940 release. It may have seen re-releases in 1965, 1988 and 2005, and is figuring all that into the box office figure, not to mention that it may have been available on VHS since 1983 and on DVD for a decade. And so conversely, if you're comparing that sort of film with one that is still in theaters, the latter is clearly at a disadvantage.

One could argue, well, it's really not about such a complex popularity saturation matrix, it's about the bottom line of how much money the film makes. So are we including merchandising during initial box office run, or VHS/Pay-per-view/DVD/On-Demand/Digital download and TV broadcast rights income?

It seems to me that the best gauge for us to use — and this is a metric that it seems to me would work not just within any era but across eras as well — would be to find out the movie's cost as well as the movie's gross, and add both figures plus a third figure that determines the percentage/multiple gained. So that if a 1940 film made $200 million, but cost $3 million to make and $80,000 to market, then it made a hell of a lot more than a 2005 film that made $600 million but cost $100 million to make and $45 million to market. I'm stronger on the logic here than I am on the math, forgive me, but if I say I made $20,000 in the stock market last year, that's amazing if I invested $1,000, good if I invested $20,000, below average if I invested $200,000, and ridiculous if I invested $2 million. I look forward to hear if any of this is a new idea in the discussion and what editors think. Abrazame (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This is an argument that has been going on ever since "ET" beat out "Star Wars". The Motion Picture industry and the American Film Institute do not use adjusted numbers (which as a Financial Advisor I cannot comprehend), so officially Avatar is the highest grossing movie of all time. It would be interesting to put together a list of highest grossing movies based on inflation adjusted (and price of ticket) numbers. Another suggestion would be to list them according to number of tickets sold. Not sure where that information could be obtained, just throwing it out there. Rapier1 (talk) 21:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Be careful, all, of not engaging in original research. The problems with measuring the commercial success of movies is well-documented and can be referenced, but solutions to those problems must be agreed upon by reliable sources since Wikipedia is inherently a non-innovative reference work. Report the most common metrics, make caveat emptor references where appropriate with links to relevant articles on the problem and leave it at that. Do not try to right great wrongs. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

See the paper I referenced above to understand what the issue is - no original research there. We are trying to get a qualifier added to the statement that is claiming a #1 gross receipts ranking over 100 years. The qualifier is that the ranking is done with inflation unadjusted dollar amounts. This is a essentially meaningless rank since inflation is not accounted for. The reason for the confusion is that the movie industry floods the press with press releases based on inflation unadjusted rankings. They do this for marketing reasons, which is understandable, if not mathematically accurate. Cshay (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand the issue fully. The qualifier that it is done without taking into account inflation is fine since you have reliable sources which discuss it. The idea that this makes the rank "essentially meaningless" is arguable and not cause that Wikipedia is equipped to take up. We can only rely on what the best sources do. Deprecate sources, fine. Judiciously choose ones that are not flawed. But please do not create novel treatments. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. FYI - calling the ranking "meaningless" is not original research! The paper I referenced says so on the first page, second column, towards the top. http://www.docstoc.com/docs/3582132/How-the-motion-picture-industry-miscalculates-box-office-receipts Cshay (talk) 22:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Did any of the links mention Avatar regarding this issue? If not, it is a violation of WP:NOR. From the lead of WP:NOR

"Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked. To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented."

And from the section WP:SYNTH of WP:NOR.

"Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:ASF is vital with regards to whether the metric is "meaningless". Whether a metric is "meaningless" or not is an opinion, not a fact. Whether a metric uses inflation-adjusted numbers or not is a fact, not an opinion. See the difference? ScienceApologist (talk) 22:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me or not. I have a source that says using inflation unadjusted numbers "have little meaning" in the context of ranking movies. With enough research I could probably find similar citations in college mathematics and economics textbooks - it would be hard to call that "opinion". In any case, this seems to be a side argument, and we seem to be in agreement that the rankings should be qualified as "inflation unadjusted". I would go farther and desire that a inflation adjusted ranking from a soure such as box office mojo be used in parallel to the unadjusted one, but this seems to be unpopular as some editors do not trust the Box Office Mojo source. Honestly, I am am not sure why, since it is used as a source all over wikipedia. I'll include it here, so you can be aware of yet another source backing all this up. http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm Cshay (talk) 23:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the input and let me address some of what you posted. First, as far as population, this would most likely require original research or unreliable sources. I'd even submit that the number of theaters is more pertinent than the total population as probably many parts of the US wouldn't even have the opportunity to see the movie, whereas movie theaters are very accessible in 2010. There aren't any third party sites that have dealt with this information, and I've not seen population differences commonly addressed in discussions of box office records (whereas inflation is very commonly discussed as referenced above). The other complicating factor is that if we're going down that road, we would also have to consider that there were a lot less movies made in that time period so Gone with the Wind's competition was much less. Then we would have to figure out a way to equalize that across many decades. Both tasks taken in concert would prove extremely arduous and rely very heavily on OR. I personally believe the easiest, most fair, most NPOV method would be to discuss the record in terms of just nominal US dollars and real US dollars as suggested above.

The income from subsequent releases on VHS/DVD/other media are not part of "box office" gross which simply is the amount of money it takes in from releases in movie theaters. As far as taking into account the cost of the movie and its income derived after theatrical release, that would be another calculation entirely: profitability. There are some sites which discuss the "most profitable movie ever made" and it is a viable topic, but it's also a separate discussion from "highest grossing movie ever made."

As far as subsequent records like "Highest 3rd weekend," there is very little historical data for weekend by weekend grosses of old films. So it's virtually impossible to do this. BOM does make available a "adjust this chart for inflation" feature to its premium users, to adjust individual charts where information is available to make a new ranking. However, these are all less important records and I don't think many would be concerned with them. Either way, we should first settle this debate before moving forward with lesser records. Arkane2 (talk) 00:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I want to also alert third party editors that part of the NPOV dispute in the article stems from the fact that in addition to not allowing us to qualify that the lede sentence is a inflation unajusted ranking, some editors also reverted additional inflation adjusted ranking information taken from Box Office Mojo. To date, I have not received a satisfactory explanation as to why this inflation adjusted citation was selectively reverted. Smells like NPOV issue to me. I assert that this would be the ideal solution - to put all the information in one sentence and let the reader be fully aware. Here was the original lede sentence before it was reverted:

The film broke several box office records during its release and became the highest-grossing film of all time worldwide, surpassing Titanic.(Avatar is the twenty-sixth highest-grossing film in North America once adjusted for inflation.) http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm

Cshay (talk) 00:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The worldwide box office gross has no adjusted figures to speak of and you throw in the domestic adjusted figures next to it. Why would a Chinese reader for example care about an "estimated" figure of a US/Canada gross when the gross he is reading about includes him? What we state now in the lede is fact, we are not advertising, we are stating the facts based upon thousands of reliable sources. It is that simple. DrNegative (talk) 02:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

There are sources being provided for adjusted figures (see above). Why do you want to hide this information or prevent us from warning readers that the rankings are based on inflation unadjusted data and that this lack of inflation adjusting is an important concern? This hints at the very NPOV issue we are complaining about. You and a couple other editors don't seem to like, or maybe don't understand inflation adjusting. This does not give you the right to ram a POV into the article. Sorry. Cshay (talk) 05:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

As of this post you are the one in the minority here, keep that in mind. You rammed your POV when you began an edit war, if I remember correctly. You still haven't answered or responded to the statement of comparing a domestic adjusted gross with a worldwide gross that cannot be adjusted for inflation (because I assume you cannot think of any logical answer) and the only thing I am "ramming" is a fact. You have to prove me wrong and you have to show evidence (without WP:SYNTH Ex. Gas prices, etc..) as the why the statement in the lede is false. DrNegative (talk) 06:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Being in the minority does not mean that the majority gets to skew the article from a NPOV. If you look at the original sentence from the lede above you will see that it has both inflation unadjusted AND inflation adjusted information. That is the very definition of NPOV (having both points of view). By censoring all inflation adjusting information (one point of view) from the lede, you are guilty of pushing a POV. Even as a majority, you don't have that right. Cshay (talk) 06:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Your rationale on POV is once again questioned in the absence of your answer to my question. Analogy: If I have facts that say Toyota have sold the most automobiles in the world, by your logic, one should put in parenthesis next to the statement ("However it was the 4th in Russia"). This is exactly what you are pushing to do. Its not a matter of inflation, its principle. How is it relavent to the original statement? Stop avoiding the question, it is your proposal to implement and your being questioned be me, an editor taking part in consensus that you have started. DrNegative (talk) 06:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I am willing to be flexible on what I consider to be adequately NPOV, including only mentioning that the rankings are not inflation adjusted. However I would prefer to provide an example, however imperfect, of attempted inflation adjusting. This will make it clear to the naive reader, that inflation adjusting is important when comparing prices across decades. With all due respect, your analogy does not compare to the issue of inflation adjusting so I cannot comment on it. Cshay (talk) 07:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

"The worldwide box office gross has no adjusted figures to speak of and you throw in the domestic adjusted figures next to it. Why would a Chinese reader for example care about an "estimated" figure of a US/Canada gross when the gross he is reading about includes him?" - Very well then, answer my original question which I have quouted from myself. Also, it is not about what "you" consider NPOV, it is what consensus believes, regardless of whether you disagree. DrNegative (talk) 18:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The majority is still not allowed to push a POV, consensus or not. Cshay (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The majority are saying that it doesn't violate or push POV. That is where your argument ends. Since you are avoiding my questions to your proposals, I am going to assume your silence is your acknowledgement of the flaw in your proposal. DrNegative (talk) 22:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not clear in the lede if the ranking is inflation adjusted or not. Why are we allowing it to remain unclear? We could fix that with a few words. Are we so eager to trumpet the success of the film that we don't want anything to take away from that? Cshay (talk) 22:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to say my biggest fear was that we'd end up with two discussions. Many of the issues have been discussed on the article talk page. If the discussions arrive at different conclusions that doesn't resolve anything does it? Will editors please submit their views to the discussion at the article talk page please: Talk:Avatar_(2009_film)#Proposed_changes_to_introduction_to_account_for_inflation_.26_North_American_record Betty Logan (talk) 03:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

This is going to take some time Betty. We need some editors who are familiar with reporting on inflation related matters to chime in. The talk page for Avitar has a very short archivebot, so this is probably a better place to handle the discussion. Plus this issue applies to all movie pages in the rankings, really. Cshay (talk) 05:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why this is so difficult. Here are the basic facts: (1) Avatar has the highest US domestic gross, in terms of unadjusted dollars. (2) Avatar has the highest international gross, in terms of unadjusted dollars. (3) Adjusted for ticket price inflation, the US domestic gross ranks somewhere around number 20 but continues to rise. (4) No widely accepted figures are available giving an inflation-adjusted international gross. Except for number 4, all of these facts are easily sourced. Why not just state all of them and be done with it? Looie496 (talk) 19:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Item 3 is already in the article. Perhaps it wasn't made clear by the editors bringing up the issue here that they feel it is a sufficiently prominent point that it should be put not just in the article but in the lead. The consensus at the article talk page seems to be that it is not sufficiently prominent for the lead but is appropriate in the more detailed parts elsewhere in the article. Personally, from what I've seen in the sources, the aspect of inflation adjustment of gross is mentioned relatively little compared to the unadjusted gross, so putting it in the lead seems like a violation of NPOV, since that would give it more prominence, relative to unadjusted gross, than the totality of sources give it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

As it stands, the lede talks about the #1 ranking without mentioning if the dollar amounts are inflation adjusted or not. This is the most important thing to correct, as the sentence misleads the reader and pushes a POV unless it is qualified. It doesn't matter if this information appears later in the article. The sentence itself is misleading and POV if not qualified right there. The way in which we make it NPOV is up for debate and could include as little as adding a couple extra words ("inflation unadjusted") or as much as going back to the original lede with an example of the inflation adjusted ranking. Cshay (talk) 20:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

And as it stands, adjusted gross is in the article, but you want it also in the lead. I think you're going to have a hard time getting anywhere if you don't address the point made in my previous message, re relative prominence of adjusted gross compared to unadjusted gross in the totality of sources. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Reread my last comment. I am willing to focus on getting to NPOV in the lede without giving the actual adjusted rank (I do feel it would be useful to the reader to provide it alongside the #1 rank, but that is secondary to the NPOV issue). Cshay (talk) 21:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

When I wrote about "the aspect of inflation adjustment of gross" in a previous message, I wasn't referring to just specific numbers but any aspect, such as the one you're now proposing. I'd continue the discussion with you, but if you don't care to address my point... --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

We already have sources (such as Box Office Mojo) that address the issue of inflation adjusting in movie rankings. Are you suggesting we don't have enough sources to simply qualify the misleading lede sentence by saying it is an inflation unadjusted ranking? Cshay (talk) 22:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Place a reliable source(s) here, without using WP:SYNTH, that specifically note that Avatar's "worldwide" gross is unadjusted for inflation (not domestic, the lede statement in question doesn't mention domestic) and please cite an adjusted "worldwide" list for comparison. You pull that off and you will swing my vote. If those do not exist, this disussion should have been over a long time ago. DrNegative (talk) 22:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

We've already given you several sources. For example, see the last paragraph of this Variety article: http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118014573.html?categoryId=3762&cs=1 What could possibly be the benefit of providing an incomplete and misleading lede sentence.?I just can't understand why we cannot make it as accurate as possible. Saying that the ranking is inflation unadjusted is key to that. This censorship just screams POV to me. Cshay (talk) 22:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, that article doesn't mention adjusted worldwide gross, as DrNegative requested. Even in that article that you presumably carefully chose, neither the adjusted gross worldwide nor domestic is in the lead. At the beginning of that article is, "According to 20th Century Fox, "Avatar" should surpass previous record holder "Titanic" no later than Wednesday to become the all-time highest grossing film at the domestic box office." And mention of the gross continues through the article until only at the very end is there any mention of adjusted gross, which appears to be just the adjusted domestic gross. So it appears that the article doesn't have adjusted gross worldwide mentioned anywhere, and even the adjusted gross domestic isn't mentioned in the lead, but only at the end. Is that the best you can come up with? --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

More references: 1) http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/the_big_picture/2010/01/should-avatar-get-an-asterisk-in-the-boxoffice-record-books.html 2) http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/Horizons/2010/0204/Avatar-smashes-past-2-billion-but-can-it-beat-Gone-with-the-Wind 3) http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/movies/chi-100201-avatar-box-office-inflation-pictures,0,4703745.photogallery 4) http://www.thrfeed.com/2010/01/avatar-ticket-sales-.html Cshay (talk) 22:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The Variety source references the domestic chart, since Box Office Mojo doesnt even have an adjusted worldwide chart, so that one is out. The remainder of the sources you posted all reference the domestic chart as well, or other sources that were referencing the domestic chart...still no good. DrNegative (talk) 23:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Domestic, domestic, domestic, domestic. I think you have domestic and worldwide confused. DrNegative (talk) 23:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm actually suprised how much coverage the inflation adjusting issue has received. You guys almost had me convinced no one was covering it. Here's yet another - and yes it is talking about worldwide grosses and worldwide inflation adjusting. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i107616f101d6818868bd08edad593649?imw=Y Cshay (talk) 23:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Now that source conflicts with Box office Mojo's domestic adjusted list and did not make any mention of Avatar adjusted worldwide gross. WP:SYNTH. DrNegative (talk) 23:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow you are tough to please. That article calculates the worldwide adjusted gross for Titanic to provide comparison with the worldwide gross of avatar. They don't neeed to adjust avatar because the comparison is in 2010 dollars. Cshay (talk) 23:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Your arriving at your own conclusions through synthesis. So the editors of Wikipedia calculate grosses now through their own comparisons of sources and information therein? That is a new one on me. I still oppose, discussion is WP:DEADHORSE to me. I made my points, you ignore them, I am finished, farewell and good luck. DrNegative (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The point of those references is not to synthesize. I am simply refuting the claim that inflation adjusting is not getting covered by the press - a claim that was being used to justify censoring qualifiers stating that the #1 ranking of Avatar is "inflation unadjusted". I think these references, all from reputable sources, refutes the claim that the press is not covering this. Cshay (talk) 23:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's one more that uses the phrase "unadjusted for inflation" to qualify the ranking: http://blog.boxofficespy.com/2010/01/avatar-worldwide-box-office-gross.html Cshay (talk) 23:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's a quote from Newsweek: http://www.newsweek.com/id/229545 "It won't eclipse Titanic in raw ticket numbers, but there's a good chance that if Avatar can sustain its holiday-season momentum, it could be well on its way to the biggest-ever worldwide gross (unadjusted for inflation)." Cshay (talk) 23:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

<outdent>As I #originally mentioned, "The consensus at the article talk page seems to be that it is not sufficiently prominent for the lead but is appropriate in the more detailed parts elsewhere in the article. Personally, from what I've seen in the sources, the aspect of inflation adjustment of gross is mentioned relatively little compared to the unadjusted gross, so putting it in the lead seems like a violation of NPOV, since that would give it more prominence, relative to unadjusted gross, than the totality of sources give it." You might check this for yourself by googling Avatar worldwide gross and seeing what fraction of the reliable sources that discuss Avatar's worldwide gross say anything about the worldwide gross adjusted for inflation, and what prominence each of those reliable sources give to the discussion of adjusted worldwide gross. You could do similarly for domestic gross too, which I expect would have more discussion of adjusted values compared to adjusted worldwide gross, as evidenced by the articles you found above. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I spent a lot of time providing you quite a few links from prominent news sources above that directly address movie rankings and inflation adjusting, Bob. It is clear to me that you will never be satisfied because you are pushing a POV. Anyone well versed in mathematics knows that ranking dollar values across multiple years is misleading without mentioning whether inflation adjusting is taken into account, and this is reflected in the references I provided. I think it is time for you to stop pushing your POV and allow external neutral editors to weigh in. Remember, even a majority is not allowed to unfairly push POV in an article. Thats what you and a few other editors are doing here by denying all the evidence I have provided. Cshay (talk) 06:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Some mention of unadjusted for inflation would be necessary somewhere in the article even if only as a comment in a footnote. It is important for those who deem it important; it is a legitimate qualifier or criticism of the stated fact. To not include it would smack of suppression of information and promotion. As for whether it should be included in the lead, I think if mentioning that it is the highest grossing film is mentioned the proviso should be as well because it is a factual claim that is open to dispute. As for recent articles not really highlighting the unadjusted for inflation aspect one could argue that is a case of recentism bias. Lambanog (talk) 09:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

FYI, this is in the Avatar (2009 film) article, in the last paragraph of the section Box office,

"Box Office Mojo estimates that after adjusting for the rise in average ticket prices it would be the 21st-highest-grossing film of all time in the U.S. and Canada."

Also, please note it appears that the editors who worked on this tried to give it the prominence that they felt was consistent with the prominence it was given in the totality of reliable sources, according to WP:UNDUE. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Real value - in the USA - is determined by the US All Items CPI. It mostly changes every month. What is real is any nominal historical value inflation-adjusted to today´s CPI which changes every month and goes the other way, i.e. down, during deflation. So, all box office historical nominal values have to be stated at the current CPI and, this CPI value changes every month. So, all values have to be inflation or deflation adjusted mostly every month. Laurie Civico (talk) 16:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

In fact, all values in Wikipedia stated in all different currencies have to first be stated at the current CPI of the respective currencies and then change monthly in terms of the change in these currencies´ CPI values - for all values in Wikipedia - and the world really. Laurie Civico (talk) 16:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Taijitu

sorry for the cross-post with wp:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Taijitu; I'm just trying to stimulate some outside discussion on this.

Gun Powder Ma (talk · contribs) and I have been disputing about the importance of Roman symbols similar to the Taijitu (the Yin Yang symbol from Chinese philosophy). There are some Roman shield patterns that are of roughly the same form as the taijitu but a few hundred years earlier, and GPM is citing an author (an italian Lit Crit guy, I think, named Monastra) who has been offering up that similarity as an 'intriguing possibility' of connections between the Roman and Chinese symbolism. He has two references to Monastra now (one from the journal Sophia, and one from the Encyclopedia of Taoism, neither of which is an authoritative scholarly source for the topic), plus a couple of minor reference from odd sources (e.g. a footnote in an article on the roman shield patterns in a museum journal). However, he has consistently been trying to parlay these weak sources into making a huge splash for the European symbolism in an article that is ostensibly about the Taoist figure.

I opened an RfC but have gotten few responses, probably because it's such an out-of-the-way corner of wikipedia. if anyone could take a look and help put this into proper balance, I'd appreciate it. --Ludwigs2 21:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd be interested in the comparison with Christopher Columbus and Magellan and related articles and whether it is mentioned Zhang He and the Chinese might have beat them to their accomplishments. I imagine scholarly sources for that proposition might be stronger and would look at the treatment given to that theory as a precedent of sorts. Lambanog (talk) 08:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Iraq War

Resolved

There is a dispute about whether the War in Iraq article should have the war on terrorism term in the infobox. Please check Talk:Iraq_War#NPOV_dispute_-_POV_term_used_in_the_conflict_infobox and comment there. --JokerXtreme (talk) 23:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm

A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm reads like a coatrack for a particular collection of viewpoints on US foreign policy. I don't even begin to know how to clean this one up. Ray^Talk 08:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The original article was written by LaRouchite editor user:NathanDW/WP:LTA/HK. However, most of the text was added by an anon, user:64.230.121.100/user:64.230.123.152 . The mnost problematic material was deleted twice by user:Drmikeh49,[35][36] but ultimately restored by user:John Bahrain.[37] The whole article relies too much on verbatim quotes.   Will Beback  talk  03:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses article

The article on JW as it presently is, violates the Wikipedia NPOV policy. The purpose of one of the editors of this article is openly anti-Jehovah's Witness, his opposition to JW is openly stated on his talk page, the specific editor is LTSally. Great efforts have been to bring a NPOV to the article, but many specific edits in this direction have been undone by LTSally, and perhaps other opposers of JW. The purpose of this editing is to make Jehovah's Witnesses appear to be extreme, and to support any statements which oppose Jehovah's Witnesses, while deleting most clarifying statements and references. There are many examples of this which will be provided today or tomorrow.--Natural (talk) 23:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

New stuff goes on the bottom. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Just a cursory glance at the history revealed this, LTSally removing an anti-JW site. Looking deeper into it, you removed the link to the article on criticism of the group, and removed sourced material from the criticisms page. Present reliable sources that counter the material you tried to censor instead of removing material you just don't like to read (or don't read it). Not supporting the page being turned into an apologetics site for the JWs is not the same as being inherently anti-JW. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that user:Naturalpsychology is fixated with the notion that the inclusion of criticisms voiced by former JWs (whom he calls apostates) is bias and therefore unacceptable.[38][39] I have attempted[40] to explain the importance of Wiki policies on achieving editorial neutrality, including both sides of the argument, without success. I have also explained [41] to that user why I removed his edits, pointing out that he needs to stick to the facts presented in source material rather than using them as a support for his own opinions. Naturalpsychology's determination to remove criticism such as [42] or dismiss unequivocal Watch Tower Society statements as the complaints of critics [43] or insert as a reliable source comment from a filmmaker's website that buttresses hiw own view [44] militate against his claims to be seeking neutrality. The criticisms in the article are clearly identified as such, the critics are clearly identified and where available a rebuttal by the Watch Tower Society is provided. The article has suffered in the past from excesses, both pro and anti, but is well balanced now, I believe. LTSally (talk) 03:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

This article is extremely biased. In the editing I removed only one sentence. The majority of the points in question are statements in which anti-Jehovah's Witness APOSTATE references are heavily relied upon, which accuse Jehovah's Witnesses of many things.

These are the specific points in question, where the clarifications, or the "other side of the coin" were removed

These statements need clarification and defense if they are to be kept in the article. Adequate defense and specific references were provided and they were removed from the article. This has happened almost every time that we try to add material to clarify the strong apostate bias in this article.

• Watch Tower publications instruct members to demonstrate loyalty to God by being loyal and obedient to the organization,[297][298] promising the benefits of strength and protection from Satan's temptations.[299][300] Frequent calls for loyalty, and the practice of shunning dissident members, have led critics to refer to the religion's leadership as autocratic. [301] [302] were removed. The way the text is now is very biased without NPOV or opportunity for defense against accusations made by apostates.

The clarifications and references on this paragraph which were put in were also all removed.

• Watch Tower literature warns that "independent thinking", such as questioning the counsel it provides, is dangerous.[308] [309][310] The Watch Tower Society instructs members to not read criticism of the organization by apostates, or former members,[311][312] or literature published by other religions.[313][314][315] This has led some critics to accuse the society of causing mental isolation with the intent of mind control.[316][317][318] Sociologist Andrew Holden, who has studied Jehovah's Witnesses, rejects the idea of "mind control,"[Full citation needed] stating that becoming one of Jehovah's Witnesses is an act of free will, and that most whom he interviewed felt an increased measure of personal well being and happiness in their association with the religion.[319]
• Watch Tower publications say that the preaching work is "a fundamental requirement of their faith", and an obligation for Jehovah's Witnesses.[320][321][322] Raymond Franz and others describe the Watch Tower Society's

When trying to clarify these statements, the clarifications and references were removed without reason or discussion.

In one section of the Wikipedia article starting from reference [14] half of the references are to apostate sources, which all have a very very strong anti-Jehovah's Witness bias, or to Watchtower/Jehovah's Witness references which are used in such a way as to discredit Jehovah's Witnesses or to make them look extreme. The purpose of the bias in this editing is to raise controversy and "prove" the controversies against Jehovah's Witnesses, suppress any efforts to clarify these points, and to try to give an extreme view of Jehovah's Witnesses practices.

There are many non-Jehovah's Witness, and non-Apostate sources available for the article, but they are not being utilized, in favor of APOSTATE references.

LTSALLY is against using resources such as a very indepth PBS documentay and website on Jehovah's Witnesses, which is a deep sociological discussion of the subject, presenting both favorable and controversial points of Jeohvah's Witnesses. But he is in favor of using all APOSTATE resources despite the lack of credibility of many of them and he resists all the other editors attempts to set a reasonable standard with this, see the disussion board. And then he edits out these clarfications that are made in the article. See top section on discussion page [[[NPOV]] needed in this article.--Natural (talk) 10:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Constantly screaming "APOSTATE" doesn't help present you as enforcing a NPOV here. If someone was trying to edit the Islam article and kept refering to non-Islamic sources as "INFIDEL" sources, or the Baptist article while refering to non-Baptist sources as "HEATHEN" sources, would you trust them to maintain an NPOV? Ian.thomson (talk) 13:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. The user has been told repeatedly that ranting about 'apostates' will not help. Additionally, the user is employing a pejorative form of the term 'apostate' as used in JW jargon. For example, in this edit, the user quotes a dictionary definition of 'apostate', and in the same edit, goes on to make comments about 'apostates' that have no support in the definition just quoted. The schism between the user's opinion about the word 'apostate' and the actual definition is well demonstrated in this comment and my response to it[45].--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip again. This was the reasoning behind it, and I'll try to drop that word----

"The apostate’s story, in which he is usually presented as a victim, is seen as good news-copy for the media, particularly if he offers to ‘reveal’ aspects, and perhaps secrets, of the movement to which he formerly belonged. In consequence, apostates receive perhaps an unwarranted amount of media attention, particularly when they are able to present their previous allegiance in terms both of their own vulnerability and the manipulation, deception, or coercion exercised by the leaders and members of the movement into which they were recruited. Because these accounts are often the only information normally available to the general public about minority religions, and certainly the most widely disseminated information, the apostate becomes a central figure in the formation (or misinformation) of opinion in the public domain concerning these movements."

"Academic scholars interested in religious minorities, and in particular sociologists, in whose field this subject matter particularly lies, normally pursue their scholarly enquiries by a variety of well-recognized methods. They gather their data not only by archival research and the study of printed matter and documents, but also by participant observation, interviews, questionnaire surveys and, directly to the point at issue here, from informants.

His former associates are now depicted as having prevailed upon him by false claims, deceptions, promises of love, support, enhanced prospects, increased well-being, or the like. In fact, the apostate story proceeds, they were false friends, seeking only to exploit his goodwill, and extract from him long hours of work without pay, or whatever money or property he possessed.

Thus, the apostate presents himself as ‘a brand plucked from the burning,’ as having been not responsible for his actions when he was inducted into his former religion, and as having ‘come to his senses’ when he left. Essentially, his message is that ‘given the situation, it could have happened to anyone.’ They are entirely responsible and they act with malice aforethought against unsuspecting, innocent victims. By such a representation of the case, the apostate relocates responsibility for his earlier actions, and seeks to reintegrate with the wider society which he now seeks to influence, and perhaps to mobilize, against the religious group which he has lately abandoned."

Bryan R. Wilson, Ph.D., (1826-2004), Professor Emeritus at Oxford University. Former President of the International Society for the Sociology of Religion. Wilson is described as "a scholar of indubitable integrity". "Wilson displays a scrupulous attention to detail within a broad theoretical approach that not only educates and illuminates, but also stimulates his readers," according to one source.

The point being, an apostate is not necessarily a very accurate source of information, but has a strong bias, and desire for self-protection of his status or position, and sociologists don't take them too seriously as a valid source of information.

Heather Botting, Penton, Ray Franz, Wills, and Gruess are all part of the former Jehovah's Witness category, and while they might have an interesting counterpoint, with some valid points, they have to be taken in context, with a grain of salt, as they are often protecting their own self interests, or they may be "getting back" at the ones who they percieve as "doing them wrong."

Time context----

Also, one has to consider the fact that points made about Jehovah's Witnesses from 1975, or from the 1960s, are not valid today, as many organizational changes have been made since that time. Wills for example, was writing against the Presidency of Jehovah's Witnesses, which no longer had the same status from 1975 onward. Heather Botting also, wrote in a different era of Jehovah's Witnesses. While some have second editions, some of the second editions are just rereleases, not any different from the first, with the exception of a few added paragraphs. So, criticisms from 1979, aren't necessarily valid today, as some issues have been addressed by JW, and changes have been made. --Natural (talk) 00:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Which takes us back to the original problem: User:Naturalpsychology objects to the use of former Witnesses as sources per se. In most cases statements for which they are used as sources are quite mundane facts. If we accept that ex-Witnesses have bias, we must also accept that statements sourced to Watch Tower Society publications are also biased. What is important is to deal with them in a neutral and balanced fashion. And that has been achieved. LTSally (talk) 00:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

My view is that if User:Naturalpsychology feels so strongly about these issues that they have the urge to say "APOSTATE" (even if they manage to suppress that urge) they really need to walk away from the article and work on something else. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Natural, no one ever suggested ignoring the context of statements of former members. What is inappropriate are attempts to remove those statements altogether. However, back to your dishonest selective quoting of Wilson's statements about apostates (full source here). In his opening sentence, Wilson first provides the actual meaning of 'apostate': "Apostasy may be considered no less to occur when a single erstwhile believer renounces his vows and his former religious allegiance"; he then explains that "with the appearance in western society of various new minority movements which have distinctive religious teachings and which require a strong sense of specific commitment, a member who departs is likely to be regarded as apostatizing". Immediately before where you started your selective quoting—midway through a paragraph—he says "Given the emergence of so many new religious bodies which make strong demands on the loyalty of their members, instances of apostasy have become matters of considerable attention for the mass media". It is that subsection of apostates that Wilson goes on to discuss, as quoted by you above. Please refrain from dishonest use of sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

If you believe there are citations from the 60s and 70s that are no longer current, indicate specifically which ones, and they can be considered within their context.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

RedandNater.com

An anonymous user is adding "sample posts" to cast the website in a negative light, and indicated in the edit summary that NPOV doesn't matter. I'm already at 3RR. Evil saltine (talk) 04:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Since they have said they do not care about an NPOV, put a level 3 NPOV warning tag ({{subst:uw-npov3|RedandNater.com|subst=subst:}} ~~~~) on that editor's talk page and revert their edits. If they do it again, put another warning tag (with the 3 replaced with a 4) and revert their edits. If they do it again, report them as a vandal (the link is at the top of this page). Someone that does not want to use proper sources, attack a subject, and openly admits to not caring about NPOV is as much a vandal as someone that wants to replace all the content with "P3N15!!!1!!!11!!!!one!!!", and we do not apply the 3RR rule to vandals. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Benefits of British Colonial Rule in India

Would someone kindly take a look at this articles history where a NPOV editwar is in progress. The article has been renamed at least three times in the last couple of days. Many thanks. -Arb. (talk) 11:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Article is up for deletion, so interested people can vote there. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, it seems like an obvious POV fork. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

State of Palestine

There has been a lot of debates regarding articles related to Palestinian issues, most particularly State of Palestine. While the article is sourced, to my best judgment, and as I pointed out in the talk page, many of these sources are either biased (i.e. written by legal advisors to the Palestinian Authority), represent marginal views (e,g. that the British Mandate of Palestine was a predecessor of an Arab Palestinian state), inaccurate (e.g. lists of countries that allegedly recognize Palestine as a state brought from Palestinian sources, but when looking at the original sources one can see they include countries that ceased to exist, countries that weren't independent on the alleged date of recognition, countries that are listed twice under alternative names etc.). Since the subject is delicate, and edits are often rejected, it is important to review this article, as well as Occupied Palestinian Territory, Palestinian territories and Palestinian people. DrorK (talk) 23:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Just one little thing to be done, and it doesn't really touch on the POV question. The State of Palestine has a sub-article Foreign relations of Palestine. That's where the whole list of countries recognising Palestine should go, unless it goes into a new List of countries recognizing Palestine or similar. Drastically cut down the section in the State of Palestine article so it only summarises what is in Foreign relations of Palestine. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and I think that's a practical and pragmatic approach to improving consistency between articles that would help in reducing (or at least containing) conflict in general for Israel-Palestine related articles. I've tried to do a bit of that myself in another problematic, conflict prone article. Of course I was reverted... baby steps. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I quite agree. A good principle in controversial areas is to keep the number of articles small and the articles brief and to the point. That way there is more of a chance of sensible discussion. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

First of all, the Foreign relations of Palestine is poorly written because it confuses the "State of Palestine" with the "Palestinian Authority", and it does not refer to the best sources available. Getting back to the point, keeping the articles short means removing a lot of weakly related material from them (e.g. the relation of the "State of Palestine" to the British Mandate, if any). Such a move would be blocked by a group of editors who revert any change to the article which is not in line with their idea of how it should look like. DrorK (talk) 13:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Resolved

 – Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Brazilian / feel free to comment. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

There is an article called Black Brazilian that is filled with personal opinions such as "the American-style term 'African-Brazilian' is not used" even though the person doesn't provide proof. It contains accurate data, but it mostly contains personal opinions. I think it should be redirected to the Afro-Brazilian article or deleted. B-Machine (talk) 15:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The opinionated article is African Brazilian. Here is what it says:

Afro-Brazilian, African-Brazilian or Black Brazilian, is the term used to racially categorize Brazilian citizens who self-reported to be of black or brown (Pardo) skin colors to the official IBGE census. As of 2005, 91 million Brazilians were included in the black and brown category.

Which is absurd. If Afro-Brazilian and Black Brazilian are synonims, how is it possible that both include "Black" and "Brown"? The same article states, a few lines below:

Brazil has the largest population of black origin outside of Africa[3] with, in 2007, 7.4% classifying themselves as preto (black skin color) and 42.3% as pardo (brown color). The latter classification is broad and encompasses Brazilians of mixed ancestry, including mulattos and caboclos[1] making the total 49.5%.

But "caboclos" are people of mixed European and Amerindian descent; so what this article is saying is that "African Brazilians" is a category that includes people who haven't African descent.

And it goes on:

From this idea, since the government of Fernando Henrique Cardoso, the Black Brazilian population is treated as the sum of the self-declared Blacks and Browns. This conception is based on the idea that Black Brazilians lie to the census and say they are Browns.

If this absurd ("Black Brazilians lie to the Census"?!) isn't "opinionated", then I don't know what "opinionated" is.

Black Brazilian is an attempt to place an objective article in Wikipedia, instead of the collection of absurds, original research, personal theories, etc., that plage African Brazilian. Ninguém (talk) 12:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Reality TV shows and fringe claims

I'm a bit unclear how WP articles should treat reality TV shows that present "paranormal evidence" and pseudoscience as documented reality. Unlike other reality shows, their premise is based entirely on fringe claims and derives dramatic impact by creating an artificial reality where "investigators" engage in a self-styled procedural. Problems arise when fans, in good faith, wish to expand these articles by adding "in universe" detail. Too often, TV show web sites and network episode listings get used as sources for extraordinary claims and detailed personal trivia [46] like being "frightened by an electronic voice phenomenon captured on a tape recorder that (the investigator) left on a bed an hour ago"[47] and screencaps of "demonic scratches" inflicted on one of the investigators. In some articles such as here, a camera is listed as capable of being able to "take pictures the eye can't see", and in other places, episode lists are used to describe various "evidence" as if it is real. My instinct is to simply remove such material as unreliably sourced, but I wonder if there are specific WP guidelines that apply to "plot summaries" or reporting supposedly factual data contained in reality TV shows. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Just because they call it "reality TV" doesn't mean that it is a truly verifiable representation of reality. That's the key. Most of the dubious statements that you outlined cannot satisfy WP:V. If anyone gives you any grief for removing such dubious claims, the correct thing to do is refer them to WP:PSTS and WP:REDFLAG. WP:FRINGE#Evaluating claims is useful too. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: the fair-use rationale on the image you indicated is dubious at best. I recommended it for deletion. Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 February 9#File:Demonic scratches.jpg. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, it may be better to take some of the worst articles (that are bios of reality show characters) to Afd, especially the ones that are entirely self-sourced. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Center for Constitutional Rights

• Center for Constitutional Rights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article is already written like an advertisement, but an editor insists on deleting one of two balancing paragraphs, a critique of CCR published in the notable RS Human Events. Uncivil edit-summaries by edit-warring editor show that POV-pushing is motivation behind deletion of paragraph. Third opinion needed. THF (talk) 19:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Instead of relying on your paranoid imagination, have you considered perhaps that I was in fact motivated by precisely the reason I specified in those edit summaries? You don't have to be a POV-pusher to conclude that an article labeling an organization "The Terrorists' Legal Team" written by a fringe author with a history of such hyperbolic comments is not a source worthy of an encyclopedia article. Gamaliel (talk) 19:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Human Events isn't fringe (and I find it offensive and uncivil that you continue to repeat that slur after you were asked not to); CCR is the terrorists' legal team, and pretty much brags about it. THF (talk) 19:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I find it offensive and uncivil that you've cast aspersions on me in three different forums and then have the gall to act indignant about my opinion of a dubious source. Gamaliel (talk) 19:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly, I asked Gamaliel on Talk:Nina Totenberg to name a single center-right writer he doesn't view as fringe or "dubious," and he couldn't name any -- which perhaps explains why we have so many NPOV problems on Wikipedia, since a center-right editor with that attitude would have been topic-banned a long time ago. THF (talk) 23:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

You have confused "couldn't name any" with "I don't have to prove anything to you so I refuse to indulge your trolling". Could we have THF (perhaps a sock of banned TDC - surely the name isn't just coincidence?) topic-banned from me? He's used about seven different pages or so to insult me in the last week. Gamaliel (talk) 00:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Noel McCullagh

Noel McCullagh, subject of Noel McCullagh, persistently edits his own page. There have been numerous nudges in the direction of the various wikipedia policies on autobiographies, NPOV, OR and SOAPBOX but he persistently edits the page in a manner that is extremely POV and tendentious. He is a man who reportedly has been prescribed medical cannabis in the Netherlands, and has claimed to be an exile from Ireland (where he is from) as he has been told he may be arrested if he enters Ireland with this medication. However, it has emerged that he has in fact visited Ireland on 2 occasions in recent years. He has also tried to edit out altogether, or minimise, the fact that what he has been prescribed in medical cannabis. Whenever edits are made to the page he reacts abusively and emotionally. He uses both the username Barentsz and the IP address 85.144.135.149. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.40.62.33 (talk) 23:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Looking at this article, I can see another side to the story. McCullagh will want to keep his biography in a state that he sees as neutral, and while it would be unhelpful if the biography became part of his campaigning, it would be equally unhelpful if it became part of a campaign against him. At the moment the result of the edit-warring is an uninformative biography. Right at the start it should note what McCullagh is notable for, which I think is for campaigning in favour of the medical use of cannabis, and that he has gone to the extent of standing as an election candidate. Stick closely to what reliable sources say. The Wall Street Journal one is valuable, but it doesn't support the rather odd idea that the Republic of Ireland government would communicate with one of its citizens through the medium of an American newspaper. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Nikolai Yevgenyevich Markov

Article about Russian emigre right-wing politician is included into Category:Nazis [48]. While some of Markov's views probably were similar to fascism or nazism, there is no sources that he was NSDAP member and he should not be included in this category, in my view. DonaldDuck (talk) 01:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Narendra Modi

This article needs more eyes. Some editors keep trying to insert problematically POV material into it which I think probably is also BLP violating. I have reached my 24 hour revert limit keeping said material off. Simonm223 (talk) 20:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

3RR does not apply for material that violates WP:BLP. Fences&Windows 00:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Problem seems resolved for now. Humourously the editor who kept inserting questionable material edited suggesting I was upset that he was inserting information harmful to the reputation of my candidate. Funny since I am a Canadian of Celtic extraction with little interest in Indian politics who has the article on watch only because of past neutrality issues across this noticeboard. LOL Simonm223 (talk) 19:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Austrian School

Over at “Austrian School”, one or more editors has tried to have the article declared

However, mainstream theorists since then have shown that their results hold for all monotonic transformations of utility, and so also hold for ordinal preferences.

(underscore mine) citing a webpage as support. In 1959, it was demonstrated (in a peer-reviewed article) that some total-orderings do not correspond to any assignment of quantities (unique or otherwise), and in 1977 "The Austrian theory of the marginal use and of ordinal marginal utility", a peer-reviewed article by J Huston McCulloch in Zeitschrift für Nationalökonomie v37, used this result to demonstrate that the orthodox conjecture that a quantification could be fit to any economically rational ordering were false. The passage in question treated a false conjecture as a theorem, on the strength of a claim from a source that is not peer-reviewed.

When I attempted to remove this bald, false claim, BigK HeX restored it less baldly as

However, Bryan Caplan writes that mainstream theorists since then have shown that their results hold for all monotonic transformations of utility, and so also hold for ordinal preferences.

with the summary assertion

Never provided the requested verification for his claim. Treated as OR until such time as he completes the discussion.

though in fact McCulloch's article had been cited on this matter on the talk page. Caplan's claim as such was already in a “Criticism” section of the article (where McCulloch's article is also noted), so reïteration of the claim is redundant; and the source here is poor. None-the-less, BigK HeX asserts again on my talk page that I haven't provided an appropriate source, and preëmptively threatens to use WP:3RR. —SlamDiego_←T 18:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

And now BigK HeX has removed any reference to the peer-reviewed article by McCulloch. —SlamDiego_←T 19:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I removed the reference to McCulloch because SlamDiego insists on using it to promote a conclusion that is very clearly NOT evident in the source. I basically posted the following summary on the article's talk page. That mainly, I believe there is a violation of WP:SYN#Using_sources. SlamDiego made this edit:

• "McCulloch, however, has formally shown that there are economically rational preferences to which none of [ mainstream microeconomic theorists' ] weak quantifications can be fit."

and when pressed about it failing verification, he apparently describes how he based his statement on text from page 274 of his source which discusses "Table 4." The only relevant conclusion about a "Table 4" there is the following:

• "the unrelated ordering of Table 4 cannot be essentially cardinal."

....that's it, as conclusions on "Table 4" go. The passage in the editor's source makes no mention of mainstream theories, much less describing them as "weakly quantified," and we have certainly NOT been presented with evidence of McCulloch equating all things "essentially cardinal" with things that the editor refers to as "weakly quantified." And, no matter what phrase SlamDiego chooses to use (whether "weakly quantified" or something else), that he still has NOT been able to quote where his source attempts to make the same conclusion that he has synthesized.

Given SlamDiego's contested edit, it seems that he is using the source as if it read, "the unrelated ordering of Table 4 cannot be realized by the weak quantifications of the mainstream microeconomic theorists described by Bryan Caplan" He has substituted the source's concept ("essentially cardinal") with his own concept (of what can be "realized by the 'weak quantifications' of mainstream microeconomic theorists").

Even further, it is clear that the author, McCulloch, wrote that passage with the express aim of building his conclusions about a non-mainstream theory there [the Austrian theory of utility], which makes SlamDiego's use of that passage as a reference for assertions about mainstream theory even less defensible, as it is completely disregarding the context of the source. BigK HeX (talk) 07:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

It needs to be noted (as it was on the talk page) that McCulloch had elsewhere defined “essentially cardinal” orderings as those to which quantifications can be fitted. (McCulloch had defined “unrelated” orderings as those in which goods an services do not act as complements nor as substitutes.) Thus, in providing an ordering that was economically rational what could not be “essentially cardinal”, he had provided one to which no quantification could be fitted. Caplan (rightly or wrongly) is cited as having allegedly said “mainstream theorists since then have shown that their results hold for all monotonic transformations of utility, and so also hold for ordinal preferences”, in rebuttal to Austrian School claims that utility could not be quantified.

BigK HeX is claiming that, because McCulloch was speaking of the theory that Caplan was supposedly rebutting, but not in reply to that rebuttal nor (supposedly) in explicit response to other mainstream claims, it is synthesis to cite McCulloch in response to Caplan. (BigK HeX is not even accurate in pretending that McCulloch concerned himself only with the Austrian School theory, as McCulloch specifically noted that the von Neumann Morgenstern formulation could not be reconciled with “intrinsically ordinal” preferences, and this point has been made to BigK HeX repeatedly.)

McCulloch's demonstration wasn't based upon a prior exclusion of mainstream theories. The fact that McCulloch's principal concern was the Austrian School theory (the theory that Caplan was supposedly refuting), rather than the theory that Caplan supports, doesn't make it “original synthesis” to cite McCulloch.

The removal of the reference to McCulloch is an attempt to protect a PoV by pettifogging with WP:SYNTH. —SlamDiego_←T 12:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Even ignoring your blatant misuse of the source to draw a conclusion not evident in the reference, your edit is still problematic since it's written as if it were a refutation of Caplan's assertions when IT DOES NOTHING TO REFUTE THEM. The assertions that you attempt to refute are not present in the article --- certainly, I don't see Caplan making arguments similar to the ones you endeavor to "refute." So, on top of the problem of you not having a source that even makes the point you're trying to create, your usage as a refutation is even worse because there's not actually any content in the article for it to refute (except, perhaps, a strawman). BigK HeX (talk) 19:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Ignoring your begging of the question, Caplan is discussing exactly Austrian School ordinalism, and McCulloch's article is indeed principally about that ordinalism. Caplan is alleged in the article to claim that the Austrian School claims about their ordinalism are refuted; McCulloch had already shown a class of preferences that vindicates those claims. In attempting to stand the relationship of McCulloch's claim to the Caplan claim on its head, you are turning the relationship of the Caplan claim to the article on its head. Such inversions are wikilawyering to push a PoV. —SlamDiego_←T 04:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Request to SlamDiego

At least we're getting to the heart of the matter now. Aside from the suspected synthesis of assertions that are not implied by your source, it seems to be getting pretty clear that your edit attacks a strawman --- but, I suppose it's possible that I've overlooked something, though we'll see... this could be handled most simply if you're willing to provide a direct answer (as opposed to any circuitous non-answer) to the following.

Your quote follows, but I'll begin with an attempt to make clear your contention. It seems these three points are implied from the quote that follows:

• A) You believe that there is at least one Austrian school theory about a certain concept (economic utility, in this case), and
• B) you believe that Austrian thinkers have made assertions about their school's theory, and
• C) you believe that Bryan Caplan is described within the Wiki article as having refuted the assertions of those Austrian thinkers about their economic theory [i.e., Austrian ordinal utility].

Specifically, your quote is that, "Caplan is alleged in the article to claim that the Austrian School claims about their ordinalism are refuted"

Please quote precisely from the Wiki article where this occurs. I'm quite interested in seeing where the article links: "Caplan" and "refutes" and "Austrian School ordinalism." I have little doubt that I'll get another long-winded distraction, instead of the quote from the Wiki article that I've requested, but it's worth a shot. BigK HeX (talk) 15:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Ku Klux Klan Issue

Issue here has been an ongoing debate about The nature of Ku Klux Klan. I several other editors have Come to the conclusion that putting as a Fact in the lead that it is "far right hate group" violates NPOV similiar too WP:Words that label example as the KKK as Racist". It is the opinion of Groups like the Southern poverty law center. While no one disputes that it committed a heinous acts the proposal to Establish the lead as "informally known as The Klan, is the name of several past and present White Supremacist and Nativist organizations in the United States whose avowed purpose was to protect the rights of and further the interests of white Americans, mainly by the use of violence and intimidation" Was reached by a consensus of three out four individual editors and changed to that. Verbal reverted it too "White Supremacist, far right hate group organizations" with a lock on the page. This is where we are at NPOV requires opinions be attributed as such and not presented as fact. Why i am no klan lover, it does not seem encyclopedic to marginalize a groups point of view in the lead by stating as a fact it is a hate-group. It is encyclopedic to label their view points as "White Supremacist and Nativist" as their beliefs and if people want to interpret Hate group one may. I am not saying that we should not include information from groups such as SPLC as labeling such but it is not an ecylpedia job to present opion of the majority as fact. Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The SPLC has been established as a WP:RS on matters pertaining to far right groups. Also, the KKK is not about protecting "natives", so I'm not sure about the term Nativist being appropriated! Lastly, I didn't lock the page but encouraged wider debate. I see no justification for removing the accurate labelling. Verbal chat 20:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Nativism (politics)#20th and 21st century anti-immigration movements defines KKK as an example of Nativism. Hmm forgive me i must be appologies if for misddirected accusation. as i have double checked sorry againWeaponbb7 (talk) 21:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that that is how the term is used, but it is a propagandist term (KKK members are not "native"). It is a term that should probably be avoided. I'd welcome RS on whether it's use violates NPOV. Verbal chat 21:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

examples Weaponbb7 (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

My comments on the article's talkpage were lengthy enough that I don't want to duplicate them here; suffice it to say that I support Verbal's interpretation as have several other editors past and present. The Nativism argument is actually new to me, but even the link the Weaponbb7 provided is careful to say only that they employed Nativist rhetoric, not that the KKK is a Native organization. Please refer to the talkpage itself for the full conversation. Thanks, Doc Tropics 23:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)It is inaccurate to say that a consensus was reached. At least two other editors besides Verbal had voiced support for maintaining the old status quo. The change, which was my suggestion, was implemented less than 2 hours after I first suggested it. In any event, since the only issue seems to be the choice of words that essentially say the same thing (i.e. white supremacists using violence against minority groups meets any definition of hate group), this is a matter of style rather than POV. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that the "far right" label is a bit strange. While it's undeniably true today that essentially all KKK members and ideologies are "far right", the distinguishing feature of the KKK historically was that it was a terrorist organization that was formed to re-establish a white supremacy in the South regardless of political whim. A number of "progressives" were associated with the second Klan which was revived after the success of the revisionist Birth of a Nation. Robert C. Byrd and D. W. Griffith are not exactly "far right" individuals. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree entirely with the comments by Weaponbb7 in the top paragraph. However, I stgrongly disagree with Tom (North Shoreman) about this being more about style than NPOV. Also, to me it seems clasically Orwellian to use a demeaning and vague generalization label like "hate group" to describe a group which is reknowned for its own use of demeaning and vague generalization labels like "outside agitator". It is even more Orwellian to say that "hate group" is not a demeaning smearing label. Going even further, to conflate "hate group" with "far right" serves to smear that entire group of people by conflating "far right" with "hate group". It feels to me like a few Editors are using this article to express personal and/or collective viciously negative pov, pov which I myself happen to hold towards the KKK, but which, in any realm of reality, does not belong in a good encyclopedia. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 02:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Hate group is a term that is well understood and commonly used. I got 286 hits off Google News that goes back less than 30 days. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

From Wikipedia Words that label

Some words may be used to label a group from an outside perspective, even though these words are used in accordance with a dictionary definition. For example:

• "The Ku Klux Klan is a racist organization."

Such terms, even when accurate, often convey to readers an implied viewpoint: that of outsiders looking in and labeling as they see it. The fact that a term is accepted "outside" but not "inside" is a good indicator that it may not be neutral. There are at least three ways to deal with this: attribute the term to reliable sources; replace the label with information; or use a more neutral term. These three approaches are illustrated as follows:

• "The Ku Klux Klan is an organization that has advocated white supremacy and anti-Semitism."

This Seems to be the exact situation we are in, So it seems the appropriate way to handle this is the suggestion of "White Supremacist and Nativist" as "opposed to hate group" aributed source saying they are hate group according to "X" would be correct way of handling this. Weaponbb7 (talk) 13:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• Good reference,imo, to add to this discussion; here's the link to it:[49]. Thanks Weaponbb7 for locating/including that. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 16:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually there is a much more appropriate solution. As the section of the STYLE GUIDELINE suggests, an equally effective way to address the issue is to provide sourcing. The example used is:

"The Peoples Temple is an organization, described as a 'cult' by X,^[1] Y,^[2] and Z.^[3]"

Later on, the guideline states the following:

If a reliable source describes a person or group using one of these words, then the word can be used but the description must be attributed in the article text to its source, preferably by direct quotation, and always with a verifiable citation. If the term is used with a clear meaning by multiple reliable independent sources, then citations to several such sources should be provided for the sentence where it appears.

You are splitting hairs Wikipedia Guidline specifcally say thou shall not and gives the correct appraoch for Wikipedia. It is not whether they are a hate group its how to approach it in encyclopedia. I belive them to be hate group but i approach article writing by wikipedia standards Weaponbb7 (talk) 18:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing the fact that the KKK is considered a hate group would be no problem -- newspapers, journal articles, and books are are avalable. What is a problem is finding any reliable source that says it is NOT a hate group.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Cherrypicking quotes from WP:FREEDOMFIGHTER is incorrect stance Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It's the exact same principle as stated immediately above it. Far from being merely a few sources that label the KKK as a hate group, the sources are n fact numerous and varied. The bottom line is still that sourcing the KKK as a hate group presents no problem at all. Simply attributing it to three sources would be misleadng when in fact there are dozens, if not hundreds, of such references. Do you have ANY sources, other than perhaps KKK.com, that dispute it's classification?Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The issue is not whether to include X Group says they are a hate group but presenting it as fact in the lead is the issue is is much more effective to descibe a belive just label the beleifs. Weaponbb7 (talk) 18:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

If NUMEROUS reliable sources label it as a hate group and FEW, IF ANY reliable sources dispute the label, then it belongs in the lead without qualification. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Tom, almost all reliable sources describe them as a hate group, it's finding RS for almost any other perspective that becomes problematic. Also, I wanted to point out that the purpose of this Noticeboard is to notify other editors about the issue, not necessarily to continue our own discussions from the article's talkpage. It seems most of the relevant points have been highlighted and we should wait for some outside opinions on the matter. Doc Tropics 19:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

thanx doc i was unaware of that Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Rory Reid

Rory Reid is a Clark County Commissioner and a major candidate for Governor of Nevada, not to mention the son of Harry Reid. Since his announcement for running for Governor, there has been numerous strong POV edits. Sometimes overly campaign-like, [50][51], but mostly unreferenced anti-Reid content and even an attempt at speedy deletion.[52][53]

Currently, an anon just made a major addition of campaign contribution content. While it does appear sourced, it's mostly negative POV... Donors are mostly major Las Vegas casinos, almost no money from northern Nevada and major New York and Washington D.C. donors. [54]

It doesn't seem politician articles usually have such a large emphasis on donations and it does seem there is undue weight to them, not to mention a NPOV spin, with this candidate's article. I don't know if it's appropriate.

Overall, this article needs to have an eye kept on it.--Oakshade (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, I've noticed the anon user has not written any contribution content in the article of Reid's probable Republican challenger Brian Sandoval despite the source cited in the Reid article giving just as much coverage to Sandoval's contribution sources.--Oakshade (talk) 01:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)