Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about adherence to the neutral point of view in context!

Before posting here, consult the neutral point of view policy page and the FAQ explainer. Also, make sure to discuss the disagreement at the article's talk page. Fringe theories often involve questions about neutral point of view. These should be discussed at the dedicated noticeboard. You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:NPOVN-notice}} to do so. Additional notes: Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments, not on vote count or sheer size of argument. Consensus in previous discussions does not make policy, but you can generally rely on it. The list of articles where users flagged a point-of-view concern is here. This page is not a forum for discussions unrelated to the neutral point of view. We have a separate noticeboard for concerns about original research (material made up by a Wikipedia editor), and another dedicated noticeboard for questions about contextual reliability of a source. Start a new discussion

Weston Price and Focal infection theory

We are having another dispute on the Weston Price article. The current version has a very misleading statement using the publisher PMPH-USA (whose quality in this field has NOT been proven) while I want to put in the following more accurate version:

The dental part of focal infection fell out of favor in the late 1930s (Thomas J. Pallasch, DDS, MS, and Michael J. Wahl, DDS (2000) "The Focal Infection Theory: Appraisal and Reappraisal", Journal of the California Dental Association.) with a special 1951 issue of the Journal of the American Dental Association stating "Many Authorities who formally felt that focal infection was an important etiologic factor in systemic disease have become skeptical and now recommend less radical procedures in the treatment of such disorders."("An Evaluation of the Effect of Dental Focal Infection on Health" JADA 42:609-697 June 1951) though the idea never disappeared from the dental community.(Editorial. JAMA 1952; 150: 490.) (Bergenholtz, Gunnar; Preben Hørsted-Bindslev, Claes Reit (2009). Textbook of Endodontology. Wiley. pp. 135–136) While, recent discoveries have caused a cautious reevaluation of focal infection in dentistry ((2001) Fowler, Edward B "Periodontal disease and its association with systemic disease" Military Medicine (Jan 2001)) and there are studies on the quality of diet regarding oral health in adults (Bailey, RL (2004) "Persistent oral health problems associated with comorbidity and impaired diet quality in older adults". J Am Diet . Assnc. 104:1273.) these are independent of Weston Price's work.

I have Journal of the California Dental Association, JADA, Wiley, Military Medicine, and J Am Diet . Assnc that show the PMPH-USA is wrong but we are getting NPOV tags thrown up as well as used as an excuse to remove reliable sources.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

1. If we're having a discussion here at WP:NPOVN, then the NPOV tag is warranted, right?
2. Is there agreement that the material does not belong in the lede of Weston Price?
3. Seems like a simple application of WP:MEDRS would solve the non-historical issues about focal infection theory, right?
4. Shouldn't the non-historical information unrelated to Price be left to Focal infection theory, which then should be linked and summarized as it applies within Weston Price? --Ronz (talk) 02:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Ronz, you have dodged the real issue--the biography on Weston Price is being used to make a medical claim not supported by articles from the Journal of the California Dental Association, JADA, Wiley, Military Medicine, and J Am Diet . Assnc. To date nothing to show that PMPH-USA is a reliable source has been presented while the reliable of Journal of the California Dental Association, JADA, Wiley, JAMA, Military Medicine, and J Am Diet . Assnc source are known.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Um, I noticed that, hence my questions #2, #3, and #4. --Ronz (talk) 05:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I guess I'll wade back into this again. Hopefully we'll have a more reasoned discussion this time. --Ludwigs2 05:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Ronz, I'm going to put this out here bluntly: I have not forgotten your 'fake retirement' gambit, and if you start in me again, we'll be right back in ANI and that trick will not work twice. Understood? --Ludwigs2 05:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Note on proper use of talk pages
Please focus on content, per WP:TALK, WP:CIVIL, WP:DR, and WP:NPA; and when you still find it necessary to comment on others, be sure to follow WP:TALK, WP:CIVIL, WP:DR, WP:NPA, WP:AGF, WP:HARASS, and WP:BATTLE. --Ronz (talk) 05:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Stop collapsing content you don't agree with, Ronz.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Another note on proper use of talk pages

Please learn to respect and follow our behavioral policies. The issue isn't of simple disagreement, but of proper use of talk pages. Please review the policies/guidelines. Failure to follow them can make comments appear to be attacks aimed at disrupting consensus-building. --Ronz (talk) 16:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC) I suggest letting this go Ronz. Ludwigs is not the only one who hasn't forgotten. That you have decided to involve yourself again with the very topic that lead to all the drama and your fake out retirement makes me virtually speechless. Again, I really suggest letting this go Ronz. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC) Please review and follow the policies/guidelines mentioned. Repeated failure to do so could result in a block. --Ronz (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Again Stop tying to use Wikipedia policy to hid what you don't like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BruceGrubb (talk • contribs) 07:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

1) As noted before, none of the sources you want to add speaks at all about Weston Price, which is the article you want to put it in. It is clear WP:SYNTH.

2) The source you say is not reliable, Ingle's Endodontics 6th ed, is currently published by PMPH-USA which is, by all accounts, a reliable publisher of medical textbooks (see their website). Also note that this title came to be published by PMPH-USA because they bought the entire book list from the original publisher, BC Decker, which is clearly a reliable publisher as they publish material in conjunction with the American College of Physicians, the leading internal medicine professional organization. Note also that Ingle's Endodontics 6th ed. is also published by McGraw Hill, as noted here, for sale in Canada and Europe. It is clearly reliable, so stop saying it isn't just because you don't like their conclusions.

3) The Weston Price article is not the place to get into a discussion about the relative merits of where focal infection theory stands now. The version that Price advocated for fell out of favor; discussion about any other forms of focal infection theory that may or may not remain valid belongs in the article about focal infection theory, not the Weston Price article. Yobol (talk) 05:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Several things

1. The Ingle's Endodontics at McGraw Hill states Only for sale in EMEA, Canada, Tailand If this was such a good quality textbook way isn't allowed to be sold in the US?
2. The referenced edition is 2007 while the McGraw Hill clearly states on the link you provided "Pub Date: MAY-08".
3. The referenced statement of "Price was outspoken on the relationship between endodontic therapy and pulpless teeth and broader systemic disease, ideas derived from focal infection theory, and held that dental health - and consequently physical health - were heavily influenced by nutritional factors. These theories fell out of favor in the 1930s and are not currently considered viable in the dental or medical communities" is not supported by other known reliable source--including one by the same original publisher:

"It is now realized that oral bacteria and their products and their products, particularly ipopoysccharides and proinflamunary cytokine, induced local in response in oral infections, enter the blood stream and may subsequently activate systemic response in certain susceptible individuals" (Bergenholtz, Gunnar; Preben Hørsted-Bindslev, Claes Reit putlich (2009) Textbook of Endodontology Wiley; page 136)

"Manila et al utilized sound scientific methods to reintroduce the association between systemic disease and oral infection." (Fowler, Edward B (2001) "Periodontal disease and its association with systemic disease" Military Medicine (Jan 2001))

"The dark age (1876 to 1926): In spite of introduction of X-rays and general anesthesia, extractions was the choice of treatment than endodontics in most of the cases of damaged teeth because theory of the focal infection was main concern" (Garg, Nisha; Amit Garg (2007) Textbook of endodontics Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers pg 2)

"The resurgence of the focal infection theory of disease has been greeted with great enthusiasm in some quarters;..." abstract (Pallasch, Thomas J. DDS, MS; Michael J. Wahl, DDS (2000) "The Focal Infection Theory: Appraisal and Reappraisal" Journal of the California Dental Association)

"It is becoming more validated that the oral cavity can act as the site of origin for spread of pathogenic organisms to organisms to distance body areas,..." (Saraf (2006) Textbook of Oral Pathology Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers pg 188)

"The oral focal infection theory, a concept generally neglected for several decades, is controversial yet has gained renewed interest with progress in classification and identification of oral microorganism. Additionally, recent evidence associating dental infections with atherosclerosis and other chronic diseases has also helped resurrect the focal infection theory." (Silverman, Sol; Lewis R. Eversole, Edmond L. Truelove (2002) Essentials of oral medicine PMPH usa; Page 159)

Furthermore take a look at these old contemporary to Price definitions and compare them to a 2009 definition and explain just what blasted difference there is:

"All focal infection is not of dental origin, but a sufficiently large percentage is to demand a careful study of the mouth and teeth in all cases of the mouth and teeth in all cases of systemic infection, for in these cases all foci should be removed." (1918) Dental summary: Volume 38; Page 437)

"One cannot deny the existence of such a mechanism as operates in focal infection, ie, infection in one locus leading to manifestations elsewhere in the body. One has but to call to mind the metastases that occur in such infections as tuberculosis, gonorrhea, syphilis, pneumonia, typhoid fever, and mumps. I cannot support the statement in the "critically appraised" report on dental foci of infection that "later laboratory workers were unable to confirm the bacteriologic findings of Rosenow on which the concept of 'elective localization'" ((1952) Southern California State Dental Association journal)

"Focal infection-it refers to metastasis form the focus of infection, of organisms or their products that are capable of injuring tissue" (Ghom (2009) Textbook of Oral Pathology Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers pg 459)--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

If you can't even concede that McGraw Hill and BC decker are reliable publishers, there is nothing more that needs to be said to show your tendentious need to insert POV into this page if you're going to ignore the blatantly obvious. Everything else you wrote is your confusion about what Price advocated (and was, and still is, roundly rejected by the medical/dental community) and what current advocates of focal infection theory are saying now, which are quite different. Yobol (talk) 07:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, this noticeboard really isn't the appropriate place to discuss whether or not Ingle's Endodontics is a WP:RS; if you feel the need to continue your assertion that McGraw Hill and BC Decker are not reliable publishers, we should probably take that discussion to WP:RSN.Yobol (talk) 07:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Considering that Journal of the California Dental Association, JADA, Wiley, Military Medicine, and J Am Diet . Assnc and even an earlier People's Medical Publishing House publication all say the Ingle's Endodontics statement is wrong. You can do all the hand waving you want but the fact of the end of the day is you have ONE source supporting your view while I have FIVE.

I should point out McGraw Hill also puts out little gems like Easy Homeopathy, Homeopathic Remedies for 100 Children's Common Ailments, and Homeopathic Remedies for Children’s Common Ailments. It is hard to take a publisher of medical material as reliable when they also print stuff that claims Homeopathic medicine is a viable treatment option.

"Homeopathy works best with chronic health problems and some acute health problems" Repetitive strain injuries McGraw Hill pg 179.

"Homeopathy works by treating the whole body, including body, mind, and spirit" ("Without ritalin: a natural approach to ADD" McGraw Hill pg 115).

"We have no idea if this is technically true, we still don't understand how Homeopathy works. There has been no good basic research into the mechanism of action of homeopathic medicine..." (Vogel, John H. K.; Mitchell Krucoff (2007) Integrative cardiology McGraw-Hill Medical pg 347)

Homeopathy works?!? SAY WHAT?!? Yobol, if this is your idea of reliable I hate to see what you consider unreliable. Oh wait a minute you have basically said that McGraw Hill must take a back seat to Journal of the California Dental Association, JADA, Wiley, Military Medicine, and the J Am Diet . Assnc ergo those publishers are unreliable. Does this make a lick of sense?--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Bruce, the fact that they publish fringey medical texts does not mean that they do not also publish mainstream ones. That said, since they do publish fringe medicine one cannot take them as de facto mainstream in medical textbook publications. Drop McGraw Hill. There is no need to keep on tugging at either end of that rope. There is plenty else to discuss about this matter. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not the one pushing McGraw Hill; Yobol is the one pushing it despite the fact that FIVE other sources (Journal of the California Dental Association, JADA, Wiley, Military Medicine, and Journal of the American Dietetic Association) as well an earlier work by the same original publisher show the Ingle's Endodontics statement to be flat out WRONG.

As I said before on the Weston Price talk page you can't claim focal infection theory has been resurrected in 2002, have a 2009 source by Wiley saying the theory is being cautiously being looked at, another Wiley source stating the theory never really died in dentistry, and a 2007 source saying the theory has been dead as a dodo since the 1930s. There is simply no way to reconcile those claims.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

And as I said in the talk page, Price's contribution to focal infection theory was to research and advocate for the extraction of teeth rather than using root canals. That was his sole contribution to focal infection theory (frankly, that was focal infection theory in the 1930s), and that was completely abandoned. The modern "revival" of focal infection doesn't speak, at all, about tooth extraction or root canals and is therefore different than the theory Price advocated. You are conflating two things that share the same name and very basic principles but by all accounts are two totally different scientific theories. Not a single one of the sources you have provided have tied Price to this newer focal infection theory. Yobol (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

As administrator Will Beback pointed out back in Talk:Weston_Price/Archive_2#Modern_focal_infection_theory_passage "WP:MEDRS limits what we can say about medical topics, so that may be appropriate. But we shouldn't use this article as a backdoor to discuss medical claims that we wouldn't make elsewhere." You cannot ignore the many sources that show the Ingle's Endodontics statement is WRONG. While we are on it here are two more:

"Today the concept of focal infection has been integrated into the practice of medicine. One speaks no longer of the theory of focal infection; one recognizes focal infection as a definite pathologic condition requiring scientific diagnosis and treatment." (1947 Journal of the American Medical Association Volume 133:2 page 111). This statement was repeated word for word in Review of gastroenterology Volume 18 pg 71 of the National Gastroenterological Association in 1951.

You can't claim a theory "fell out of favor in the 1930s" when papers in 1947 and 1951 say it is "a definite pathologic condition requiring scientific diagnosis and treatment." On every point the Ingle's Endodontics is WRONG and no handwaving is going to change that.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

You're repeating yourself without addressing the point. What your sources are describing and what Price advocated for are two different theories. Yobol (talk) 16:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

No it is you where are avoiding the fact that all these other sources say the medical claim being made by Ingle's Endodontics either doesn't say what you think it says or it is flat out wrong.--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

You only think Ingle's is wrong because you can't see the difference between what Price advocated and what the sources you are presenting here are saying. And round and round we go. Yobol (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

That is largely because you keep claiming this with no evidence that there is a fundamental difference in the basic theory Price's work was used to support.

"A focus of infection may be defined as a circumscribed area of tissue infected with pathogenic microorganims. Foci of infection may be primary and secondary. (...) Primary foci of infection may be located anywhere in the body." (Billings, Frank ScD. (Harvard) MD (1916) Focal infection, Lane Medical Lectures (Delivered Sept 20-24, 1915 Stanford University Medical School); D Appleton and company, pg 3)

Articles of the same time period (1919 Minnesota medicine: Volume 2 Minnesota Medical Association Page 20; (1915) The Laryngoscope: Volume 25 American Otological Society, Page 786; (1916) Pacific medical journal: Volume 59, Page 177; (1913) Interstate medical journal: Volume 20, Page 849; (1914) Section on Laryngology, Otology, and Rhinology American Medical Association, Page 23) all define Focal infection in essentially the same way and nearly all of these were written when Price was chair of the Research Section of the American Dental Association (1914-1928)

"Similarly, in patients in whom brain abscess or meningitis originates from a focal infection in the vicinity of the brain (sinusitis, otitis media, dental abscess), contiguous spread rather than bacteremia represents the likely route by route by which the pathogen gains access to the CNS" (Scheld, W. Michael; Richard J. Whitley, Christina M. Marra (2004) "Infections of the central nervous system" Wolters Kluwer Health pg 331)

"Each dental caries, dental abscess, gingival and alveolar inflammation and necrosis, has been interpreted as essentially infective processes, and hence their extent is essentially a measure of the infection." (Price, Weston (1923) Dental infections, oral and systemic)

Here we see Price himself talking about dental abscess in the very book used as reference to FIT and a 2004 book by Wolters Kluwer Health that talks about dental abscess being one of the potential focal infections for brain abscessed or meningitis and yet we are being told by Yobol that they are somehow two different theories? SAY WHAT?!?

Moreover various medical journals of Price's time talk more about dental abscesses in regards to FIT then they talk about endodontic treated or pulpless teeth. These include (but are not means limited to) (1918) "DENTAL ABSCESS OR INFECTION AND ITS CONSEQUENCES" The American journal of clinical medicine: Volume 25, Page 145; (1922) Transactions of the College of Physicians of Philadelphia College of Physicians of Philadelphia, Page 276; George W. Goler (1922) "Discussion" Transactions of the Dental Society of the State of New York, Volumes 50-54 Dental Society of the State of New York pg 126; (1916) Contributions from the Department of Pathology, Bacteriology, and Public Health: Volumes 1-2, University of Minnesota. Dept. of Pathology, Bacteriology, and Public Health, Page 192; (1915) Journal of the Iowa State Medical Society: Volume 5, Iowa State Medical Society, Page 60; Bethel, L. P. (1917) Dental summary: Volume 37, Page 917; (1916) Martin, Franklin Henry Surgery, gynecology & obstetrics: Volume 22, Page 24; Keyes, Frederick Anthony (1918) Army dentistry: Forsyth lectures for the Army Dental Reserve Corps, Page 107)--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment My only concern here is that Price's application of focal infection theory (e.g. the one shared by the dental mainstream for a number of years leading to unnecessary extractions, etc.) is not confused with the focal infection theory, which is a much more general theory. I'm saying this because I agree mostly with Yobol at this point, but with a caveat that I think relates to Bruce's concerns. The sources that do in fact discuss Price and focal infection theory appear not to be doing a very good job differentiating between the two themselves. I think we do need to stick to these sources when discussing Price's connection to the theory, but we should also make sure our readers are not confused in the sense of thinking that the focal infection theory was completely rejected. As far as that is handled with the necessary subtlety I'm happy.Griswaldo (talk) 21:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)'=

As I pointed out in the talk page when this originally came up is Silverman, Sol; Lewis R. Eversole, Edmond L. Truelove (2002) "Essentials of oral medicine" PMPH usa; Page 159 stated "Additionally, recent evidence associating dental infections with atherosclerosis and other chronic diseases has also helped resurrect the focal infection theory." Guest who now publishes Silverman's book; you got it McGraw hill!

Now I'll ask the question that I asked back on the talk page and never really got an answer to--how can People's Medical Publishing House and now McGraw Hill state the focal infection theory is being revived in 2002 and yet in 2007 (or 2008) say that it died in the 1930s period end of sentence. They can't both be true.

Here is quote regarding the book Root Canal Cover-up Exposed that addresses Price as well: "The focal infection theory, supported by many including Dr. Price, has been attacked, debated, accepted, criticized, agreed upon, etc. but it has not been covered up." ((1994) Annals of dentistry: Volumes 53-54 New York Academy of Dentistry pg 42) Why is the word "rejected" not part of that list? The author of this piece states that Root Canal Cover-up Exposed "contains unsubstantiated statements, misunderstandings, and it would definitely have benefited from a better proofreading. Infected tissues/organs, such as teeth, can serve as a source of infection which can be transported, in the form of microorganisms..."

Hold the phone there isn't the idea that tissues/organs such as teeth being a source of infection which can be transported to other parts of the body the very definition of FIT as it was in Price's time? Given the numerous quotes of the period I have been citing in the talk page looks like it to me.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Well it has been nearly a month an no real reasons for putting one source over what is now seven has been presented nor how doing so meets WP:NPOV with regards to WP:MEDRS. Administrator USER:Will Beback pointed out back in Talk:Weston_Price/Archive_2#Modern_focal_infection_theory_passage "WP:MEDRS limits what we can say about medical topics, so that may be appropriate. But we shouldn't use this article as a backdoor to discuss medical claims that we wouldn't make elsewhere." So far nothing to show why Ingle's Endodontics should be used to overrule what is stated by two other textbooks, an earlier book published by the same publisher, article by the Journal of the California Dental Association, JADA, Military Medicine, Journal of the American Dietetic Association, the New York Academy of Dentistry, and several books put out by Wiley and Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers simply under the grounds that they don't directly mention Weston Price. Per WP:MEDRS it doesn't matter if Weston Price is mentioned but if the medical claim being made in relation to him is correct and as the WP:RS show Ingle's Endodontics is wrong in this regard.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Multiple reasons have been given, you just haven't chosen to accept them. You are free to disagree with everyone else; you are not, however, free to continue to disrupt the article by ignoring consensus and implementing changes that have been rejected multiple times. Yobol (talk) 23:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

A bunch of smoke and mirror reasons have been presented that do not address the core issue--Ingle's Endodontics is making a medical claim not supported by any of the above sources and since it is a minority view that is apparent violation of the WP:NPOV part of WP:MEDRS. Unless Yobol can produce his arguments here his claims have no merit.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Additional note Yobol did this revert. Please explain how identifying the publisher falls under WP:PEACOCK especially given the just the fact example?!? Better yet explain to us how removing the very reference as where the statement was removed qualifies under WP:PEACOCK. Also explain to us why this nonsense is allowed to go on.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Ingels vs Ingels The really sad thing about this is "PDQ Endodontics" by Ingels clearly states "And even today, cancer and neuroropsychiatric disorders are blamed on focal infection". (...) "In summary, nonsurgical endodontics may be the least likely of dental treatment procedure to produce significant bacteremias in either incidence or magnitude" so even Ingels (2009) says Ignels (2002/2007) is wrong.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

is NPOV a factor when discussing sources?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_YouTube_personalities#Ted_Williams_but_not_RWJ.3F

Basically my question is whether a neutral point of view is a requirement for a source to be considered 'a go'? I thought that was a requirement for writing an article and not explicitly a concern for sources. I know the specific link likely doesn't qualify for other reasons, but this question I feel is something I should know. 72.209.160.88 (talk) 14:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the viewpoint of a source has to do with that discussion, but to answer your question, no the viewpoint of the source is not relevant. All sources have a bias. What matters is whether the source has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. But looking at that discussion, the issue there is whether a source meets our definition of a reliable source. I didn't recognize most of the web sites discussed, but I'm guessing that many, if not all of those, do not qualify as a reliable source according to Wikipedia's standards. I suggest you take some time to familiarize yourself with our WP:RS guideline. If you have any questions about a specific source, feel free to ask on the reliable source notice board. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

CNN and the newyorktimes are acceptable sources, and I have looked into reliable source.72.209.160.88 (talk) 07:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

"Acceptable" depends on the context. Editors should not simply parrot every "interesting" remark made about their subject: Wikipedia is not a gossip column. It is an encyclopedia, and tries to be a serious, credible encyclopedia. Which means that the material in article should be researched. The first requirement is that everything is "sourced" (traceable back to some source that presumably knows what they are talking about). Hopefully these sources are reliable, and even neutral. But even if Satan himself says 2+2=4, we do not despise the arithmetic "truth" of 2+2=4. In some contexts, sure, you might find good reason to quote or take material from a very non-neutral source. But editors still have a responsibility to produce neutral material ("balanced", see WP:WEIGHT). CNN might have some pertinent material about Ted Williams, but (esp. in this case) it might also be highly biased; an editor would be expected to check a range of sources, and evaluate the entire context. So strictly speaking the specific answer to your question is "no". But more fully the answer is: depends on how you use it. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Biased sources can be used with attribution and balanced with other opinions. That's WP policy, explained clearly in WP:RS#Statements of opinion and in WP:NPOV#Attributing and specifying biased statements. For op-ed as sources, see WP:RS#News organizations. If someone deletes your source because it is biased, evoke WP:NPOV#Achieving neutrality and WP:NPOV#Balance. Of course, do not delete their sources either. Emmanuelm (talk) 03:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem as demonstrated by the Weston Price article other editors can invoke WP:OR or WP:coatrack to remove WP:RS even if said material is direct quotes from peer reviewed sources!--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

POV in a map

At Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority, there are 3 world maps indicating recognition of and relations with Palestine and its derivitive institutions. This thread concerns the last of these maps (shown right), which shows different information from the other two.

The information in this map is supposedly derived from the table in the article, which is sourced. The table is divided into 3 parts:

• The top section lists states that have recognised the State of Palestine. These are coloured GREEN in the maps.
• The bottom section lists states that do not recognise the State of Palestine. These are coloured BLUE in the maps.
• A middle section lists states where sources conflict on that state's official position.

Unlike in the other 2 maps on the page, there is no neutral colouring for those unclear cases listed in the middle section. Instead, they're rendered as BLUE (i.e., not recognising the State of Palestine). Not only is this inherently confusing to the reader in its deviation from the sourced information in the article, it also shows POV.

The author of the map (Alinor (talk · contribs)) insists that discussion between editors will eventually determine to which of the two sections each of these cases belongs, thus rendering as redundant any need for a third colour in the maps. However, given the heavy disagreement between sources on a number of these entries, it is unlikely that anything will be determined regarding their positions any time soon. They have all been in the middle section since last year, while the map has shown them as belonging to the last section.

I agree that inconclusive evidence requires further investigation, but I don't think it's acceptable to show these cases, even in the meantime, as belonging to one category when the article (and the sources) show that they could just as easily belong to the other. Nightw 05:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

For example, there's a reliable source stating quite explicitly that Lesotho recognises the State of Palestine, but in the absence of official word from the baSotho government, it's been rendered as inconclusive. But this map shows it, along with all similarly undetermined cases, as not recognising it. Nightw 05:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's not discuss individual cases of the inconclusive entries - the talk page of the article is more appropriate place for that. Alinor (talk) 08:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

??? I'm not. That was an example for the noticeboard. Read comments properly. Nightw 12:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

First, all three maps are made by me, including these with special coloring for "inconclusive" cases. The other two maps not shown here, are unnecessary in my opinion, they don't add any information, but I agreed on making and adding them, as compromise.

The way in which Night w presents the information above is misleading ("the third map shows different information from the other two", etc.)

I have not insisted that we wait for ALL inconclusive cases to be resolved. I said, that before editing the map we should first finish the concurrently ongoing discussion about two of them (about the rest we don't discuss anything, because there is no new information).

My hesitation to include "inconclusive" as separate group is because of the additional colors needed (at least two). The map already has 4 colors (recognition, recognition+relations, relations, no recognition+no relations) and in the inconclusive group currently we have 2 more types ("maybe recognition", "relations+maybe recognition"). It's not just blue and green. Currently it's blue, green, light green, gray. I hesitate adding too much colors, because this is bad practice in general. But after Night w insisted so much I already agreed to do this.

What I said is - let's finish the ongoing discussion about two of the inconclusive cases and then we will change the map accordingly. Alinor (talk) 08:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why it's necessary to wait for an outcome on certain entries. Meanwhile it shows possibly wrong information. If we must wait for discussion to close on some cases, then it should be removed until the POV colouring is addressed. Nightw 12:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Wait for an outcome not on certain entries, but of an actively ongoing discussion. We can't change back-and-forth every time the discussion swings in one or another direction. Alinor (talk) 13:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The states that "lists states where sources conflict on that state's official position" should not be colored in blue as this is misleading to the reader. Later, if their position is clarified the appropriate color (green or blue) can be added. Meantime they should have a neutral color but in any case they should not be colored blue.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you say that we should be "restrictive" in coloring - e.g. in case of conflicting or inconclusive sources the map should show neutral gray color ("no SoP recognition") until an official confirmation source is found? Or you say that we should add additional neutral color specially for "conflicting or inconclusive sources"?

Just to clarify - blue doesn't mean only "SoP no recognition", but "PLO/PNA relations + no SoP recogntion". That's why some of the conflicting and inconclusive cases are blue currently - because we have official sources showing "PLO/PNA relations" just like for other of the blue states. This is implementation of the "restrictive" approach described above (gray - for no relations+no recognition; blue for relations+no recognition). Alinor (talk) 07:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

...But it's unclear to as to whether these cases recognise the State. So it's POV to say that they don't. And confusing to the reader when the rest of the article says otherwise. Nightw 09:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Let Keithbob reply. I understand him as supporting the "restrictive" coloring - e.g. for inconclusive cases we color as non-recognizing until we have official confirmation of recognition. And "the rest of the article says otherwise" is just the inclusion of these few specific cases as "conflicting and inconclusive". Alinor (talk) 15:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

So what's happening with this. We have three editors asking for neutral colouring on the map. Is it going to happen? Nightw 08:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

There are no three editors asking for this - you are asking for this, Rennell435 asks both maps to show the same thing (but doesn't insist on inclusion of "conflicting case" coloring), Keithbob hasn't replied yet. I assume that you would gladly disregard my position.

And there are multiple open questions that you haven't answered here and here - I ask you kindly to do so there. Anyway, when the article protection is lifted and we settle the Syria/Turkmenistan issue the maps will be updated. Alinor (talk) 14:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Keithbob said quite plainly that "they should have a neutral color". And Rennell's position is clear: match the maps up; there's only one discrepancy, and that's with these conflicting cases. I have no intention of revisiting that talk page until you do the right thing here. Once again, your stubborness is hindering progress. Nightw 11:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Reading Keithbob comment it seems that by "neutral color" he most probably refers to "gray" (no information).

Rennell435 said "they should all show the same thing." and this will be achieved by "neutral gray" in both maps.

I said, that I see no point in updating the map right now, when at the same time you are making some proposals to move Syria/Turkmenistan to "inconclusive" section. But, OK, since your stubbornness, non-cooperative and obstructionist behavior continues I may update the maps right now.

You are under AE obligations to discuss at the talk page. Of course you can breach that if you want. I understand your comment above as "I, Night w, won't participate in the discussion I'm under AE obligation to participate in, unless you, Alinor, do something in the way "I like it" without taking into account a related ongoing discussion and opinions of other users". In such case your refusal to participate in the discussion is sufficient for me to make the changes I proposed at the talk page. Alinor (talk) 13:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I have been busy with some real life issues. Regarding this statement by Alinor: "there is no neutral colouring for those unclear cases listed in the middle section. Instead, they're rendered as BLUE (i.e., not recognising the State of Palestine)". In my opinion it is incorrect and misleading to the reader to give a color (green or blue) to a state whose position on Palestine is unclear. If you like, you could have a neutral color such as grey for those states who have made ambiguous or conflicting statements. You could then use white for those states that have never commented in any way on the subject. A legend explaining the meaning of each color would also be needed for the reader. These are my suggestions.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

This wasn't my comment, but comment of Night w. Actually the "conflicting and inconclusive" are colored either gray or blue - not only blue - depending on whether they have PLO/PNA relations or not. About legend - in the article where the map is used there is a legend (see here). Blue is the color for "PLO/PNA relations". Gray is the color for "no information". So, in case of inconclusive source about SoP recognition, but firm source for PLO/PNA relations it gets colored blue. In case of inconclusive source about SoP recognition and nothing more - it gets colored gray. And these are not "states who have made ambiguous or conflicting statements" - these are states for whom we have conflicting/inconclusive/ambiguous sources (sources such as news reports, blogs, books, etc. not related to the state in question) - but actually we don't have quotes from the statements of the states themselves. In addition - there are some different cases with vague/ambiguous official statements (or cases, where we don't have official source at all) - but currently I think adding those nuances to a map will be too much. About white - we can't use white for coloring, but we can use yellow for example. Alinor (talk) 06:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Well you've added yellow, but only to two of the spots that need them. You've changed Lesotho and Swaziland to yellow, left Turkmenistan and Syria unchanged, and then gone and changed Cameroon to dark green...? This is map is getting more and more confusing (and thus useless) with every change. Can you please explain? Unless the map data corresponds to that of the table, I don't see how this map can continue to be shown. It's affecting the quality of the article. I may have to request deletion or removal through RfC. Nightw 10:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources about Syria and Turkmenistan SoP recognition, that's why these are unchanged. There is a source about Cameroon SoP recognition (see 22:10, 10 March 2011 comment in the "weakly supported" section at the talk page; the recent version of the table is in the sandbox) - that's why it got colored accordingly. Alinor (talk) 12:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

In this particular case, being a contemporary rather than historical situation, either an official government source states official recognition, or it's not officially recognized, plain and simple. There is no "discussion" of the situation, that synthesis and original research--i.e., speculation on a situation based on non-official sources. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 13:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't agree to changing any of those. Reverted. Nightw 07:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Then use the talk page and explain what you don't agree. [1] Uruguay or Cameroon? Alinor (talk) 08:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I've explained it. The maps should match the table, and when the table changes the map will follow suit. Otherwise they're useless, and they're not an improvement to the article. Nightw 08:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The map discussed here is used only in the protected article, where the table isn't updated yet. But you should revert your [2] change to another map that is used at another articles and where the version you recently pushed disregarded three edits - my edit following a RS/N discussion [3]; Fjmustak edit with Uruguay source [4]; my edit with Cameroon source [5]. Alinor (talk) 09:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

PЄTЄRS, so we should not add additional color for non-official conflicting or inconclusive sources? Alinor (talk) 08:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. You made undiscussed changes to the map, which affects the articles. That went against your AE obligations. So I reverted until an agreement is found. The RS/N noticeboard concluded that Doebbler cannot be used as a source to support a particular claim. It did not conclude, directly or indirectly, that any item should be moved, and it's appalling that you should use it to justify such actions. For the record, I'm fine with updating Uruguay and Cameroon, but the point is that the edits were made without consent. Nightw 09:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I didn't made "undiscussed changes" - all is discussed. Maybe you didn't want to participate or didn't have time to do it. Now, since you began participating I'm refraining from reverting your edits - so that we can reach some agreement.

Since "Doebbler cannot be used ..." I simply removed that data from the map (not the one under discussion here) that was added only because of that, what can't be used. If some new source is found for that, then the appropriate changes will be made to the map. So, far there isn't such (see here, here, here and here) - on the contrary, there are even circumstantial indications that Syria/Turkmenistan don't recognize SoP. Alinor (talk) 10:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Please, provide me the diffs where you proposed to make these changes to the maps. Did I consent to the changes? Was I even notified of the proposal? It seems quite poor behaviour to make changes where you know I disagreed and where there was an ongoing discussion over the matter (i.e., this very thread)! The noticeboard concluded that a particular source could not be used to support a particular claim. There are sources to replace it with, but you don't want to use them, and you don't want to open a RS/N thread to discuss them. So the entries will remain where they are, unsourced, until consensus dictates an outcome. Nightw 10:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The talk page is full of discussions about these topics. I asked you for a quote from the supposed source you suggests and you haven't provided such quote (and I couldn't see such myself). Controversial unsourced text can't remain. Anyway, this issue is separate - here we discuss the map and I suggest that we wait for PЄTЄRS and Keithbob responses. Alinor (talk) 11:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

PЄTЄRS, is this map OK: File:State of Palestine explicit recognition per official sources.png? For comparison see File:SoP recognition and PLO relations.png (corresponding to the map in discussion here) and File:State of Palestine recognition.png. Alinor (talk) 18:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator

I could really use some help or advice for this article on general neutrality issues. The current version of the article suggests that although there is criticism, there is equally valid scientific support for the test. My impression is that the MBTI is generally not accepted as a valid psychometric tool in psychology, and that the evidence is overwhelmingly not supportive of it. And I think it might be the case that most of the studies supporting it have connections with the same people who sell the test. I could be very wrong about this, but I'm having some trouble finding what the actual scientific consensus is on this issue. --Aronoel (talk) 22:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Not my area of expertise but I read a lot about it after taking the test myself. In my case, the results (INTP) were incredibly accurate based on how, on reflection, I see myself. From what I remember non acceptance is a slippery slope as it is based on reliability and validity with different academics prefering different standards (ie:lack of consensus). The main critique on validity is that the BMTI doesn't take into account conscious or unconscious lying. Also, the test relies on Jungian personality types and some academics don't believe there is enough evidence to support their existance. Additionally some academics believe all personality tests are unreliable. Briggs Myers herself said that the results are only hypotheses needing further verification. The only real consensus in the community is that there have not been enough quality studies on it's efficiency to justify it's use for career counseling. Do a search for university papers on the test that contain both criticism and praise. Wayne (talk) 13:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

OK I will, thanks for your advice. --Aronoel (talk) 21:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about the standing of MBTI in the world of professional psychologists, but I know it has been used by some. I took it years ago (I am most definitely an INTP, by the way) and I found MBTI to be very accurate and helpful for me. I'm not a psychologist, though. Famspear (talk) 04:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Disregard

 – Nothing actionable or specifically addressed for discussion by OP. Viriditas (talk) 02:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

It is absolutely absurd that this article does not at the very least have a citation indicating that its neutrality is disputed. Please see the article on Gibraltar and reasonably defend how there can be less 'dispute' as to neutrality or reliability. The article on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is nothing but a long winded cult advertisement without a single reliable independent academic citation at any significant point. The article goes beyond unreliability; it is anti-academic and a shame to Wikipedia. Without a warning tag I cannot see how Wikipedia can maintain even a shred of honour as a worthy information source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factsareinconvenient (talk • contribs) 10:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The forgoing is a rant, a bunch of claims and over the top statements, which may well express how you feel about the article, but doesn't give us any of those inconvenient details as to any actual problem. E.g., you mention a lack of "independent academic citation". If that is a problem, then why don't you find the material ("citations") that should be supplied? If there is an on-going dispute, then say so, and give us the details of why it needs to be brought up here. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

You should look up the definition of "feel". I suggest you begin with Merriam-Webster. It is not my duty to provide citations; it is the ABSOLUTE and SOLE DUTY of the author of the article. It is the ABSOLUTE DUTY of Wikipedia's editors and moderators to flag articles which lack sufficient citations and neutrality (or in this case any). If this were an article on anything else, there would be such appropriate flags at the top of the article. Such tags are the one of the primary means by which Wikipedia maintains a shred of intellectual credibility. Why is this article being given special consideration? Why does it not need a shred of documentation or citation? Is the Mormon 'church' contolling the process?<< — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factsareinconvenient (talk • contribs) 09:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

And trust me, if I were able to put tags at the top of the article which stated, "This Article's neuttrality has ben disputed..." and "This article does not cite any reliable sources...", I certainly would. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factsareinconvenient (talk • contribs) 09:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Traditional Chinese Medicine wikipedia page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_Chinese_medicine

The content featured on this page conveys a consistently *negative* slant of TCM, a slant that is generally inconsistant with the majority of accepted views of TCM. This issue has been addressed on the Talk board:

"I logged on to read about TCM today, and this page is in desperate need of some moderation. It reads like it's been written by someone with a personal vendetta against Traditional Chinese Medicine! I'm a western person and see MDs like the rest of us, but these articles are supposed to teach objectively, providing a balanced portrayal of a subject. Instead, every paragraph follows with statements attacking the credibility of TCM or bringing up controversial issues that may or may not be true (because they don't have citations), and re-using old stereotypes that everyone knows are not true (ie, "Snake Oil" isn't even used by TCM practitioners, according to my acupuncturist!)

Anyway, my problem isn't just that things aren't cited. The big problem here is that even the things that ARE cited are simply very slanted or misleading, highlighting only one side of controversial issues that, ultimately, really only ought to be in ONE of the later sections of the article. Why doesn't this article begin like a history book, explaining the origins and practices of the medicine, rather than begin with attacks on whether or not TCM holds up to scientific rigor, etc? For example, why would the oldest and the planet's single largest medical system contain these sentences in the INTRODUCTION (!) (one being in the first paragraph!): "TCM is subject to criticism regarding a number of issues," "It uses metaphysical principles that have no correlates in science based medicine, and would generally be rejected by it", "...found to be ineffective...contain dangerous toxins," "ineffective medicines" etc? These things may or may not be true--this is beside the point. They're just extremely biased, and I, furthermore, challenge the neutrality and organization of this article.

Finally, how is it that 7 of the 8 photos on this page are of grotesque or controversial animal substances yet some basic internet research reveals that the VAST majority of substances used in TCM practice today are simple PLANTS (most of which seem to also be native to north American traditions). Obviously there are also some definite controversies that should be mentioned, in this article, but that ought to be put in a section to deal with skepticism and criticisms. This article is just so very misleading in layout and organization. It seems odd that the medicine that lasted 3,000 years of practice (something you don't learn reading this article) would have endured all the cultural and political invasions it did if this article were representative of its merits. I'm not asking for a pro-TCM page, but let's seriously organize this thing like adults."

It seems that whenever the information is updated and the offensive pictures are removed (the "snake oil" advertisement, the pictures of human fetuses, etc) they are almost immediately reposted. I am concerened that someone out there has a personal vendetta against TCM, and has made it their mission to make this medicine look as negative as possible, in spite of the many documented positive benefits of traditional chinese medicine. Please look into this, as this consistently interferes with wikipedia's stance on neutrality and is an unfair assessment of TCM and it's practitioners.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vantagelogic (talk • contribs) 07:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

You are asking for another person to contribute many hours of work to sorting out a particular article, and you are not coming with any offers of help. You may not get a good response to this kind of request.

If indeed there is a NPOV problem, you should get on the talk page and start a discussion with other users about specific examples. Spend more time using Wikipedia and learning to be a good contributor. WP:BE BOLD and start making the changes you want to see in this article. If someone reverts your changes, then talk to them about why on the talk page. If they treat you unfairly then come back to this board with a link to the discussion where you were mistreated and I assure you that someone will help you.

Lots of people are here to help; not many people are interested in doing work for you. Please start your work. Blue Rasberry (talk) 04:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

On a less negative slant, I am aware of the problems on the page. the article has recently been edited heavily by a single editor who has a poor understanding of the material but a hell of a lot of energy - I've been waiting for him to lose steam before I go back and start revising it because I didn't want to get in one of those interminable squabbles. but if people are complaining about it, I suppose I should start revisions this weekend. I'll do that.

Bluerasberry: please do not bitch editors out for making complaints: that's what this noticeboard is for. --Ludwigs2 16:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Golan Heights map

Hello, it is being discussed whether the georeferenced image illustrating the GH topography and Template:Location_map_Golan_Heights based on it are violating Wikipedia neutrality principle. Thank you for your input. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

AgadaUrbanit, you should have asked, why that map is better then the CIA maps and the other location map you want to replace it with. Also the issue with the map is not only if its non neutral, but also if it has inaccuracy problems. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

No claim about CIA map, we're lucky to have it, both map could be used and have their uses: political vs. topographical. Other questions about topography map, which we discuss, were addressed on the article talk page, like sourcing. There is genuine consensus on the article talk page that GH is Syrian territory occupied by Israel. However, the article talk page discussion produced a split among editors on question of neutrality of the the georeferenced image illustrating the topography: some editors feel that the map is POV-less and does not take sides (Israel/Syria), however others believe that topography image does not reflect international consensus that GH is in Syria, thus under-presenting Syrian POV. As a side note, previous discussion about categorization of GH images on Wikipedia Commons was closed with consensus that GH images should be categorized in both countries (Israel/Syria) in order to achieve neutrality. Maybe wider audience is required to resolve the stalemate and to reach clear cut consensus. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Categorization of GH images on Wikipedia Commons has nothing to do with this, as that discussion was not based on Wikipedia policy or any sources. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

As far as I remember that consensus that you've been part of was reviewed by more than one administrator. Do you feel that all those administrators were biased? It spells WP:IDHT. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Nothing there and that entire discussion was not based on wiki policy.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

This is why the political dimension of the Golan Heights should be secondary to the whole article. A grave mistake has been made up to this point by giving the article a decidedly political flavor. Remember, we're talking about a region. The article is (that is to say, should be) about the Golan Heights – not about The Golan Heights Territorial Dispute. The article should not be political, and the map should not be political. Elaborate on the politics and represent them visually in another article, if they're that important. But make this article primarily about the Golan Heights.—Biosketch (talk) 19:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The political issues is an integral part of the area. By having a map that puts Israel in the same position as Syria, it is already political, (incorrectly aswell) --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

But politics is not the only issue. Luckily, one editor came in and actually added non political info to the lead sometime ago. Another editor has even proposed splitting the article due to the scope being so aligned towards politics instead of other aspects commonly seen in articles about locations.

In regards to the map, a new ma is up which works just fine. However, it does not label the area as Syria so SD will not except it. This is the exact same emphasis on nationalistic pride that has caused SD to be brought to AE multiple times. We should not take sides in the real age life debate here on Wikipedia. Wikipedia even has the potential to shift perceptions of the debate with its high readership, which I believe some editors wish to take advantage of. The infobox is not intended to describe the conflict in detail and the map supported by SD would need tons of detail to explain. Sidestepping the issue in the map does not take any sides while still allowing the prose to clearly lay out the issues. And of course: it functions as part of Israel whether it is illegal or not. Pretending it does not isn't a benefit to the reader. Cptnono (talk) 20:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I have stated the reasons for not wanting the edited CIA map on the talkpage, it is not neutral as it puts Israel in the same positions as Syria, which is not the international community view, therefor violation of npov, and it does not show it as Israeli-occupied.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The view of the international community's legal interpretation is just one aspect. You have not once provided reasoning to disregard how it functions, regardless of international law. According to my argument, how it functions should place it on equal footing (if not greater) than the ignored opinions of the international community. So not taking any side is the best option for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not here to manipulate public opinion.Cptnono (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Putting Israel in the same position as Syria is taking a side. Also read npov: "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute." --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

But it isn't a tiny minority. Plenty of sources back it. It might also be illegal but that does not change the facts that it is part of Israel according to the sources. We are again having the same conversation over more than one article. Your thought process is so trained on legality that you continue to not consider that it can still function as part of Israel under its control and laws while being inhabited and commercialized by its people. Wrong or right is not the issue. Just how it is. Cptnono (talk) 22:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is a tiny minority, "The international community maintains that the Israeli decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration in the occupied Syrian Golan is null and void and without international legal effect" p 23 Or this GA vote about "occupied Syrian Golan", 161-1 [6] "the United States considers the Golan Heights to be occupied territory subject to negotiation and Israeli withdrawal" p. 8. EU: [7]. Arab League:[8] Amnesty International: [9]. So just because you can find sources supporting the POV of one country, does not mean we can disregard all other sources and the international view that shows it to be inaccurate. Here is a National Geographic source calling a place in the West bank "in Israel" [10], but its not in Israel. Other sources, the international view proves this.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

GH is not the only conflict place on Earth. Look for instance in Northern Ireland, CIA map embedded there in body. GH could also integrate political map inside the body, for instance in Aspects of dispute. Political information is important, agree with SD. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Supreme Deliciousness, clearly the political issues are integral for you and for some other editors involved in the article. But the fact that you insist on viewing the Golan Heights through a political lens only confirms your biased approach. (And I'm using "you" in the plural sense; my critique applies to a handful of high-frequency editors involved in the page, on both sides of the dispute.) The Golan Heights are a region – with a distinct climate, distinct geological features, a distinct demographic profile, a distinct pre-WWII history, etc. The territorial dispute between Syria and Israel is so recent to the region that frankly I'm baffled as to how anyone could consider it "integral." If the article had been written 30 years ago, would politics have been integral? I submit that they would not. For the page's sake, even though at this point the damage done is too extensive to undo without serious revision, it would be best to isolate the political dimension of the region to its own place in the article, rather than having it seep into every corner of the page. There's a reason the maps at Northern Cyprus and the Falkland Islands are they way they are: they avoid the POV traps by transcending them altogether. Is Northern Cyprus a part of the Republic of Cyprus or of Turkey? You'd never know from the map. Are the Falkland Islands British or Argentinian? The map won't indicate one way or the other. That's a healthy situation. It's the best way to achieve NPOV.—Biosketch (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

As I already said before, the edited CIA map already puts the region through a political lens (incorrect one) putting Israel in the same position as Syria. I also said before, Northern Cyprus and Falkland Islands are not internationally recognized as part of Turkey or Britain, so its not the same thing. Its an inaccurate POV to place Syria in the same position as Israel.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

No need to repeat yourself unless you have something new to bring to the table. People disagree with your argument and saying it over and over again until people are sick of replying is not going to help the project.Cptnono (talk) 23:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

— this is a recipe for going in perpetual POV circles
— these are ways to guarantee NPOV:

—Biosketch (talk) 23:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Your comments on these maps does not address the issues I have brought up above. Again: It is putting Israel in the same position as Syria to a place internationally recognized as part of Syria, neither northern Cyprus or Falkland Islands are internationally recognized as part of Turkey or Britain.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

And that's exactly the point. The maps above avoid taking sides by preferring neither party's claim to sovereignty. The international community does not recognize the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, yet the map does not impose that POV on the visual representation of the territory. The same goes for the Falkland Islands. Rather than embracing one of the two party's POVs, the map maintains a neutral, NPOV position. The Golan Heights page should follow these models.—Biosketch (talk) 00:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The issues are not the same as northern Cyprus does not claim to be part of Turkey and the Falklands does not claim to be Britain. The unedited CIA map "imposes" the same kind of "POV" that the Haifa article does when it states that Haifa is located in Israel, why are we "taking sides" at that article? you can read about my Haifa analogy at the GH talkpage. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I see what you're saying about Haifa. If Syria were to come along and claim Haifa as its rightful territory then, per my argument, we could not mark Haifa as being situated in Israel, for that would be adopting Israel's POV. Is that what you're saying?—Biosketch (talk) 00:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Today we have about 20 countries that say that area is Palestine. Yet at Wikipedia we still say that all city's and villages in that area are in Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

"Palestine" as in the state? or "Palestine" as in historic Israel? Which Palestine are these 20 countries invoking? Anyway, though, as far as I know Palestine itself doesn't claim Haifa for itself, nor does any other state or autonomous entity. So there's no question here how to mark Haifa on the map. It's one thing if someone says Haifa belongs to Palestine, but if Palestine itself doesn't put forth that argument, then there's really no dispute. So it's different from the situation with the Golan Heights. There there are two sides, each claiming the territory for itself, and we're trying to avoid favoring either of the two sides. In the case of Haifa, there is no entity besides Israel that claims Haifa for itself, so there are no two sides to choose between.—Biosketch (talk) 01:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, many countries call the area Palestine, whether its the Palestinians themselves or not, so there is a dispute about that area. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

SD, you are filibustering. You are POV pushing. You should be banned from the topic area again. Stop it.

If you do not understand the Falklands then don't comment on it (I almost pissed myself reading your response earlier). If you do not understand showing an only geographical presentation of the area with no labels then I can only again call you a POV pusher and ask for your ban from the topic area. Since this is not the article discussion but instead a noticeboard I can do that without being in violation of civility standards. You have been presented with options that take no side in the debate. You should be happy that your viewpoint gets any play and stop trying to manipulate Wikipedia. Get it together or get off Wikipedia since you are begging to be banned from the topic area again. The maps of the other disputed locations (they are disputed even though you obviously know nothing about politics outside of the Middle East) but have NO writing at all. So how about you try that? No highlighting BS. No writing. Just a simple map of where in the world it is. If you actually care about this project more than your own POV pushing you will create a map that has zero names on it or accept a version that comes close. You needing Syria to be highlighted in name or by color is POV pushing and should be stamped out. POV pushing is not welcome here and you have worn out your welcome.Cptnono (talk) 07:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

comment - My preference for the infobox would be to have a simple map similar to say Western Sahara, a (corrected) topo map in addition would be good too.

However, I have to say that to an innocent passer-by reading this thread it might almost seem that SD is disruptively trying to impose a Syrian nationalist view of a dispute between 2 equal parties, Israel and Syria, onto poor old Wikipedia. In fact, SD is simply advocating the use of a map and not tampering with a map produced by Israel's closest ally, the United States, that accurately represents the consensus view of the international community. The dispute is Israel vs the international community, not Israel vs Syria.

• The notion that 'taking no sides in the debate' is neutral is wrong. Wikipedia absolutely takes a side in the evolution "debate" because there is a consensus in the real world.
• Absence of information in the name of neutrality isn't neutrality, it's embracing a tiny minority view and inflating it to the same scale and weight as the consensus view.
• The notion that wanting a map published by a reliable source, the CIA, that represents the consensus view of the international community is POV pushing is wrong. It isnt. It's NPOV pushing.
• Leaving a reliably sourced map that represents the consensus view of the international community unchanged isn't "needing Syria to be highlighted in name or by color", it's just leaving a reliably sourced map unchanged.

In Wikipedia, in this topic area, an editor who advocates not tampering with reliably sourced information that accurately represents the consensus view of the international community can be accused of POV pushing both on an off wiki. Think about the craziness of that. It's like the creationist Discovery Institute running the talk page of the evolution article. It would never be allowed to happen there.

Having said all that, I see no need to use that map in the infobox although I see no reason not to use it. The infobox doesn't need to deal with the political aspects. The CIA map, unaltered, could be used in the current status section. Removing the factually accurate "Israeli occupied" label as has been done in File:Golan heights rel89B.jpg makes a neutral map non-neutral. That is the kind of thing policy-minded editors should be complaining and filing AE requests about. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree: "My preference for the infobox would be to have a simple map similar to say Western Sahara, a (corrected) topo map in addition would be good too." The article is called "Golan Heights," not "The Golan Heights Territorial Dispute." The political reality should not be the prism through which the entire article is filtered, and it certainly should not dictate how the Golan Heights are represented in the infobox. The Western Sahara map, in a fashion identical to the Northern Cyprus and Falkland Islands maps, leaves the political dispute to be addressed by the article proper. The infobox is used to orient the reader's geographic context.

Acknowledge: "However, I have to say that to an innocent passer-by reading this thread it might almost seem that SD is disruptively trying to impose a Syrian nationalist view of a dispute between 2 equal parties, Israel and Syria, onto poor old Wikipedia." That would be unfortunate. Whatever his reputation on Wikipedia may be, his interactions with me – and as far as I can tell with everyone else – have been civil, even if his passion for the debate is perceptible at times.

Qualify: "In fact, SD is simply advocating the use of a map and not tampering with a map produced by Israel's closest ally, the United States, that accurately represents the consensus view of the international community. The dispute is Israel vs the international community, not Israel vs Syria." That's arguable, and also arguable is the degree to which it's relevant to our purposes. The CIA is not an organ of the Pentagon, wherefore Israel's extraordinary defense treaties with the United States do not impact the CIA's research output. The fact that the U.S. is Israel's closest ally is immaterial, as we can only speculate as to how that relationship affects the operations of the CIA. As to the dispute being between Israel and the international community, there are problems with making that observation. The problems arise from the semantics of the word "recognize." We're invoking the term in the sense of "accept," i.e. the international community does not accept Israel's annexation of the Golan Heights. However, I would wager that the international community acknowledges Israel's annexation, in the sense that if a foreign diplomat were to want to cross into the Golan Heights from the Israeli side, he would not demand to pass through a Syrian checkpoint and have his passport stamped by Syrian immigration authorities. He does not accept Israel's claim to sovereignty, but he acknowledges it. Now, the semantic scope of the word "recognize" is sufficiently broad to be able to mean either accept or acknowledge. The map SD endorses purports to show the Golan Heights as being Syrian territory, per the international community's recognition of Syria's de-jure sovereignty over the region and rejection of Israel's. For an infobox, that is exceedingly misleading. A casual visitor to the page, upon seeing SD's political map, would in all likelihood mistakenly conclude that he could visit the territory from the Syrian side just as he crosses the street in front of his house. We all agree that's not the case, though. Then why insist on projecting the political angle onto the infobox. Like I told SD a while ago (I still posted with all kinds of university IP addresses back then, for fear creating an account would lead to my spending too much time editing articles – a fear that has turned out to entirely valid), it's an abuse of the spirit of Wikipedia to force one's political motives onto an article that is not about a political dispute. Which brings us back to the fact, again, that this is an article about the Golan Heights, not about The Golan Heights Territorial Dispute.

Raise eyebrow: "Wikipedia absolutely takes a side in the evolution "debate" because there is a consensus in the real world." Is that so? If by "real world" you mean to say "intellectual community," okay. But is there a consensus in the world that human evolution is best described by Darwin's theory? Personally I would hope the world would embrace Darwin's theory of evolution, but I'd be awfully surprised to learn that it does.

Agree: "Having said all that, I see no need to use that map in the infobox although I see no reason not to use it. The infobox doesn't need to deal with the political aspects. The CIA map, unaltered, could be used in the current status section." Right, though I would articulate the point in less equivocal terms. Use a geographical/topographical map in the infobox; reserve the CIA map for the current status section.—Biosketch (talk) 11:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

---

• SD has stated that “Northern Cyprus and Falkland Islands are not internationally recognized as part of Turkey or Britain”, yet the maps do not indeed show the international consensus on the matter, since there is a political dispute. i.e. NC is not shown as being part of Cyprus. SD is totally wrong when she states: “northern Cyprus does not claim to be part of Turkey and the Falklands does not claim to be Britain”. The reality is the exact opposite.
• What Bioketch has said, namely that “political dimension of the Golan Heights should be secondary, strikes me as valid. Although the GH nowadays almost always refers to the bit controlled by Israel, for accuracy, we must remember that Syria is also in control of some of the GH. That bit is not highlighted on the CIA map. It should also be remembered that by some accounts, the GH stretches till the Haj Road, much further east. The CIA map is reliable for showing which part of the GH is controlled by Israel. That was that maps function. However, this page is about the GH in their entirety, therefore the topography map should be used with the words “Golan Heights” put straddling the armistice lines. Chesdovi (talk) 11:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a difference between an area being part of a country and connected to a country in some way. Neither Falklands or NC claim to being parts of Britain or Turkey. NC for example is a proclaimed own separate state, not "Turkey". So its not the same thing as the GH which is internationally recognized as being part of a country. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Turkey occupies NC. Period. Chesdovi (talk) 13:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

And at the Cyprus article:[11] the international view is shown in the infobox: a one, unified Cyprus, as NC is not internationally recognized.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Chesdovi, I think I agree in principle that if currently proposed maps do not show Golan as it really is as a geographical entity then an alternative map would be preferable. This is only really useful if someone is able to provide a map confirming that things are as you describe them, though. And, in general, I can't see how proposing entirely hypothetical alternative maps helps - no map can really be considered until its available to look at.

Seems to me that a key question here is about the circumstances under which it is acceptable to photoshop shop an image you have found purely so as to distort the POV of the original, as has been done with the image currently in use. I wouldn't say that can't ever be done, but surely there ought at least to me a clear rationale and consensus (maybe there is). Although we don't apply the same rules to images and text, it seems to me to be arguably analogous to tip-exing out key words in a passage from a reliable source. --FormerIP (talk) 16:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I have already done it:

We need to remember that the whole page needs to be sifted through, to make sure that statistics mentioned, such as area2 and population, etc, are clarified as belonging to the recently drawn political boundaries only. Chesdovi (talk) 16:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Chesdovi, that's exactly what I'm talking about. You've just reproduced the CIA map with some POV tweaks ("occupied" becomes "disputed", the border is redrawn so that Golan appears to be part of Israel, the word "Syria" is moved a few hundred miles east). Why, when we could just use a map taken from a reliable source, should this proposal be taken as anything other than fervent POV-pushing? --FormerIP (talk) 17:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Chesdovis/Agadads pov map [12] was already discussed at the GH talkpage showing its inaccuracy and pov problems. It shows the area as part of Israel, it calls it "disputed" instead of "occupied", it has inaccurate borders and ceasefire lines both in placement and in colors. Compared to the CIA map it also doesn't show that its internationally recognized as part of Syria, it doesn't show the settlements, villages, DMZs, roads. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Crisis pregnancy center

We have, at last count, seventeen (unless I missed a few) sources attesting false medical information propagated by CPCs; we do not have a single source attesting a CPC that does not propagate false medical information, nor do any of the seventeen sources attesting misinformation say that it is rare. Is the use of the phrase "[CPCs] have routinely been found to disseminate false medical information" justified? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't think so, not unless you have a source that says "[CPCs] have routinely been found to disseminate false medical information". It's a hasty generalization and therefore WP:SYNTH. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know whether you have this source, Abortion Counseling: A Clinician's Guide to Psychology, Legislation, Politics, and Competency. It has some actual survey data from a Congressional study on page 11 e.g. 87% of CPC's in the study were found to have provided false and misleading information. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

We cite the study itself; it's the ref called "Waxman." Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It is worth noting that that study was commissioned by a very pro-abortion congressman from California and carried out by his staff. - Haymaker (talk) 17:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Pro-choice is not the same as 'pro-abortion' so if you're truly interested in collaboration then you'll stop equating the two. -PrBeacon (talk) 18:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Only if a reliable source said that it's worth noting and why. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Which is somewhat different from "routinely providing misleading information." IIRC, more than 90% of IRS agents give out "misleading information" in tests, yet we do not say "The IRS routinely gives out misleading information" since 99% of the information the IRS gives out is published information, and not responses to complex queries (where its record is, indeed, abysmal). Perhaps "Many CDCs have been found giving out incorrect medical information in response to queries" or the like? The article surrently is a POV nightmare, however, and reads very much like an advocacy article. Collect (talk) 11:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

That would simply be false, though, as these CPCs from all appearances give out this information completely unprompted as part of their MO. My problem with "some" is that I feel it's unnecessarily minimizing - that it implies we have fewer sources than we do, that we have sources about CPCs that don't do this, that our sources say not all CPCs do this. Actually, would it be easier to deal with the problem by removing all quantifying words and just say "...they have been found..." Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Cite for them deliberately giving out misleading information? And "they have been found ..." implies "They all have been found." To avoid any such implication, the most WP can say is "some have been found to give out some misleading information." At least, from the cites proffered. I would also caution that using "MO" implies deliberate action. Collect (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

We don't say they do it deliberately, so why would we need a citation that says they do? (We also don't say it's their MO. I'm responding to your proposed wording, which is inaccurate and which does not reflect the sources.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: we have moved on to discussing other ways of wording the sentence. Bobthefish2 has suggested "CPCs have been found," which seems good to me as it is not a quantity, but hopefully will not be viewed by other participants as implying all CPCs. I have also suggested removing the "While they provide information..." part of the sentence which contrasts with the statement. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Without a quantifier it does sound like all of them have been. - Haymaker (talk) 06:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Consider the example: "Muslims have been found to issue fatwas against infidels". Bobthefish2 (talk) 06:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Its a bit different with people than with businesses. Consider "Burger Kings serve fries". - Haymaker (talk) 06:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Similarly, it can be a different depending on how you express it :)! Consider "Burger King restaurants have been found to serve fries". Bobthefish2 (talk) 07:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

"Have been found to..." sounds weaselly, and I doubt if it is ever a useful wording. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Is it the passive voice that's the problem? We used to have it in active, and I've no problem going back. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Korean History Compilation Committee

Resolved

 – User appears to have filed this report in good faith and fixed the problem to the best of his ability. Reviewing the edits RekishiEJ fixed, it appears that many of the previous claims were either unsourced or poorly sourced, with what appears to be evidence of POV pushing. Viriditas (talk) 02:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

In February 10, 2011 I left a message on the article's talk page, pointing out a fact that the article only mentions some Korean scholars' negative attitude toward the committee, and does not mention Japanese historians and Korean positivist historians's viewpoint of the committee at all ([13] mentions it). However in March 9, 2011 the problem still exists, so I deleted all the heavily biased sentences and paragraphs, which claims that the committee's main goal is to distort history of Korea, like Japanese edition. But I still think that since there are some scholars praise or attack the committee, the article should not just have the establishing date and members of the committee (the Japanese edition only mentions them); the article should also describe the various viewpoints of the committee. Hope that Wikipedians can use academic books and papers to further expand the article (not television programmes, encyclopedia articles and posts on blogs, there are not professional and accurate enough!).--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Redemption movement

As of late, a new user has taken steps to turn the page on the "Redemption" conspiracy theories into blatant advocacy. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 06:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• As of late, Lenin and McCarthy is preventing the Redemption article from maintaining NPOV, with his recent deletions of cited article text for no apparent academic reason. Additionally, Lenin and McCarthy has not joined the discussion group or offered any compelling reasons as to why the article should revert back to the extremely biased version of a few days ago. Visitor10001 (talk) 06:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• It's bad enough that almost half of the claims currently made in the article cite NO sources whatsoever, but when someone going against that POV places one tiny little paragraph of text in the article with sources, it immediately gets 'yanked', as Lenin and McCarthy puts it. This is not fair. Visitor10001 (talk) 06:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• The text I added is hardly "blatant advocacy", and I might add that the current tone of the article is "blatant dis advocacy", without merit. Furthermore, the term "conspiracy theory" is unwarranted nonsense, made by someone who has obviously not studied the subject, but is reacting out of haste and dis informed judgment. I was trying to work with another member to create an unbiased article, and while I do admit that I am on the side of 'advocacy', I am not deleting the other POV text, as I am mature enough to let both sides of the story be told. I would appreciate an environment where this behavior is encouraged, not ridiculed. Visitor10001 (talk) 06:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• Also, I may be a 'new user', but that doesn't mean I don't know how to edit an article, or engage the discussion group in meaningful debate. It seems like Lenin and McCarthy wants to use his 'veteran' Wikipedia status to enforce his beliefs on others. Visitor10001 (talk) 06:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• Lenin and McCarthy did not answer any of my questions in the article's discussion page before resorting to this dispute resolution. As Wikipedia states in it's steps to resolve conflict, #4 is "Before you post to this page, you should already have tried to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page. Give a link here to that discussion, and the final answer to your question will be posted there where other users can read the result." I would say that the reason he neglected to do this is because he doesn't really have any compelling reasons as to why he deleted the text of the article. Thank You. Visitor10001 (talk) 07:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Disregard: Nothing to see here except a clear case of WP:OVERREACT and possibly WP:BULLY because a blatantly WP:POV article is now being shifted towards a more neutral presentation. Visitor10001 is indeed a new user and I have counseled him in edit summaries, in several instances of the article's talk page and on his personal user page on how to deal with opposing editors on a controversial article. The Wiki-Jungle has a steep learning curve but it appears that he is trying to get the hang of it. Though I personally disagree with Visitor10001's position I defend his right to be heard and for his views to be included in a reasonable discussion because the end result should be a more rounded and useful article to readers of all flavors.

Even though I personally support the government, and by extension Lenin and McCarthy's view actively presented in the article in question, the POV and tone of the article was blatantly and arrogantly one-sided in the government's favor. One new editor wanted to defend the movement's point of view but the very structure of the article at that time invited conflict. The editor was and is new and was overwhelmed as a newbie in the Wiki-Jungle.

I counseled the new editor and then I made a first attempt to rewrite the lead as NPOV as I could and then tagged the overall article as POV while tagging the main part of the article which presents the government's POV as blatantly uncited and poorly sourced. I restructured the theory section to provide a section for the supporters of the theory to explain their viewpoint without being in constant conflict with the pro-government editors. I also created new discussion sections on the articles talk page inviting civil discussion to work towards attaining balanced coverage.

Lenin and McCarthy undid several of these NPOV initiatives and started new discussion with a confrontational tone proclaiming that he "Yanked the Buhtz section". Then it appears that because an opposing editor dared post views opposing the existing status quo in the article, within nine minutes, he posts here complaining about NPOV but failed to contribute to the POV discussions already initiated on the article's talk page. I was quite surprised to see this referred here and firmly believe this is a clear case of WP:OVERREACT, possibly WP:BULLY and at the very least, it was severely premature. In the very least the complainant failed to adhere to point "4" at the top of the page. "Before you post to this page, you should already have tried to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page. Give a link here to that discussion, and the final answer to your question will be posted there where other users can read the result." Veriss (talk) 07:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

For comparison, here's a diff link for the current article to the stable state from January of this year. I think there are some problems with the current state, but also some improvements. Ravensfire (talk) 16:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, the direction this article is now taking is unsettling.

Visitor is trying to defend something that doesn't work. If the people who try to use this are lucky, they'll just get their "bills of exchange," or whatever some variation used calls them, refused. If not, they'll just get charged with fraud. What seems to be happening is that this reality is now being framed as merely a "government POV." It is set up against the words of one "investigative journalist" who was convicted for counterfeiting for trying this. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 17:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

And as for point 4, I felt that, given the relative lack of editors on the page, there wouldn't be much of a debate on the talk page. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 17:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Not using the talk page because of a relative lack of editors is not acceptable - you need to use the talk page to work out content disputes. If you don't think there are enough editors, you can post on a relevant noticeboard, file an RFC or go through any of the steps listed on the dispute resolution page. But without discussion, nothing good happens. You end up in an edit war, and usually someone gets blocked. Talk page good! Ravensfire (talk) 18:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Uh, it looks to me as if posting to a relevant noticeboard is exactly what L&McC did when he came here. The response to this was a wall of text accusing him of several different kinds of misconduct, none or which apply to anything he did. Furthermore, when every single person who has ever tried this redemption shit has gone to federal prison because of it, I don't think it makes sense to find some imaginary "neutral" position halfway between "it's a federal felony" and "it's a perfectly valid legal position". --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's be blunt: Redemption theory and the redemption movement are scams. This is a fringe theory in the same way that the tax protester phenomenon is a fringe theory (or set of theories), and like tax protester theories it has no legal validity. However, I think the article can be slowly worked into better shape. It needs more sources, and some clearer presentation. User Visitor10001 is new at this, and I hope he/she can work with other editors to improve the article. The article should not be used as advocacy either pro or con. Famspear (talk) 04:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

@Steven J. Anderson, et. al. Please do not throw red herrings out there. We all know perfectly well that the supposed "situation" about a new editor struggling to make a point in the Wiki-Jungle does not meet the threshold for posting to this noticeboard; period, cut and dry -- it simply does not belong here at this point. Also, even if you do not like the essay WP:OVERREACT, as you posted on the article's talk page, the point remains that the complainant did in fact overreact by any common definition because a reasonable effort was not made on the article's talk page before crying wolf, also known as a nuisance alarm, as this noticeboard clearly requires. I strongly agree, I have been here long enough to know to read the notice boards' prerequisites about complaints before I get all flustered about what may very well be yet another non-incident in the Wiki-Jungle. If and only if, the situation meets the threshold for the noticeboard in question, post away, otherwise, work to establish WP:CONSENSUS per WP:POLICY. There was no attempt at the latter.

Visitor10001 is a new editor with only 57 edits. How much WP:BITE do you propose is acceptable indoctrination pain for a new editor attempting to express a minority viewpoint? I stand by my assertions of overreaction, crying wolf, nuisance alarm and WP:BULLY on the part of the complainant and others piling on. I also now add WP:BITE as an additional appropriate tag for turning this learning period for a new editor into an overblown drama. Now let us stop WP:LAWYERING and turn to more productive things like fixing this broken article. Regards, Veriss (talk) 07:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

See WP:ANI#You just can't keep a good man down where Visitor10001 was blocked for a week last night for blatant incivility and threatening to sockpuppet. Dougweller (talk) 06:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice

I, and some other editor as indicated by the edit history, think that material published in the Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice is unworthy equal validity and thus that one other editor is breaking WP:VALID and WP:UNDUE when insisting on including specific findings into the article Insite. We additionally think that the journal, despite its claims to the contrary, lacks peer-review. The other editor lay more weight with the journals self-stated status while at least I think that is a violation of WP:3PARTY. The other editor brought it to WP:RSN where the discussion is inconclusive (here). Nobody is really say that the article can't be cited, it already where before the other editor started edit the Insite article. The disagreement is rather for what it can be cited. So I where recommended to bring it here.

This is some quotes on the journal indicating lack of credibility and lack of peer-review:

• "When asked to clarify what evidence Mr Clement was referring to, Mr Waddell confirmed it was a commentary published in January 2007 in a non-peer-reviewed journal called The Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice, which receives funding from the US Department of Justice." [14]
• "Efforts to undermine the science specific to HIV prevention for injection drug users are becoming increasingly sophisticated. One new and worrisome trend is the creation of internet sites posing as open-access, peer-reviewed scientific journals. One such example [is The Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice]." [15]
• "Even if a journal has a website, though, it doesn’t mean the publication is credible. Librarians say the website of a journal should list its editorial board, indicate if it is peer reviewed and contain instructions for authors. [...] By way of example, Ufholz points to the lack of submission instructions on the website for The Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice". [16]

Additionally:

• The journal is not listed in MEDLINE. A search for "drug policy" in NLM Catalog [17] only returns The International Journal on Drug Policy, a different journal.
• I have a strong memory that Ulrich's Periodicals Directory lists it as lacking peer-review. Although I do not have access to that site. Maybe someone else could verify?

I would appreciate comments on this. Steinberger (talk) 23:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Why do you think it is not peer reviewed? [18] They say they are. Tentontunic (talk) 23:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

And The Lancet has an article which says it is peer reviewed as well Evan Wood and colleagues1 refer negatively to the Institute on Global Drug Policy and the peer-reviewed medical journal The Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice [19] Harm reduction drug policy Eric A Voth. Tentontunic (talk) 23:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

This is getting a little suspicious, NLM Cat which yo usay does not list them, Does. Tentontunic (talk) 23:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

First, I did say that they say they are peer-reviewed. And look at the authors answer to Voiths, the JGDPP editors, letter that the Lancet tellingly concludes the debate with and you will see that third-parties do think it lacks credibility.

Second, MEDLINE is a subset of NML. If you only want to receive journals indexed in MEDLINE, and thus meeting strict standards, you need to include "currentlyindexed[all]" in the search. I am sorry I did not explain that. Steinberger (talk) 00:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• The above mentioned letter is not published in The Lancet, but in The Lancet Infectious Diseases, but that is a minor point only. What is more important is that this is a letter to the editor (and therefore not the opinion of the editors of TLID), written by Eric A. Voth, who apparently is the Chairman of the Institute on Global Drug Policy. The journal is indeed in the NLM Catalog, but it is not indexed for any of the NLM databases, so this is pretty meaningless. BTW, I came to this discussion because of a remark at the AfD for this journal (the article having been created earlier today and not meeting any notability criteria as far as I can see). I have personally no opinion about whether this is peer-reviewed or not. Much, of course, depends on who selects the "peers" to review and there are journals that basically constitute a kind of walled garden to lend credibility to some fringe ideas. I'm not saying that is the case here, only that I don't think this is a notable journal. --Crusio (talk) 12:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Is citing The Telegraph and the Sunday Times regarding NICE undue at death panel?

The Sunday Times has been discussed previously on the reliable sources noticeboard.[20] I am of the opinion that the material, recently removed, is OK. Here is a bit of discussion on the talk page. The editor who wants the material gone said "The article referred to NICE in three places whereas at no point has Palin referred to NICE in the UK. Referencing NICE three times was undue weight." Jesanj (talk) 00:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

These two papers are two of the world's most respected and have the same reliability on reporting on U.S, stories as major U.S. newspapers. TFD (talk) 04:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The issue is that the article Death panel referred in three different places to NICE. Both Jesanj at the talk page and TFD are claiming that these are reliable sources (but it has been brought to NPOV!). We must have hundreds of articles about Palin's claims, most of which are from American sources and these do not verify the claim of two British newspapers that Palin was talking about NICE. The view that Palin was talking about NICE is highly dubious (she has had plenty of opportunity to say what she was talking about and at no time has she even mentioned NICE in the UK or any comparative effectiveness body in any other country). Jesanj has elsewhere tried citing verifiability not truth, but the claim that Palin was talking about NICE is not even verifiable against all the sources we have including Palin's own words.

But it can be looked at from a NPOV perspective also. If the claim that Palin was talking about NIVE is neither verifiable or widely held, so it is definitely against NPOV and in particular WP:UNDUE to mention NICE in three places in the Death panel article. NPOV says we have to reflect all major POVs, and I would argue strongly that the dubious claims of two British newspaper journalists do not constitute a reasonably mainstream POV. What I have done is to delete the two references to the British journalists making claims that cannot be verified against all the American sources that we have. I have still left behind one reference to NICE in the article that have been made subsequently (about what might be considered to be death panels in other parts of the world) which I have left in because it does not fall foul of verifiability rules. I therefore think the delete was highly appropriate on NPOV as well as verifiability grounds.Hauskalainen (talk) 06:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Hauskalainen, I think you're failing to explain clearly why you think the sources in question are "dubious". You seem to be suggesting that "British" is not consistent with "mainstream". I'm pretty sure you can't be intending that suggestion but, in any event, in is pretty obvious why an angle on a US news story that connects it to something British would be picked up in the British press but not in the American press. If there's a discernible NPOV question here, it may be about whether the article should include viewpoints from countries other than the US where they are known to exist and can be found in reputable sources, and I think the answer to that is well-established.

I think you're also getting confused between verifiability and truth. An opinion is verifiable if it is contained in a reliable source, and that's the end of the matter. We don't have any requirement that the opinion be correct, fair or agreed with by the person who the opinion is a about. --FormerIP (talk) 11:38, 12 March 2011(UTC)

You seem to be deliberately trying to move the argument by claiming I said something that I did not. I said nothing about British reporting not being mainstream. I am saying that the two British journalists made a statement that is simply NOT VERIFIABLE against either Palin's own words or against American journalists' reporting of Palin's words or her underlying intent. The only verifiable thing is that the journalists made the claim. It tells us something about those journalists' reputation for accuracy in reporting because their claim that Palin was talking about NICE is not verifiable against any other source. Your other claim is that this tells us something about opinions in other countries is inaccurate. You have no way of assessing what the opinion of the British people is, only what these reporters said. I am not confusing verifiability and truth at all. I have said that the claim made by the journalists (that Palin was talking about NICE) fails the verifiability test. The many many articles we have about what Palin was talking about, nearly all focused on what Palin's spokesperson said she was talking about (Advanced Care Directives) or Palin's later claim that she was talking hyperbolically because she believed that it would be impossible to provide care for 45 million previously uninsured Americans without rationing care. She was not reported by any mainstream American source as talking about NICE. Why? Because she simply DID NOT MAKE ANY REFERENCE TO NICE!! It is inaccurate. It is neither true OR VERIFIABLE. It would be POV to include demonstrably inaccurate and non verifiable claims. Hauskalainen (talk) 17:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Please try not to shout.

We verify information using reliable sources. That's, in a nutshell, the extent of our policy on verification. To suggest that we also need to verify British sources using American sources or secondary sources using primary sources is to misunderstand the policy.

It's not even as if we have contradictory information to consider. What we have is a take in the British sources which includes a particularly British aspect of the story not apparent in the American sources. Which is something we can and should cover in the WP article.

Whether Palin has ever made any reference to NICE is really not the issue. If she didn't, that doesn't make anyone's interpretation of her words invalid. Commentators commentate in order to give us an understanding of how different things are interconnected. If they just repeated what politicians said verbatim then we should really ask for our money back. --FormerIP (talk) 17:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreeded, if RS make the claim and link we can report that. It might be best if its placeed in an international perspective sub section. LAo I could popint out that if her intent has been mis-represented she had had every opportunity to make her possition clear. We can verify the joounalists have claimeed that she intended NICE.Slatersteven (talk) 18:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) It is misleading if they say "Palin was referring to" when they have no reason to say that and our job is to inform and not to mislead the WP reader. If this was a comment section then I agree we could take this as the opinion of the writers. But clearly this is not an opinion piece. It is supposedly factual reporting and from that point of view we can definitely conclude that because Palin made no reference to NICE (or anything like it) it is very clearly inaccurate reporting. As I say this is verifiable as to the fact that the reporters reported inaccurately but it cannot be used to verify that this is what Palin was referring to because of the weight of reporting to the contrary. It is also undue weight to refer to NICE three times in the article when the view that she was referring to anything to do with the UK is not held by any American sources. As I say, if these were the only sources we had for Palin's intention then we would be obliged to use these statements. But we have lots of other sources so we can verify that these were inaccurate reports. Mentioning NICE three times when we know that Palin had not been talking about NICE is WP:UNDUE on a grand scale. Putting it in its own subsection would only add to the weight. I have left one reference in the article to NICE. Three was just way too many.Hauskalainen (talk) 19:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I take it then you will provide the sources that say that she did not mean NICE?Slatersteven (talk) 19:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Hauskalainen, I think there are faulty assumptions at the heart of your thinking here. You say that the British reporters said something they had "no reason to say". But they clearly thought they did or they wouldn't have said it and it is not clear why you think they didn't. You say "we can verify that these were inaccurate reports", but it is not clear how you are proposing that we can verify this. I'm guessing you think that a lack of corroboration from Big Country newspapers is enough, but that is obviously not logically sound. Lack of corroboration in a particular geographical location is not mean that the reports are inaccurate. --FormerIP (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I would put to Slatersteven the obvious riposte, what evidence is there from Palin that she WAS talking about NICE? If there is none, why isn't there? Hauskalainen (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The sources are reliable and pass WP:RS. If there is still any questions, you should continue the content dispute at the articles talk page.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

It may be something that has been lost in the confusion, but this is actually NPOVN.--FormerIP (talk) 00:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Hauskalainen, do you understand the phrase "don't shout"? Do you understand that it is not a mere matter of upper-case vs. lower-case letters, but rather of tone of voice, of being too involved emotionally to rationally discuss something? Like, I hardly even know what issue you are arguing about here (and really don't want to get into "death panels"), don't know any of the other editors here, but I get a strong feeling that you are too wound up about this to really have a good discussion. Which is not at all to suggest that you don't have a valid issue, but at the momement you are not presenting it well. Ask if you need assistance. Or take a short break? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not being emotional. My use of caps is to add emphasis to words that I would empahsise if I were speaking them, and that would certainly not be emphasis through shouting. I have no idea why you think that it is. it is your interpretation and not my intent. To answer Jojhutton's point, I agree that the Daily Mail and the Telegraph are mainstream newspapers in the UK and are usually reliable sources. That is not the issue here. We are at NPOV and discussing a claim that three mentions of NICE in three different places in the article constitutes WP:UNDUE given the fact that this has been said only twice and not by any American sources or by Palin herself who has been asked several times about her use of the term. We have no evidence that Palin was talking about NICE. Yes this does imply that the two articles got it wrong and that is for a reason. They DID get it wrong on this occasion. There is simply no evidence that Palin was talking about NICE. As FormerIP said, it may have been their way of putting a UK angle on an American story but that does not make it either true or verifiable. The only verifiable thing about this is that journalists said it and not Palin. If anyone can show me a direct quote where Palin said she was talking about NICE or anything to do with the UK I will give up the ghost here, but frankly we have a duty to our readers to prevent factual information to our readers just as the Telegraph and Daily Mail are supposed to do to their readers. The claim that Palin was talking about NICE is neither true nor verifiable. I repeat neither/nor (and not either/or as those citing Verifiability not Truth have implied above). It is simply not verifiable that Palin said or implied this. It is misleading to present this without any explanation that no other sources have reached this conclusion and that we have no direct quotes from Palin to substantiate them. We already have a reference to NICE in the article as a supposed death panel without those from the two British journalists who seem to have "gone rogue". The easiest solution is to delete the reference to these articles for all the reasons that I have given. Hauskalainen (talk) 00:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Shouting (in internet terms) is regarded as Caps and Bold, moreover you do not need to emphasis your points like we are morons (AFTER ALL WE KNOW WHAT SHOUTING ON BOARDS IS, IT APPEARS YOU DO NOT). Again I ask you to provide sources where she denies she intended to imply NICE (rather then just you interpretation of what she intended). If she has not denied she intended to mean NICE we cannot assume she did not intend to mean it. I agree that we need to make it clear that this is an interpretation of her words (and this is exactly what was done). Omission is not evidence of non existence, either provide a source that says she has refuted the accusation or accept she has not.Slatersteven (talk) 14:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

And finally we have a subject area (a claim that NICE is a Death Panel) which is a fringe idea in itself. I will leave other editors to point out the fallacy in SlaterSeteven's argument of logic regarding logical proofs. He would do well to educate himself by reading Wikipedia in this area and beyond to extend his knowledge. This is prima facia evidence that there is some connection between these editors that is beyond the norm here. That is all that I am saying and I stick by my words. Fortunately we have rules such as NPOV and WEIGHT and RS and FRINGE which can be used to counter these efforts.

As to shouting, as I say I am not (stessing here the word "not") shouting and I use caps to add stress to my words in places where I would in real speech add emphasis without shouting. If you can point to a WP rules somewhere which means I have to stop using caps in this way then by all means tell me where to find it. If there is such a rule I'd like to know how I can add emphasis without seeming to "shout" as you put it. Telling me I cannot add stress to my words is like cutting of the arms of an Italian....Hauskalainen (talk) 16:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

  Please see WP:SHOUT (at WP:Talk page guidelines#Good practices), which says: "Avoid excessive emphasis: CAPITAL LETTERS are considered shouting and are virtually never appropriate." This is a basic expectation. Any questions, see also WP:Shouting things loudly does not make them true. Nor, I might add, effective.

  The basic problem, where you feel your message (words) need more emphasis (stress) to be effective (to "get through" to any readers), is that your message is weak. But SHOUTING doesn't do any good, and annoys your potential audience. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The Economist and Hindu victims in Gujarat and Kashmir, India

Hi, It has been an accepted behavior to pass off The Economist as a "reliable source of the highest order" from many sides as I have been reading. Though I would like to point out a few things, that seems to form a little pattern of bias against people of a particular religion viz. Hinduism.

I would like to point this our with hard facts. As it is, uncivilized barbaric events are difficult to describe in civil forms. Let me start by saying plainly therefore that ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Pandits out of Kashmir region, J&K state, India, was a barbarian torturous "act" for all the Hindus. Same goes for burning of Hindu pilgrims of Godhra region in Gujarat state, India. These two are inhuman 'acts' of the lowest order, considering how ethnic natives residing in Kashmir since time immemorial have been brutalized and made to flee or how women and children pilgrims were burnt alive. These are rare 'acts' in deed, as no region ever tortures pilgrims and indulges in ethnic cleansing of whole set of religious hardworking people.

The Economist has hardly any words reserved, from its "reliable sources of the highest order", for these "acts". The Kashmiri Pandits living as refugees in their own countries, or those pilgrims who were burnt alive, can hardly stand up and get counted against this unfair treatment by silence of "the reliable source of the highest order". Any reporting from the Economist, or for that matter any good reference media, is conspicuous by absence of reporting these 'acts' from the viewpoint of Hindus who suffered (thus forming the bias - If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor - Desond Tutu), unlike its articles, perhaps correctly or not, reporting from viewpoint of Muslims about Narendra Modi(http://www.economist.com/node/10251282?story_id=10251282).

On the other hand, the Economist has passed off troubles in Kashmir state as a result of mistreatment and a little by Pakistani militants, without exhaustive consideration of all sides viz. Indian State, Kashmiri Pandits, all other minorities in J&K state like Budhdhists, Sikhs other than Hindus, and so on. Same goes for demeaning elected Govt. in Gujarat state of India.

My point is therefore simple, do what you want to but don't call the Economist as a "reliable source of the highest order" as far as anything related to Hinduism is considered. The question here is of balanced views(and its importance in reporting refer canons of journalism http://www.superiorclipping.com/canons.html), though an indication may come from its funding from people who have no interest in upholding human rights of Hindus, as per Universal declaration of Human Rights by U.N.

I would like to ask, if I should as a Hindu, if is it not inhuman to ignore human rights of Hindus.

"If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse, and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality." — Desmond Tutu. "Truthfulness is better than silence" - Manu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.188.234.236 (talk) 16:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

you need to take this to the RSN board as this seems to be an RS question.Slatersteven (talk) 16:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Link to RSN board please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.188.234.236 (talk) 16:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard I hoever don't think you will get very far.Slatersteven (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have mentioned it there before and in fact I am redirected here from the same page. As you mentioned, I do not see going to far with this since this points to the same page from where I got a link to this page. The issue therefore will not go out of these two boards perhaps. The road to hell is truly paved with good intentions. 180.188.234.236 (talk) 16:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Line of succession to the British throne

I have a fairly big concern about the article Line of succession to the British throne. At first glance, the biggest problem with the list (apart from its size) is the apparent Original Research problem. While this may be a problem, I think the fundamental problem is that it violates NPOV. I summarized the problem in this RfC. Basically, if one were to verify something like the King of Sweden is number 203rd in the line of succession, you'd have to do a lot of verification.. there is no source that claims he is number 203. But there are sources who make the arguments one would need to make (he's next after number 202, who's next after 201, etc..), since there are rules to the line of succession (WP:SYNTH). The NPOV problem is that the precise meaning of some of the rules - in particular that Roman Catholics are excluded from the list - is unclear: different sources interpret the rule differently, and hence produce different numberings. Yet the Wikipedia article endorses a single choice (which, by the way, isn't found in any reliable source).

I have tried to convince editors on the talk page that something needs to be done, but there are some editors who are against removing the numbering - in particular the dedicated editors who strive to keep the list up to date. Any comments would be appreciated. I made an RfC about a month ago, but no action was taken. Mlm42 (talk) 00:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

PS - there have been a variety of complaints about this article, such as its size, original research, and unrealistic hopes of keeping it up to date. The talk page and archives are full of these discussions. But I'd like to focus on this particular NPOV concern about the numbering. None of the other issues have "stuck".. it's possible that the NPOV issue won't stick either, but what can you do. Mlm42 (talk) 00:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

We should provide a short list from a recognized source, which would probably present the first ten or twenty in line. TFD (talk) 03:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I supported limiting the size of the article on its talk page in the past to no avail. [21] back in 2009. Not much change. And the denizens there appear to like it that way. Collect (talk) 15:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

That page seems to me to be in violation of several policies. One is clearly verifiability WP:VERIFY, WP:SYNTH, but also WP:UNDUE. I have a hard time seeing the relevance of all the people in the list. Which is now at 2000+. The chances that anyone past 20 (or even, if we are very generous, past 50) ever gets to the throne is very small if not pretty much non-existent. So they really are not very relevant to the content of the article.

And if the list is about people in line to the throne, then listing all those that are not seems a bit much. Not to mention confusing. That's my 2 cents as an outside observer.--AnnekeBart (talk) 15:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Communist terrorism

Is it NPOV to describe the Viet Cong insurgency during the Vietnamese war as "ommunist terrorism" in the article Communist terrorism? TFD (talk) 01:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources which call it such? --Jayron32 03:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The source says,

Terrorism was commonplace in South Vietnam beginning as early as the 1950s. Targets included local political figures, police chiefs, teachers, nurses, doctors, military personnel, and others who supported the nation's infrastructure. From 1965 through 1972, terrorists killed more than thirty-three thousand South Vietnamese and abducted another fifty-seven thousand of them.... While the labeling stategy of the United States evolved over time, each of the related administrations linked terrorism and Communism as paired threats to American interests in the region. To reinforce the association, each relied on the convential Cold War narrative to publicly frame acts of terrorism during the war. The approach recalled the nation's war history by mapping the terrorist tactics of the Nazis during World War II onto the Communists in Vietnam. (In the name of terrorism: presidents on political violence in the post-World, Carol Winkler, SUNY Press, 2006, p. 17 [22]

This is rephrased in Communist terrorism#Communist Terrorism in The Vietnam War as,

In the 1950`s communist terrorism was rife in South Vietnam with political leaders, provincial chiefs, teachers, nurses, doctors and members of the military being targeted. Between 1965 and 1972 terrorists had killed over thirty three thousand people and abducted a further fifty seven thousand.

TFD (talk) 03:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds more like an issue for the original research noticeboard. It is a fairly common phrase that was used to describe the insurgency in Vietnam but you would be testing the limits of synthesis to incorporate that source. There are far better sources out there. Marcus Qwertyus 04:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The Four Deuces fails to point out it is taken from a chapter titled "The Vietnam War and the Communist Terrorists" So there is no issue here at all with either NPOV or OR. Tentontunic (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you see no difference between an author claiming that the U.S. government used the term CT and the author endorsing the use of the term? Notice the writer uses the term "Communist Terrorist" in scare quotes. TFD (talk) 17:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Given the context above, I don't think that the title of a chapter is enough to use the term without qualification. On a side note I also think the copy could be better written: phrases like "was rife" and "being targeted" seem clumsy, no offense meant to whoever wrote it. -PrBeacon (talk) 18:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

@Jayron. Your question "Do you have reliable sources which call it such?" is irrelevant to this noticeboard, because this thread is not about reliability, but about neutrality of the text we discuss. In my opinion, the same is true for the TFD's arguments, because if the author does not endorse the term "Communist terrorists", then this thread belongs to WP:RSN or/and WP:NORN, because, as Marcus says, the text may have some synthesis issues. Nevertheless, I agree with Marcus that it is possible to find some reliable sources that openly and explicitly characterise North Vientamese or Vietcong partisans as "terrorists", or even "Communist terrorists".
However, again, all of that has no relevance to the neutrality noticeboard. What is relevant to it, is the fact that many reliable sources exist that (i) explicitly state that the term "terrorists" in general should be applied with cautions to the national-liberation and partisan movements (see. e.g. William F. Shughart II. An analytical history of terrorism, 1945–2000, Public Choice (2006) 128:7–39: "What, if anything, distinguishes a terrorist from a “revolutionary”, an “insurgent”, a “freedom fighter”, a “martyr” or an ordinary criminal?"), or (ii) characterise the usage of this term in a context of Vietnam War as US, or, broadly speaking, Cold War propaganda. For instance, the current version of the article clearly explains (with sources) that "this term ("communist terrorism, P.S.) has been applied by the US administration to the actions of Communist partisans during Vietnam war to affect both the domestic and South Vietnamese public opinion and to justify the actions of the US army as "counterterrorist" measures."(Carol Winkler. In the name of terrorism: presidents on political violence in the post-World War II era. SUNY Press, 2006, ISBN 0791466175, 9780791466179, p.29-35.), therefore, we have no other choice but to conclude that, according to some reliable sources, the term "Communist terrorism" in this context is a Cold War legacy, and cannot be used without attribution. My conclusion is that the discussed section as whole contradicts to the neutrality principle and to other parts of the article and must be rewritten.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it's impossible to determine neutrality without reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

And of course on page 18, 25 and 32 of this book she says viet cong terrorists. Given the VC were of course communist then again, no issue. Tentontunic (talk) 20:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, the fact that you see no issue is a serious issue per se. Your conclude that the text is neutral just because it is (in your opinion) verifiable. By writing that you mix two independent policies. In addition, by saying that "Given the VC were of course communist then again, no issue" you demonstrate your infamiliarity with the WP:NOR policy: the source must explicitly characterise VC as "Communist terrorists", otherwise your conclusion is synthesis.

However, that is only a part of the issue. In actuality, the proposed text is even non-verifiable. Thus, whereas the author agrees that terrorism was common for South Vietnam since 1950s, on the page 18 the author does not call Vietcong "Communist terrorists", by contrast, he points out that the idea to couple terrorism with Communism belongs to the US administration and was used as a "public justification for the US involvement in the Vietnam War". Therefore, you simply misinterpeted the source.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

And that paul is pure wiki lawyering. To say the VC were communists is hardly OR. A source calling the VC terrorists is communist terrorist, to say otherwise is a waste of time. Tentontunic (talk) 20:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

And again all of this is more relevant to the umpteen attempts to delete the article than to any violation of NPOV at all. If one feels there is a POV, the procedure is to add balancing material, not to rehash the same ten thousand words over and over and over. This article has survived a sklew of AfDs - time to let it evolve and grow and not to keep sniping at it in every forum possible. Collect (talk) 20:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• A number of sources explicitly mention communist terrorism in Vietnam, for example see Inside the VC and the NVA: the real story of North Vietnam's armed forces By Michael Lee Lanning, Dan Cragg: "Pike concluded that the most horrendous example of Communist terrorism during the war, the massacre at Hue" and The war for South Viet Nam, 1954-1975 By Anthony James Joes: "The target of increasing Communist terrorism in the cities, the police forces of South Viet Nam continued to deteriorate" --Martin (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

@Collect. Wrong. You can easily see that neither I nor TFD are the proponents for the article's removal. At least, I made several additions of the text and the sources, which have been reverted by others. Let me reiterate: I do not propose to delete this article.

@Martin. As I already wrote, it is not a problem to support this material with needed references. The problem is that other reliable sources exist that directly connect the term "Communist terrorism" (in a Vientam context) with a Cold war propaganda. It is a neutrality noticeboard (if you haven't already noticed that).--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Mea culpa about the number: [23] removal of over 85% of article in one edit. [24] ditto without preserving edit history as required by WP policy about copyrights. [25] turning article into a dab page. [26] attempted redirect. [27] AFD 3. There were also AFDs 1 and 2 by the way. And note the !votes including TFD. AFD2? Paul Seibert. So your "strong delete" meant nothing? Thank you most kindly, but the forum shopping is evident. Sigh. And the MfD for "Communist terrorism (disambiguation)"? Closed as The result of the discussion was Speedy delete via G6 as blatant misuse of disambiguation. Too many bites at the apple now. Collect (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I pardon you, don't worry :). Speaking seriously, I failed to find anything in your diffs that support your assertion that I want to delete the article. Yes, I moved (not deleted) a significant part of the article, because it belonged to another article, and you perfectly know that. Therefore, I even don't know how to characterise this your assertion using the terminology allowed by the WP policy... I do not propose to delete this article because when you type "Communist terrorism" in google or gscholar you get a lot of hits. However, they refer to many quite different, and frequently not related to each other, things and sometimes are used as an alternative terminology for the events that are being described by other, more adequate terminology. Therefore, in my opinion, the article should stay, but it should discuss not a concept (no single concept of Communist terrorism currently exists), but various examples of application of this phrase by different writers, politicians, scholars and journalists: starting from the Red Terror (which should be briefly mentioned, the Nazi demagogic attempt to blame Communists in Reichstag fire, Malaya, Vietnam (as a part of propaganda efforts), left-wing terrorism (it is necessary to explain that sometimes terrorism of this type is being described as "Communist terrorism" and to provide a link to the main article), etc. We are quite able to write a good article, if we stop edit warring and forget old Cold War propaganda cliches. In any event, the way some editors follow (to combine as many bad things as possible and to contextually or directly link them to the word "Communism") will not work.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

A "Strong delete !vote is not a vote to delete? Really? Seems to me that "strong delete" means "strong delete" unless there is some "what does 'is' mean" moment has occurred. Meanwhile, trying to use this as one more forum to accomplish was not accomplished in any of innumerable other forums seems outre. Collect (talk) 07:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but you should look more carefully: I do not remember that I participated in the AfD discussions (at least I didn't find my name there). With regard to what I want to accomplish, I believe I described that in details in my previous post. And, please, if possible, try to stop your personal attacks.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Eh? Note all of the following deals with your specific words, and is not a "personal attack" in any way.

see [28] seems clear about your desires and intent.

[29] that you regard this a subcategory of an article into which you moved a great deal of content.

[30] where you removed 85% of the article to that other article.

[31] your precise rationale for disliking the article.

[32] wherein you state that "communist terrorism" is only found in regard to Malaya.

[33] where you say "Based on the google scholar search results, which demonstrated that the terrorist groups described in this article belong to the Left-wing terrorism article and not to this article, the content of the sections 2.1 - 2.16 must be moved there. Since this is a neutrality issue, no consensus is needed for that."

[34] where you say "I would say that these alleged "communist terrorist groups" are in actuality left-wing groups, according to majority reliable sources. Therefore, the content of this article simply has to be moved to the Left-wing terrorism, which will be done after Nov 4."

[35] (state of talk page included) wherein you write: "They possibly identified themselves with Communism, but they were not seen as Communist by large Communist parties, and were seen as "ultra-leftist" by others. Communism/Marxism is much more narrow term, and, accordingly, the Red Brigades etc should be moved to some more appropriate article" saying that "Communist groups" are only "Communist" if they are seen as officially communist by "large Communist parties." You specifically state: "One way or the another, whereas "Communist" is a subset of "Leftist", and whereas numerous sources calling them "Leftist" do exist, insisting on the word "Communist" is a violation of the neutrality principle. " This position is shared by TFD who even manages to say "Also, Orwell was writing about the "Communist Party". None of the groups listed in the article were Communist parties or had any official relationship with the Communists and therefore whatever he thought about Communists does not apply to them." "Delete I provided the examples of inadequate usage of the source, I addressed this argument specifically to Collect, however, he seems to completely ignore that my post. Therefore, his claim that "the claims are backed by WP:RS sources" is simply false" where a "Paul Siebert" used the word "delete" for a large section of the article (that is, everying about 'origins, evolution and history" of the topic. "Rename per Scholar results (see above). That should be done independently of the straw poll results, because the present name violates the neutrality criteria.--" where you specifically state that the name of the article itself can not be allowed.

[36] "I think, it is senseless to continue. Every article's section I checked belongs to "Left wing terrorism", not to "Communist terrorism" article, according to sources"

So let's see -- you never suggested deleting the article -- just renaming it, removing it, removing every single section, removing everything about "origins, evolution and history" and so on. I will take you at your word that you "never" sought deletion. I rather think this small assemblage of diffs shows your opinions adequately. Collect (talk) 14:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Re "seems clear about your desires and intent" To declare desires and intent does not contradict to the rules and the policy, provided that these desires do not contradict to WP:C, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Do you see anything in my desires and intents that contradict to them?

Re "that you regard this a subcategory of an article into which you moved a great deal of content" And why do you believe that was incorrect?

Re "where you removed 85% of the article to that other article." Yes, I did that, and I provided needed rationale, and this my step has been supported by many users;

Re "your precise rationale for disliking the article." Yes, I dislike wrongly written and biased article, in full accordance with the WP policy. I already explained why this article is biased and poorly sourced. Do you have any counter-arguments against that?

Re "wherein you state that "communist terrorism" is only found in regard to Malaya. " Sorry, but that statement is a blatant lie. From the diff provided by you it is clear that I wrote:

"In my understanding (although I didn't do a separate studies of this issue), what Petri means is that Malayan Emergency was the only case when the term "Communist terrorism" was used more widely than other terms to describe these events"

In other words, your statement is a lie at least for three reasons

(i) Firstly, I wrote "In my understanding (although I didn't do a separate studies of this issue)", which means that I didn't state anything, just expressed my opinion, which, according to my own words, was not based on the analysis of the sources, so it was not the ultimate one;

(ii) This opinion was not about Malaya, but about the views of another user (Petri);

(iii) This my opinion was not about "Communist terrorism" as the term applied to Malaya only, but about Malaya as the only known case when this term is being used more frequently than other, alternative terms.

Therefore, the only my advise in that case is: please, read the text you quote more carefully. Misinterpretation of my words is harmless, however, if you read the sources as carefully as you read my posts, you are quite able to badly misinterpret the formers, which may inflict serious damage on Wikipedia.

Re the rest of your post, I don't see any problems with what I wrote in the past.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Also note your own words: "[Obviously, someone wants the word "communism" to be associated with as many nasty words and definitions as possible. Of course, this article's content should be moved to the terrorism article (interestingly, the latter article even do not mention "Communist terrorism" as a separate type of terrorism). BTW, the same is true for "Mass killings under Communist regimes": the mass murder (the article mass killing redirects to, that is supposedly a "Mass killing under Communist regimes"'s mother article) mentions neither "Mass killing under Communist regimes" as a separate mass killing category, nor Valentino's, Goldhagen's, etc works. (IMHO, the very fact that so much efforts and WP space is devoted to killings under Communists, whereas almost no attention is paid to other mass killings, and to the mass killing issue in general, is a clear sign of someone strong bias) In my opinion, a redirect from mass killing to mass murder should be removed, the "mass killing" article should be extended by moving part of mass murder's, Mass killings under Communist regimes', Holocaust, Nazi war crimes, American war crimes' etc content there, and, if necessary, series of "Mass killings under..." daughter articles can be created. That should be done first, and only after that can I switch to communist terrorism." [37] which also appears to be an abundantly clear statement of your intent to remove anything where you feel "communist" is used as something only anti-communists seek to associate with "nasty words and definitions." I am not an "anti-communist" in any such sense - but it is likelwise clear that you have a WP:BATTLEGROUND outlook on this per your own talk page. Collect (talk) 14:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

A pure logical fallacy: "X in not always wrong" and "X is always right" are two quite different statements. --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Upon taking a closer look at the source and the proposed text, I would say that it fails verification. The quoted source is about how the US government labeled this as communist terrorism, which is, of course, wholely different than saying it is communist terrorism. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

How incredibly fortunate then that I found another source which supports this content. Tentontunic (talk) 20:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

What is unfortunate, however, is that you continue to misinterpret the neutrality policy: if the sources A states that the Vietnamese partisans were labelled as Communist terrorists by the US administration, and the source Y states stat they were Communist terrorists, that does not mean that the source X can be rejected. But, in actuality, that what you have done. You removed the following text [38], that was supported by numerous reliable sources and that stated:

"...... Later, this term has been applied by the US administration to the actions of Communist partisans duringVietnam war to affect both the domestic and South Vietnamese public opinion and to justify the actions of the US army as "counterterrorist" measures.(ref. Carol Winkler. In the name of terrorism: presidents on political violence in the post-World War II era. SUNY Press, 2006, ISBN 0791466175, 9780791466179, p.29-35. /ref)......"

And added another text that directly contradicted to what the text removed by you said. This is a serious violation of the policy, and I request you to self-revert. The fact that you found another source that supports your POV changes nothing. This is my second warning.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Please take your warning, and then put it were the sun doth not shine. The second source most certainly does not contradict the first, perhaps you ought to look closer. Tentontunic (talk) 22:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

This is totally irrelevant. Since reliable sources exist that confirm that the originators of the phrase "Communist terrorism" (in this context) was the US administration, and that it was utulised to draw teh US into the Vietnam War and to affect the public opinion, that must be said in the article (so the text removed by you should be restored). Since no common opinion exists among the scholars on if partisans can be described as terrorists, the term "communist terrorists" must be used with attribution. Do you have any concrete arguments against that?--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It is really irrelevant whether or not the US government used the phrase "Communist terrorism" as Cold War propaganda, since your source states as fact that terrorism existed in Vietnam. The very first paragraph of chapter of the book you cite states the existence of terrorism as fact: "Terrorism was commonplace in South Vietnam beginning as early as the 1950s. Targets included local political figures, province chiefs, teachers, nurses, doctors, military personnel, and others who supported the nation's infrastructure. From 1965 through 1972, terrorists killed more than 33,000 South Vietnamese and abducted another 57,000 of them." That the US administration exploited that fact as propaganda does not diminish that fact or make it POV, no more than the Allies used the fact of Nazi atrocities as propaganda to motivate their people into action. --Martin (talk) 19:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

You are not correct. Firstly, the source does not state that this terrorism was Communist terrorism (it does not specify that at all). Secondly, this chapter is specifically about the attempts of the US administration to link terrorism and Communism to justify American involvement in Vietnam. To take some facts from this source and to reject other facts and the author's conclusions is a direct and deliberate misinterpretation of the sources. You also forget that other sources explicitly refuse to call partisans "terrorists". By saying that, I do not claim that the characterisation of Vietcong partisans as terrorists should be removed from the article, however, it is absolutely necessary to say that (i) the originator of this terminology was the US administration, which did that for propaganda purposes, and (ii) other sources do not characterise partisans as terrorists. By contrast, Tentontunic and the editors supporting him insist on removal of any other information but Cold war propaganda, which is in blatant contradiction with WP policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

So who were these terrorists that killed 33,000 and abducted 57,000 South Vietnamese, aliens from the planet Mars? A number of authors, such as Michael Lee Lanning, Dan Cragg and Anthony James Joes, do make the explicit connection between Communist insurgents and terrorism in South Vietnam. Nobody is claiming that Vietcong partisans were "terrorists", but that they used terrorism as a tactic in their insurgency. --Martin (talk) 19:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

They definitely were not aliens, which, of course, automatically makes them Communists (as we all known, all bad things are being done by either aliens or Communists). According to the existing viewpoints (major ones), the originators of term "Communist terrorism" (in a context of Vietnam) was the US administration, and, therefore, this term was initially politically motivated. Some authors explicitly call VC insurgents "terrorists", some of them use the adjective "Communist" (just to discriminate them from others), some authors directly link Communism and terrorism, and others explicitly refuse to apply this term to partisans, because the term "Terrorism" is vague. Neutrality requires us to say all of that in the article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

"Terrorists" itself is a loaded word, and arguably non-neutral POV. Contrast with "freedom fighters" — one is bad, the other is good, and (curiously) all of the terrorists are on the other side, and all the freedom-fighters are on our side. It's like a wire with high voltage on — there will be sparks where ever it touches, and needs extremely careful handling. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The article seems mis-named since it only addresses terrorism related to the Vietnam War. This sentence: " On December 6 1967 the Viet Cong used Flame throwers on civilians in the village of Dak Son killing 252 with the majority of those burnt alive being women and children.[13]", makes me wonder if we should have an article titled "Anti-Communist terrorism", to address the My Lai massacre of civilians. Or better yet, maybe just delete the article and merge it back to the Vietnam War article.   Will Beback  talk  19:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Idris al-Senussi

Idris al-Senussi is a claimant to the abolished throne of Libya. The man has gained quite a bit of notoriety in the media, including most recently in the U.S., in light of the protests against Gaddafi. But the legitimacy of his claims have been widely questioned.

• The two main sources used in the list, Christopher Buyers and Henry Soszynski, both present the son of the last crown prince, Muhammad al-Senussi, as the rightful heir.
• In 1995, a British magistrate ruled that "The world of make belief has totally absorbed Mr Idris Al-Senussi in this case. Mr al-Senussi wishes people to believe he is the heir presumptive to the Libyan throne. ... [T]he clear evidence in this case says that crown prince Muhammad, son of the last Crown Prince of the Kingdom of Libya, has a stronger case".
• This case followed his attempt to convince British members of parliament that he was the "great nephew of the late King Idris of Libya". However, David Williamson, co-editor of Debrett's Peerage, instead described the man (after also mocking his claim) as "the second son of the sixth son of the second son of the younger brother of Idris's father." (The Sunday Times) Buyers' genealogy matches this association exactly. Soszynski doesn't list him at all.

There is now a disagreement regarding how best to present his claim on List of current pretenders. WP:LIST requires a verifiable inclusion criteria, and this list currently requires a legitimate link to the throne. The order of succession in Libya was codified in Art. 45 of the Constitution: primogeniture, or failing that, nomination by the reigning king. This man fails both of these, and it's verified by independent sources. Similarly dubious claims are presented in the article either in plain prose or in a footnote, but not as a main entry. The other editor involed claims that presenting claims unequally violates NPOV. As for myself, I consider it a violation of NPOV to give dubious claims the same weight as those that are generally recognised; see the following relevant sections from WP:NPOV: I'm hoping that editors here, familiar with the policy, can determine which is the right way to go. Any comments would be greatly appreciated. Nightw 10:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

FPX (company)

I have been having various disputes with the editor of this article about noteability and NPOV of the article going on for a while now. The article does not provide any reliable third party sources and does not give sources backing up most of the statements made. The history of the article suggests that this is maintained by the companies' marketing or some other insider, given the users edit history. -- Arekusandaa (talk) 11:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see this as a NPOV issue, rather one of notability. Its a promotional piece for a company that doesn't meet the WP:ORG criteria. I've nominated it for AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FPX (company). Wee Curry Monster talk 12:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but i am not as familiar with the english language Wikipedia as i am with the german language Wikipedia. So since both applies (NPOV and notability) I thought i would bring it to attention here since i could not find a suitable page where you would discuss notability issues. -- Arekusandaa (talk) 11:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Argumentative?

Hi, all. Is the second sentence below a fair and neutral takeaway from the first one?

(1) The WP:RS's sentence: Corwin said she supports abortion rights — but does not support late-term abortions or federal funding for abortion.

(2) Our article's sentence: Corwin supports abortion rights — but is opposed to late-term abortions and federal funding for abortions.

Another editor says it's not, and posted this objection to the talk page for our Jane Corwin article:

"But" used as argumentative statement

If it is in the cite - then quote it, ascribing the opion directly to the person holding that opinion. It should not be used otherwise. WP:WTA: Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proven should be clearly attributed. And the "but" is most certainly an opinion. Just give the full quote, attributed to the person making it as an opinion. Simple.

I've already spent a couple hours researching and adding cites to this article, and I'm not really interested in spending more time trying to find the press release or interview transcript or whatever it was that this secondary source based its statement on, just to satisfy this editor's demand. Relevant diffs. Help please? Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 02:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I assert the "but" is an example of "opinion" and only ask that the source be used as a quote if we wish to use "but" and that the quote be sourced as opinion, as required by WP policies and guidelines. That is all. WP:WTA appears to also apply unless we attribute the "but" to a source. I do, moreover, object to my position being grossly misstated. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 08:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Note: The source does not say it is Corwin;s words, which would be an exception - thus the wording is the opinion of the source. It is Robert J. McCarthy who makes the connection. Clearly a transcript using the "but" ascribable to Corwin would then be citable as her own words, but that is not the case. McCarthy clearly adds other statements of opinion in the column such as "Still, she did note in her Thursday statement that she considers marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman." "But" and "Still"are clearly matters of opinion in this case. All that is needed is to attribute the words to Mr. McCarthy. Simple. Collect (talk) 08:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Impact of the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami on the video game industry

The applicability of our NPOV policy and its UNDUE clause is discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Impact of the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami on the video game industry. Editors here may be able to help. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

  Shouldn't WP:Wikipedia is not a newspaper and even WP:SPECULATION (as the recovery is not yet started and the consequences largely speculative) trump any considerations of NPOV? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Tony Santiago

More eyes on this would be greatly helpful. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Feminism Page: dispute over NPOV on Approach to Men section. We need help resolving.

We need help on the wiki Feminism page, we can not come to an agreement. I feel one version is balanced and the other is promoting a point of view and verging on original research. We are going round in circles.

My version http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Feminism&diff=419509002&oldid=419311345#Approach_to_men

Version I dispute. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Feminism&diff=419509513&oldid=419509002#Approach_to_men

(1)

"Most feminist movements ....... argue that men are also oppressed by gender roles and can ultimately benefit from feminism."

I do not believe this to be true. There are numerous forms of feminism, including probably the largest being the social movement of most women who just believe in equality for women, for whom gender roles has no part of their thinking or would have no idea what you are talking about.

The term "most", imo, requires either (a) A reliable source that has through empirical or other means has confirmed this. or (b) Consensus.

In this case we have neither.

(2)

"In the U.S., mainstream feminist organizations and literature, along with most self-identified feminists, take the former position"

This has not be verified as true and is circular. It asserts through its references that:- US mainstream feminism = Those who believe in gender role arguments

There are many forms of feminism as this article shows. And what is a self identified feminist?

(3) Removal of

"In The Second Stage (1981), Betty Friedan argued that feminists were alienating support by being confrontational and anti-men"

It has been removed with its reference being moved to those to do with radical feminism. This opinion belongs to one of the most famous feminists of all time and is not specific to radical feminism but a general commentary on feminism in general. It belongs in this page.

Zimbazumba (talk) 00:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

This is very interesting. One day, if I am overcome by a desire to stick my head in the mouth of a hungry lion, I might get involved with this subject instead. Rumiton (talk) 02:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

If nothing else you made me laugh. About that lion..... Zimbazumba (talk) 03:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

To address your first question (one question at a time). Why does the article have a section "Approaches to men" as second section after "History", and before the sections on theory and on the different parts of the movement? I don't see on the talk page from any part any real acknowledgement that this is an important article in political science. All statements should be referenced to good, recent secondary sources. Also, as far as possible, try and take a world-wide view. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Moving the "approach to men" section down could be a good idea. Also I just want to note that everything in this section is sourced, as can be seen at the article. The two sentences Zimbazumba doesn't believe are true are supported by many feminist books asserting that feminism is pro-men, the positions of the major feminist organizations, and a review of studies showing that feminists are generally not anti-men. Also Friedan is still in the section, but was combined with another source to support "[Radical feminism] has been criticized by other feminists as having anti-male views." To answer Zimbazumba's question, a "self-identified feminist" is someone who would label themselves as a feminist if asked. --Aronoel (talk) 15:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Aroneal,

(1) You have demonstrated some not most feminist movements adhere to gender role arguments. (feminism is defined by more than members of NOW et al)

(2) The final statement is ethnocentric in that is merely addressing the US and in my view not true, and basically says

mainstream feminism = those who believe in gender role arguments = mainstream feminism

Mainstream is a difficult word to define word and you are making well defined statements about it.

(3) The Friedman quote is clearly notable. No where in the voluminous commentary on her work have I seen it suggested that her use of feminism in that opinion is with reference to radical feminism alone. Simply put she say "feminism" not "radical feminism". Her views on this are well know.

Perhaps you are young and don't remember the 60's - 90's, but the the anti-male commentary from "mainstream" feminism was ubiquitous despite what the policy manual said. It exists today to a far lesser extent, because they have realised Friedan is right. It should be commented on. One comment from one of the most famous feminists of all time is hardly overkill

My version basically say feminism is not against men, welcomes male allies and some hold gender role arguments whilst a few are against and blame men. It think this is reasonably, uncontroversial and more in line with an encyclopedic entry. No where in that paragraph am I suggesting, apart from a few radicals, that feminists aren't pro-men. I can't see what the problem is.

Zimbazumba (talk) 17:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Betty Friedan criticized radical feminists many times. I don't recall her ever criticizing all feminists for being anti-male. If the desire is to include a source saying she did, then we certainly need to include a source saying that her critique was specifically of radicals, which was her usual complaint. While The Second Stage has been cited, no page has been cited, although requested. While the obituary cited does support the claim that she criticized large parts of the feminist movement, the movement also criticized her, and that's been reported in various places, including in the cited obit. That subject, too, is as valid for discussing in the article about her, although very little, if anything, about the disagreement between her and the movement belongs in an introductory article on feminism, because she remained a feminist supporter and the movement continued to remain connected with her and neither allowed the disagreement to terminate the feminist movement. The relationship was at an arm's length, but so were many.

The consensus was that Betty Friedan's commentary about radical feminism belongs in the article on radical feminism. This article is only a general introduction to feminism; it is not all about everything feminist. Most feminist movements are not critiqued in the introductory feminism article, that being the province of a specific article on each movement. If this critque belongs here, it should get very little space, hardly its own paragraph, since it is clearly relevant mainly to the radical view that men are presently to blame for sexism and her critique would belong with that.

That most feminists in the U.S. oppose sexism but not men personally is, regarding sexism, a paraphrased summary of gender roles. We don't mind clarifying the wording, but its basis remains valid and sources are abundantly provided (and I'll probably add Mary Wollstonecraft soon). We do not have a statistical study of the ratio because there is no such study in either direction, to our knowledge, but the literature is extensive and the moderates overwhelmingly outnumbering radicals is so well known within feminism that no one's likely to spend the money to conduct a study of the ratio, but the literature remains available. We use the best kinds of sources available and did. That only a small proportion of U.S. feminists are radical or have ever been (except perhaps at the beginning of any movement or wave, mainly in the late 1960s) is reflected in that both mainstreamers and radicals contributed thought, both participated in politics as outsiders, the radicals participated much less in inside politics (Andrea Dworkin did), but the legislation that passed and remained law was almost entirely that from moderates. Moderates were much more important to the movement in terms of numbers and influence, although radicals had a portion, and radicals are already covered in the introductory article on feminism, with a link to the article on them.

The charge that feminism was anti-male was ubiquitous from antifeminists and nonfeminists and they typically identified themselves as such (as in, "I'm no feminist but I believe in equal pay"). It was not ubiquitous from feminists, unless it was in the mid-to-late '60s. The ubiquity faded after that as moderates became more numerous.

The Approach to Men section is high up because feminism is about women's general relationship to men, and feminist theories and movements are developments of feminist thinking and action about the general relationship to men. If the desire is to move it down, not great but okay.

The statement is not circular and, in math, if A=B then B=A and therefore A=B=A. A survey of feminists requires either qualifying their feminism (which is costlier and less likely to be done) or asking them to qualify themselves (a method used in numerous studies, allowing comparison between studies with some time- and place-independence). Both can be valid. For an understanding of mainstream, I think you'll find the answer in sociology and in politics. Applied to feminism, it is not an unclear concept. It does vary between places and between times, but that doesn't seem to be an issue in this dispute. Certain statements should be U.S.-specific and editing has reflected that.

Political science sources are fine for adding; as are sources on the arts. Feminism is a field of study that overlaps many fields. Some sources can be added here. To add many more sources, the best places may be in specific articles within feminism.

I took the liberty of correcting part of the title to this section from "Reactions to Men" to "Approach to Men", as that appears to be what the original poster meant and is substantively the subject of the section. I hope that's okay.

Nick Levinson (talk) 18:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC) (Corrected "mainstream" to "mainstream" to indicate discussion as a word and that title correction was to part of it, the part newly quoted: 18:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC))

Thank you Nick for your contribution, they are always remarkable.

Zimbazumba (talk) 18:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Zimb: While I might quibble with the phrasing 'oppressed by', it is clear that almost every major thread of feminism sees the disentitlement of women as a social dynamic which involves cognitive distortions and a degree of misery for both sexes. This goes all the way back to Wollstonecraft in the 18th century, and is one of the theoretical underpinnings of feminism. Put bluntly, feminism (1) asserts that gender inequality exists, and (2) asserts that this inequality is not a conscious, intentional action of men individually or collectively. These two points imply that men must be just as conditioned and constrained as women when it comes to gender relations.

A few feminist scholars make this kind of point explicit, usually from a psychological perspective (e.g. where feminists talk about the social conditioning placed on men during their upbringing - discouraged from expressing emotions, forced to be self-sufficient and competitive, etc). Most feminist schools adopt an ill-defined, semi-Marxist 'failure of class consciousness' approach (men behave the way they do because they don't understand the societal role they have been locked into). No feminist scholar that I know of treats men as unaffected, because that would inevitably lead to a mindlessly simplistic model that places all of the blame on men (as vicious oppressors) or all of the blame on women (as too weak to stand up for their rights).

That being said, I'm tempted to bull in there, move that entire section down into the 'Societal Impact' section, rename it 'theoretical relationship to men', and rewrite it with a cold, cold eye. It's clear that someone is trying to push a point with this paragraph - it has way too much prominence for what it says, way too many pushy citations, and a point/counterpoint feel to it that just screams 'agenda'. I'm going o bookmark it and come back to it in a few days, and decide then. --Ludwigs2 18:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

feminism no longer promotes equality. Today's feminism promotes inequality to women's favour. For example, recently a law in England was under review to give women equality under the law, so they could be held equally accountable for their actions. It was feminist groups who argued against it, saying men would abuse the law. Women who have 'affairs' with minors are not currently called 'rapists' (like men who have sex with minors). The law offered equality - and feminists argued against it, demonstrating they clearly do NOT want equality. Note also how they claimed 'men' would abuse it (as if no woman currently abuses the advantages currently afforded them by not classing them as rapists when they have indeed raped), this demonstrates their innate hatred towards men - assuming the worst in men and the best of women.

Feminism IS misandry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.124.121 (talk) 00:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Ludwigs2 for your feedback, it was an interesting synopsis. The class of feminist theories you are describing, although very important, are one of a number and are the ones predominately taught in universities. In part because they are much more interesting to analyse and are worthy of a section of their own. This is a great article imo describing the diversity of feminism http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-topics/, if only the wiki article had the feel of objectivity this article has to it.

The problem with terms like feminism, feminist theory, feminist movement and feminist is that they have multiple definitions and mean different things to different people. As such they are a nirvana for prevaricators and agenda pushes. I have attempted to be as clear and unambiguous as I can.

The objection to the Friedan opinion is simply bizarre.

Zimbazumba (talk) 04:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Ludwigs. I just saw the addition of this "approach to men" section today. (And I've been working on articles relating to feminism for over 3 years). This is an outright violation of WP:UNDUE. It's also basically original resaech becuase it presents the topic of feminism in a completely novel way.
The problem with the arguments you have about this Zimbazumba are 'weighting'. There should not be sections on the approaches to men, reactions from men's rights activists, pro-feminist men reactions and a section about the effect on hetrosexual relationships. On top of that none of this reflects how Feminism is written about in relaiable sources. And that's crucial. The article needs to be organized to reflect how the subject is discussed in 3rd party reliable sources - that means in academic sources. It doesn't. Thus I support Ludwigs suggestion to move, rewrite and rename that section--Cailil ^talk 15:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree too. The article should be structured along straightforward lines. History first is fine. Then a section telling us the current scope of the movement - worldwide - liberal feminism, socialist feminism, ecofeminism, Muslim feminism, etc. Obviously the salient parts of the feminist viewpoint(s) have to be described, but it is also important to give the rather more boring organisational facts, some names of feminist organisations in different countries, for example. Some of the most important writers should be mentioned. Only after all that is done, a "responses" section, and even then only if it is necessary, if the responses haven't been covered in the earlier sections. That's about it. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Cailil, It was not me who added it. I was responding to what imo was an agenda driven entry that had been added. Its placement at the top atm is clearly wp:undue and I think is more an oversight. That being said, the terms feminism and feminist movement etc. means different things to different people. Certainly an informative discussion of feminism from a more academic perspective and its theoretical underpinning is excellent.

But also feminism to many is an important social movement involving mostly people who would never heard of Wollstonecraft or gender roles but adhere to a loose concept of gender equality. This aspect is commonly seen in our media, has caused social change, widespread debate and division amongst groups including the idea of the "The man hater". For this not to be on this page shows a lack of balance.

I agree this page needs a lot of work and the presence of some of the sections boggles the mind. Much as I'd like to contribute to this, my chances of not being repeatedly edit reverted and stonewalled in discussion are slim.

Zimbazumba (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Zimbazumba this is very simple. Wikipedia is written by recording all the major mainstream, 3rd party reliable sources on a subject. WP:NPOV means, recording these sources neutrally and in a manner that reflects the research and knowledge 'out there'. It does not mean neutralizing or "balancing" an article between academic and media sources.
If a source does contains a POV that is considered to be significant and well cited (this does not mean widely held), as per WP:V and WP:RS, then it goes in with appropriate weighting. But if its weight is too low (especially in a parent article like feminism or Science) then it just doesn't belong there.
As far as I can see from reading throgh the past year of talk - these entries about teh relationship with men have proliferated due to the demand for balance (not by you pe Zimbazumba but by others who have made similar arguments) this is all way off track as regards how to write articles for wikipedia. When dealing with a massive subject that has indeed multiple definitions one needs to read up about it from a number of major sources just to learn what's out there. That isn't being done. Rather what's happening is a creep towards POV giving undue weight to Fringe points of view about men & feminism--Cailil ^talk 19:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Tasks that are easily described are not always easily completed. But I understand your point. Zimbazumba (talk) 19:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Friedan's viewpoint is casually misrepresented by the obituary quoted in The Guardian. Far better sources are available, scholarly ones with a more complete picture. Binksternet (talk) 20:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Offering only one point here: A source need not be recognized by most Wikipedia readers, most feminists, most women, or most people to be a valid referent. E.g., Mary Wollstonecraft, whose work is established in feminism. Nick Levinson (talk) 01:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Pepi II Neferkare

An attempt is being made to disassociate Pepi II Neferkare from the Ipuwer Papyrus and the First Intermediate Period.

First of all, Pepi II Neferkare is associated with the First Intermediate Period.

"Once the choice was made for the First Intermediate Period reasons were found to date it to the beginning of the period or even to the last years of Pepi II in the Old Kingdom." -- John van Seters, archaeologist, December 1964

"Ipuwer had been understood by earlier scholars to be an attack by Ipuwer on a ruler, probably Pepi II." -- R. J. Williams, professor, 1981

"... research strongly suggests Moses and the Israelites went into bondage during the reign of Pharaoh Pepy II, the 'Pharaoh of the Oppression'" -- J.J. Williams and C. Parry, historians, Who Was the Pharaoh of the Exodus?, 1994

"One of the names in the family of Pepy II is an exact match to a name given in the Book of Jasher. This is the chief wife of Pepy II. In the Book of Jasher it states that the wife of Melol, the pharaoh of the oppression, was named Alparanith. The chief queen of Pepy II was named Neith (or Nith). This is very probably the same name and therefore the same person." -- J.J. Williams and C. Parry, historians, Who Was the Pharaoh of the Exodus?, 1994

"According to the Midrash, the Pharaoh of the Exodus was named Akidam and he had a short reign of four years. The Pharaoh who preceded him, whose death prompted Moses' return to Egypt (Exodus 2:23, 4:19), was named Malul. Malul, we are told, reigned from the age of six to the age of 100. Such a long reign - 94 years! - sounds fantastic, and many people would hesitate to take this Midrash literally. As it happens though, Egyptian records mention a Pharaoh who reigned for 94 years, and not only 94 years, but from the age of six to the age of 100! This Pharaoh was known in inscriptions as Pepi (or Phiops) II. The information regarding his reign is known both from the Egyptian historian-priest Manetho, writing in the 3rd century BCE, and from an ancient Egyptian papyrus called the Turin Royal Canon, which was only discovered in the last century." -- Brad Aronson, scholar, 1995

"Ipuwer, an ancient Egyptian sage. He perhaps served as a treasury official during the last years of Pepi II Neferkare (reigned c. 2294 - c. 2200 BC)...." -- The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, Volume 6, 2002

"The end of the reign of Pepi II led into the First Intermediate period...." -- Richard Lobban, historian, Historical Dictionary of Ancient and Medieval Nubia, 2004

"There are many petroglyphs which depict ostriches and a few that depict giraffes. Butzer (1961) has used relative frequencies of the appearance of these animals in petroglyphs to gauge the changing climate. This evidence fits well with the three OK inscriptions, at least one of which is from the reign of Pepy II, which tell of digging wells (inscriptions DN28, ML01, ML12). While it is possible that these people could be simply pioneering a new route, it seems more likely that the old sources of water were drying up. Additional weight is given to the latter argument by a passage from a document known to Egyptologists as the 'Admonitions of Ipuwer,' which described conditions during the First Intermediate Period." -- Rusell D. Rothe, et al., Pharaonic Inscriptions From the Southern Eastern Desert of Egypt, Eisenbrauns, 2008

All this scholarship is being distorted. It is being claimed that Pepi II Neferkare is not associated with the 4.2 kiloyear event and the First Intermediate Period and that modern scholars do not associate Pepi II Neferkare with the Ipuwer Papyrus even though they do.76.216.196.209 (talk) 00:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I and another editor have tried to explain the situation to this IP, who continues to add references which either don't meet WP:RS, are misinterpreted or in other ways misused, eg not about the subject being referenced. The IP seems to have picked up quotes at [[39]]. For instance, "J.J. Williams and C. Parry, historians, Who Was the Pharaoh of the Exodus?, 1994" which he mentions above is from that site. So far as I can see Parry had nothing to do with this, that's a Google error somehow. The actual booklet is by JJ Williams, an LDS member whose work is soundly rejected by LDS scholar John Gee at [40] and I have explained this in detail on one talk page or another (see Talk:Ipuwer Papyrus and Talk:Pepi II Neferkare). He quotes John Van Seters above in support but doesn't point out that van Seters argues that the Admonitions were not written during the period of Pepi II but "late in the Thirteenth Dynasty"

His Brad Aronson is Brad Aaronson, some sort of Velikovskian [41] and certainly not a reliable source.

The issue isn't whether Pepi has ever been considered related to the Admonitions of Ipuwer, it is about current opinions and the IP has been trying to present the relationship as thought it is more or less certain. The pov being pushed by the IP is this link and a link to the Exodus. He's been doing the same thing at Pharaohs in the Hebrew Bible where even self-published books have been used. Dougweller (talk) 11:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem with anon's is that he is cherry picking some of his sources and is actually the one in violation of the NPOV guidelines. There is a lot of research literature that points to problems with the interpretations with the above mentioned Ipuwer papyrus. The actual document dates to the 19th dynasty (ca 13th - 12th cent BC), but is thought to be a copy of an older document. How old is much debated. The idea of a link to the breakdown of the Old Kingdom (and the reign of Pepi II) is an old idea and dates back to the work of Gardiner and Erman. But by the 1950's this was starting to be re-examined. And over the decades there has been a work by several Egyptologists putting the date and meaning of the original text in doubt. Otto started in the 1950's by suggesting that the original work on which the papyrus was based was from a later period and that the discussion with a king was actually aimed at the got Atum. This was later supported by work of Fecht who has shown that the work is more consistent with the 10th dynasty, which is several decades later than the end of the 6th dynasty (Pepi II). The history of the interpretations can be checked:

• Online Master's Thesis Elisa Priglinger, Historiographie der Ersten Zwischenzeit einst und heute“, 2010 (with Prof. Dr. Manfred Bietak as the Thesis Advisor)
• Ilin-Tomich A. A., Safronov A. V., Dating and historical circumstances of the Admonitions of Ipuwer. Vestnik drevnej istorii, 2010, no4, pp. 3-22 [20 page(s) (article)] (2 p.1/4) - This paper actually dates the event from the papyrus to the Second Intermediate Period (several centuries after Pepi II). Online Abstract
• R. J. Williams, The Sages of Ancient Egypt in the Light of Recent Scholarship, Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 101, No. 1, Oriental Wisdom (Jan. -Mar., 1981), pp. 1-19. - Refers to the work by Otto and Fecht.
• Winfried Barta, Das Gespräch des Ipuwer mit dem Schöpfergott, Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur, Bd. 1 (1974), pp. 19-33 (Available through JSTOR).
• Fecht, G., Der Vorwurf an Gott in den »Mahnworten des Ipu-wer«. Zur geistigen Krise der ersten Zwischenzeit und ihrer Bewältigung, Heidelberg 1972.

The problem with the posts of Anon are as follows:

* WP:NPOV A disregard of the complete picture as presented by the literature.

* WP:RELIABLE See previous editor's comments.

* WP:CITE The references quoted at times do not support the claims. [42]

Regards --AnnekeBart (talk) 11:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Evolutionary psychology POV related RFC

The article about Evolutionary psychology currently includes no information about the highly publicized controversy surrounding the discipline inspite of the fact that that controversyt has generated dozens of books and scores of articles. We also have a separate article about the controversy that is as long as the main article. EP partisan's argue to keep out the critiques of the discipline from the main article because that is "for presenting the main theories of Evolutionary psychology and its main findings". I say POV-fork. I have started an important RFC here regarding how to integrate the criticism of Evolutionary psychology into the article about that topic, and about how to define the topic itself either narrowly or broadly. Please participate.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Has this issue been raised on the article's talk page? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The talk page is getting a bit impenetrable, so this clear RfC could help. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Non-neutral pov for Family Compact

Hi there, I've been going through the Family Compact(Can History) article and don't think this article is neutral. I see name calling (oligarchy,elitest) and other terms that are not supported by the received body of historical research. Family Compact is certainly led by a prominent group of Upper Canadians, but this kind of writing is really a bit over the edge.

Membership in the Family Compact was not "closed". Any immigrant could join the family compact; it was a question of choice about the general tone of thought.

I've added the section with the prominent names of members of the Family Compact which include French Canadians (Baby), Scots etc. Membership at the lower levels would have been representative of the local Upper Canada population.

The Opposition section is weighted towards Mackenzie and does not discuss any other form of opposition. It would be more balanced if it showed the influence of the Colborne Clique at least and some mention of the other forces at work in Upper Canada.

This article is not neutral.

REF: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Compact

99.246.14.181 (talk) 12:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you help improve the article by adding more material with reliable sources. You mention "the received body of historical research", and that's exactly what all our history articles need to be based on. You can just start by listing some relevant texts on the talk page. I don't see any really good sources there at the moment. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

That's no problem to add the relevant sources. I plan on re-writting some of the intro and the sections. I just wanted to make sure that my objection had been noted in case there is any conflict in the future. Given the importance given to the article this seems to be right way to go about it. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by CJ3370 (talk • contribs) 14:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

NPOV in opening line of People's Pledge

I recently created People's Pledge to cover this new British politicial campaign which hopes to force a yes/no referendum in the UK on the issue of ongoing membership European Union. Now, from where I'm standing, if you look at their 'case' page, explaining why a referendum shoud take place, I'd say it's pretty fair to describe in the opening line that the campaign is Eurosceptic - i.e., against the EU. Another user James Harvard (talk · contribs), is trying to water this down into just saying it's a campaign for a referendum, on the (correct) basis that (some) of the supporters of the campaign are not Eurosceptic, and they just want a referendum to settle the issue either way, as it's been a political issue in the UK for decades. While this could be mentioned in the article; given the case page, given this is not the view of the majority of the supporters, and given the very obvious fact that all the polling suggests that a referendum would say no to continued membership, I think it would be a pretty basic violation of NPOV to present this campaign as politicially neutral, i.e., just interested in polling the democratic will of the people (although the Europhile view is that the UK does not run on referenda, and the umpteen general elections inbetween are sufficient representation). What are other people's views? MickMacNee (talk) 14:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Drop "Eurosceptic" from the initial description - add a sentence or so in the corpus saying who describes them as such (RS source). There is no need to so specifically categorize every single person, group, or movement on such a basis. Generally the mildest adjective is the wisest in the lede, focus on qualifying adjectives in the corpus. In the case at hand, it is a political campaign seeking a referendum on continued UK membership in the EU. We can trust the reader to continue for specifics. Put specific references claims (I suspect most fall into the category of "opinion" as a simple matter of fact) and source the opinions to the persons or groups holding them. IMHO. Collect (talk) 14:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

First, in the UK at least, Eurosceptic already is a pretty mild adjective, and is commonly used. Second, if it's RS opinion you are after instead of the primary evidence, the stuff we have is pretty clear that it's Eurosceptic, and I have not yet seen even one RS that gives their opinion that this is just a neutral campaign, let alone enough to confidently say this is the majority view. NPOV is not about presenting no view at all in the lede and then hoping the reader figures out from the main article what the situation is. MickMacNee (talk) 15:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

In which case, giving you my view seems futile. Collect (talk) 16:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not futile if you offer something to back it up. I've stated specifically where my opinion comes from, and it can be swayed by contrary evidence. I've found no RS to support your claim it's viewed as a neutral campaign, and I cannot even think of a term that is used as a weaker form of 'Eurosceptic'. But I'm open to counter-evidence. MickMacNee (talk) 23:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Furry fandom

NPOV dispute about sexuality in the Furry fandom article. My claim: two Master's theses (and a third academic paper deemed un-citable by a furry wikipedian) assert the emphasis on sexuality of the furry identity and in the furry community. These verifiable, highly reliable sources are being rejected on the basis of personal anecdotes by self-identified furry wikipedians. In general the article's NPOV is compromised by such editors who revert edits about the sexual nature of the fandom.

• The two Master's theses:
  • Morgan, Matt (2008-03-25). "Creature Comfort: Anthropomorphism, Sexuality, and Revitalization in The Furry Fandom".
  • Eric Stephen Altman (May 2010). "Posthum/an/ous: Identity, Imagination, and The Internet" (PDF).
• A third academic paper, deemed "personal essay":
  • Cameron Lindley Cross (2006). "On the Fringe of Queer" (PDF).

Somewhat related to this NPOV issue, bad references and original research that puts the fandom in a positive light remains unchallenged. -Furry-friend (talk) 19:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

All the policies work together. While doctoral dissertations are generally considered reliable sources, master's theses are not usually given that status. Undergraduate papers don't count at all. NPOV requires that we include all significant views with weight according to their prominence. But views which are not found in reliable sources need not be included at all. I suggest that the theses, if used at all, should be kept at arm's length, more to show the level of academic interest in the topic than for their actual contents.   Will Beback  talk  19:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand this approach. Other, much less reliable sources are given prominence in the article. The very first sentence which defines the fandom is taken from a small newspaper. How is it that one non-academic article from a newspaper takes precedence over two other Master's theses? -Furry-friend (talk) 20:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you know the writer of the newspaper article?Slatersteven (talk) 20:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's in the article -Furry-friend (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Are both theses making completely novel claims about the sexuality aspect? If they are you are out of luck, but if they aren't I'm sure there are usable sources in the reference sections. Just be sure to actually read the sources before you use them.Griswaldo (talk) 20:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I must wonder again why I'm "out of luck" while most of the article cites press, non-academic publications, and even user-edited website. -Furry-friend (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Because, MA theses are not considered reliable sources. Hence any novel claims made in them are unusable. Non-novel claims can be sourced elsewhere. What is it you don't understand about MA theses not being reliable? This is the consensus here. You can try the RS/N but I assure you you'll get the same answer there. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

So I need a PhD thesis or a widely-cited MA thesis to stand against personal anecdotes and newspaper articles? Or will a newspaper article be enough? -Furry-friend (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Personal anecdotes which haven't been published in reliable sources should not be included either. But otherwise you're correct.   Will Beback  talk  21:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I will suggest using a newspaper article as a source and see how it goes. -Furry-friend (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Even though I recognize the proper Wikipedia policy on this issue, I'd like to note that I think it's absurd. Were the conclusions of these research theses made as personal anecdotes in a newspaper article, they would be considered more reliable and more worthy of being cited. -Furry-friend (talk) 13:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhpas it has something to do with editorial oversight.Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

As one of those who was involved in the discussion, I will offer my input. Furry fandom does include a degree of adult material and sexual aspects, and there is already a section of the article that addresses this. The consensus up to this point has been that this section gives that aspect of the fandom an appropriate level of coverage. Furry-friend is trying to use the master's theses to claim that the current degree of coverage is not sufficient and has been trying to make changes to other sections of the article, including the lede, that would give the impression that sexuality is a more pervasive and inseparable element of furry fandom.

Of the two papers he cites, I have been unable to access the Morgan thesis due to restricted access. Myself and at least one other person have raised issues with the Altman thesis, or at least the manner in which it is being cited by Furry-friend. For example, he employs a definition of what a furry fan is that in actuality applies only to a specific subset of furry fans. That may be well and fine within the scope of Altman's thesis if that's what he wishes to address, but what Furry-friend is attempting to do is to turn it around and use Altman's conclusions based on this sub-group as applicable to furry fandom as a whole. There were other issues brought up in the discussion.

The issue was raised that some of the more active contributors to the article are members of the fandom (myself included) and whether that would disqualify us as having a neutral point of view on the subject matter. My response to that is that I'm not trying to push my opinions, but rather to keep the article consistent with my observations, and I believe the other involved fans are doing likewise. In other words, I would characterize our actions as exercising editorial discretion rather than POV-pushing. I don't know the extent of Furry-friend's involvement in either furry fandom or anti-furry. It seemed interesting that his prior experience as a Wikipedia editor was just enough to get past the semi-protection against newly registered users (the article is semi-protected indefinitely due to past vandalism). There's no rule against people who have personal experience in a subject contributing to articles about that subject; it is my understanding that when handled appropriately, the improvement to accuracy and completeness more than outweighs any potential neutrality issues. If this weren't the case, then we might, as an extreme example, have the reliability of Neil Armstrong, if he were to contribute to articles about the Apollo moon landings, being questioned by moon landing conspiracy theorists on the grounds that his point of view is biased. --mwalimu59 (talk) 18:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Haha, so you are to the furry fandom as Neil Armstrong is to the Apollo moon landings? Jokes aside, that still qualifies as original research and personal anecdotes. The "specific subset" you are referring to is nearly 80%. Since other internet surveys are included in the article, I'm going to go on a limb and cite it. As much as I don't like self-selecting samples, I'm going to cite it as apparently internet surveys hold more credence than Master's theses. -Furry-friend (talk) 20:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

If I may add my personal anecdote, there is a backlash by furries about the prominence of sexuality in the furry community which, Morgan concludes, stems from shame, which is perfectly natural when discussing sex, and non-mainstream sex in particular. I believe this is amplified by the unflattering portrayals of furry sexuality in the media. This backlash is what leads to the NPOV issue in the article. Anecdotally, the vast majority of fursonas I have encountered are sexualized or hyper-sexualized. Non-anecdotally, I can point to the sources I cite in the article, which time and again note the prominence of sex in the fandom. Morgan argues sexual empowerment through furry iconography is what defines (or redefines) the individual in the furry fandom. -Furry-friend (talk) 20:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I took a look and that paper seems to have been self-published by the film student who wrote it. If so, it would not be an acceptable source.   Will Beback  talk  20:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I realize this, however the other article editors have no issue with similar surveys. Two wrongs don't make a right, but perhaps an experienced editor can take out all of the unacceptable sources in the article, starting with original research. I avoid doing so because it will undoubtedly create conflict. -Furry-friend (talk) 21:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The WP:verifiability policy applies to all articles. I don't know which sources you're referring to. I suggest you discuss the issue on the article talk page and if community input is needed start a thread at WP:RSN.   Will Beback  talk  22:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

You're free to remove unreliable sources from the article (especially when they don't cover trivial facts). But so far you have shown more interest in adding sources (both reliable and unreliable, you don't seem to make a difference there) that suit your point of view rather than actually improving the article. --Conti|✉ 22:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

SuperblySpiffingPerson and non-consensus, extremely biased edits

In 2011 Libyan uprising, I noticed a pattern of edits by SuperblySpiffingPerson, who is listed as a relatively new editor. These edits seem to be primarily regarding the conflict in Libya. My research on the content of their edits seems to indicate a pattern where the conflict is being described in terms that are very biased toward the Western powers and describe the fledgling rebel government as 'transitional'. This editor seems to include a bias in a significant majority of their edits. For example, while most people might say "government of Libya" or "Gaddafi", Superbly says "Jamahiriya loyalists" or "Jamahiriya".

I am concerned about the integrity of the article, as well as related articles, and am worried by their seemingly rapid understanding of how to move pages and the number of edits (22 edits so far on March 23).

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=SuperblySpiffingPerson

Please forgive me if I have left anything out. I'm very concerned about the direction the article seems to be taking.

-- Avanu (talk) 04:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Atypical NPOV Issues

I would like to write an article(s) about a project I'm involved in on an ambiguous and partially undisclosed level. We purposely engineer an environment suggesting endless supposition of who precisely is involved, as the project itself has an attitude of atypical relativeness, and so we believe we've become specialists at bypassing subjectivity and adopting an alternate point of view. (I say "alternate" and not "neutral" because I feel in many ways there is no such thing, for even a news publication decides what type of facts constitute objectivity, subjectifying its internal relative neutrality.) Paradoxically, we often hype and market this nature (and the project) ad nauseum, but we generally (or have come to be able to) do so in a conscious, crafted, calculated way, and often as a parody of its own ego. (We might wager the argument that this ego, even when uninflated, is an unavoidable consequence of the general principles and methods involved, but we're far too in the know to be certain we're not fooling ourselves.) Hence, one's right to suspect an especially high susceptibility to subjectivity (excuse the alliteration) but the opposite should also be supposed. I think we've evolved the latter skill, and are experienced enough to write with epitome NPOV.

For a microcosm example, I choose the phrase "has an attitude of atypical relativeness" (above) rather than a phrase with more miniature spin, such as "a philosophy of radical objectivity". Even though someone can have a philosophy seen as negative to some, that philosophy is a respected scholastic field of study seems to cast a warm light on that what's in question has been thought through intelligently by someone or something involved. And, while describing something as "radical" may judge it light or dark, it's more a plus when paired with something already having positive spin (e.g. "objectivity", which is a little more often than not seen as a better thing than its opposite). Also, I attempted to throw in a negative to the revision to counter the infinitesimal precision of exact neutrality. The phrase "has an attitude" usually connotes an undesirable one, and is something someone suppressing a negative bias might use. That the phrase must be modified after the point where it would create a gramatically correct sentence sans the modification is something that may have gone unnoticed to someone less specialized in "atypical relativeness". You may or may not agree with these details, but my point is that I was able to catch myself subconsciously on this particular word-to-word level. Likewise, I revised "expert" to "specialist", "mysterious" to "ambiguous", and "craft" to "engineer". (Rhetorically, this is conrived to an extent for demonstration.)

While all this should be enough to make my general inquiry obvious (how to write about the project neutrally here, given that a place that promotes neutrality via understandings of precision and complexity intrinsically offers allowing exception to policies prohibiting writing normally prone to bias), the question is complicated by the vast/excessive (POV-depending) amount of original terminology and concepts that need or could use extensive explanation or promotion to be understood. That is, its creative sope. More specifically, a largely undiscovered one. A good example would be a hidden library of sci-fi/fantasy books of a single epic (e.g. Star Trek, Star Wars, Wheel of Time, Lord of the Rings) of which A) only a few people read or have read, whose opinions would reflect a larger whole, B) has an established body of material worth noting, and C) incorporates unique/confusing concepts best nutshelled by its maker(s). (This latter point is key, a close example being the book Godel, Escher, Bach.) This scope in combination with being very "little discovered" suggests a potential nightmare of spam for a place like Wikipedia. Again, we think we're extremely sensitive to these subtleties, and our sense of noteworthiness is based on these factors. For instance, I would not write an article about a book we've not posted, nor one contradicting the consensus of minimal feedback.

Our project as a whole is largely a template for potential projects, or an ambitious web of them. We consider something to have substance when its strongly developed as a concept as well as via significant posted/published material, and I think we're at the point where a few key/core articles would be at home with the spirit of Wikipedia. Unfortunately, our projects are exceptionally prone to confusion and complexity, so it may be a long wait for a third party to decide they understand one enough to relay it. Of course, our desire to eliminate extension may be tainting objectiveness, which is another reason I'm inquiring beforehand.

I hate mentioning specifics when I try to talk about our stuff objectively, because it always seems to turn out pluggy. I can't even say my own nickname anymore without feeling like I'm pushing a flyer into somebody's face. For instance, discussion boards can have a positive effect on the search engine status of a site, so even mentioning a keyword or two can be technically plug-esque. If you want more specific examples about what I'm talking about, you can search the net for the phrases "difficult to maintain total and fully up-to-date continuity", and "free for nonprofit use and free in general anyway". These should bring you to two pages that speak to our attention to detail, and you may explore from there. (You can also check the list of junk in my profile, but not all is what I'm talking about.) The projects these two phrases should bring you to are two I'd consider writing an article about if deemed appropriate. Please advice on how to proceed, thanks.

Squish7 (talk) 07:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what's atypical about it. You want to write an article about a personal project. That's against Wikipedia policy. -Furry-friend (talk) 11:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Doctor's diagnoses

Is it POV to preface a medical diagnosis with "-by doctors opinion-" as was done here? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, that was of course not the right way of putting it, but I believe the standard way the media deals with this kind of situation is to say something like "according to doctors", and I don't think this would be understood as casting doubt on the information. As far as I can tell from reading some reliable sources, it appears that the irreversibility and the extremely low life expectancy of the child are not contested, but the parents insist that he isn't quite in a vegetative state. Given that this seems a bit iffy to diagnose anyway, I think "... which doctors say has left him ..." would be perfectly reasonable and NPOV. Hans Adler 19:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me -- updated the article. Thanks! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Should Lyndon LaRouche contain a paragraph about Jeremiah Duggan?

Uninvolved eyes would be appreciated here on Talk:Lyndon LaRouche to decide an NPOV/BLP issue.

The issue is whether the Lyndon LaRouche biography should contain a paragraph about the death in 2003 of Jeremiah Duggan. Duggan died in disputed circumstances after running down a busy road, apparently while being recruited to LaRouche's organization. The High Court in London recently ordered a second inquest into the death.

The article has contained a paragraph about this for several years—currently the third paragraph in this section—but there are now objections to including any reference to it. Arguments against inclusion are that LaRouche is not personally involved in whatever happened to Duggan, and that BLPs must err on the side of caution. Arguments in favour are that multiple high-quality sources have linked the incident directly to LaRouche's ideas, and he has several times responded to the allegations personally. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Does your link refer to the third paragraph in the lead? Its not clear from your link where the controversial text is/was located. Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Note that this has been discussed over the past few days at "Death of ..." sections in Lyndon LaRouche BLP on the BLP noticeboard. --JN466 19:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Coatracking, editorializing, and edit warring on Employee assistance programs

I'm making this report as a third party uninvolved in the original dispute. In November 2010 Albertoarmstrong (talk · contribs) began adding content to the article Employee assistance programs related to workplace bullying ([43]). This content was summarily deleted on 17 November but reverted by an IP (likely Albertoarmstrong forgetting to log in) a few hours later. In January 2011 Cknoepke (talk · contribs) became involved in editing this section and the two have been involved in a prolonged edit war ever since. I warned both users and requested full protection of the article to prevent the edit warring from continuing. Now that I've had a chance to look over the content issue, I disagree with both users' preferred versions of the article and I think this whole section should be deleted as coatracking, or at a minimum drastically trimmed back to remove editorial content. I'm bringing this issue here to get some consensus from editors who (theoretically) have more experience with these sort of issues than I do. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

Prior to my involvement the article had no references. It read like an advertisement for EAP and I think Wiki frowns upon that practice.

I started a new section "Workplace Bully Concerns" and backed it up with about 20 independent references (from US and Canada .. "worldview"). Despite this another editor (Cknoepke) keeps attacking it (just read the Discussion Page). I haven't bothered with others edits as I'm sure readers can judge for themselves what's what. On Jan 5, 2011 Cknoepke wrote: "You are correct in assuming that I am an EAP professional, but I am an external contracted provider ....." Cknoepke is by their own admission a private EAP provider, so they have a vested interest in censoring my edits.

As for the "coatracking" claim against me: the article started out as "coat racking' (before me) as it was written as an advertisement for EAP.

Albertoarmstrong (talk) 19:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello

A third party review of the article and discussion page would be very helpful as it illustrates the manner in which discussions about various content changes have taken place (or, in many instances, have not taken place). This, coupled with (Albertoarmstrong)'s constant baseless accusations of vandalism and attacks on my credibility (based, as you can see, on one statement where I disclosed that I am a professional in the area) has lead to what I believe to be an intractable argument: Albertoarmstrong has illustrated that he believes the article to be his own and is unwilling to discuss even minor modifications for NPOV or other purposes.

Cknoepke (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Due weight and numbers of sources

Just moved this over from WP:RSN, since I figured here was more appropriate. This is Gibraltar again, I'm afraid.

An editor is currently citing an argument made here (in a mediation case since closed), which judges the due weight of points to be made in an article based on the raw number of sources found in a search of Google Books. The methodology is to search for keywords in books that contain the word "Gibraltar" in the title.

I have three questions:

• Is this a reliable means of judging the appropriate weight to be given to subjects in articles?
• Would it be a reliable means of judging the appropriate weight to be given to subjects in articles, if it was confirmed that all of the sources actually mention the piece of history concerned?
• If it was not done through Google Books, but rather through a count of sources containing the point collated by some other means, would this be a reliable means of judging appropriate weight?

Thanks, Pfainuk talk 18:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)