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.

Sections older than 21 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
List of archives

, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39
40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49
50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59
60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69
70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79
80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89
90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99
100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109
110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119
120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129
130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139
140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149
150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159
160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169
170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179
180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189
190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199
200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209
210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219
220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229
230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239
240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249
250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259
260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269
270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279
280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289
290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299
300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309
310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319
320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329
330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339
340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349
350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359
360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369
370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379
380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389
390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399
400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409
410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419
420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429
430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437

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

This page has a backlog that requires the attention of willing editors.
Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Relisted: How best to present disputed information

Idris bin Abdullah 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 08:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My reading is that we should exclude people like Emperor Norton, whose claims are entirely illegitimate. TFD (talk) 20:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that I've been asked to comment here on my talk (but also that the message was neutrally worded and I am looking at this without regard for who holds which position here).

A list such as this needs to find a way of giving appropriate weight to each POV in each case. Per WP:NPOV (and in particular WP:VALID), the idea that points need to be given equal validity, regardless of prevalence, is not accepted. Neutrality requires that we give due weight to each case, which in this means putting significantly more weight on those who are recognised by scholars as those who would be the legitimate heirs to the throne if it still existed, and less weight to those who are not. For this reason, it would appear from the above that Idris al-Senussi should not be given equal weight with Muhammad al-Senussi in the case of Libya.

I think it would also be a good idea to distinguish more clearly those individuals who actually claim rights to the thrones concerned from those who recognise the abolition of the thrones concerned (or the rights of another line). Pfainuk talk 15:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion Crown Prince Mohammed El Senussi is the rightful claimant that is my 'POV'. However Idris al-Senussi is a widely acknowledged and high profile claimant since the late 1980’s, his claims are not entirely illegitimate I don't think it is appropriate to dismiss him completely, he is without doubt a member of the Senussi family (compare with Portugal: Duarte Pio, Duke of Braganza and the other 'claimant' Rosario Poidimani), his father was appointed by the last king, Idris to restore the monarchy, he in turn succeeded his father. Within former reigning families sometimes disputes arise, are Wikipedia editors going to make decisions over who the rightful claimant is to Lippe, Russia, France, Italy, Brazil, Two Scillies....? - dwc lr (talk) 16:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But he has been dismissed, as shown above, my multiple genealogical sources. He may be named in hundreds of news articles, but the sources that discuss his claim in relation to that of the Crown Prince's are the ones that should be given most weight. Nightw 16:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can cite sources to dismiss one rival claimant over another in other countries as well. At any rate Buyers and Soszynski are self published I don't think they are really even supposed to be used as sources. But there are sources that discuss his claim such as Greg Copley of the International Strategic Studies Association. Idris is treated as a claimant in the media, I don't see justification for removing his listing. - dwc lr (talk) 14:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The media is not a reliable source for this subject. I'm aware of your position, I'm listing this in order to get further opinions. Nightw 08:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone offer an opinion, please?

I've relisted this in order to get further input. Do any of the regulars on here have any thoughts? Nightw 08:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would think he is a notable pretender to the throne and should be listed. The media would not have the last word, but any experts on Libya, or on monarchy, writing on the media would be citable. The existence of articles in the serious media is an indicator of notability. I appreciate that there should be criteria for inclusion of pretenders so that absolutely ridiculous claims are ignored completely, but if this is indeed a notable claim, then those criteria should be reviewed or waived in this instance. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than removing the claim then, what alternative would you suggest in order to represent the view of genealogists? Nightw 09:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just add one sentence using the Sunday Times 1995 lead article linked to above. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where? The list is in table format. I would put it in a footnote, but given that his claims have been uniformly dismissed by genealogists, the rest of the family, the courts, and just plain common sense, I think that's giving way too much weight to the mass media's perspective, which is divided to boot. It's alright to say that he's in the same family, but let's look at the facts:

At the time of the monarchy's abolition, the Crown Prince, as the eldest son of the king, is the legal heir under the order of succession (primogeniture). He's also been designated the heir apparent by decree. It's not hard to draw a line between him and his eldest son, who was also publicly designated heir.
This guy, on the other hand, isn't descended from any Libyan king (not even distantly) and, at the time of the abolition, had no royal title. He's not even technically a prince, let alone a king. And his claim, as the sources show above, was dismissed recently in a court of law.

I'm not questioning his notability, but we do have a criteria on this list and there are plenty of other fake pretenders included outside of the table in plain prose. So you have half (let's say) of the media randomly labelling him as the would-be monarch—without delving any further into that claim—while the other half, along with genealogists, courts, the last king's family, and simple logic disqualify that assertion. Surely this is a case of WP:QS with regards the media? Surely his claim can be included, but in plain prose rather than table format. Nightw 21:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

a Fred Pearce sentence / reliably sourced loosely worded sentences

This illustrates a frequently recurring problem in content disputes with climate change regulars so I'd appreciate some outside views.

As we all know, ostensibly reliable sources sometimes still contain loosely worded sentences as well as statements better described as opinions which just happen to appear in otherwise reliable sources.

To illustrate in relation to the present content dispute, the following sentence from Fred Pearce in The Guardian has been added as a fact in Wikipedia's voice to the Hockey stick controversy (now redacted in prose) and has been a bone of contention:

The contrarians have made [the hockey stick graph] the focus of their attacks for a decade, hoping that by demolishing the hockey stick graph they can destroy the credibility of climate scientists.

The various problem with the sentence are that (a) obviously not all 'contrarians' wanted to destroy climate scientists' credibility, and some were presumably motivated by curiosity (i.e. it's a generalisation); (b) we have removed the sentence from its context in the article; (c) the sentence insinuates that the HS graph's chief critic Stephen McIntyre had an alterior motive; and (d) we find in Fred Pearce's more carefully written book that he actually believes Stephen McIntyre & similar bloggers were motivated by other factors such as intellectual curiosity, desire for openness, and so on, and certainly it is not said that their chief aim was character assassination. In other words, I don't believe the sentence is the considered view of its author.

For all these reasons I believe use of this sentence in the article is not consistent with NPOV (or V or BLP).

I would also appreciate comments on the general point, i.e. that just because a sentence appears in a reliable source it does not automatically follow that the sentence makes a fact that can be stated in Wikipedia's voice.

Cheers, Alex Harvey (talk) 16:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an involved editor. I support Alex's analysis and query. Ongoing problem at Hockey stick controversy and other controversial CC pages. Thanks for outside opinions and advice. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 16:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm involved, both Alex and Pete have been arguing on the talk page for interpretations not found in reliable sources, and despite repeated requests have failed to provide reliable sources supporting their contention that clear majority views by respected mainstream authors are in some way disputed. If such sources are provided, we can discuss it on the talk page, but there has been a consistent pattern of original interpretation by these editors: for example, in Alex's argument above the repeated attempts to "destroy the credibility of climate scientists" as well attested in Pearce's writings, somehow becomes "their chief aim was character assassination" which is not the same thing. . . dave souza, talk 18:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, a reliable source says something that Alexh19740110 does not agree with, so he wants it removed or qualified. I frankly don't see a valid reason for either; WP:RS is pretty clear here, and WP:SYNTH covers the latter. Tarc (talk) 18:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, Tarc, I was hoping that other Wikipedians interpreted NPOV as it is actually written, rather than deferring instead to the 'Word of God' interpretation of WP:RS. NPOV is quite clear that reliable sources sometimes say things which we should avoid repeating. In this case, we almost certainly have attributed to Fred Pearce a view that he doesn't actually hold. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have written to The Guardian to point out that this sentence is not accurate and to ask if possible for Fred Pearce's view on Wikipedia's use of the sentence. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Pearce has written back and agreed with me on every point, i.e. that (1) as I guessed, he didn't actually write this in the Guardian article in the first place, but that one of his editors changed the sentence without his knowledge; (2) as I said, he expressed a quite different view in his book The Climate Files; (3) he agrees with me that the statement is a "bald over-generalisation". I am not sure at this stage whether The Guardian intends to make a correction to the online article, but I'll reproduce his email with permission in the relevant talk page.
I trust some editors can see this is a good example of why NPOV says that we should not assume that just because a source is reliable we can or should simply quote every word. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there is an official editorial correction/retraction, none of this "I got an e-mail" stuff...if it even to be believed...is even remotely applicable to making an editorial decision here. Tarc (talk) 12:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have reproduced the correspondence in the talk page at the Talk:Hockey_stick_controversy. I am happy to write to Fred Pearce and request on behalf of Wikipedia a formal retraction. This should not, of course, be necessary. The statement is, self evidently, an over generalisation. NPOV say, therefore, we should not use the wording, whether it's in an RS or not. You are just plainly wrong. You are answering here at NPOVN but have you actually read NPOV? Alex Harvey (talk) 17:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have, as opposed to you who clearly have not. All you do is pop up about once a month to whine about how your fringe POV isn't being represented in the climate change topic area. Guess what? That's why they call em "fringe". Take care, unwatching this dead-end discussion now. Tarc (talk) 22:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Despite Tarc's smear, my question is a serious and I would be grateful for a serious response. This isn't the RS/N so if all that was required were reliable sources there would be no need for the NPOV policy at all. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like there have been about six edits to this page in as many days. Does this mean there are hardly any active editors left? Or am I in the wrong place? Alex Harvey (talk) 11:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sikh

A Sikh is a follower of Sikhism. Sikhism primarily originated in the 15th century in the Punjab region with the birth of Guru Nanak Dev ji. The term "Sikh" has its origin in Sanskrit term शिष्य, meaning "disciple, student" or शिक्ष, meaning "instruction". A Sikh is a disciple of the Guru. According to Article I of the "Rehat Maryada" (the Sikh code of conduct and conventions), a Sikh is defined as "any human being who faithfully believes in One Immortal Being; ten Gurus, from Guru Nanak Dev to Sri Guru Gobind Singh; Sri Guru Granth Sahib; the teachings of the ten Gurus and the baptism bequeathed by the tenth Guru; and who does not owe allegiance to any other religion". Sikhs believe in the One Supreme God (Ik Onkar), the Guru who is main driving force behind Sikhs, truth, equality of humankind, universal brotherhood, truthful earning, respect towards life and all other creations/decisions made by GOD and they believe that no one can understand the supreme God without the blessings of the Guru and outmost love. Sikhs are recognized by their 5 Ks. 1) Kesh, specially maintained hair 2) Kara, special metal ring like bracelet 3) Kirpan, special small sword in a Strap called gatra. 4) Kashera, specially designed underpants, 5) Kanga, special comb for hair. These are applied to Baptised Sikhs called Khalsa. Sikhs are recognized by their distinctively wrapped turban, uncut hair, beard and moustache and they are supposed to wear an iron/steel bracelet (kara). The surname Singh (lion) being used by men and Kaur (princess) by women (Waheguru) the name of One Supreme God, (Sharbat da Bhala) selfless service and believe for the benefits of all is an integral part of Sikh worship, Due to their distinct identity they can be very easily observed in the masses as well as in the Gurdwara where visitors of any religious or socio-economic background are welcomed, where langar (free and unbiased food for all) is another way to break the caste system (as observed by Hindus) by serving people of all origins with the same (vegetarian) food, while sitting together on the same level of the floor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.254.214.108 (talk) 07:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"LIberal" versus "progressive" for United States politics

This question is inspired by a particular article, but I want to ask it more generally, isolated from some of the other variables at work there. I'll say at the outset that I don't plan to reference this discussion to influence that one.

I'm curious about the use of labels to describe political organizations and individuals. In particular, there's "liberal" and "progressive" for modern United States politics. In the last 10 or so years, "progressive" has become increasingly popular with left-of-center politicians and groups to describe their political philosophy. The news media in a lot of cases still uses "liberal" even for organizations that fairly stringently stick to "progressive." There are different shades of meaning for both terms, but in my view, they encompass the same rough idea. One issue that weighs on the topic is that American conservatives have engaged in concerted effort to make liberal a "dirty word" that conjures negative feelings int he electorate.

We have a few options for characterizing the politics of a person/organization such as this: 1. Use no label at all 2. Use a different label entirely 3. Use one of "liberal" or "progressive", but not the other 4. Use either one interchangeably 5. Use some sort of "compromise" phrase that casts the labeling as some sort of dispute

I have a fairly strong distaste for both 1 and 5. I understand the theoretical appeal of using no labels, but we need words to describe things. For 5, I think that does a disservice to the politician to say something like, "Often called a liberal, Jones calls himself a progressive." That ascribes a degree of defensiveness that may or may not actually be there on the part of the politician or organization. It also creates a sort of clunky phrase where we dither about using two different terms that are more similar than different.

Where I'm largely lost is which term the voice of the encyclopedia should use. Is one "better" than the other? Should it matter which term the organization uses? Should we try to "count votes" in our sources to see which they use? ("Sources A and B use 'liberal' exclusively, Source C uses both, but prefers 'progressive," Source D only uses 'progressive,' and so on.)

Should we crop or bracket-edit quotes to avoid using one term or the other? For instance, let's say that editors decide that a politician's website is worth quoting to describe his positions. If the site reads, "Senator Jones believes in standing up for progressive values, such as.." and then lists his positions on issues, should we leave out the progressive identifier? Should we instead write something like, "Jones says he stands up for liberal values, such as.." and then quote the website?

I appreciate anyone who's read through this whole thing, and I'm interested in hearing a lot of opinions on this sort of thing if anyone wants to give them. If this isn't the right place for a question of this nature, please point me in the right direction. Croctotheface (talk) 09:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're splitting hairs a bit. If 'liberal' really had become pejorative then I would agree that to remain neutral we should avoid using it. That's a very big 'if' though. Out of all your options I believe (4) is closest to what I would favour, although I wouldn't say 'interchangeably' but I would say use 'editorial discretion'. Hope this helps. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Alex that 4 is the best option. In terms of 5 (compromise/dispute), I think something like that would only come into play if there's an actual dispute noted in RS where some person/institution accuses the politician of calling himself one thing when he is (at lease according to the source) another. Otherwise, it's not really an issue.--Scaleshombre (talk) 15:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the replies. There should be no question that there's been an attempt by conservative activists to make "liberal" into a pejorative. See Modern liberalism in the United States#"Liberal" as a derogatory epithet. Croctotheface (talk) 01:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would usually avoid the terms "liberal" and "conservative" which are contentious, lack precision, and have a different meaning in the U.S. than in the rest of the world. Usually the best terms would be Democrat and Republican. The term "progressive" however seems more acceptable because there is a Congressional Progressive Caucus and Progressive Democrats of America - it is an identifiable faction within the Democratic Party and to the left of the party. TFD (talk) 04:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am Australian and it has never occurred to me that 'liberal' is pejorative, although our conservative party is actually called the 'Liberal Party', so that could be the reason. Still, I doubt there is going to be a lasting shift in meaning of the term 'liberal'. But if it is clear that a source is using the term pejoratively then Wikipedia shouldn't be doing that. Can this be illustrated with reference to a specific content dispute? Part of the problem is that this whole discussion seems somewhat abstract. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A simple way through this potential minefield could be to include the self-descriptions of individuals and groups, alongside characterisations by their most notable critics. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Harvey, the Liberal Party of Australia is a liberal party (hence the name), the conservative party having disappeared in the 1840s. In the U.S. however, they would be called conservative, while their opponents are called liberals. Many countries however have both liberal and conservative parties, as in Scandinavia. Usually the difference is that liberals support free markets, while conservatives support tradition. TFD (talk) 22:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An important difference in political nomenclature between the US and other Anglophone countries is that "liberal" over here doesn't connote strong ideological support for free markets, but rather support for economic regulation in the public sphere while retaining its more universal connotation of civil libertarianism in the private sphere. American liberalism is thus more "philosophically inconsistent" (though a foolish consistency can surely remain the hobgoblin of small minds) than what's implied by Liberal and Liberal-Democratic parties in parliamentary systems, which generally tend to support free markets and lassiez-faire social policies. This makes, e.g. the British Liberal Democratic Party a philosophical cousin of the American Libertarian Party, though the US LP would be regarded as more "extreme" and much more marginal than the UK LD party, which is the third largest party in multiparty Britain. Both parties tend to attract the well-educated and well-off.

If the term "progressive" seems to get shunted aside by American commentators taking their cues from the right wing's Mighty Wurlitzer to keep their opponents tarred with the dreaded "liberal" label (one must pronounce it "lib-uh-rul" for the proper ring of contempt), it's as important to keep watch on the term "conservative" as casually attributed by American media outlets. Most often it's shorthand for "economic conservative" which can imply a belief in the power of free markets in all sectors so strong it can be justly (and quite objectively) termed radical. Likewise "social conservatives" often connotes a passionate group who would foist the sort of social changes hard to square with honestly tradition-bound conservatism. Snardbafulator (talk) 01:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Perry#Cameron_Todd_Willingham NPOV?

Hi. I'm hardly neutral as I'm fairly certain that the guy was innocent, or at the very least not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Could someone knowledgeable in NPOV issues have a look over the section and decide whether or not to place an NPOV tag? Thank you. Also not certain how I should have labeled this section but at least it works. Pär Larsson (talk) 21:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little concerned that too much weight is being given to this section in a biography about Rick Perry. I get the feeling that the article is making a point that death sentences are wrong and attempting to pin the blame for a possibly wrongful execution on the governor, simply because he supports the death sentence generally. While the death sentence may be wrong, it would appear that the courts failed here if Willingham really was innocent. I would suggest other editors have a look at this. Alex Harvey (talk) 02:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

propaganda at United States and state terrorism

It would be great to have more editors involved in the discussion. The article's highly contentious and has been flagged for neutrality violations since September 2010. I'd love to have input regarding peacock terms ("notable," "foremost," etc.) puffing up people quoted in the piece.

Please see discussion at Talk:United_States_and_state_terrorism#Chomsky.

Thank you.--Scaleshombre (talk) 23:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noam Chomsky does not need to be "puffed up" to place him among the topic's strongest proponents. He is certainly notable, and perhaps foremost. This is not puffery or peacockism, it is simply an accurate description of the most vocal gadfly on the topic. Binksternet (talk) 16:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then his work can speak for itself. The role of Wikipedia is to be an impartial chronicler, not a cheerleader.--Scaleshombre (talk) 16:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are correct to tell the reader new to the topic that Chomsky is notable. Many observers have described him as such. It seems obvious, but the casual reader should be told the state of scholarly thought including a bit of who's who on the topic. Binksternet (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In fact the source says that he is one of the notable writers on the subject. TFD (talk) 04:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4th Halifax Highland Scout Troop / Scots Highland Company

Reeks of agenda, potential BLP violations, and the like. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh god. Someone obviously had a very large amount of prose to unload, but it's virtually impenetrable. I'm tempted to simply stub the article, keep the references, and start all over again, but someone better than me at salvaging content should have a crack at it first. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is being discussed in several places. Please look at the merge discussion flagged at the top of the page which will also lead to other discussions. --Bduke (Discussion) 09:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it acceptable for an encyclopedic article to reinforce only one side of a controversial issue?

In the article for conspiracy theories a vested contributor has relinquished any responsibility to write for the opponent since he or she assumes that the opponent might not be supported by reliable sources. Of course, this assumption is based on nothing but sheer arrogance.

Is it acceptable or fair to write for only one viewpoint unchallenged then soft-own the article by demanding consensus for the opposing viewpoint? Tsnuemuozobh (talk) 23:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking for an opinion on an editor's conduct? You might consider reviewing WP:AGF, as your questions strike me as pretty abrasive. Editors often disagree about content, but our goal is to present material in a neutral manner, according to reliable sources. To choose an extreme example, on an article about cigarette smoking, we say that it is bad for you based on the vast number of sources supporting that view. We are not obligated to balance that view with statements arguing how it is good for you, unless reliable sources support those claims. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking for clarification about accepted standards for Wikipedia articles. The article contains more quotes from sociologists than from conspiracy theorists. The appeal to emotion in the article is an example of the lack of balance resulting from bias or anecdotes rather than facts. Informing about the harmful effects of cigarette smoking is necessary for the public good. Writing an article for the sake of "debunking" conspiracy theories, on the hand, appears to be motivated chiefly by a political agenda. Tsnuemuozobh (talk) 02:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have only had a very quick look at Talk:Conspiracy theory#This article is full of judgmental statements, but it appears that Loremaster has explained WP:NPOV very well ("we only represent viewpoints published by reliable sources and in proportion to the number of reliable sources that express this view"—that is of course a slightly simplified version of the policy, but in essence it is correct). It also appears as if the disagreement started very recently; assuming that's correct, such a matter should not normally be reported to a noticeboard unless there is some kind of urgent need for action (that's just a general thought, and is a minor issue). The next step would be to focus on some content in the article and explain your problem about that (on the article talk page). Johnuniq (talk) 04:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Algol - feedback on whether (and if so, to what extent) pseudoscience policy affects the content of this star page.

I'm asking for clarification / benefit of experience / general advice on a matter where an editor seems intent on starting an edit war by invoking pseudo-science policy over the content of the Wikipedia page on the fixed star Algol.

MakeSense64 has a history of targeting content which involves any kind of connection with astrology. Three days ago (6th July) he took it on himself to remove astrological references from this fixed star page, beginning with the talk-page question “Since this article is about the star, then is it normal there is also an astrology section? The astrology of Algol is covered in Behenian_fixed_stars, so it can be removed here. Any objections?” (BTW, the astrology of Algol is not covered on the other page, as another editor later pointed out).

This question met with the objection of a contributing editor who wrote: “Yes. mine. It is like any popular culture/cultural depictions section. I prefer to have them all at the topic, as that is what we are talking about.”

MakeSense64 ignored the objection and removed the content anyway. At that stage I also objected and restored the content, asking for consensus to be reached before cuts are made to content that has been a part of the page for 6 years. That began a series of undos and reverts, and a discussion which pulled in some new editors, partly as a result of Makesense64 placing a request for comment on the Wikipedia Astronomy Project notice-board - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomical_objects#Astrology.3F

Despite this, only one editor supported his point of view and it has always been the case, throughout the discussion, that more editors wanted the astrological content to remain than be removed.

The point of contention originally involved the appropriateness of an external link which led to an article on the astrological significance of the star, and since the suggestion was that there shouldn’t be such external links on the page, I offered to produce some relevant and reliably sourced text which could elaborate on its cultural and traditional astrological significance. My point was this:

As I have said before, the focus of this article is not pure astronomy, but the star popularly known as Algol (from its Arabic name ‘the ghoul’). This article is not limited to covering only modern scientific information on the star: the question of why it has been considered ghoulish is of interest to an enquiring mind and suitable for inclusion on the page. There should be some expansion of the single astrological reference to its meaning that currently exists “Algol is considered the most unfortunate star in the sky”. Why? If an external link is considered inappropriate then I shall aim to provide some explanation of that within the main text.

I worked hard to provide solidly referenced text, free of ‘woo woo’ and of value to researchers, scholars, and historians, as well as readers with a general astrological interest. The emphasis was on the widespread cultural and long-standing astrological tradition attached to the star. The passage demonstrated how the name and astrological associations connect to the noted astronomical features of the star. Following publication, one contributing editor raised an issue about the reliability of one point concerning the historical recognition of its variability; but this was talked through to satisfaction with a slight edit and a reminder that the same historical point had already been given in the astronomical section of the star.

As the page may have changed, please consider this diff between his subsequent removal of the text, and the previous edit which shows the text in place, to see exactly what we are talking about.

Ignoring all the previous discussion, Makesense64 removed everything I had contributed saying “see talk”. His ‘talk’ stated:

We have to adhere to WP:PSCI, which makes it clear that where science and pseudoscience are presented next to each other in an article (which can be for good reason), the pseudoscience part should not be made as big as to look equal in importance. That becomes a case of undue weight WP:UNDUE. … [NB: The added text is nowhere near as big, and does not overwhelm the astronomical content; and it is historical and cultural – not pseudoscientific] …. Just imagine how it would be if astronomers came to add their materials in an astrology article about a planet, that would not benefit any user of WP [I truly cannot imagine that anyone would have a problem with such a thing]. Please consider that it will not be helpful for astrology articles if you go to war with the astronomy community on WP.

This happened yesterday. Then another editor reverted the undo and placed arguments on the talk page saying that the addition was well sourced and of good quality and demonstrated care and research. But today I see that Makesense64 has deleted it again, arguing that the text cannot be published to the page unless it gets consensus first. This is bizarre: he has held an extreme and minority position all along, supported by only one other editor from the astronomy project, who I suspect is overly concerned by Makesense64’s suggestion there: “It is a questionable development when astrologers start taking over astronomy pages with GA status, so more editor comments will be welcome.”

I am going to revert the deletion myself, this one time, and ask him to leave the content in place so it can be evaluated here. If he doesn’t I hope others will act instead because this reference to war, following on from what he claimed to be an edit war the day before (in which he slapped a banning warning on my talk page) makes me loathe to do anymore myself now for fear of adding fuel to an inflammatory situation.

I don’t know whether to comment on the astronomy discussion page myself or whether that would make things worse. I hope the astronomers realise that when Makesense64 joined their project on the day he posted to their talk page to call their attention to this, he was not forwarding a pro-astronomy concern but only continuing his habitual anti-astrology agenda. His contribution history shows how practically all his editorial activity is geared towards condemning astrology comments and astrology-related pages. Criticisms are fair enough – this sharpens content - but references to going to war, attempts to stir astronomers into a state of emotive reaction against the fear that “astrologers start taking over the astronomy pages”, whilst drawing reference to the pseudo-science policy seems completely over the top and surely benefits no one. If Wiki editors apply common sense and adhere to WP policy, why is there need for editors to ‘go to war’? I struggle to know how to deal with what seems to be deliberate engineering of controversy and division. Maybe I need to open a complaint against this editor elsewhere but we also need a review of his argument from those of you with more experience, to establish the principle of whether – as he suggests - there must be extreme restriction placed upon anything that construes an astrological reference. My argument is that we are not dealing with a page in an astronomy manual here, we are talking about a Wikipedia feature article on the fixed star Algol, which can easily accommodate a segmented section that sensibly explores the star’s point of interest from the cultural and traditional astrological angle too.

Thanks for any guidance you can give Zac Δ talk 14:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zachariel notified me about this post on my Talk page. This looks like strong campaigning to me. Please consider WP:CANVAS . MakeSense64 (talk) 16:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have misunderstood WP:CANVAS. It is obvious consensus on the talk page is not working so bringing it here as part of the dispute process is quite reasonable. As to the actual dispute I believe you are wrong in every respect and have in addition acted disruptively against consensus by edit warring. Dmcq (talk) 22:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CANVAS mentions that asking outside opinion should be done in neutral wording. The above piece looks like a long campaign speech to me.

If a person cannot ask outside opinion on a NPOV noticeboard in neutral wording, then where is his NPOV?

MakeSense64 (talk) 06:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's above is not a notification on a user page or suchlike. This page is for discussions of problems and dispute resolution. Dmcq (talk) 21:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dmcq - thank you for your comments. I have never used this noticeboard before so I'm not sure about procedure or what happens as a result of raising the issue here. The only new feedback on the Algol page is from a member of the Astronomy project who made a reasonable edit that I'm entirely happy with, and then wrote:

"I don't have a problem with having an astrology section in an article about a star, as long as it had some historical significance, is kept in proper contest, reliably sourced, and does not either dominate the content, drift too far off topic, or presume that the reader accepts astrology as fact. I.e. it is in line with WP:PSCI, WP:RS, WP:RNPOV and WP:TOPIC."

This seems sensible to me but Makesense64 still insists that this breaks policy. He gives what I think is an unecessarily derogatory comparison between the content on the page being for some astronomers as unpleasant as when a non-smoker being is forced to endure the smoke of a smoker. He is continuing to pursue his point on the Algol talk page and related project pages. At this point I'm not sure whether it is best to respond to his posts for the sake of transparent consensus, or regard them as best ignored as not representative of policy or an argument that anyone else is choosing to pursue. If anyone can clarify the procedure I should take I'd be very grateful Zac Δ talk 08:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look at the talk page. You've asked for extra input and the consensus is against them. It may be that admin action is needed about them if so I'll request it. Dmcq (talk) 16:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a good look at it all now, alerted by this section. As you'll have seen, I made my own attempt at a compromise, which hasn't generated consensus. I don't want this to go round in circles and turn into a bigger dispute than it needs to be. Perhaps a quick Everyone is acting in good faith and engaging on the talk page, so admin action isn't called for. A Request for Comment is the obvious next step, isn't it?

User:Itsmejudith - I think your attempt at a compromise could work but with a little amendment and discussed agreement first - we mainly need to clarify policy over the statement made on the Stars in astrology page - see my latest comment on the deletion request to understand the problem that I realise will prevent either astronomers or astrologers from buying into that page and developing it unless there is a better policy scope defined first. If that page was used as a central reference point that led to dedicated astrological articles on star meanings and small astrological references on other pages then yes it would be useful and could be purposefully developed. I have a suggestion that should be capable of resolving the Algol problem to everyone's interest and satisfaction and will propose that tomorrow as I want to break away from WP for today. My immediate question is where to place the proposal so it can be discussed, hopefully agreed, and used to define a workable policy for future reference. I don't want to thrash through the argument on the Algol page and have it recreated over and over. So would this be the best place to offer the suggestion, and then bring refrence to this in the places where the discussion is ongoing? I am assuming this is the place where these sorts of policy decisions are examined, am I right ?Zac Δ talk 17:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think for policy proposals you can go here: WP:PROPOSAL MakeSense64 (talk) 17:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably meant WP:VPP. I would suggest floating it on the Algol talk page first and then going to VPP or whichever guideline looks most appropriate if it isn't shot down in flames. Dmcq (talk) 18:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is "The Rapture" page indicating bias or editing to justify a specific point of view?

I am far from an expert on this topic. My understanding has always been that the "Rapture" was first mentioned by William Eugene Blackstone in the late 19th or early 20th century. The page on the Rapture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapture draws upon numerous Biblical passages that prior to this I have never seen used to justify the belief in it.

Every time I have attempted to edit Wikipedia in the past, my additions have been removed (such as adding famous graduates of Grinnell College [Peter Coyote, for example] or factual information [its ranking in producing PhDs]). I am not knowledgeable enough on the topic or the Rapture or editing to attempt to change it myself, and I feel that is inappropriate without a consensus on whether there are factual errors.

Finding a way to submit this to anyone was nearly impossible. If I'm not able to do that, it should be clear that I am not qualified to edit it myself.

Thank you for any help you are able to provide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Demetererinys (talk • contribs) 21:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know enough about the topic to know whether this is biased or not but certainly the section Rapture#Supporting_scriptures_.28KJV.29 is original research, because it is an original analysis of a primary source without supporting reliable secondary sources. Why were your edits reverted? Do you know how to provide diffs to show us exactly what is going on there? Alex Harvey (talk) 04:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed that section per WP:PRIMARY. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nihal Sri Ameresekere

Nihal Sri Ameresekere (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can someone have a look at this page, reads like a "Our Team" section from a company website to see if it can be re-written or is it a no hoper. Mtking (talk) 22:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of decent sources, my suggestion would be to take the new reports and start from scratch. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV question and some problems with English

[This is copied from my email as the editor apparently thinks he's emailing some official group - it deals with edits at Pyramid but Pyramid of Hellinikon has related issues. Dougweller (talk) 07:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)][reply]

Dear Administrators, After our last correspndance below I present a fair case for the Lefkowitz – Liritzis reference: AS IT IS NOW

Mary Lefkowitz has criticised this research. She suggests that some of the research was done not to determine the reliability of the dating method, as was suggested, but to back up an assumption of age and to make certain points about pyramids and Greek civilization. She notes that not only are the results not very precise, but that other structures mentioned in the research are not in fact pyramids, e.g. a tomb alleged to be the tomb of Amphion and Zethus near Thebes, a structure at Stylidha (Thessaly) which is just a long wall, etc. She also notes the possibility that the stones that were dated might have been recycled from earlier constructions. She also notes that earlier research from the 1930s, confirmed in the 1980s by Fracchia was ignored. She argues that they undertook their research using a novel, previously untested methodology in order to confirm a predetermined theory about the age of these structures.[17] In a recent article to ICI journal Geochronometria Ioannis Liritzis [1, page 294] criticises classicist Lefkowitz (2009: 195-202), referring to her inadequacy in physical methodology, one often encountered with academic historians, and specifically in the methodology known as Surface Luminescence Dating.[18] PROPOSED CHANGE

Mary Lefkowitz has criticised this research. She suggests that some of the research was done not to determine the reliability of the dating method , (NEVER THE AUTHORS MENTIONED THIS! THE RELIABILITY WAS ALREADY TESTED IN LAB & KNOWN AGE MONUMENTS PRIOR TO PYRAMIDALS SEE REFS I SUSPECT NOT READ BY LEFKOWITZ:

1. Liritzis (1994) A new dating method by thermoluminescence of carved megalithic stone building. Comptes Rendus (Academie des Sciences), Paris, t. 319, serie II, 603-610.

2. Liritzis.I (1994) Archaeometry: Dating the past. EKISTICS, t.368/364, 361-366.

3. Liritzis I., Galloway R.B. and Theocaris P. (1994) Thermoluminescence dating of ceramics revisited: Optical stimulated luminesccence of quartz single aliquot with green light emitting diodes. J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem. Letters, 188 (3), 189-198.

4. Theocaris P., Liritzis I., Lagios E., and Sampson A. (1997). Geophysical prospection and archaeological test excavation and dating in two Hellenic pyramids. Surveys in Geophysics, 17, 593-618.

5. Theocaris P.S., Liritzis I. and Galloway R.B. (1994). Dating of two Hellenic pyramids by a novel application of thermoluminescence. J. Archaeological Science, 24, 399-405.

6. Liritzis I., (1995) Alternative determination of equivalent dose by green light emitting diodes Optically Stimulated Luminescence using the unstable luminescence. J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem., 190, 1, 13-21.

7. Liritzis I., Guilbert P., Foti F., Schvoerer M., (1996) Solar Bleaching of thermoluminescence of calcites. Nuclear Instr. Meth. B, 117, 260-268.

8. Liritzis I., Guilbert P., Foti F., Schvoerer M. (1997) The Temple of Apollo (Delphi) strengthens new thermoluminescence dating method. Geoarchaeology International, vol. 12, no. 5, 479-496.

9. Liritzis I., Bakopoulos Y. (1997) Functional behaviour of solar bleached thermoluminescence in calcities. Nuclear Instruments and Methods B, 132, 87-92.

10. Liritzis I. (1998) Bronze Age Greek Pyramids and Orion's belt. Griffith Observer, vol.63, n.10, 10-21

11. Liritzis I. and Galloway R.B. (1999), Dating implications from solar bleaching of thermoluminescente of ancient marble. J Radioanal. Nucl. Chem. 241, 2, 361-368.

12. iritzis.I and Vafiadou.A (2005) Dating by luminescence of ancient megalithic masonry. Mediterranean Archaeology & Archaeometry, vol.5, No.1, 25-38.

13. Liritzis. I, Sideris. C, Vafiadou, A and Mitsis.J (2007) Mineralogical petrological and radioactivity aspects of some building material from Egyptian Old Kingdom monuments. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 9, 1-13..

14. Liritzis, I, Kitis.G, Galloway. R.B, Vafiadou, A, Tsirliganis, N, Polymeris., G (2008) Probing luminescence dating of archaeologically significant carved rock types. Mediterranean Archaeology & Archaeometry, 8(1), 61-79.

15. Liritzis, I, Polymeris, G and Zacharias, N (2010) Surface luminescence dating of ‘Dragon Houses’ and Armena Gate at Styra (Euboea, Greece). Mediterranean Archaeology & Archaeometry, Special Issue, (D.Keller, guest editor), Vol.10, No.3, 65-81.]

as was suggested, but to back up an assumption of age and to make certain points about pyramids and Greek civilization. > ASSUMPTIONS THAT THE AUTHORS NEVER QUOTE! SHE MISALLEDGES READERS ATTRIBUTING TO AUTHORS WRONG ISSUES eg THE BLACK ATHENA AFFAIR, THE AFROCENTRISM etc THAT SHE WROTE AGAINST BERNAL. BUT SHE ACCUSES THE RESEARCHERS THAT DATED THE STRUCTURES WITHOUT PROOF . WHAT SHE WRITES SHOULD INDICATE OTHERS NOT THE LIRITZIS TEAM. VERY MISLEASDING. She notes that not only are the results not very precise, but that other structures mentioned in the research are not in fact pyramids, e.g. a tomb alleged to be the tomb of Amphion and Zethus near Thebes, a structure at Stylidha (Thessaly) which is just a long wall, etc. > THE AGE ERRORS ARE CLEARLY QUOTED IN PUBLISHED WORKS BY LIRITZIS TEAM. AND THEY TAKE INTO ACCOUNT AND DISCUSS ERRORS (ALSO MUCH CITED BY OTHER SPECIALISTS COLLEAGUES). NOTHING MORE TO MAKE. THE AUTHORS DO NOT CALL PYRAMID THAT AT THEBES BUT SIMPLY QUOTE THE EXCAVATOR’S PAPER. NEITHER REFER TO STYLIDHA (THESSALY)…..! WHERE HAS SHE FOUND THESE?. She also notes the possibility that the stones that were dated might have been recycled from earlier constructions. > THIS IS WELL KNOWN EFFECT AND MENTIONED BY AUTHORS! IT DOES NOT ADD ANYTHING. NEITHER ALTERS RESULTS!

She also notes that earlier research from the 1930s, confirmed in the 1980s by Fracchia was ignored. WHERE IS THE IMPORTANCE TO WIKI READERS? A MISSED REFERENCE? She argues that they undertook their research using a novel, previously untested methodology in order to confirm a predetermined theory about the age of these structures.[17] > THE METHOD WAS TESTED AND ESTABLISHED (SEE ABOVE REFERENCES). PREDETERMINED IS A WRONG ATTRIBUTION PURELY HYPOTHETICAL AND ANTI-SCIENTIFIC. IT SHOULD BE CROSSED OUT. Under these misjudges one should expect a defence reply on one-to-one points raised by Lefkowitz by the Liritzis team. That would be fair. Isn’t it? Wikipedia does not get involved in such detail but writes the facts providing correct references with citation.

Thus, I suggest the following: [Mary Lefkowitz has criticised this research based on assumptions regarding the methodology and linking archaeology with politics [17]. In a recent article to ICI journal Geochronometria Ioannis Liritzis [1, page 294] criticises classicist Lefkowitz (2009: 195-202), referring to her inadequacy in physical methodology, one often encountered with academic historians, and specifically in the methodology known as Surface Luminescence Dating.[18]

____

My comments - one problem is that the text in the article by Liritzis is brief and difficult to understand:

"The first result of surface TL dating of the marble Temple of Apollo Delphi of c.550 BC was dated to 470±200 BC (Liritzis et al., 1997b) and two limestone pyramidal buildings at Hellenikon and Ligourio (in Ar-golid, Greece), thought to be Hellenistic times but TL dated to 2500-2000 BC on overlapping errors, were reported (Theocaris et al., 1997). In a recent volume on archaeology and politics, classicist Lefkowitz (2006: 195-202) has discussed latter dates on hypothetical preten-tiousness. The loquacity on the pseudo-archaeology is-sues in general, is a self obvious and scientifically sound attainable consideration. However, her inadequacy in physical methodology, often encountered with academic historians, and/or missing detailed critical reports and finds on the published dates, as well as, misinterpretation of the novel effort, today widely accepted as surface luminescence dating, unjustifiably undermines unsuccess-fully the new ages. Though at the end she remains skepti-cal about these older than thought ages."

The book in question is in fact not about archaeology and politics, it is about fringe archaeology, although her article is about politics - Mary Lefkowitz (2006). "Archaeology and the politics of origins". In Garrett G. Fagan. Archaeological Fantasies: How Pseudoarchaeology Misrepresents the Past and Misleads the Public and she devotes about 8 pages to this versus the four sentences above. The Hellinikon article probably needs more from her analysis in fact (note that I'm the one that added her to both articles). I'd very much appreciate other comments on this and will direct the editor to this section. Thanks. - I'll add more here later. I have both sources if there are any questions about them. Dougweller (talk) 07:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doug, do you want to summarise your question? In case it helps, I can just say that Lefkowitz is reliable for archaeology, and Liritzis writing in Geochronometria is also reliable. This seems to be an argument within scholarship. Does that touch on your concerns? Itsmejudith (talk) 09:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The editor wishes to rewrite both the bit on Liritzis and Lefkowitz. The rewrite he proposes for Liritizis is pretty incomprehensible and he wants to minimise what Lefkowitz wrote to one sentence (whereas it really needs expanding if anything), leaving just

"[Mary Lefkowitz has criticised this research based on assumptions regarding the methodology and linking archaeology with politics [17].

In a recent article to ICI journal Geochronometria Ioannis Liritzis [1, page 294] criticises classicist Lefkowitz (2009: 195-202), referring to her inadequacy in physical methodology, one often encountered with academic historians, and specifically in the methodology known as Surface Luminescence Dating." What I'd like first I guess is what we should write about Liritzis's brief comment on LefkowtizDougweller (talk) 13:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this English is hardly comprehensible. Someone could explain what Liritzis said, i.e. anyone who has access to the article and can write in English. Or, if they can't write in English, they can even write in their own language and ask for it to be translated. If no-one can do that, then there's no call to mention Liritzis in the article. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is in English, see the relevant quote above under the sentence starting 'My comments'. The problem is it's fractured English, so I've tried to rewrite and summarise it. The other editor's attempt I think fails in that it is still incomprehensible.

My preferred version is at the Pyramid of Hellinkon site:

"Ioannis Liritzis and his team argue for an early date through five sub-projects: 1) geophysical prospection inside and around the two pyramidals at Hellenikon and Ligourio, where buried monuments were discovered [10], 2) these results directed the archaeological excavations carried out by archaeologist A.Sampson and archaeologists of the Archaeological Museum of Nauplion. Amongst the new finds were foundations of rooms, ceramics of Classical, Hellenistic, Roman and Protochristian periods, and protohelladic II in the exterior foundations of Hellenikon above the bedrock. A comparative study of masonries was also made [11][12], 3) astronomical orientation of the long entrance corridor was found related to the rise of Orion’s belt occurring in c.2000-2400 BC.[13], 4) the dating of some parts of the overlied large megalithic blocks in the wall, with the novel Thermoluminescence dating method of rock surfaces. Sampling was chosen for their firmness and lack of sun exposure of internal contact surfaces, by removing a few milligrams of powder from pieces in firm contact. Seven pieces gave an age range of c. 2000–2500 BC.[14],[15].[16], while two ceramic sherds of non-diagnostic typology one from Hellenikon and one from Ligourio dated by TL and OSL gave concordant ages of 3000±250 BC and 660±200 BC respectively.[17] Mary Lefkowitz has criticised this research. She suggests that some of the research was done not to determine the reliability of the dating method, as was suggested, but to back up an assumption of age and to make certain points about pyramids and Greek civilization. She notes that not only are the results not very precise, but that other structures mentioned in the research are not in fact pyramids, e.g. a tomb alleged to be the tomb of Amphion and Zethus near Thebes, a structure at Stylidha (Thessaly) which is just a long wall, etc. She also notes the possibility that the stones that were dated might have been recycled from earlier constructions. She also notes that earlier research from the 1930s, confirmed in the 1980s by Fracchia, was ignored. She argues that they undertook their research using a novel, previously untested methodology in order to confirm a predetermined theory about the age of these structures.,[18]

"Liritzis responded in a journal article published in 2011, stating that Lefkowitz failed to understand and misinterpreted the methodology.[19]"

The editor seems unwilling to have more than a sentence for Lefkowtiz and argues that she was wrong. Dougweller (talk) 20:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Funeral articles, "Reaction" sections

WP is not a memorial site. That applies to regular folk, as described at WP:NOTMEMORIAL. But it also applies to the famous and powerful. WP:NPOV is a core policy, and it requires including all significant points of view. There are a number of "funeral" articles which look fine to me:

However there is also a set which include "Reaction" sections:

These sections comprise excerpts from condolences and eulogistic comments sent by world dignitaries. I think they're a bad idea. One cannot expect honest assessments of a person in remarks of this kind, so these sections are really just collections of nice quotations about the deceased. We wouldn't allow material like this in a biography. Perhaps they should be moved to Wikiquote and summarized collectively, something like "The subject was praised in comments sent by leaders from around the world, including..." Maybe quote one or two, briefly. Thoughts? Will Beback talk 10:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Habsburg one seems to meet notability standards on its own - the Aquino one is more problematic. In neither case, however, does NPOV seem to be an issue, however. Try AfD on the Aquino one and see how it fares, I suppose. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't suggesting deleting the articles, only minimizing the "Reaction" sections because they violation NPOV, hence this noticeboard. The sections are basically eulogies for the subjects, and that doesn't seem NPOV. I don't object to articles about the events surrounding the funerals, just these sections. Will Beback talk 12:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with you. The sections are ver the top and unencyclopedic. When a head of state or former head of state dies, other heads of state send messages. The most that is needed is a brief "Among those sending condolences were...". Very few funerals need a separate article, only if there is something remarkable about the death or funeral that leads to substantial coverage. Diana, of course, Michael Jackson, of course. The US presidents. Elvis? Churchill? Those sorts of cases, not others. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see what's wrong with reporting widely publicized reactions from heads of state and similar, which also seems to be a long standing practice. Also, reaction sections don't have to be merely positive, but that, of course, depends on the reactions. In some cases, many negative reactions can be found as well. As pointed out, this kind of articles are reserved for a very limited number of cases, where there is something special about the death/funeral that leads to substantial coverage (e.g., hundreds or thousands of media reports on the funeral, closing down central Vienna, half of Europe's royals attending etc.). Essentially, it's the same kind of article as Wedding of Albert II, Prince of Monaco, and Charlene Wittstock in many ways, i.e. an article based on a major (media) event. As long as all significant views reported by reliable sources are included, there is no NPOV problem in my opinion. Mocctur (talk) 10:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The wedding article you cite does not include a similar "reactions" section, which is part we're talking about. If it did include comments from well-wishers then it might have a similar problem. I don't see how this represents a 'long standing practice, since only two articles that I've seen have this kind of eulogy section, and one of them is brand new. Further, many of these comments do not appear to be "widely publicized" at all, and are cited to the websites of the well-wishers, rather than to secondary sources. This complain is not about full coverage of the funeral, just the lengthy list of positive comments. We can wait until the funeral is over, but then I think we need to summarize the comments much more briefly. Will Beback talk 23:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The reaction to a funeral is almost sure to run afoul of WP:NPOV. I think the expressed sentiments are almost obligatory and they tend to be gushy and flowery as opposed to concise. While reliably sourced I don't think most of the expressions make for notable quotations, therefore I think an editorial decision should be made to curtail the inclusion of them. Bus stop (talk) 23:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Only two articles"? On the contrary, it's a long standing practice: Even separate articles only containing reactions exist:

Reaction to the death of Robert Byrd (only positive reactions)
Reactions to the death of Osama bin Laden (mostly containing negative reactions from people opposed to the subject; "crowds gathered spontaneously to celebrate", "this momentous achievement marks a victory for America, for people who seek peace around the world, and for all those who lost loved ones on September 11, 2001" etc. etc. etc.)
Reaction to the assassination of John F. Kennedy ("Men and women wept openly")
International reaction to the assassination of Benazir Bhutto (only positive reactions (i.e., not critical of her) as far as I can tell)
International_reaction_to_the_assassination_of_Anna_Politkovskaya#Official_statements_by_governments

Reaction sections are also common in biographical articles where no separate article on the death exist:

Tim Russert ("had a love of public service")
Levy_Mwanawasa#International_reactions
Salmaan_Taseer#Reactions

And of course, other reaction sections in death/funeral articles exist:

Death_and_state_funeral_of_Néstor_Kirchner#Reactions

I'm sure many, many more can be found. When the average person dies, there are no reactions from a long list of heads of state and the Pope. Documenting these reactions in the few exceptional cases where the death is a major issue (especially those deaths/funerals worthy of their own articles) is of historical and encyclopedic relevance, and something the readers will find interesting. Removing reactions would require the removal of lots of material in many articles and the deletion of several articles including the Osama bin Laden one with negative reactions and the Benazir Bhutto with positive ones (if neutrality really was an issue (I don't think it is), the Osama bin Laden reactions article would be the really problematic one). Numerous editors have probably spent hundreds of hours writing these articles/sections, based on this being common and accepted practice. ("reaction(s)" seems to be an extremely common heading in articles, so this way of organising articles is very widespread).

The Habsburg article you mention does not only contain completely positive reactions. It also contains reactions from a party (the ruling one) which was extremely critical of the subject for decades (the relationship between the state and the (exiled) subject of the article had even provoked a political crisis in the 60s[1][2]). The article as such also contains criticism of the extensive state involvement in ceremonies. The reaction by the chancellor only emphasises that the subject's life reflects "the great turning points of the Austrian and European history". These somewhat more reconciling, but not overwhelmingly positive, reactions by the Austrian government, are historically significant, which has also been the subject of media commentary. Mocctur (talk) 11:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding those additional examples. I am very concerned about the "Reaction" articles. Wikipedia is not a quote farm, so any article or long section that's mostly composed of quotations is inappropriate. If properly sources, those quotations should be moved to Wikiquote. Will Beback talk 04:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope = Wikiquote is made up of quotes by author, not quotes by event. Putting these sections over there is a classic case of "round peg into square hole". Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The articles I've seen there include quotes both by and about individuals. These quotes we're talking about aren't about the funerals, they're about the deceased. Will Beback talk 20:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While the reactions only articles mostly consist of quotes, they also include descriptive text. In the death/funeral articles, the quotes do not make up the majority of the text. The material fits in naturally in these articles, and I don't think moving it to Wikiquote, taken out of its original context, would be ideal, neither for the material itself nor for Wikiquote. I also don't think the larger issue of reactions articles, sections and materials is really a matter of neutrality. Mocctur (talk) 14:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC) [reply]

The descriptive text isn't the problem, it's the quotes. Will Beback talk 20:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One sided opinion of Admin and user Sitush and Matthews on the page Kurmi

Admins are not ready to accept any POV and reliable sources other than what is state by the above two users.

One of the admins already accepted that he doesn't know anything about the claim that being OBC means Kurmis are Shurda or not. But still he believes that any edit done by the above users is valid. While so many reliable sources have been cited to show that Kurmis are not Shudra. Still none of the admin believe these sources. Every admin especially

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Qwyrxian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Boing!_said_Zebedee and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SpacemanSpiff

seem to concur with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sitush and User:MatthewVanitas

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sitush#Please_dont_take_ownership_of_articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.139.114.107 (talk • contribs) This template must be substituted.

Huh, and I treated you so nicely on Talk:Kurmi. But anyone accusing Sitush of ownership is clearly on the wrong end of the NPOV forum. Suggesting archiving of a 45 section long talk page isn't ownership. In fact, suggesting it not be archived is borderline disruptive--navigating that page is painful at best, and impossible at worst. Archiving doesn't erase anything, it just moves old discussions out of the way so that we can stay current on new discussions. Finally...have you ever edited under an account name before? This behavior of giving unwarranted warnings and reverting against consensus sure seems familiar to me...Qwyrxian (talk) 06:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Please stop this unsubstantiated claim. By nicely you meant you accepted your wrong POV. Where have I reverted? I am putting some material for an organization. If that's what you mean. We must keep wiki as neutral as possible. Why do you think that I committed a grave insult by placing a warning here? Is this WP:NPOV

This admin is openly haressing this user.

Please conduct an investigation on the conduct of the admins mentioned above, along with the users mentioned above.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.139.114.107 (talk • contribs) 09:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]

Okay, first, a clarification: the above information is partially copied from User Talk:Sitush#Please dont take ownership of articles. My comments listed above were not posted here, they were posted on Sitush's page. Second, those comments were made after the above user (posting under a different IP address) gave a warning a templated warning to Sitush for "ownership" of articles. In a certain sense, this is not a new "problem" for Sitush, basically because Sitush is fighting a fairly lonely battle on a number of different Indian caste pages to try to keep them neutral in the face of numerous users (some of whom have accused Sitush and other users off-wiki of receiving payments of $12,000 a month to slant WP articles) who want to "prove" that their caste is, in fact, descended from royalty, despite what all reliable sources might say. Sitush does an amazing job at this; I haven't worked with him as much, but MattewVanitas seems to be in a similar position. Basically, the above complaint is baseless, the talk pages of these articles are littered with sockpuppets, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and "I know it's true because my grandfather's grandfather said so." Of course, other uninvolved editors are more than welcome to come to Talk:Kurmi (or Talk:Nair, or Talk: Kshatriya, or Talk:Rajput clans, or any of a dozen others that I'm sure Sitush and MatthewVanitas could list) to provide input; maybe we're just totally wrong and the sockfarms are right. Also, if anyone (uninvolved) believes that my comment constitutes harassment, please tell me and I will withdraw or strike those parts which are unacceptable.

Just to be fair, I did make a mistake which the IP mentions at the very beginning, although xe got the actual mistake wrong (basically, I thought the article said, "The Indian gov't thinks X and Y.+ref1+ref2"; actually, what the article said was, "The Indian gov't thinks X; others also think Y.+ref1+ref2") But upon having that pointed out, I apologized and moved forward. Final disclaimer: I am not an admin. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Followup: Perhaps the user who posted here isn't the same as the one who originally posted on Sitush's page; in fact, that user actually later said to me "Our POV is based on how we interpret the facts. You are one of the nicest persons I have met today, both offline and online. So anything you say I will accept it without any issues. To me, above two posts look like an attempt of ownership". I don't know if this is one person, two people, good cop-bad cop...Qwyrxian (talk) 13:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although I haven't followed this in any detail, there is clearly a problem on this set of articles involving and I agree that Sitush and MatthewVanitas (and you of course) are doing a difficult job to the best of your ability. Whether this can be solved here or will need Admin action I'm not sure. Dougweller (talk) 14:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think I (or the others) have anything to defend against here - I have sought input from other admins and have so far had pretty much unqualified support for my admin approach to this sorry mess. I'll just leave interested parties to look over the relevant caste article Talk pages and see the near-infinite patience with which Sitush and MatthewVanitas have tried to explain Wikipedia's policies of sourcing and consensus to the legions of caste warriors and their socks, and have painstakingly investigated a large number of sources and explained what they see as reliable and unreliable amongst them - and see the almost non-stop abuse and accusations they have been receiving in return. And if anyone wants to try a sockpuppet investigation on User:174.139.114.107, I'd be surprised if it came up empty -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is an element of swarming going on, some of which has been proven to be socking and others that look distinctly like they may be down to offwiki canvassing. There is also some on-wiki canvassing, mainly due to one user sprawling his discussions across umpteen talk pages. Basically, the issue is very simple with regard to the caste status: we have plenty of sources that say, with absolute clarity, that the caste was/is in ritual rank A; and we have been presented with a fair few sources which document attempts by certain members of the caste to claim a higher rank. Both sides are shown in the article. The problem is that the likes of Thisthat2011 want to inflate a claim into a fact but are unable to provide sources to match the clarity of the statements which say otherwise. Since neither myself nor MV are from India or of Indian origin, and since these other contributors have often acknowledged that they are of the Kurmi caste, the issue is perhaps really one of COI. - Sitush (talk) 14:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems possible that the originator of this particular thread is a sock of Prashantv79, regarding whom an SPI has recently closed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ajneesh_Katiyar. This is based on some beans evidence. - Sitush (talk) 15:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There have been some emails sent to the unblock mailing list too, the content & style of which suggest at the very least meat puppetry. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now that my name is called, let me present viewpoint from my side. There are many contradictions on this matter.

In India, the word Shudra is not used anymore in official discourse, it is like a taboo - this understanding is not present on page like Kurmi though the word Shudra is prominent at many places. In fact there are legal cautions but I am not sure how it weighs on Wikipedia, I have been told that it does not, however derogatory a word may be.

Jati, Varna, Caste, etc. form a maze of combinations. Jatis have been mobile over time across Varna & caste, and official depends on poverty levels also other than these, along with political equations, vote-bank-numbers and reservation policy, etc. Moreover a Jati may be recognized as different Varna across different regions. The recognition of Jati/Varna/Caste is rather dynamic more than static. Moreover, the Caste/Jati/Varna combinations could be regarded as general social characteristic of people, not just Hindus.

As per my comments on talk page(not main page, I have edited page once after the matter came up), there are some sources that recognize, as per my understanding, explicit 'Kshatriya' status Socially and Officially. The sources I have presented and are ignored giving unsubstantiated comments like 'swaying' authorities to get Kshatriya recognition etc. which I have objected and requested substance to demonstrate the comment that I am yet to get. As it stands, many editors have given views. The discussion as per me is ongoing. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 15:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The legal situation has been explained to Thisthat2011, as s/he acknowledges, & so I have no idea why s/he says "I am not sure how it weighs on Wikipedia".

The sources presented by Thisthat2011 were not ignored at all. They were examined and found to be wanting.

I repeat: the article does discuss claims to the status which Thisthat2011 refers to, and they are reliably cited. This is exactly how NPOV should work.

The continued bleating and cross-posting by Thisthat2011 is tendentious, and it looks like now we are going to see it here as well. S/he has been warned about adopting this stance by several people, not all of whom are the subject of this complaint. - Sitush (talk) 16:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have fully agreed with you that caste issues as variable over time/location. The difference is that Sitush and I go through sources attempting to balance out "sometimes called X, sometimes called Y", whereas you find a handful of sources vaguely leaning to X and then demand we strike all mention of Y from the article. And as noted by your "not a legal threat, but I'm just sayin'" comments above (and on my talk page), it's pretty clear that your goal isn't NPOV, but adding Kshatriya and removing Shudra by any means necessary. You have backed blatantly poor references as "I don't see what's wrong with this", and you have consistently attempted to spin things like "one governor declared that Kurmi's weren't a depressed class and should be allowed to join the police force" into "See! Official Indian Government recognition of Kshatriya status."

You also just won't drop the bone on this "sway" thing. When I attempted to summarise, on the Talk page (not in the article) what one source was actually saying, you immediately leapt to sound the alarm and run hither and yon accusing me of WP:SYNTH. This is ridiculous "pot calling the kettle black" and an attempt to smear your opponents as being exactly equal to you in POV.

Sitush and I, and others, are confronting a massive array of caste articles that, to be frank, almost nobody cares about but members of those castes, so they have run roughshod adding every bit of self-glorification humanly possible while ignoring all kinds of very real and intriuging descriptions of caste politics, differing legendary origins, etc. By your actions you are standing in the way of this process of bringing long-overdue NPOV to a notoriously biased portion of Wikipedia. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed TT2011 is also adding content in Kurmi despite the exact refs he's using being rebutted on Talk, so basically disregarding entirely the Talk page to just add changes that have been discounted as compltely inaccurate. For example, he added here: "During colonial times, in 1896, official government recognition was given to Kurmis as Kshtriya." I have told him, multiple times, exactly what the source says, and how it says nothing of the sort, but he has plugged his ears, and attempted to accuse me of WP:SYNTH when I attempt to explain the situation using small words. Anyone curious, check this page and Ctrl-F "1896". That date is mentioned twice, and in neither case says anything resembling the text it is cited to: [3]. TT2011 added several other contentious items that he has not run by the Talk page despite this being a clearly controversial article, including taking "several scholars think they found the Kurmis in the Skandas" to mean "Kurmis are mentioned in Skanda Puranas of Hinduism." This is his usual pattern, to find the most tangential relationship between two things and assign it as fact.

Setting aside his POV inclinations, the larger problem is that he simply refuses to listen to anyone else. He repeatedly referred to cited claims in the article as "unsubstantiated" (it's that what a footnote does?), and when repeatedly told "at the top of the Talk page is a list of Shudra references" he ignored it several times, including asking "Where are the sources say that Kurmis are 'Shudras'". The TOC clearly lists Talk:Kurmi#Reliable_sources_supporting_Kurmi_as_Shudra, and if at Talk:Kurmi you Ctrl-F for "top " (with space after), you'll see the multiple times I told him exactly "at the top of the page is a list of extra sources". Forgive me if I'm a bit vexed at the moment, but this is literally like talking to a child. He simply plugs his ears when there's anything he doesn't want to hear, and ventures boldly forth to make changes based on cites we have again and again and again told him are either unreliable or taken quite out of context, or cited to prove points they simply don't say. This editor has filled up a goodly chunk of Talk:Kurmi with incredibly circular and repetitive posts while ignoring all replies, and then went ahead and added a bunch of improper text anyway, which Sitush and I are now obliged to debunk and remove individually. What more can I say about this editor? MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Protected Kurmi for a week, have to go watch tv now. Dougweller (talk) 20:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As can be seen clearly above, MatthewVanitas has been pointing out why social/official recognitions as Kshatriyas to Kurmis should not be considered in the article, though the secondary sources themselves do not indulge in judging/considering/not-considering, etc. The reasons/excuses to not consider Social/Official status are given by the admin, which I think is not something for Wikipedia admins to decide. What I mentioned are facts as were viewed by me, and such things mentioned in reliable sources can not be excluded because 'some admins on Wikipedia give reasons/excuses'. It is not admins/editors job to give reasons/excuses for not including content on Wikipedia for reasons perceived to the admins as 'swaying' authorities, propaganda, etc. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 14:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TT2011, I have told you this numerous times and yet you ignore me: the source you cite does not indicate social or official recognition of Kurmi as Kshatryia. You are unfairly claiming that the source says XYZ and yet somehow I don't want it going into the article. That is incorrect: we don't want it in the article because you are, yet again, selectively misquoting, reading massive assumptions between the lines, and extrapolating incredibly anecdotal cases to be universal truths. Each time you keep bringing up the same allegations, I bring up the same response, and yet you persist. This is why you've been called "tendentious", and I am coming to agree in a very short period of time. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality in regard to IIS and its connection to malware

We have a situation developing Internet Information Services article.

A user insists that according to Google, IIS is hosting twice the number of Malware than Apache server. Me and three other users have contested that this is not a neutral statement. I suggested an alternative version that says:

The fact is that:

According to Google...

...in the time of research...

...malware creators ~~preferred to~~ infect or host malware on IIS servers...

...because IIS computers that failed WGA test could not get updates.

However, the involved user (User:DE logics and IPs in range of 117.201.*.*) still does not relent, having even insulted us, calling us "Microsoft fanboys" and "Faithful dogs of Bill Gates".

I previously requested an article protection, but the protection is by now worn off.

I need to know what further action we should take. Fleet Command (talk) 12:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a rather long statement with excuses stuck into it. How about just straightforward sentences. Also you need to stick to verifiable things. Saying malware creators preferred one system to another is practically vacuous and certainly sounds unverifiable as a fact. If written somewhere Does it just mean they attacked one type rather than the other or does it mean one type of site succumbed more than another or does it mean they had actual preferences and somebody has done a survey of malware authors or is it just some blog spouting off attributing things to people who aren't going to say something themselves? Have you got a citation saying that WGA business is the major cause? As to long sentences I'd certainly think explanations should be in separate sentences.

As to name calling you can complain at WP:WQA in the first instance. Attacking editors that way is against WP:CIVILITY. People should address the topic not other editors. Dmcq (talk) 13:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me make it clear:

First, this statement has only one primary source: a Google Blog post. Other sources only quote, paraphrase and exaggerate this source.

Second, this source says exactly what I have written above; no less and no more. However User:DE logics prefers to write: "IIS hosts malware", although, under our protest, he has written

"Google did a study of 80 million domains by examining the server's HTTP response headers and came to the conclusion that, even though (according to Google), usage of IIS servers is 23%, the number of malware [sic] served by these servers is 49%, same as Apache whose usage is 66%. Google suggests the cause of this could be the use of pirated copies of Windows, for which patches against security loopholes [sic] in Microsoft IIS might not be available from Microsoft."

Third, unfortunately, the WGA being the cause has already failed verification: Microsoft supplies security updates to everyone. The Google blog post points to a security update download page on Microsoft.com to supports its "WGA is to blame" assertion. However, that update is available to everyone. The best we can assume is that this whole matter is a dated matter.

Last, I never suggested to write exactly what I listed in the four clauses; it is merely my draft. I told you that I initially dismissed this whole "IIS serves malware" matter. However, I proposed this draft as an alternative resolution that both of us accept. But User:DE Logics doesn't even discuss it. Fleet Command (talk) 07:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Normally blogs are not allowed on Wikipedia, I think that one probably is okay as being verifiably by an expert in the subject. I notice they don't use the 'prefer' word I was objecting to which is good. I think the statements from Google should however be qualified with the year 2007. Putting your own analysis into the same statement as Google's is just plain wrong. In a separate statement you can then say that Microsoft does allow all security updates even for pirated copies of windows and put in the appropriate citation for that. Put in any much of your own analysis an it will amount to synthesis on your part. We're supposed to be saying what outside people say, if you can find outside sources saying what you want to say that is the way to do things. Dmcq (talk) 11:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Putting your own analysis into the same statement as Google's is just plain wrong." I don't remember having suggested such a thing. My four-clause draft does not contain any statement of my own. But as for the WGA verifiability issue, simply put: Google blog provided a source; per WP:V and WP:PRIMARY, I checked that source. Result: Verification failed. Again, per WP:V, I double-checked with other sources, just in case. Result: Failed again, see these:

I said all these to conclude what you just said: Regardless of whether Google's statement was correct in 2007 or not, we have NPOV problem: IIS servers may no longer be hosting 40% of the worlds' malware. These negotiation concerns aside, one of the editors maintains that without a complementary assessment, Google blog cannot be trusted at all as Google is a Microsoft competitor.

But these are all minor concerns. The biggest problem is that our dear User:DE Logics does not hear of changing his statement in any way, not even your suggestion of qualifying it with 2007. Fleet Command (talk) 22:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leftist politics in the U.S.

LID and SDS split in 1965 when SDS voted to allow communists (Marxist Leninists organized conspiratorially) to vote; afterwords, SDS was taken over and destroyed by Marxist Leninists such as The Weatherman and the Progressive Labor Party.

[Historical note: the Weather Underground, which later became a terrorist organization, emerged within the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) and fought for control with the Progressive Labor Party ~~(founded 1876), which was never Leninist~~.]

[Historical note: Ignore the previous paragraph's falsehood about Progressive Labor Party (United States).]

The (Maoist) Progressive Labor Movement split off (after 1948) from the Communist Party USA: The CPUSA and Maoist sects are Leninist, obviously. The Progressive Labor Movement renamed itself the Progressive Labor Party sometime in the mid 1960s.

Gitlin describes Progressive Labor as Marxist Leninist on page 190. Obviously, T4D doesn't know the first thing about SDS, and apparently cannot be bothered to read Gitlin or the WP article on Progressive Labor. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is the phrasing of this text neutral? Another editor has inserted similar text, which in my opinion, compromises neutrality and re-orients the article to events in the 1960s. I would be appreciative if other editors could look at recent changes. TFD (talk) 18:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the actual language in the reliable sources? Is "taken over and destroyed" the precise language in the sources used? Is there a precise cite for the statement that some group "was never Leninist"? Collect (talk) 21:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This particular section seems dubious. "Organised conspiratorially", linking to "democratic centralism" is an interpretation. Of course Marxist-Leninists are organised by democratic centralism - that is what should be said. I see some scholarly histories of the Left cited. Is there no good history of SDS? Itsmejudith (talk) 21:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources provided:

Todd Gitlin. The Sixties: Years of Hope, Days of Rage (1987) ISBN 0-553-37212-2
Miller, James. Democracy is in the Streets: From Port Huron to the Siege of Chicago. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1994 ISBN 978-0674197251.
Todd Gitlin later acknowledged that LID Director Tom Kahn, "to his eternal credit", was correct in opposing that deletion, which helped Marxist Leninists to take over SDS: Todd Gitlin, p. 88, in discussion with Irving Howe: Politics and the Intellectual: Conversations with Irving Howe. John Rodden, Ethan Goffman, eds. Purdue University Press 06/30/2010 series: Shofar Supplements in Jewish Studies ISBN 13:9781557535511

No page nos. are provided and therefore I do not know what the original text is. I do not have a source that the SLP was not Marxist Leninist, but have not seen sources that they were. Supposedly had then been Leninists they would have joined the CPUSA which Lenin directed his followers to join. TFD (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TFD mis-states my scholarship. I cited a page reference to Todd Gitlin's The Sixties, linked to Amazon where you can confirm it. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the talk page you provide a reference to p. 387 of Gitlin's book[4] and a link to his book on Amazon.[5] But Amazon does not show p. 387 of the book. However, the entire book can be viewed at the Internet Archive. (Click at "PDF" under "View this book").[6] While page 387 mentions violence by the Weather Underground, it says nothing about their relationship with SDS. The PLP is not even mentioned in the book. TFD (talk) 02:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gitlin discusses "Progressive Labor" on 16 pages, as shown on Amazon. In particular, according to Amazon, he calls PL a Marxist Leninist group on page 190. He discusses PL and SDS on page 240. Gitlin discusses both Progressive Labor and the Weatherman Underground and the 1969 SDS convention on page 382.

You wasted this noticeboard's time, by running here without discussing anything on the page. You further waste our time by failing to read. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found the full text of Gitlin's book online. It is detailed and fascinating but above all it is an intensely personal account. I don't find this a waste of the noticeboard's time. How to do justice to Gitlin's account within a short and dispassionate Wikipedia article is something that requires careful consideration. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a waste of time for T4D to have rushed to this noticeboard without indicating what was his POV/non-neutral concern at the article's talk page, especially after I asked him. (It is a waste of time, assuming that T4D or you know anything about SDS, the way it would waste the mathematics project's time to complain that I had written 1968+2=1970.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TFD did take the question up on the talk page before coming here. If you will be patient, you should get some input here to help the page. I have some knowledge of the history of Leftist groups in Europe, less in relation to the USA, but enough background to look texts up and understand them. With luck you will get some further views from noticeboard regulars. The gloss "organized conspiratorially" for a link to democratic centralism contains an interpretation not conducive to NPOV. A better wording would be "following the democratic centralist form of organization". But you need at least one good source for any epithet attached to any group. "Marxist-Leninist", for example, is a minefield in that period. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, he did not.

He complained about POV/Nonneutrality and lack of references. I provided references and asked him what the problem was. Then he came here.

"Conspiratorially" is a standard NPOV explanation for the totalitarian euphemism "democratic centralism". Sidney Hook was correct when he described the Communist Party USA as a conspiracy in his book, "Freedom yes, conspiracy no" (or similar title). Hook's book had some controversy, but nobody serious objected to his characterization of leadership cadre of the CPUSA as a conspiracy.

Do you have similar problems with discussing right totalitarians as when discussing left totalitarians? ["Nazis committed genocide" "No, that's point of view. The Nazis said they were providing living space for their race, by reducing subhuman populations.... Your saying that Jews and Slavs and Gypsies are humans is POV."!] Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK it might be good here to get a little less confrontational with people who are trying to help. Regarding the "conspiratorial" issue if it is a "standard NPOV explanation for ... democratic centralism" then why don't I see it in the entry on that topic? It would seem from first glance to be one way to describe democratic centralism and perhaps not the most common, and it does sound less than NPOV. Either way though we don't need to describe democratic centralism at all in this other article, we just need to name it and link to it's entry. IMO the conspiratorial part should go.Griswaldo (talk) 11:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question, the obvious truth is that that that article, like many on similar topics, is written by communists or anti-anticommunists. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for being irritated, but T4D failed to discuss the issues at the page. I have improved the passage, and I'm not going to waste further time, when none of you have followed WP procedure and tried discussing things at the article talk page. This discussion is closed. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note: Kiefer, you have a valid point in saying that there should have been discussion on the article talk page before bringing it here... but we don't close discussions on this page because one editor says so. Now that it is being discussed here, there is no harm in letting it continue here until resolved (is it?). Blueboar (talk) 13:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As noted before, I have updated the draft on the talk page, which I had understood was Wikipedia's preferred way to improve content. I shan't participate further in a pointless discussion that has no relation to improving the article or the proposed section in question. You are all welcome to help improve the draft at the talk page of the article. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(out) Kiefer.Wolfowitz is using the 1993 version of the book while the on-line version (1987) uses different pagination. Nonetheless I cannot find the specific claims in the on-line version. Even if they were there, the phrasing used violates neutrality.

As anyone can see, there was extensive discussion on the talk page, and it was apparent that it was unproductive. K.F wants to focus the article on the 1960s and present the article from the point of view of the Social Democrats USA, a political group that had several hundred members.

TFD (talk) 14:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TFD now is violating AGF and making a personal attack based on unsubstantiated speculations about my politics. As I have stated before, the history of my editing on this set of articles is easy to check, and certainly does not come because of adherence to SDUSA, but upon following a request of Carrite, who has stated his past membership in 3 organizations from the old SP. Similarly, I provided a discussion of Solidarity, not because I am a reader of "Against the Current" or a believer that militancy can solve all problems but because of a concern with presenting the most interesting political groups with integrity. I would urge TFD to emulate the intelligence and honesty that Carrite displays.

I have no idea what TFD is babbling about, with his claim that any phrasing violates neutrality. It is time for TFD to specify NPOV violations or be silent.

Why does he object to a paragraph on the leading socialists' roles the Civil Rights movement and the War on Poverty or SDS? Michael Harrington and Gitlin and Sale seem never to have been members of SDUSA, btw. (A basic knowledge of history would prevent such charges.)

Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Calling one of the three history sections, "Max Shachtman, Civil Rights and the War on Poverty"[7] provides undue emphasis to certain groups, individuals, activities, etc. Your claim that they had more influence then (when they had a membership of approx. 1600) than in 1912, then they owned numerous newspapers, had elected officials and obtained 6% of the vote in a presidential election, is not supported. It also wrongly implies that the socialists were the driving force behind these movements. TFD (talk) 18:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If so, your article originated the over-emphasis on a mythic figure called "Shachtman": I quote what you consider neutral language, which is a bastardized version of the pseudoscholarly history inflicted on the public by the PA chair of SPUSA. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In 1972, the Socialist Party was renamed Social Democrats, USA (SDUSA) and now had only 1,600 members [Reverses chronology of Isserman, failing to note that the 1600 comes from the SP (while Harrington's UAW friend counted 1000, according to Isserman)].^[1] Dissidents left to form the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (DSOC) in 1973, led by Michael Harrington.^[2] The same year another faction of the SPA, including David McReynolds, formed the Socialist Party, USA which continues to run presidential candidates.^[3]

In the 1960s there was a renewed interest in anarchism, and some anarchist and other left-wing groups developed out of the New Left. Anarchists began using direct action, organizing through affinity groups during anti-nuclear campaigns in the 1970s. In the 1990s, anarchists attempted to organize across North America around Love and Rage, which drew several hundred activists. One successful anarchist movement was Food not Bombs, that distributed free vegetarian meals. Anarchists received significant media coverage for their disruption of the 1999 WTO conference, called the Battle in Seattle, where the Direct Action Network was organized. Most organizations were short-lived and anarchism went into decline following a reaction by the authorities that was increased after the 911 attacks in 2001. However by 1997 anarchist organizations had again begun to proliferate.^[4]
The article discusses anarchism but not civil rights, labor, or the war on poverty.

You are getting your sequences mixed. Harrington supported negotiations with the North Vietnamese, while the Shachtmanites wanted to pursue victory. That was a major cause of his break with that faction, and he later came to support unilateral withdrawal. I have provided two high quality reliable sources to back that up. While Shachtman died in 1972, the faction he led may still be called "Shachtmanites". Providing 1/3 of the history section to a group that had at most 1,600 members, is undue. And labor is mentioned in the article. And as sources state, the Old Left largely irrelevant to the civil rights movement in the 1960s and the "War on Poverty" was led by the Johnson administration. And yes, anarchism is mentioned because there are more anarchists today than members of the SDP. TFD (talk) 03:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Social democratic and socialist groups

The main social democratic and socialist groups that emerged from the Socialist Party-Social Democratic Federation (SP-SDF) after 1972.
This is the long name, which was never used popularly. All the standard sources refer to it as simply the SP.

Social Democrats USA (SDUSA)

Main article: Social Democrats USA

The Shachtmanites, called the Realignment Caucus, in the SP-SDF argued that since organized labor supported the Democratic Party, they should join the Democratic Party and transform it into a left-wing party, with the Republicans becoming a right-wing party. Further, they argued that they should support the War in Vietnam to stop Communist expansion. In 1972, they supported Senator Henry Jackson for the Democratic presidential nomination, and re-named the party Social Democrats USA (SDUSA), dropping the term "socialist". While they retained membership in the Socialist International, they supported Jimmy Carter in the 1976 election and had moved sufficiently right by 1980, that many of their members served in the Reagan administration.^[5]

Compare this with what I have written, which has been edited in other articles by Carrite. They did not support the Vietnam War, as the NYT reports.
Busky's book is a pseudoscholarly book, not an academic book: it is not terrible, but it is dull and poorly referenced. Busky was a national officer in SPUSA, editing Hammer and Tong and the time of his death. Busky's book declares his COI, his having been a state chair of the SPUSA in PA since 1978.

Socialist Party USA (SPUSA)

Main article: Socialist Party USA

Members of the Debs Caucus opposed supporting the Democrats and began working outside the Socialist Party with antiwar groups such as the Students for a Democratic Society. Many locals of the SD-SDF voted to disaffiliate. They re-organized as the Socialist Party USA (SPUSA) and kept control of the old Debs Caucus paper, the Socialist Tribune, later re-named The Socialist. The SPUSA continued to run local and national candidates, although by 2000 they had only about 1,000 members. In 1972 they supported the presidential campaign of Benjamin Spock of the People's Party. Their 2000 candidate for president was David McReynolds.^[6]

Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)

Main article: Democratic Socialists of America

Although Michael Harrington, who came to lead the Coalition Caucus, agreed to work within the Democratic Party, he broke with the Shachtmanites over support of the War in Vietnam, urging peace negotiations, although not an immediate withdrawal. He led his caucus out of the SD-SDF to form the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (DSOC), which became a member of the Socialist International. Although this group never ran candidates for public office, it became the largest of the three groups emerging from the SD-SDF, attaining a peak membership of as many as 10,000. In 1982, it joined with the New American Movement (NAM), an antiwar group that emerged from the New Left of the 1960s, to form the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA).^[6]

Marxist Leninism and SDS

I added references to James Miller's Democracy is in the streets, a history of SDS. Please note that Miller documents the obvious role in Marxist Leninists sects, like the Progressive Labor Party, in destroying SDS, contrary to the confident ignorance stated above. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis

Like many who have been active turning WP articles into propaganda for the SPUSA, TD4 is basing his articles on SPUSA literature. I prefer to use reliable sources, preferably written by honest people of intelligence and academic competence, like Drucker. One of the things that makes Solidarity and Against the Current interesting is that their writers are smart, honest, and hard working---and many of them are courageous in real life.

It is not a minor error to state that Harrington did not call for an immediate pull-out, it is willfull ignorance of the basic facts of the history, one acknowledged from the NYT to Harrington to Drucker. It is not hard to check the sources I gave, but TD4 so far has lacked the curiosity or courage to read others' ideas, swimming cozily "inside the whale". Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reliance is made on Democratic socialism: a global survey (Praeger Publishers, 2000) by Donald F. Busky, a professor of political science, for history in the late 20th century. Your comment "Busky's book is a pseudoscholarly book, not an academic book" is wrong. If you think the book is inaccurate, then you need to find sources that explain events differently. Notice that the authors used as sources for the article represent a broad range of views, and very few are socialists of any kind. TFD (talk) 15:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your paragraphs, quoted above, are based on Busky, apparently. Do you acknowledge that Busky was a SPUSA official and activist, and that you knew that when you used his book?

Busky's publisher states his rank as " Adjunct Professor of History and Political Science at Camden County College". I am sorry but being an adjunct professor at a community college is such a low academic rank that it raises more questions about his research competence than it credits him. In fact, his book is a joke, that gets basic facts wrong, and not randomly but always to indulge his prejudices as the Napolean of PA socialist puritanism. But I have pointed out his errors before, and you have failed to learn or reply to specific criticisms. Busky/you state that Harrington supported the war and the NYT states Harrington called for an immediate withdrawal. Only one of these can be correct, and you are wrong. It is time for you to grow up and admit your errors.

About NPOV. You seem to think that SPUSA literature counts as a point of view and must be reported on WP. On the contrary, WP has no policy requiring that its article on Jesus Christ report the beliefs of any of the Three Christs of Ypsilanti.

The more important question is why you have allowed yourself to use such a bad source and continue to defend it even when persons have admitted its errors elsewhere on WP. Do you see that my edits to SPUSA and SPA and DSOC and SDUSA have not been reverted? Doesn't that tell you that I may know what I am talking about?

You should be concerned that you may have naively trusted SPUSA's organizational literature and activists, almost as infallible.

Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TD4 has failed to retract and apologize for his violations of AGF and NPA, particularly his charging that I wanted to write history from the standpoint of SDUSA. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is about whether or not your edits are neutral. You re-wrote the history section so that half of it was devoted to the SDUSA, and wrote "[their leader] was an extraordinary public speaker and formidable in debate, and his intelligent analysis attracted young socialists... [his] youthful followers were able to bring new vigor into the Party...."[8] You then refer (above) to other U.S, leftists as " (Marxist Leninists organized conspiratorially)" and "left totalitarians", then bring up Nazi Germany. At WQA and here you have accused myself and others of a pro-SPUSA bias. TFD (talk) 17:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have noted that another editor had plagiarized the SPUSA's "history" in another article. Several editors have noted their COI as officers (some national) of SPUSA and as long-term activists, one long-toothed (!) and esteemed editor noting participation in the Debs caucus at 1972, and I have noted concern that such sophisticated editors had failed to notice the plagiarism of an SPUSA brochure. In any event, these editors have not reverted my edits to this cluster of articles (mentioning SPUSA), nor have they asked for revision on the article talk pages (which would be well within their rights under WP's COI policy). Your article, perhaps because it had naively trusted Busky, had similar biases. You have not answered the question: Did you read Busky's statement that he was an officer of SPUSA or not? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your criticisms of the draft. I have edited the draft, and reduced the discussion of Shachtman's role in the Socialist Party. I had tried to explain why the SP had increased its contributions to American politics because of Shachtman, whose role you first highlighted. Would you please look at the latest version of the article, and see whether you still believe that it gives more than 50% of the history to SDUSA? I don't understand this charge. I also don't understand its relevance, even if it were true: the majority of the SP (SDUSA) had 2/3 of the votes at the 1972 convention, and Harrington had the other 1/3. It would be useful to expand the DSOC material to mention Democratic Agenda and the Democratic Party midterm convention of 1978, which criticized Carter's policies, and also to mention DSOC's role in organizing against draft registration. Please expand the material on DSOC using reliable sources.

What is the problem with referring to the Progressive Labor Party as Marxist Leninist? (The Weatherman/national office faction of SDS adopted Marxist Leninist posturing and tactics also, when SDS became a mad-house, at least nationally and at many leading chapters: I do not cite Sale's discussion of "insanity" etc.)

For clarity: On this page, I referred to "left totalitarians", but not on the article page. I asked you why you had a problem describing left totalitarians, and asked whether you had a similar problem with right totalitarians. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Busky. The main criteria for rs is the publisher, which in this case is an academic publishing company that conducts fact-checking. Your reference to the NYT is an example - articles are considered rs because they are in the NYT, we may not even know who the author is. BTW you can read about the convention in The other American by Maurice Isserman, p. 290,[9] which shows that Harrington supported the compromise resolution rather than the one for immediate withdrawal. TFD (talk) 18:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You first mentioned Busky's being a professor of political science, to indicate why his book is not a joke. If you want to backpedal, you could at least acknowledge that you had referred to his qualifications before. It is hard to continue ascribing good faith to you, when you fail to acknowledge any errors or bad arguments, and just keep changing the arguments as your previous arguments are found to be faulty.

Regarding your latest defense of Busky: Busky's publisher is one of the weaker academic presses, if it is even considered an academic press, of course. It is not the U of Chicago or Cambridge or Oxford or Harvard, which are leading publishers of history. Regardless, his book is a joke: We can discuss this with the projects on American history or journals, which have expertise in such matters, if you want to lose again. An honest academic can read one page of Busky and see that it's unprofessional and unreliable---although it is infinitely better than the SPUSA's literature, which has been plagiarized in other WP articles. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harrington supported other compromises at earlier conventions. He led call for an immediate withdrawal, according to the NYT in December 1972, the only one discussed in the article,because it was the name change convention after which Harrington resigned and founded DSOC and after which the small SPUSA was formed.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reliability of Busky's book is a question better addressed on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard than here. It seems to be a normal scholarly book, and if it has a bias towards one political party then that could be addressed by adding material from other sources with a different bias. Anyway, does someone want to post on RSN for further views? Itsmejudith (talk) 18:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Judith, posting on another noticeboard would be an even greater waste of time because the book is a joke. Have you bothered reading any pages? You are quite wrong about its viewpoint balancing others. WP requires reliable high quality sources, not nonsense by political activists. Please read what T4D wrote above and compare it with the coverage in the present article to see how biased he has been (and apparently still is). Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now posted there. TFD (talk) 05:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

War of the Pacific

Article: War of the Pacific
Evidence of Talk Page Discussion: [10]
Evidence of notifying other party of this discussion: [11]
Problem: Disagreement on how the Peru-Bolivia Mutual Defense Treaty should be written in the article's introductory summary. In the following block quote (taken directly from the first paragraph in the article), the bold part is the text in question.

The War of the Pacific (Spanish: Guerra del Pacífico) took place in western South America from 1879 through 1883. The forces of Chile fought a defensive alliance of Bolivia and Peru. The conflict is also known as the "Saltpeter War", as disputes over mineral-rich territory were the war's prime cause. The conflict originated in a dispute between Chile and Bolivia over a 10 cent tax on the Antofagasta Nitrate & Railway Company, but Bolivia and Chile's controversy over ownership of Atacama preceded and laid foundations for the conflict. Peru entered the affair in 1879, initially attempting to mediate the dispute, but when Chile invaded the Bolivian port city of Antofagasta on February 14, 1879, Bolivia activated its mutual defense treaty with Peru.

War of the Pacific; Discussion:

My position is that the text in question is correct and should not be removed.
The user seeking to remove it (User:Keysanger), calls it an "extreme nationalistic Peru-Bolivia POV". However, the text in question is neither "extreme" or "nationalistic".
User:Keysanger thinks that "defensive alliance" is a term that shows a Peruvian-Bolivian point of view, hence why he calls it "nationalistic".
History: The Peru-Bolivia alliance was created (also titled) as a mutual defense pact, which would only be activated if either Peru or Bolivia were invaded by a foreign country. Bolivia called for its activation when Chile invaded Antofagasta in February 14, 1879. Peru activated the alliance the day after Chile declared war on both Bolivia and Peru.
The historical record demonstrates that the Peru-Bolivia pact was a defensive alliance. Regardless of any POV, the plain historical facts speak for themselves.
Even User:Keysanger admits to this by writing: "I think that every one can read there that the alliance was actually defensive". ([12])
Therefore, given the evidence and the other user's comment on the matter, I would like for the reviewer of this NPOV case to, basically, agree with me and put a quick end to this really silly matter.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure so please interpret this as me trying to understand the issue. I gather that the other editor's concern is that the wording gives a simplistic impression at the article's outset that Chile was the aggressor and Peru-Bolivia were innocent parties who were attacked. Reading the article, it is more complicated. Is it really important to say this was a defensive alliance in the opening? Alex Harvey (talk) 12:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response. I'll respond in bullets since it's easier for me to present the points, and probably also easier for you to read them (if you don't like it, please tell me):

It seems that the other editor believes that only Peru/Bolivia saw their alliance as defensive. Since Chile viewed the alliance as offensive, he believes that anything disagreeing with it must be "extreme Peru/Bolivia nationalism".
My goal is to provide (following the summary method established in Wikipedia's Manual of Style) a straight-forward summary of the events, avoiding any long-winded argument on the subject. Regardless of what Peru, Bolivia, or Chile think/thought about the alliance, the historical record clearly has the Peru-Bolivia alliance as a defensive alliance. Not only was the alliance titled, "Mutual Defense Pact", but it also only came into effect after Chile declared war on both Bolivia and Peru.
Assumptions: I don't like assumptions, and I believe these should not be in the introductory summary. The assumptions are discussed, in detail, in the "Crisis" and "Background" sections of the article. Chile's POV assumes that since they were never mentioned in the secret treaty, and since they were never invited to join the mutual defense pact, that it must have been aimed at them. However, once again based on the historical record at that time: Peru was having border conflicts with Ecuador, and both Bolivia/Peru were having issues with Brazilian colonists in the Amazon region (particularly the area known as "Acre", which both Peru/Bolivia claimed).

I'm not trying to make any of the sides look or sound like victims (I'm pretty sure both sides of the conflict had their interests at stake in some form or another). All I am trying to do is present the summary based on the historical record, not on POV assumptions. Based on the historical record, the Peru-Bolivia alliance was, especifically, a defensive alliance. It is necessary to be exact in order to avoid vague statements which will end up confusing the reader. --MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think it is obvious that you are not promoting any kind of 'extreme nationalism'. But to be honest I actually find the sentence The forces of Chile fought a defensive alliance of Bolivia and Peru a bit awkward in any case. Isn't it simpler and just as accurate to say something like Chile fought against Bolivia and Peru or Chile went to war with Bolivia and Peru? It seems if Chileans are going to be offended with the present wording, it's a neat way to just steer clear of the issue and still inform the reader just as well. Or maybe I am missing something? Alex Harvey (talk) 15:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an expert on international law, but my understanding is that there does exist a difference between an offensive alliance (in which two or more countries unite to attack a common enemy), and a defensive alliance (in which two countries unite to defend their territory; i.e., mutual defense pacts). My only objective is to avoid vagueness by focusing on the historical record. I feel that if we give way to vagueness for the sake of not hurting anyone's feelings, then information in Wikipedia is going to lack veracity. For example, it would be like re-wording The Holocaust or Nanking Massacre article so that it doesn't offend Nazi supporters or the Japanese. Of course, I do not compare both of these issues as on the "same level" or kind as this case with the War of the Pacific; it's just an example. Please do tell me if you feel I'm just being stubborn, or if I may actually have some sort of point? Thank you.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure there is a difference between a defense pact and an aggressive alliance, just as there is a difference between a democracy and a dictatorship. North Korea is in reality one of the worst examples of a totalitarian dictatorship and yet the country's formal title is the 'Democratic People's Republic of Korea'. So it is possible - and I am not saying this is my view but just that it is hypothetically possible - that although Peru/Bolivia described their alliance as a 'defense pact' on paper, it was still in reality something other than a purely defensive alliance. Your sentence could be seen as being contrived to emphasise the words 'defensive alliance' and to have Wikipedia's voice state at the outset that this is a fact. I definitely would change the wording somehow, although I stop short of recommending that you remove 'defensive alliance' until I know more about the subject. Do you have reliable sources that we can look at to see how professional historians describe the conflict? Also I note that the other editor asserts that some professional historians disagree that it was a purely 'defensive alliance'. I guess he is referring to Chilean historians and that you would say these are revisionist histories? Alex Harvey (talk) 06:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alexh, yes, he has Talk:War of the Pacific/Archive 7#Mediation of defensive/offensive issue. here a list of sources that considered the pact sometimes as offensive or some times as defensive. But he takes only the one side. --Keysanger (what?) 11:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Keysanger, there are over 40,000 words on that page. Could you help me out by directing me to the exact location of the refs? Alex Harvey (talk) 11:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alex, thanks for your time. Of course I want to help in this question. I apologize in advance for my poor English, but, I think, it is enough for such a simple question.

At that time I added 9 sources about the issue defensive-ofensive. (the references are at the bottom of this page).

Extended content

* There are 1 italian, 3 US-american and 5 Chilean reliable sources that confirm that the treaty can be and was interpreted as defensive and/or as offensive or as a menace for Chile: 1) Donald E. Worcester and Wendell G. Schaeffer, "The Growth and Culture of Latin America", New York, Oxford University Press, 1956, 963 pages. Page 706, Relevant Text^[7] the treaty is called (only) defensive-offensive, the authors don't go into details. 2) Alfred Barnaby Thomas, Profesor of History, University of Alabama,"Latin America, A History", The Macmillian Company, New York, 1956, 800 pages. Page 450, Relevant Text^[8] the treaty is called (only) defensive-offensive, the authors don't go into details. 3) Charles de Varigny, La Guerra del Pacifico, page 18, here Relevant Text^[9] the treaty is called defensive-offensive and go into details, that is why is considered offensive. 4) Gonzalo Bulnes, "Chile and Peru, The causes of the War of 1879" page 57 and 58, Relevant Text^[10] the treaty is called defensive-offensive and go into details, that is why is considered offensive. 5) Diego Barros Arana, "Historia de la Guerra del Pacifico", parte 1, capitulo III pag. 31, Relevant Text^[11] the treaty is called defensive-offensive and go into details, that is why is considered offensive. (not in the cited passage) 6) Chilean Magazin "Que Pasa" here Relevant Text^[12] the treaty is called defensive-offensive and go into details, that is why is considered offensive. 7) Manifest of the Chilean government to the representatives of friendly powers with reference to the declaration of war against Peru. Alejandro Fierro, Chilean Ministry of Foreign affairs, Santiago April 12, 1879 here Relevant Text^[13] the treaty is not called defensive or offensive but explain why it is considered a to justify one of the most audacious and cruel spoliation witnessed by countries submitted to a regime of common respect toward the industry of all nations and go into details. 8) The New York Times - Current History (1922) here (page 450) Relevant Text^[14] the NYT call the treaty a pact of alliance tacitly directed against Chile 9) Tommaso Caivano, "Storia de lla guerra d'America fra Chilì, il Perù e la Bolivia", here page 252, Relevant Text^[15] Tommasso Caivano (9) doesn't call the treaty offensive, only reproduces Diego Barros Arana's view and states that a treaty is subject of interpretations. That is what I want to state.

At that time MarshalN20 added following sources:

Extended content

I can provide 4 neutral sources stating that the alliance was merely defensive:

History of the Latin-American nations By William Spence Robertson: [13]
New York Times: "The defensive treaty of 1873 between Peru and Bolivia" (First column).[14]
A history of Peru By Clements Robert Markham: "The Chileans used this purely defensive treaty, by which arbitration is provided for before there can be a casus foederis, as a pretext for war."[15]
CHILE, PERU AND THE TREATY OF 1929: THE FINAL SETTLEMENT by Ronald Bruce St John: "Peru was honour bound under the terms of an 1873 treaty of defensive alliance to join the conflict on the side of Bolivia."[16]

The agreement was:

Extended content

:Well, it looks like you two are pretty close to an agreement. Maybe one final push and this can be resolved? Gigs (talk) 01:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you like it:

The treaty was officially titled defensive.
The treaty was viewed by Chile as a menace (offensive to it).
Professional opinion is split on whether the alliance was solely defensive or whether it was offensive and defensive.

So, I think the issue is now cleared.

--Keysanger (talk) 11:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Thank you Gigs.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 14:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thank you all for working through this. Gigs (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Gigs, --Keysanger (talk) 10:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, there are a lot of opinions about defensive v/s offensive and Wikipedia can't do any other thing that consider both, not only the view "the treaty was defensive", it doesn't matter how many sources had found MarshallN20 in the last time.

It is a little bit disappointing to discuss the same thing every year, but I accept MarshalN20 right to defend his ideas and error. I do it sometimes also. Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 18:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Isserman, p. 300-301.
^ Isserman, p. 311.
^ Isserman, p. 422.
^ Graeber
^ Busky, pp. 163-165
^ ^a ^b Busky, pp. 164-165
^ Donald Worcester:
In 1873, fearing the consecuences of taking action against Chile, Peru and Bolivia signed a defensive-offensive alliance
^ Alfred Barnaby Thomas:
This rivaliry [of Chile-Peru], straining the relations of the two countries, led Pardo to sign and offensive and defensive alliance with Bolivia in 1873, the latter being also disturbed by Chiles aggresiveness
^ Charles de Varigny:
…Chile vacilaría aún más si Bolivia, firmando un tratado de alianza ofensiva y defensiva con el Perú, podía poner sobre las armas los efectivos militares y las fuerzas navales de esta nación. Un tratado de esta naturaleza fué precisamente la condición que puso Boliyia para aceptar la aventura que el Perú le proponía. Se iniciaron negociaciones y quedó firmado el Tratado, que se convino en mantener secreto, con el fin de proporcionar al Perú la ocasión de ofrecer su mediación, no revelándolo sino en caso de que Chile rechazase esta mediación y declarase la guerra.

Translation: …Chile would hesitate more if Bolivia, by means of a ofensive and defensive treaty signed with Peru, could dispose of the military and naval forces of that country. Such a treaty was the condition imposed upon herself by Bolivia to accept the adventure proposed by Peru. They started the negotiations and the treaty was signed, to be kept in secret, in order to give Peru the chance of offering her mediation, (and) not to publish the treaty unless Chile refused the mediation and made a declaration of war (Translation by Keysanger)
^ Gonzalo Bulnes:
The Treaty menaces Chile … Never was Chile in greater peril, nor has a more favourable moment been elected for reducing her to the mere leavings that interested none of the conspirators. The advantage to each of them was clear enough. Bolivia would expand three degrees on the coast; Argentina would take possession of all our eastern terrisories to whatever point she liked; Peru would make Bolivia pay her with the salitre region. The synthesis of the Secret Treaty was this: opportunity: the disarmed condition of Chile; the pretext to produce conflict: Bolivia: the profit of the business: Patagonia and the salitre.
^ Diego Barros Arana:
Sea de ello lo que se quiera, el hecho es que el 6 de febrero de 1873 se firmaba en Lima un tratado secreto de alianza ofensiva i defensiva, por el cual ambas partes contratantes se comprometian a marchar unidas contra cualquier enemigo esterior que amenazase su independencia, su soberanía, o su integridad territorial.

Translation whatever, in fact on 6 February 1873 was signed in Lima a secret treaty of alliance defensive and offensive, as a result of that both signer obligated themself to march united against any extern foe that menaced their independence, souvereignity or territorial integrity. (Translation by Keysanger)
^ Que Pasa:
A comienzos de 1870, Perú pasaba por un mal período económico, ya que el guano -fertilizante natural del cual procedían las principales ganancias fiscales- estaba agotado, mientras el salitre, producto que lo reemplazaba, estaba en manos de particulares. La única solución era eliminar a nuestro país como competidor en la extracción del salitre, para traspasar la propiedad de las salitreras al Estado y poseer el monopolio. Fue a raíz de esto que Perú y Bolivia firmaron un tratado secreto ofensivo y defensivo contra Chile, donde ambas naciones se apoyarían en caso de guerra.

Translation: “In early 1870, Peru was going through a bad economic period, as the guano-derived natural fertilizer which produced major tax revenues was exhausted, while nitrate -its substitute- was in private hands. The only solution was to remove Chile as a competitor in the extraction of saltpeter, and then transfer the ownership of the nitrate to the [Peruvian] state and hold a monopoly. It was after this that Peru and Bolivia signed a secret treaty offensive and defensive against Chile, where both nations would support each other in the event of war.”
^ Chilean Manifest:
(starts on page 170)

…The secret treaty of the of Febreaury 6, 1873 needs to no lengthy examination to ascertain its object; and the reserve in which it has been maintained confirms in the least suspicious mind the conviction that it was entered into solely to aid the schemes of the government of Bolivia, a perpetual conspirator of the treaty of 1866. In 1873, neither Peru nor Bolivia was threatened by the remotest danger of territorial dismemberment; and much less could it be foreseen that Chile cherished such idea, seeing that it had granted to Bolivia whatever that republic demanded in the convention of 1866- applauded by the Bolivian people as a splendid manifestation of Chilean generosity………. ……….If the treaty meant a general guarantee against any advance of a foreign power, why was the cooperation of Chile not sought, which has given more than one example of being the first to contribute, with its men and its wealth, towards the maintenance of the sovereignty of nations of a common origin?.............. ...........The treaty of 1873 owed its origin –hidden as a shameful act – to the measures adopted by Peru at that epoch, to justify one of the most audacious and cruel spoliation witnessed by countries submitted to a regime of common respect toward the industry of all nations. Peru desired to monopolize and appropriate the nitrate works; and in order to sustain its daily diminishing credit…
^ New York Times:
Notwithstanding the fact that in 1873 Peru had induced Bolivia to sign a pact of alliance tacitly directed against Chile, the Peruvian government offered its mediation in the Bolivian-Chilean conflict, the origin of which was nothing more than Peru’s monopolistic nitrate policy, which had instigated Bolivia to disposes Chilean industries. The mediation of Peru was accompanied by three suspicious circumstances: (1) The denial on the part of the mediating minister of the existence of the secret treaty of which Chile had lately become aware; (2) Previous Peruvian demands compatible only with the pretensions of Bolivia; (3) Hurried war preparations of Peru, the Peruvian government meanwhile showing a desire to gain time. These circumstances, with the fact that Bolivia did not manifest the slightest desire to facilitate an amicable adjustment, indicated to Chile that Peru was not working ‘bona fide’, but only with the intentin of strengthening the alliance.
^ Tommaso Caivano:
lo storico chileno Barros Arana dice nella sua cosidetta Historia de la Guerra del Pacifico, che era un Trattato di alleanza offensiva e difensiva. Questo può dare una idea del modo come si interpretano e riferiscono i fatti nel Chili.

(Translation) Chilean historian Barros Arana said in his book History of the Pacific War, a treaty of alliance offensive and defensive. This can give an idea of how they interpret and report the facts in Chile

Alexh, let me help you. Go to Keysanger's link, click (on the content box) on "Mediation of offensive/defensive issue". Go the section "Moving On". Finally, open up the "extended content" to read the sources provided by Keysanger. Nearly 2 years have passed after that discussion, and over the years I have gotten better at analyzing and gathering sources. These things I note now that back then I did not consider:

The first three sources he mentions (from United States authors) only title (name) the treaty as "offensive-defensive", but do not provide any sort of actual historical analysis. In Varigny's (1829-1899) case, a contemporary to the conflict (primary source), his analysis is limited. The treaty's title/name (defensive) is not in question. Therefore, these 3 sources in no way validate the idea that Peru-Bolivia formed an offensive alliance.
The following 5 sources are from Chilean authors. I do not contest the Chilean POV, and find it a view that deserves to be included in the article (It is included in the "Crisis" and the "Background" sections). However, upon careful examination of the sources: (1) Historians Diego Barros Arana and Gonzalo Bulnes are primary sources, and their opinion is skewed in favor of Chile (hence the Chilean POV). (2) Alejandro Fierro, Chile's minister, is also a primary source. (3) Chilean Magazine "Que Pasa"...who wrote the article? It's reliability is unknown. (4) New York Times magazine from 1922, primary source from Chilean correspondant F. Nieto del Rio (unknown profession or notability), is completely unreliable.
The Italian source, from Thomas Caivanno, merely states that according to Barros Arana, in Chile the Peru-Bolivia alliance is viewed as offensive.

2 years ago I had very little knowledge on how to analyze sources, but now I am confident that all of the sources originally presented by Keysanger only serve little purpose other than to demonstrate a Chilean POV which is already present in the Wikipedia article. Whether Keysanger purposely tried to trick both me and the mediator at that point, I ultimately assume good faith from his part. Furthemore, this Chilean POV is a minority view in the sense that only Chileans seem to agree with it.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

War of the Pacific; MarshalN20 (Non-Peruvian or Bolivian) Sources:

Edwin Montefiore Borchard [17], (Opinion on the controversy between Peru and Chile; Page 14 [18]): "On the contrary, whatever inference against Peru may be drawn from the secrecy of the treaty, all the evidence indicates that neither the parties themselves nor those whose adherence was sought considered it anything but a defensive alliance for the maintenance of the status quo. Moreover, it is impossible to doubt the sincerity of Peru's effort to avoid and, if that proved unsuccessful, to terminate, the war between Chile and Bolivia. Int he matter of motive, it seems reasonable to conclude that Peru had nothing to gain from a war against Chile. They were not adjoining countries, had no boundary dispute, and whatever guano and nitrate Chile had obtained through the treaty of 1874 with Bolivia, Peru had so much more that it is not reasonable to suppose that she coveted Chile's. Indeed, so far as I can find, only Orrego Luco, one of the most zealous Chilean protagonists, has imputed such a motive to [Peru]. On the other hand, the same absence of motive cannot be ascribed to Chile, whose policy had since 1842 been directed toward acquiring greater contorl of the nitrate territory."
William Spence Robertson [19], (History of the Latin-American nations; Page 344-345 [20]): "Peru signed a secret treaty of defensive alliance with Bolivia. The Treaty of Lima provided that the contracting parties were mutually to guarantee their independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity against all foreign aggression, whether of one or more states. In case of acts that tended to deprive a party to this treaty of a portion of her territory, or to induce a party to accept a protectorate, or to lessen the sovereignty of a party, or to alter the government of a party, the alliance was to become effective. Each party expressly retained the right to judge for herself whether or not an offense that might be comitted against her ally should be considered as casus foederis. [...] The allies promised to emply whenever feasible every possible conciliatory measure to prevent a rupture of relations or to end a war."

We already know the Peru, Bolivia, and Chile POV's on the matter. Therefore, I find it appropiate to present the analysis of historians who are not from these countries. If you need any more sources, please do ask.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 17:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The nature of "offensive alliances" and "defensive alliances"

Example of a Defensive Alliance treaty aimed at specific countries (Spain and USA), but which does not constitute an offensive alliance:

Fredrick B. Pike, (The United States and the Andean republics: Peru, Bolivia, and Ecuador; Page 124 [21]): "Delegates from Bolivia, Chile, Ecuador, New Granada, and Peru convened in 1847 and signed a treaty pledging a defensive alliance mong the five republics should an invasion or overt foreign intervention materialize. The treaty was directed not only against the Flores venture but also against the United States which had alarmed South American states by its war against Mexico."

As this source demonstrates, an alliance treaty aimed at a country does not constitute an "offensive alliance". Defensive alliances have a strict character, different from offensive alliances, as they are forced to only take effect upon the attack of a foreign country. The historical record of the War of the Pacific also demonstrates that neither Peru or Bolivia ever invaded Chile; the whole war was based on Chile invading both Bolivian and Peruvian territory, while both countries simply defended.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 17:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks Keysanger & MarshalN20. Here is another take on the war: [22]

Despite cooperation among Chile, Peru, and Bolivia in the war against Spain, friction began to develop over the mineral-rich Bolivian province of Antofagasta and the Peruvian provinces of Tarapaca, Tacna, and Arica, whose wealth was exploited largely by Chilean enterprises. In 1875 Peru seized Chilean nitrate mines in Tarapaca, and in 1878 a new Bolivian government greatly increased taxes on Chilean business interests. To protect these interests and preempt their threatened expropriation, Chile dispatched a naval squadron headed by the ironclad Blanco Encalada and landed 200 troops at the Bolivian port of Antofagasta on February 14, 1879, provoking a declaration of war by Bolivia on March 1, an action reciprocated by Chile on April 5. Peru, which had concluded the secret Treaty of Mutual Defense with Bolivia in 1873, was now also drawn into the conflict (see The Liberal Era, 1861-91 , ch. 1).

I am curious to know whether MarshalN20 & Keysanger feel the above text is both neutral and accurate. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like it, especially how it goes back to the Chincha Islands War from the "Background" section. How should we implement it into the introduction? One thing I disagree with: Bolivia didn't declare war on Chile on March 1. Chile didn't declare war on Bolivia either when they invaded Antofagasta. This is why Peru didn't activate the alliance (it could only come into effect if and only if one of the countries was officially declared war upon). The first country to declare war on anyone was Chile, which is what activated the Treaty of Mutual Defense. If Bolivia had declared war on Chile first, then Peru had the right (according to the treaty) to make the treaty void and remain neutral.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 10:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The text isn't neutral because it presume that the secret pact was of defensive character. That is of course posible, but there are reliable sources that demostrate that the pact can be seen as offensive, for example the source 8) of the list in the mediation. The New York Times (Current History (1922), page 450) said about:

Notwithstanding the fact that in 1873 Peru had induced Bolivia to sign a pact of alliance tacitly directed against Chile, the Peruvian government offered its mediation in the Bolivian-Chilean conflict, the origin of which was nothing more than Peru’s monopolistic nitrate policy, which had instigated Bolivia to disposes Chilean industries. The mediation of Peru was accompanied by three suspicious circumstances: (1) The denial on the part of the mediating minister of the existence of the secret treaty of which Chile had lately become aware; (2) Previous Peruvian demands compatible only with the pretensions of Bolivia; (3) Hurried war preparations of Peru, the Peruvian government meanwhile showing a desire to gain time. These circumstances, with the fact that Bolivia did not manifest the slightest desire to facilitate an amicable adjustment, indicated to Chile that Peru was not working ‘bona fide’, but only with the intentin of strengthening the alliance.

There are at least two sights of the facts, both referenced. Wikipedia has to represent a well balanced version of the history and not a biased interpretations of the facts. Best regards, --Keysanger (what?) 15:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned in my analysis above, the New York Times source is unreliable as it is not known who is the author, named as "F. Nieto del Rio". All that is known is that he is a Chilean correspondant, which once again demonstrates that your source only presents Chilean POV. You keep demonstrating a desire to impose Chilean POV above all else, and keep trying to trick friendly mediators into agreeing with you.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Keysanger, leaving aside the question of possible errors in the detail, I feel there is a subtle but important difference between the wording in our article and the wording by David Shelton that I linked above. In our wording, Wikipedia's voice states that the Peru/Bolivia alliance was "defensive". Shelton doesn't say this. He simply notes that it was called the "Treaty of Mutual Defense" (through use of capitalisation the reader knows he is simply giving the treaty's formal name). He also alerts the reader to the fact that it was a secret treaty, and he provides more context, i.e. some of the acts of provocation which might have led Chile to declare war. His text here remains agnostic on whether or not the alliance was really defensive. So I disagree that it "presumes that the secret pact was of a defensive character". Are you sure you couldn't live with a compromise along these lines? Alex Harvey (talk) 00:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that Keysanger doesn't like any mention of the word "defensive" in association with Peru or Bolivia. In Chile, people get taught that Bolivia declared war upon them (despite this is historically inaccurate), and that "evil Peru" was jealous of Chile and wanted to take them out of the competition. In reality, Bolivia only sent a presidential decree in response to the Chilean invasion of Antofagasta (which in no way or form constitutes a declaration of war), and Peru monopolized all mining industries in Tarapaca/Tacna/Arica (they took over all Peruvian, European, and Chilean private companies) in a desperate attempt to stabilize the economy (not as provocation to Chile).--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

Objections to evolution#Violation of the second law of thermodynamics

My problem is that evolutionists who posted the aledged objection to evolution on @nd law of thermodynamics completely altered the argument and when I made already two versions of modification [23] [24] they are erasing it within minute and do not allow even for NPOV discussion to be raised. I'm convinced that the objection is manipulated to something else than what it really is and thus it is misleading the Wikipedia reader. It is very tricky case: group A, evolutionists, with opinion X, declares that their opponents, creationists, group B, holding opinion Y, cannot have their opinion Y presented because their own papers "are not good enough sources" of their own opinion and that's why twisted opinion Z had to be falsely atributed to them to misrepresent their own position. Even if we would accept that given source is not up to some standards of evolutionists, then it would be still ethical at least to decalre that the objection is presented from point of view how evolutionist understand it and that might widely differ from the real position of the proponents of this objection.--Stephfo (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Already being discussed here. Please don't forum shop. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will move it there then.--Stephfo (talk) 21:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still have a Q though, that borad is evaluating the text from other than NPOV perspective. How does it work then if my primary objection against may opponents is that they do alter soemone's else opinion, thus potentially attacking someone's good reputation?--Stephfo (talk) 12:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Catholics for Choice

Apparently I'm one of those people who just has to do everything myself, since even though the burden is on the editors adding this information, I'm the one posting here. Anyway, there are a couple of related issues at Catholics for Choice, some of which could be addressed at other noticeboards individually but which together make up something best addressed at NPOVN. (And yes, before you say so, I think the answers to these questions are obvious, but clearly some of the other editors at this article do not.)

Is an anti-CFC rant published in Insight on the News, a far-right magazine that happens to be notorious for making things up, a reliable source on CFC's funding?
Is an organization that calls George Soros a "bigoted pro-abortion mogul" a reliable source on his activities?
Is it undue to include self-published criticism of CFC by far-right groups like the Catholic League and Catholic News Agency, particularly when we already detail the (also self-published) criticism from the Roman Catholic Church and other criticism published in reliable sources?
Is it necessary to have the criticism of CFC's funding be over four times as long as the actual information about its funding, particularly when most of said criticism is mostly cited to the worst possible sources, as noted above?

--Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, yes, no. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of fraud involving Chinese stocks

Serious NPOV issues generally, including a list of "fraudulent" Chinese stocks without proper sourcing. Making one last attempt to salvage this before I nominate it for deletion. Constructive input into the page is welcome. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV over SYN?

Van Tuong Nguyen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Dear all, IF possible I'm requesting all to assist in the reviewing the aforementioned article and comment on the discussion page for the difference of "explained" (supported by the source, and an archive of the original source I found) over the word "said" (which isn't supported by any source), the latter is incessantly demanded by an extremely abusive Anon IP editor (2.220.204.70 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) to replace the former, per WP:SAY. Similarly, I've placed this same request for review on WP:No original research/Noticeboard#NPOV over SYN? in order to give it a fair chance at hearing. Apologies for any disturbance caused, thank you. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 00:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this argument is bizarre. There is no obligation to use words that sources use. To say that a simple verb like said "isn't supported by any source" is just ridiculous. Biased sources can very easily be reported in a neutral way, unless you decide, arbitrarily and unilaterally, that for some reason you have to use one particular word from the source. 2.220.204.70 (talk) 06:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Isserman, p. 300-301.

[2] Isserman, p. 311.

[3] Isserman, p. 422.

[4] Graeber

[5] Busky, pp. 163-165

[Busky,_pp._164-165-6] Busky, pp. 164-165

[7] Donald Worcester:
In 1873, fearing the consecuences of taking action against Chile, Peru and Bolivia signed a defensive-offensive alliance

[8] Alfred Barnaby Thomas:
This rivaliry [of Chile-Peru], straining the relations of the two countries, led Pardo to sign and offensive and defensive alliance with Bolivia in 1873, the latter being also disturbed by Chiles aggresiveness

[9] Charles de Varigny:
…Chile vacilaría aún más si Bolivia, firmando un tratado de alianza ofensiva y defensiva con el Perú, podía poner sobre las armas los efectivos militares y las fuerzas navales de esta nación. Un tratado de esta naturaleza fué precisamente la condición que puso Boliyia para aceptar la aventura que el Perú le proponía. Se iniciaron negociaciones y quedó firmado el Tratado, que se convino en mantener secreto, con el fin de proporcionar al Perú la ocasión de ofrecer su mediación, no revelándolo sino en caso de que Chile rechazase esta mediación y declarase la guerra.

Translation: …Chile would hesitate more if Bolivia, by means of a ofensive and defensive treaty signed with Peru, could dispose of the military and naval forces of that country. Such a treaty was the condition imposed upon herself by Bolivia to accept the adventure proposed by Peru. They started the negotiations and the treaty was signed, to be kept in secret, in order to give Peru the chance of offering her mediation, (and) not to publish the treaty unless Chile refused the mediation and made a declaration of war (Translation by Keysanger)

[10] Gonzalo Bulnes:
The Treaty menaces Chile … Never was Chile in greater peril, nor has a more favourable moment been elected for reducing her to the mere leavings that interested none of the conspirators. The advantage to each of them was clear enough. Bolivia would expand three degrees on the coast; Argentina would take possession of all our eastern terrisories to whatever point she liked; Peru would make Bolivia pay her with the salitre region. The synthesis of the Secret Treaty was this: opportunity: the disarmed condition of Chile; the pretext to produce conflict: Bolivia: the profit of the business: Patagonia and the salitre.

[11] Diego Barros Arana:
Sea de ello lo que se quiera, el hecho es que el 6 de febrero de 1873 se firmaba en Lima un tratado secreto de alianza ofensiva i defensiva, por el cual ambas partes contratantes se comprometian a marchar unidas contra cualquier enemigo esterior que amenazase su independencia, su soberanía, o su integridad territorial.

Translation whatever, in fact on 6 February 1873 was signed in Lima a secret treaty of alliance defensive and offensive, as a result of that both signer obligated themself to march united against any extern foe that menaced their independence, souvereignity or territorial integrity. (Translation by Keysanger)

[12] Que Pasa:
A comienzos de 1870, Perú pasaba por un mal período económico, ya que el guano -fertilizante natural del cual procedían las principales ganancias fiscales- estaba agotado, mientras el salitre, producto que lo reemplazaba, estaba en manos de particulares. La única solución era eliminar a nuestro país como competidor en la extracción del salitre, para traspasar la propiedad de las salitreras al Estado y poseer el monopolio. Fue a raíz de esto que Perú y Bolivia firmaron un tratado secreto ofensivo y defensivo contra Chile, donde ambas naciones se apoyarían en caso de guerra.

Translation: “In early 1870, Peru was going through a bad economic period, as the guano-derived natural fertilizer which produced major tax revenues was exhausted, while nitrate -its substitute- was in private hands. The only solution was to remove Chile as a competitor in the extraction of saltpeter, and then transfer the ownership of the nitrate to the [Peruvian] state and hold a monopoly. It was after this that Peru and Bolivia signed a secret treaty offensive and defensive against Chile, where both nations would support each other in the event of war.”

[13] Chilean Manifest:
(starts on page 170)

…The secret treaty of the of Febreaury 6, 1873 needs to no lengthy examination to ascertain its object; and the reserve in which it has been maintained confirms in the least suspicious mind the conviction that it was entered into solely to aid the schemes of the government of Bolivia, a perpetual conspirator of the treaty of 1866. In 1873, neither Peru nor Bolivia was threatened by the remotest danger of territorial dismemberment; and much less could it be foreseen that Chile cherished such idea, seeing that it had granted to Bolivia whatever that republic demanded in the convention of 1866- applauded by the Bolivian people as a splendid manifestation of Chilean generosity………. ……….If the treaty meant a general guarantee against any advance of a foreign power, why was the cooperation of Chile not sought, which has given more than one example of being the first to contribute, with its men and its wealth, towards the maintenance of the sovereignty of nations of a common origin?.............. ...........The treaty of 1873 owed its origin –hidden as a shameful act – to the measures adopted by Peru at that epoch, to justify one of the most audacious and cruel spoliation witnessed by countries submitted to a regime of common respect toward the industry of all nations. Peru desired to monopolize and appropriate the nitrate works; and in order to sustain its daily diminishing credit…

[14] New York Times:
Notwithstanding the fact that in 1873 Peru had induced Bolivia to sign a pact of alliance tacitly directed against Chile, the Peruvian government offered its mediation in the Bolivian-Chilean conflict, the origin of which was nothing more than Peru’s monopolistic nitrate policy, which had instigated Bolivia to disposes Chilean industries. The mediation of Peru was accompanied by three suspicious circumstances: (1) The denial on the part of the mediating minister of the existence of the secret treaty of which Chile had lately become aware; (2) Previous Peruvian demands compatible only with the pretensions of Bolivia; (3) Hurried war preparations of Peru, the Peruvian government meanwhile showing a desire to gain time. These circumstances, with the fact that Bolivia did not manifest the slightest desire to facilitate an amicable adjustment, indicated to Chile that Peru was not working ‘bona fide’, but only with the intentin of strengthening the alliance.

[15] Tommaso Caivano:
lo storico chileno Barros Arana dice nella sua cosidetta Historia de la Guerra del Pacifico, che era un Trattato di alleanza offensiva e difensiva. Questo può dare una idea del modo come si interpretano e riferiscono i fatti nel Chili.

(Translation) Chilean historian Barros Arana said in his book History of the Pacific War, a treaty of alliance offensive and defensive. This can give an idea of how they interpret and report the facts in Chile

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards