Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pjgruen (talk | contribs) at 18:28, 12 November 2012 (→‎Repeated removal of Advert tag from Black Duck Software). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome — ask about adherence to the neutral point of view in context!
    Shortcuts
    Before posting here, consult the neutral point of view policy page and the FAQ explainer. Also, make sure to discuss the disagreement at the article's talk page.

    Fringe theories often involve questions about neutral point of view. These should be discussed at the dedicated noticeboard.

    You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:NPOVN-notice}} to do so.

    Additional notes:
    Start a new discussion

    1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramle

    At 1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramle, a line in the article saying "it became known as the Lydda death march." and an aka field in the infobox giving Lydda death march have been removed due to, in the words of those removing the material, There are a few sources that mention that term, but saying "it became known as the Lydda death march" is a bit of an exaggeration and that It has not been established by either the quantity or quality or sources that the term deserves the UNDUE emphasis its proponents are trying to put into the article. The sources presented are as follows:

    • Chamberlin, Paul (2012), The Global Offensive: The United States, the Palestine Liberation Organization, and the Making of the Post-Cold War Order, Oxford University Press, p. 16, ISBN 9780199811397: On a visit home in 1948, Habash was caught in the Jewish attack on Lydda and, along with his family, forced to leave the city in the mass expulsion that came to be known as the Lydda Death March.
    • Strachan, Hew; Bellamy, Chris; Bicheno, eds. (2001), The Oxford companion to military history, Oxford University Press, p. 64, ISBN 9780198662099 {{citation}}: |editor1-first= missing |editor1-last= (help); Text "Hugh" ignored (help); Text "editor4-first" ignored (help): On 12 July, the Arab inhabitants of the Lydda-Ramle area, amounting to some 70,000, were expelled in what became known as the Lydda Death March.

    One of the users has claimed, at RS/N, that this is not the most common description for the event, though nobody has requested a move to change the article title. Does it violate UNDUE to include the well-sourced material on this event being known as the Lydda death march? nableezy - 17:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    That's not a full or precise description of the dispute. There are indeed two sources that say "it became known as the Lydda death march". One from 2001 and one from this year (the article contained that sentence when the book was written). Nothing in between and no other sources make that claim, and there are a great number of sources that describe or mention this event (search for example for lydda and expulsion). Only a handful even call it the Lydda death march, not to mention claim it became known as that. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)which[reply]
    Are you serious? Nothing in between and no other sources make that claim? From where exactly did you pull that out? nableezy - 01:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If it was just two sources using the term, that would be one thing. But we have two RS saying specifically that it came to be known as the Lydda death march. It would be undue not to mention this. If you have a source of equivalent quality criticising the term, that has to go in too. If you have historians who avoid the term, you might just say "X, who does not use the term death march, says that...". Itsmejudith (talk) 06:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have practically every other RS of equal and even higher quality that do not use the term. On google books at the moment there are exactly 7 books that use this term and thousands that talk about the event (see this for just one example of possible wording) that don't. The vast majority do not use the term and the statement that "it became known as X" is obviously UNDUE weight to what two scholars out of hundreds say. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ypu can't contradict RS with your own ghit count. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    When a reliable source makes a claim, the way to refute it is to find a source that says the claim is wrong. We cannot undertake our own investigations to disprove the claim. TFD (talk) 19:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a common excuse used to try to edit war in content that is known to be incorrect, and the reasoning itself is wrong. Applying light analysis prevented us from publishing several grossly false things about “Innocence of Muslims” that were stated on so-called reliable sources, for example. —Kerfuffler  horsemeat
    forcemeat          20:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The only way to know that a reliable source is incorrect is to provide another reliable source that contradicts it. It is not our role to second guess the facts. TFD (talk) 05:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem I'm seeing here is that everything points to these works as being the primary sources for the use of this name. I do see a somewhat larger group referring to the expulsion as a "death march" without using that as a name for the incident. I think it would be more accurate to express that the latter characterization has been made. While the sources in question are nominally reliable, to be actually reliable, they have to be accurate. In this case I think the discrepancy between their claim and the material is too great to be ignored; I think we need to go with a weaker statement which withstands fact-checking. Mangoe (talk) 17:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Rachel Corrie

    At the Rachel Corrie page a few editors have been deleting information from the lead that has a reliable source (BBC News) and is not (to my knowledge) contradicted by any other source. Also, what has again been reverted/deleted is already included later in this Wiki-article itself. I have previously attempted to initiate discussion [1] but none of the deleting editors has adressed my particular points nor answered my specific questions.

    • I had asked for any reliable source to be provided which shows that the description of Rachel Corrie as a 'Peace' activist' to be false or innaccurate. [2]
    • I also asked for sources to be presented that demonstrate any activity by the subect of this Biography page which shows she ever acted 'violently' or 'non-peacefully' against anyone in her activities.
    • I disengaged to allow the other parties some time, but no answers to my specific points were ever made.

    Now an editor has again reverted the information and the cited reliable sources. The editor has not been involved in any discussion. He has reverted by claiming there is no consensus. Therefore I decided to bring this here rather than the dispute resolution board as this consensus argument seems to me to be a way of avoiding the points I have made and the questions I have asked and of skewing the article away from a neutral point of view. The deleting editor in this instance is Jethro B. He has an Israeli Barnstar of National Merit, and is a menber of the Wiki Project Israel. Therefore it appears he might be deleting the information from an allegiance to some sort of Pro-Israeli point of view and thereby not a neutral unbiased viewpoint.

    Here are just a few of the many reliable sources describing her as a 'Peace activist' [6] (there are more on the talk page which have been ignored):

    • BBC News lead/intro: "Rachel Corrie, an American ...was a committed peace activist." [7]
    • WA Today: " A family's nine-year fight for justice culminates today when a court delivers its verdict in the civil lawsuit against the state of Israel over the killing of the American peace activist, Rachel Corrie, who was crushed to death by an Israeli military bulldozer." [8]
    • The Guardian. Title. " Israeli army bulldozer crushes US peace protester in Gaza Strip." Lead/intro: " Peace campaigner killed as Israeli army destroys homes in Palestinian refugee camp. First sentence: " An Israeli army bulldozer crushed an American peace activist to death in the Gaza Strip..." [9]
    • The Daily Telegraph: (photo caption) "American peace activist Rachel Corrie stands infront of an Israeli bulldozer in the Rafah refugee camp in the Gaza strip in 2003"
    • Al Jazeera: "Corrie was a committed peace activist even before her arrival in the Gaza Strip in 2002. She arranged peace events in her home town in Washington state and became a volunteer for the ISM."

    SUMMARY: It looks to me as though a few editors are editing this page from a point of view that is not neutral, are refusing to discuss their reasons in regard to specific questions and now this claim for consensus seems to be arguing for a non-neutral editing of this article based on numbers. Despite the fact that can be contested (e.g. I myself, Mirokado, Bastun [10] and JonFlaune are in agreement on this inclusion), can a few editors do that: overule reliable sourcing and non-neutrality by claiming consensus?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 09:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Labeling her a "peace activist" is a statement of opinion. It can be mentioned with attribution in the body of the article but shouldn't be presented as fact and certainly shouldn't be elevated to the lead, which would be undue and misleading. For every reliable source that ever used that label in reference to Corrie, there are probably at least 50 that didn't.—Biosketch (talk) 11:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources presented are not opinion pieces, they are part of mainstream news organization factual reporting. As such they do not need to be attributed, unless you have a source that directly contradicts the statement - so far none have been produced. As for your undue weight argument, you present no evidence, just an assertion. I find your assertion unconvincing because the term is used by globally recognized media organizations such the BBC, Guardian and Al-Jezeera. As far as I know not a single report contradicting the statement has been produced. Dlv999 (talk) 11:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Dlv999, why are you trying to make it seem as though I called those sources "opinion pieces" when I never called them that? I'll thank you appreciate that I have the capacity to distinguish between news reports and opinion pieces. What you should acknowledge is that there's a difference between objective reporting of facts, i.e. x did y at such-and-such a place at such-and-such a time, and statements of opinion, i.e. x is a brilliant scientist. This is a case of the latter, and it is also a case of taking a characterization appearing only in a small minority of sources and giving it undue weight by generating the illusion that it's an expression common among most sources that reported on the nature of Corrie's activism.—Biosketch (talk) 11:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, Biosketch, I did not mean to question your intelligence. But the way I see it is this: on the one hand we have high quality RS describing RC as a peace activist in their factual news reports. In opposition to this we are not seeing alternative sources presented, only the opinion of editors, who don't like the way RS have reported the topic. You again you make the undue weight claim, but again you present no evidence, only your assertion. Here are a number of academic sources and international media reports that have described RC as a "peace activist":
    1. Roy, S Journal of Palestine Studies (Vol. 39, No. 2, Winter 2010, University of California Press) - "focusing on Rachel Corrie, the twenty- three-year-old US peace activist who was run over and killed by an Israeli bulldozer in March 2003"[11]
    2. Richardson, J & Barkho L Journalism Studies (Volume 10, Issue 5, 2009, Routledge) - "Two landmark events have characterised the recent violent years of Israeli–Palestinian conflict: the killing of a US peace activist by an Israeli bulldozer as she tried to prevent it from demolishing the home of a Palestinian resident in Gaza" [12]
    3. CNN - "From behind a wood and plastic partition, the Israeli soldier who drove a bulldozer that crushed an American peace activist to death testified publicly for the first time Thursday." [13]
    4. CBS News- peace activist Rachel Corrie[14]
    5. The Age - "The Israeli Defence Force has been absolved of responsibility in the death of an American peace activist, who was crushed to death by a military bulldozer in 2003."
    6. Sky News - "This year's winners of the prize also included peace activist Rachel Corrie, killed on the Gaza strip in 2003" [15]
    7. the Washington Post - "An Israeli court has ruled that the death of U.S. peace activist Rachel Corrie in 2003 was not Israel's fault and was an accident."[16]
    8. Al Arabiya - "A U.N. official Thursday condemned an Israeli court finding that cleared the army of any blame for the death of U.S. peace activist Rachel Corrie as “a defeat for justice and accountability.”"[17]
    9. UN News Centre - "Rachel Corrie, an American peace activist, was killed in March 2003 while protesting against the demolition of Palestinian homes in Rafah, a city located in southern Gaza." [18]
    10. Palestine Chronicle - "On behalf of peace activist Rachel Corrie, her parents Craig and Cindy Corrie today accepted the 2012 LennonOno Grant for Peace presented by Yoko Ono in Reykjavik, Iceland." [19]
    11. Reuters - "peace activist Rachel Corrie" [20]
    12. Time (magazine) - "American peace activist Rachel Corrie speaks during an interview with MBC Saudi Arabia television on March 14, 2003 in the Rafah refugee camp on the Gaza Strip" [21] Dlv999 (talk) 12:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks to both of you for your participation. To Biosketch, I still don't see how if reliable sources don't "use that label in reference to Corrie" how they would be contradicting ones that did? Whether there are fifty of them or whatever, how do they contradict this description? As yet, no reliable sources have been produced contesting that Rachel Corrie's activism was in anyway anything but peaceful. And as Dlv999 has even further amplified, many sources do. My concern is that by sheer weight of numbers, editors sharing a partisan viewpoint can skew the neutrality of wiki articles. In this case it appears to be editors sharing a pro-Israeli partisan viewpoint. Thus Biosketch, you appear to me to be rather proving my point. Which is, that with out referring to a source disputing her peace activism, you yourself have now become an example of another editor who also has a long track-record of contributions to Wikipedia concerning pro-Israeli viewpoints, who is arguing against this description of Ms Corrie, but without referring to any particular wiki policy as grounds for doing so. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 13:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The talk page has an extensive and healthy discussion of this issue. The article is well written and written appropriately for an encyclopedia. It is true that newspapers generally prefer pithy labels that suits their medium. Encyclopedias are better served with straight descriptions. For example, we have an article called Opposition to legal abortion instead of Pro-life. "Pro-life" like "Peace activist" are self-descriptions that become common for brevity. At other times the opposition succeeds in coining a brief moniker like "Star Wars" for Strategic Defense Initiative and Obamacare for Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Our encyclopedia, gives priority to the full descriptive phrase rather than the everyday short-cut that journalists prefer. The article as written is better suited for our aspiration as an encyclopedia instead of a news report. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    To Jason from nyc. Another editor Mirokado wrote on the discussion page: "Activist" is rather a broad term and is very often qualified ("civil rights activist", "gay rights activist" and so on). In the context of the IP conflict where violence is so much part of the agenda, this wording becomes important to inform the reader of essential background, provided it is properly sourced, as it is with the BBC reference..."--Mystichumwipe (talk) 17:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • We write according to reliable sources, and if several reliable sources say that Ms. Corrie was a peace activist, and no reliable sources dispute that, then on Wikipedia Ms. Corrie was a peace activist. nableezy - 15:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The phrase seems tidy, clear, substantiated and well-sourced. There's nothing unusual or weasel-y about the phrase. And there seem to be no RS objections to it as a description. So it should pass NPOV. I would add that the tendentious objections to every last word in this (Israel-Palestine-related) domain of the encyclopedia only serve to discourage the entry of new, level-headed editors, something which is desperately needed.--Carwil (talk) 15:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with User:Carwil. My only involvement in this whole area, to date, was in relation to the Gaza Flotilla (the second one), where I started a neutral, 5-pillar-compliant article on an Irish ship that was taking part (my interest being I'm Irish). It was challenged, amended, slapped with [citation needed] tags at every point for obvious/not-needed stuff, by tag-teaming editors with a very clear agenda, to the point where, when the ship ended up not taking part due to being damaged/sabotaged, it was nominated for deletion as not notable... Have I been back to the topic since? Just the once, to reinsert referenced material unaccountably being deleted from this article. Will I be back again? Not likely. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have re-added the reliably sourced description of Rachel as a 'Peace activist'. I have done so as the the consensus at present is 'for' using the reliably sourced and uncontradicted 'Peace Activist' description. Revealingly, those here 'for' its usage cited wiki policy as reasons. Whereas all those 'against' gave reasons purely based upon their own personal opinions. Interesting that. I wonder therefore what to do with the more troubling aspect of this dispute, namely the claim for consensus by a possible tag-team of editors apparently sharing a Pro-Israeli partsisan viewpoint, which appears to be driven by an intent of skewing articles and hounding editors to have that viewpoint predominate. I hope to somehow have that also addressed by concerned editors who value Wikipedia as a non-biased information resource. Any suggestions?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 18:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I would suggest people stop being tribalists ie Muslim tribe, Jewish tribe, freemason tribe etc. Prunesqualor billets_doux 01:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. But ... What to do if people do not wish to be less 'tribal' and refuse? What if certain editors' core motivation is largely or specifically to participate here purely from a 'tribal' perspective [22]? This latest example of non-neutral activity by certain editors on the Rachel Corrie page, done under the claim of 'consensus' over a period of months appears to be just one more example of many, and is why I feel this is perhaps a matter of greater concern than just the Rachel Corrie page? But I'm not sure how to address that concern, or where exactly, or if its already been attempted before.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 10:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hope everyone realizes that you can play this game either way. On Highbeam, "Rachel Corrie" bulldozer gets 160 results, whereas "Rachel Corrie" bulldozer "peace activist" gets 22 results. So the vast majority of RS do not call her a peace activist. Here is The Daily Mail: "AN American pro-Palestinian activist run over by a bulldozer in Gaza...." Kauffner (talk) 05:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you would need to find some reliable sources that state she was not a peace activist, or at least engaged in behaviour directly contradictory to (I quote WP) "proactively advocat[ing] diplomatic, non-military resolution of political disputes, usually through nonviolent means". Jpatokal (talk) 06:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You discussing this as if it was a factual question of whether she was a peace activist or not. But this is an issue of tone, emphasis, and neutrality. The article on Bin Laden does not begin, "Osama Bin Laden was a terrorist..." Kauffner (talk) 16:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a factual question of whether or not she has been referred to as a peace activist in multiple reliable sources, and the answer to that is "yes". If you can find an alternative description used in more reliable sources, we're all ears.
    And while I hesitate to drag Osama into this, the old saw about one man's terrorist being another's freedom fighter applies to him as well, which makes the label difficult to apply neutrally. In Carrie's case, though, I'm not seeing any sources that seriously allege she was engaging in anything other than non-violent activism that she genuinely thought would advance peace. Jpatokal (talk) 22:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks to Jpatokal for clearly articulating the point of this notice yet again. To Kauffner you appear not to have read the initial message of this thread, or to not understand it. Please may I ask you to read it again from the top. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 09:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I fully support the retention of this phrase, which provides well-sourced and unchallenged context for the reader which is important for the neutrality of the article. Mystichumwipe has already quoted my response from the article talk page so I won't add it again here. --Mirokado (talk) 23:48, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Health care articles

    We have an issue of factual inaccuracy here, as User:Scjessey insists on calling a reputable poll a "push poll" and giving an incorrect portrayal of said poll in article ([23] [24]) as well as mischaracterizing the nature of certain polls with User:CartoonDiablo ([25]). Upon request for evidence of Scjessey's claims, he instead claims the factual assertions are "fantasy land comments" ([26]) and will not provide even basic documentation for his claim. CartoonDiablo, also, insists on keeping certain sections as a table ([27]), creating a strange situation where the POV of certain ideologies gets undue weight, and is questionable for MOS issues considering the way the articles are structured.

    Some assistance on this would be worthwhile. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm calling it a push poll on article talk pages and edit summaries because it is a push poll. It is obvious from the wording, and implicitly obvious because of the skewed result it yielded at the time (almost all other polls in the field have yielded results that are more or less the opposite of this one). I have not referred to it as a push poll in any actual article and I have not removed it from any article. There is no NPOV issue with my editing. In contrast (to use the same original research neutral wording as Thargor does in the article), Thargor Orlando acts as an SPA using Wikipedia to push a US-centric, right-wing agenda - something that is more for the auspices of WP:RFC/U than this noticeboard. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is the NPOV pushing, really. It requires no request for comment, just for the editors in question to follow basic policies and stop POV pushing. Rasmussen does not push poll, and few other polls have yielded an opposite result. This is a fact that you're unwilling to concede, which is why we're here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Dude, I am not pushing anything except neutrality. You are trying to take certain articles and impose your personal point-of-view upon them. In this particular case, you are inflating the importance of a single poll that asks a question about single-payer healthcare (after a bunch of other questions asking about Occupy Wall Street protests) and attempting to give it equivalence ("in contrast") with the scores of polls that say the complete opposite. That's as pure an example of POV pushing as I've ever seen, and sadly reflects the bulk of your Wikipedia contributions. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not neutral to mischaracterize a reputable poll as a "push poll," to claim that polls say something they don't. Two questions about Occupy does not make a 9 question poll about it, sorry. You couldn't be more wrong on this, and I look forward to the noticeboard volunteers to look at this. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether or not I am "neutral" (by your definition) on talk pages is irrelevant and of no interest to this noticeboard. All that matters is editing performed in actual articles. In this respect, my actions are beyond question and your own lack of neutrality borders on shocking. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well a few things: there is criticism of Rasmussen's polling methods but not in that particular poll. If we used criticism in general and applied it to the one example I think it would be synth since there is no RS criticizing that poll. Personally I think it probably is skewed since it's the only one with a majority opposed but that's not really a basis for removing or commenting on the poll.

    That's not what a push poll is. A push poll is when a poll is used as a guise for efforts to convert somebody. It's not a poll that is handled in a manner that is designed to create a particular result for the poll. North8000 (talk) 00:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Single payer polls/chart

    That aside, there is another issue in those articles regarding the polling sections. For what seem like obvious POV reasons, North8000 and Thargor Orlando reverted the charts to the earlier prose that they originally disagreed with. I think its obvious the charts were both easier to read and gave more information. CartoonDiablo (talk) 03:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    This discussion has been moved to DRN.

    I do not support this. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that the DRN has been closed, care to actually try and fix this? Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I asked for a third opinion regarding the polls. Just for the sake of reference there are two issues:

    1. Are these single-payer polls or polls of "various levels of government involvement in healthcare"?

    • As the previous edit points out (diff) there are six sources including the Washington Post and NPR calling them single-payer polls, Thargor's revert was "rv per facts" which "facts" undermine those six sources he did say.
    • The source is the questions themselves, which do not ask about single payer. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    2. Whether or not to categorize the polls as a table.

    • In my opinion it seems clear that giving the orignal source material as well as showing over a dozen polls works better as table than it does in prose. CartoonDiablo (talk) 17:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The articles are prose, especially the entire one about public opinion. Organizing them this way gives certain points of view undue weight, as well as misstates what the polls say and are given the incorrect insistence that they are "single payer polls." Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The Washington Post and NPR call them "single-payer polls." Unless you have a good reason as to why what you think the polls are trumps the Reliable sources' definition, this discussion is ridiculous. CartoonDiablo (talk) 02:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    What trumps these claims are the actual polls, which do not ask about single payer. "Universal health insurance" is not "single payer" and not understood as such, for example - the Politifact piece in the article makes this expressly clear. Your continued insistence on this is baffling. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Now I want to be clear here: that is YOUR INTERPRETATION of what constitutes a single-payer poll.
    The Washington Post, NPR, PNHP, Healthcare-NOW! etc. all consider the polls that are posted to be single-payer polls. If you revert it again it will be reported as an incident of POV pushing because unless your definition outweighs those sources then that is exactly what you're doing. CartoonDiablo (talk) 00:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not my interpretation. This is the language of the polls, something you refuse to address. Stop threatening people and start working to fix the problem. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    So how come six sources say that that language is appropriate? Should we go by The Washington Post or Thargor Orlando? CartoonDiablo (talk) 00:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know why the media would misrepresent the polls. We should instead go by what the polls actually say. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    In this area, the selection of the wording of the poll determines the result. So the actual wording from the poll should be used. It should not be changed by the editors, including by placing it under a table heading which is such modified wording. North8000 (talk) 00:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Please explain why editors should impose their POV of what the polls are when the consensus of the sources say they are single-payer polls. CartoonDiablo (talk) 00:24, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (added later) That "question" has two false assertions put in as false implied premises and so is too faulty to answer. North8000 (talk) 10:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    We're trying to stop you from imposing your POV. That's why we brought this discussion here. Thargor Orlando(talk) 00:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    To Thargor, whether or not you seriously believe that to be true I hope you realize you're replacing what The Washington Post and NPR say is a single-payer poll with what you think the poll is. No matter how you frame it, it's pushing a WP:Fringe POV. CartoonDiablo (talk) 00:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Not what I'm saying, but what the polls actually say. Politifact notes this. Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Politifact is saying that wording matters, I'd like to hear what you think those six sources as saying. CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The "six sources" are not asking about "single payer" but rather about things like "government insurance" or things "like Medicare." You've been told this countless times, and you ignore it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 02:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This POV pushing must stop. Thargor is trying to create a false equivalence by suggesting that one poll (conducted by the right-leaning Rasmussen pollster with dubious wording) somehow balances the fistful of polls indicating that Americans overwhelmingly support the adoption of some form of single-payer system (link contains analysis of polling, including trashing the Rasmussen poll). -- Scjessey (talk) 01:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This comment encapsulates the problem exactly - disparaging a mainstream source in one line, and then outright misstating evidence in the next. Thargor Orlando (talk) 02:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    To cut through all the argument... why does the article in question rely so heavily on polls as sources in the first place. Poll results are time and time again proven to be inaccurate and flawed. Polling is a very unreliable art. Surely there are more reliable sources we can use for the topic. Blueboar (talk) 16:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    In at least one of the articles, the article is specifically about public opinion. The other two are polling sections. Removing them in those areas may make some sense in this context, especially given the bad information bandied about, but the problem in the public opinion article would still remain. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Surely there are more reliable sources to support an article about public opinion than inherently unreliable polls. Blueboar (talk) 17:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure I agree with you that polling is unreliable, but that's a different discussion than the problem being created in these articles. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose I am suggesting that the solution to the problem is to rewrite the articles so they don't rely so heavily (exclusively?) on polls. Start over, and find other more reliable sources to base the information on. For one thing, polls are a form of primary source, and articles are supposed to rely mostly on secondary sources. Blueboar (talk) 19:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. North8000 (talk) 19:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No disagreement here, either. CD, SCJ? Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:42, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I would argue that the article is a candidate for AfD. It has a very limited scope and relies on sources that are mostly several years old. There are other articles where the good stuff can be used. But if it is going to stay, the polling data is absolutely essential because it gives the clearest view of what "public opinion on health care reform in the US" actually is. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Not quite... if the polls are old, then the most we can say about the polls is: they represent what a given sample of the public thought about health care reform in the US, at the time that a given poll was conducted. Blueboar (talk) 13:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Should we just merge the public opinion stuff into the health care in the US article? It still means we have to figure out how to stop referring to the polls incorrectly, but it at least solves one problem. Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:04, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't refer to the polls at all... leave that sort of thing to the secondary sources. Blueboar (talk) 13:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. Polls are inevitably cherry-picked primary sources. A few objective, intelligent secondary sources would be ideal for this, much better than cherry picked lower grade / biased secondary sources which would be the next issue as this moves along. I think that by wp:notability and scope this article can legitimately exist as a separate article, but it's almost inevitably a huge coatrack for cherry-picked material. I'd probably say nuke it to a stub, and start over with quality secondary-source material and keep the article. But if "nuke it to a stub" can't be agreed on, then delete the article. This article is too sick to be fixed in my lifetime by edits in contentious environment. North8000 (talk) 14:08, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Disagree. If the article exists, it must contain the polling. It's an article charting public opinion, so removing the polls would be ludicrous. I think there is an inherent problem with the article's existence because public opinion changes all the time. That means the article is constantly out of date. The only way around this is to show polling trends, but finding secondary sourcing to describe these trends is nigh on impossible. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    So again, why not just merge the worthwhile information from "public opinion in the united states" into "health care reform in the united states"? We still need to work out the POV problems that started this mess about how to categorize the polls into that section, but it will solve one major issue, at least. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:17, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there objection to this option for the public opinion article, at least? Thargor Orlando (talk) 02:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This is ridiculous, polls are the gauge for public opinion. If we went by that logic we would have to delete about a dozen different articles and deny the basic statistics of how polling works. CartoonDiablo (talk) 18:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User ‎75.51.171.155 violating NPOV

    I've moved the following from WP:ANI. De728631 (talk) 12:39, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Unregistered user ‎75.51.171.155 is violating NPOV and persistently vandalising the article on White Terror (Russia) trying to turn it into a Communist propaganda piece, using clearly biased sources, refusing necessary warning tags, and insisting on pro-Red Terror remarks, thereby demonstrating his biased POV. He clearly thinks that the way to write a Wikipedia article is to start with a political position and to search for sources no matter how biased and unreliable to support that pre-determined viewpoint. Is this the right place to report this? cwmacdougall 10:17, 23 October 2012

    IP notified. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved from WP:ANI
     – It is helpful to look at the Talk Page of the article. None of what cwmacdougall has said above is true. He has not provided any convincing explanation for imposing tags on the article. When all of his objections were refuted and when I asked him to actually provide details to back up his assertions, he ignored me and continues to stick with his mistaken position. He makes the strange accusation of sticking to NPOV while at the same time trying to impose his dissatisfaction on what he sees as a "Communist propaganda piece". He misrepresents the source base of the article as fringe, propagandistic literature when in fact it is based on the best scholarly works from Russia and also the West. He insists on deleting the opinion of a Russian scholar simply because he does not like it. He alleges that the scholar's opinion is "a defence of Red Terror" when in fact it is nothing of the kind. He is persistently edit warring because he either does not understand the material or wants to impose his own views on this article that he insults as a "Communist propaganda piece." EverlastingGaze (talk) 00:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Based on a report at WP:ANEW and a review of the conduct on the article, I've blocked the IP and a newly registered account for 72 hours for abusing multiple accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    One general issue has come up under this continuing dispute: have we discussed elsewhere the extent to which it is appropriate to rely on Soviet Historians? For a subject like palace intrigue under Catherine the Great or Napoleonic military tactics I think they could be very good, but for a subject like White or Red Terror I would think they would be inherently biased and unreliable, especially noting that they wrote under conditions of political censorship about a very political subject; I think they would be inconsistent with NPOV on Soviet subjects. Has a consensus been reached elsewhere? cwmacdougall 15:36, 29 October 2012

    Lack of Neutrality is not really a reliability issue (few sources are ever neutral). The way to deal with bias in sources is phrase the information taken from them as an attributed statement of opinion. Blueboar (talk) 18:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The impossibly biased editor is refusing even the most minor amendments to "his" precious article. I started by deleting supposedly factual and not terribly important items which turn out to have as their only source a Bolshevik propagandist (Victor Serge), before planning to move on to the clearly more difficult issue of apparently respectable Soviet historians. But he refuses even to concede that there is a bias problem with Bolshevik propagandists. How will he respond to more complex issues, and how do I respond to such rubbish without a reversion war? cwmacdougall 15:20, 3 November 2012

    I tried modest amendments which an editor refused, and appealing to the NPOV and Russia groups. I have now filed a complaint on the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. cwmacdougall 23:34, 5 November 2012
    My first attempt at a Dispute Resolution complaint was rejected as not being clearly content rather than conduct. I will resubmit in I hope a more clear fashion. However, while there is clearly a content dispute, it arises from an NPOV violation by the editor. Unless he reforms and stops cherry picking sources, sometimes unreliable, to support his biased POV, and tolerates other editors editing the article, it is likely there will be many other content disputes. It would be helpful if someone in this group could take an interest. cwmacdougall 22:11, 6 November 2012

    Theopolitical Capital of Sikhs and Sikhism

    The article seems to be a combination of the history of Amritsar and of Sikhism in general, from a definite Sikh slant. I know nothing about Sikhism and perhaps everything is true, but the language of the article is far from encyclopedic, for example:

    at the hands of the intolerant, oppressive and bigoted Islamic government of Hindustan, who wished to stop the spread of the Sikh faith

    . Will someone who knows the subject look into this? Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 05:35, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    That's not just NPOV, the article itself is hopeless. I have AFD'd it. Jpatokal (talk) 23:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Derek McCulloch

    Given recent events regarding Jimmy Savile, the UK press have been looking at Derek McCulloch and examining a passage in John Simpson's memoirs. There's been discussion on the talk page and the material has been in and out of the talk page with discussions about how reliable the sources are. Given Andrew O'Hagan has authored an essay on the allegations and named McCulloch, and The Independent have reported O'Hagan doing so, I've amended the article as seen in this edit,[28] with the proviso that I will mention the fact here to get more eyes on the material and perhaps solve the deadlock. Hiding T 11:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Racism in France

    There is currently a dispute at Racism in France over how much, if any, article space should be given to recent claims by right-wing politicians about anti-white racism in France. There seems to be no dispute that these are controversial claims, but there is dispute over whether that means there are weight concerns over their inclusion. The current text reads:

    On September 2012, Jean-François Copé, the leader of the Union for a Popular Movement (UPM) denounced the development of an anti-White racism by people living in France, some of them French citizens, against the "Gauls" – a widespread name among immigrants for the native French – on the basis of these having a different religion, colour skin and ethnic background.[1][2] Marine Le Pen criticized that the UMP had denied the existence of such a racism during its five-year reign (2007–2012) and suspected a tactical move to win over voters and support from the Front National.[3]

    Considering that the rest of the article, based on a UN report on racism in France against Romani, is even shorter, this seems undue and overly specific. I have proposed the following replacement:

    Members of the right-wing French political parties UMP and National Front have claimed the existence of an anti-White racism directed against white French citizens.

    Can we get some fresh blood in here to build a consensus over this? Glaucus (talk) 20:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Given you have expanded the article yourself in the meantime with further sections on "racism against Jews" and "racism against Arabs", together two or three times as long, we can consider this dispute based on your own premises solved. In fact, your own examples given there are themselves mostly a list of particular incidents, more fitting to a "list of racist incidences in France". In any case, the section on "anti-white racism", by citing Le Monde, Liberation and Le Figaro, the three widest read newspapers of the country, remains the most reliably sourced, which settles the issue. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact, this article has been consistently vandalized for the past two years. Now, when I restore the vandalized text, you use it as an excuse to ignore the substance of the WP:UNDUE issues with the section under dispute. The relative size of the sections was part, but not all of the issue. The fact of the matter is that the section on "anti-white racism" is representing a clearly minority point of view, a fact borne out by every WP:RS reporting on it. WP:UNDUE requires that we treat it as such. That includes NOT giving detailed description or background.
    Let me put it this way. If you truly believe that the section represents a widely held viewpoint in WP:RS, then describing it in terms of a specific politician's statements would be WP:UNDUE. Or, if you believe it is in fact only notable in light of those politician's statements, then the POV is itself WP:UNDUE. Either way, your unexplained revert of my WP:DUE compromise text is wrong. And do I really have to explain how moving the most fringe POV section to the top on account of it "affecting the most people" is blatantly POV? Glaucus (talk) 00:37, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Such articles are always going to be at risk of POV problems and being based around accretions of reports on one-off incidents (see also "Human right in Ruritania" and "Anti-Ruritanian sentiment"). That said, it's pretty common in serious literature on the topic of racism to focus on it as something that minorities or those with limited purchase in a power structure face. Following that, a WP article on the issue in France would and surely should focus on racism against Arabs & Muslims, Jews, Romani and Africans etc, whether French themselves or immigrants. The "but the real victims of racism in the West are the 'indigenous' white population" claim is at best an occasional whinge of the conservative right and at worst a rather nasty trope of the far right. The fact that the material here buttressing that view is being sourced to a piece of media-reported politicking not only reinforces that view but rather obviously suggests that there is an NPOV and UNDUE problem here, especially when it is placed at the top of the page and with the current level of detail. The page clearly needs reprioritising and some better, synthesised academic-style sources that address the broader topic as a whole (the UN report seems an obvious example of that). N-HH talk/edits 09:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but I see no way of doing so while GPM continues to deny that any such WP:POV issues exist. Unless other editors are involved, I see no way of building a consensus here. Glaucus (talk) 17:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, GPM has issues with perspective and neutrality, as evidenced here and elsewhere. I'd suggest, as others have before now, an RFCU about their overall behaviour on WP. As agreed, this page needs a whole rewrite. N-HH talk/edits 23:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Another editor came in and made a remarkably similar change to the one I proposed above, citing a similar page in the French Wikipedia. Instead of correcting the miscitation (should have cited the wiki references, not the wiki article), GPM wholesale reverted, restoring his WP:POV changes under dispute. How exactly can a consensus be reached if there's just me and GPM and GPM is utterly unwilling to compromise or even acknowledge the (clear) POV issues? Glaucus (talk) 21:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Help needed: "Criticism" section okay or not in RT (TV network)?

    Input would be appreciated at a DRN case regarding the RT (TV network) article. The issue is whether or not the article should have sections entitled "Criticisms" or "Controversies"; or would the NPOV policy require that the sections be more neutrally titled as "Reception" and "Incidents" etc. The DRN discussion is here ... after clicking that link, scroll down to issues numbered 2,3,4 and 5. Please post any comments there, not here, to keep the discussion co-located. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 05:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    James Vicary

    I'm not an expert on the topic, so maybe someone knowledgeable could review the last 2 edits by an anon editor: [29] --Grandmaster 21:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Not an expert either, nor more knowledgeable, but I would be inclined to think something like...
    James McDonald Vicary (April 30, 1915 – November 7, 1977) was a market researcher best known for pioneering the concept of subliminal advertising with an experiment in 1957. It was later suggested that the results of his experiments had been fraudulent. Vicary was unable to ever reproduce the results of his experiments.
    ...might be considered more NPOV. Stalwart111 (talk) 01:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I like your proposed version better. Grandmaster 14:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries! I decided to be bold and make the change but you should obviously feel free to chop and change as you see fit. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 04:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

    Category:Political prisoners and detainees of China

    I ask that noninvolved Wikipedians weight in at the CfD discussion on Category:Political prisoners and detainees of China at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 October 29#Category:Political prisoners and detainees of China. Cheers, Zloyvolsheb (talk) 02:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, that discussion is closed now. It didn't really look like a POV issue anyway, but instead a practical matter of whether we can have a category for political prisoners of China without having a generic parent category. Apparently the answer is no.TheBlueCanoe 03:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Technology in track Cycling

    Misleading statements, false balance and synthesis has been used in in this sporting article to make it appear far less controversial than it really was. I am also unhappy with the recent Dispute Resolution procedure which was aiming towards a majority if not unanimous consensus but was then compromised.

    It has been dogged with Anglo bias since I started it, and there is still a concerted attempt to either to remove it by previously uninvolved editors.

    Before progressing to mediation or otherwise I was wondering if it may be acceptable to involve someone from the French version of Wikipedia to oversee it in some way, so that overall neutrality is maintained. This would provide far greater credibility to the dispute/mediation procedures which have not been helpful so far.

    You may have to press show to see the comments here however I have temporarily amended the talk page for viewing, someone has attempted to hide it!

    --Andromedean (talk) 21:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Andromedean which forum will I see you bring this up on next. Andromedean give it a rest please you are the only user who is still actively pushing this line that the section in the article is biased. It is not. It is an accurate reflection of the sources provided. You have continually referred to those who disagree with you with personal attacks and do so again by referring to "dogged with Anglo bias since I started it,". There is no evidence to support that fact-free claim of "Anglo bias". The section is now free from "Misleading statements, false balance and synthesis", the article did have those issues running through the previous version which you supported and in the suggested changes you bought up most recently on the article talk page. Andromedean no such "greater credibility" is needed, what is needed is an acceptance from you that you are pushing something which is against consensus and is now highly disruptive. None of the above suggestions are made in good faith, they are made in an attempt by Andromedean to attempt to "win" and ensure that "their" version is the only version of the section. Sport and politics (talk) 21:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify that two of the four DRN editors never agreed to the version used. I shall include one example of the type of 'accurate reflection' referred to above and why I think we need someone from .fr on board. Bear in mind this article is supposed to be about the influence of Technology on cycling, and this is a direct quote from the original BBC article:
    This continued disruption of this section and this continued spreading out across Wikipedia your attempts to impose your preferred version of this section are highly disruptive. Any continuance of this behaviours will result in a report being filed, for bad faith editing, personal attacks and disruption to Wikipedia. Please cease and desist this behaviour. The consensus was to remove the previous version you had imposed on the article as primarily it violated BLP rules amongst other things. All other claims made by you on the version currently in the article are currently only supported by yourself in any active way. The other user you are referring to has made no active contributions on this issue to date, since the DRN was closed. I would also like to point out the disruption you engaged in by placing unwarranted warnings and un-collapsing the closed discussion on the talk page of the article. It was unwarrented and shows a lack of understanding of Wikiepdia. Sport and politics (talk) 14:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    S&P I didn't open this to carry on arguing with you but to obtain advice regarding bias, and this is the place for it. Now please stop your misleading arguments. Let's get the facts right
    The DRN was only closed 2 weeks ago. Hiding the new talk page which was opened since then to censor the embarrassing truth is not appropriate. I notice in the history the title says "It's closed. Piss off."
    You refused to discuss further because you got an extreme version through refusal to negotiate prior to the DRN and deception during it.
    We were advised by the volunteer to carry on discussion after DRN to sort out wording and you have completely refused to do so.
    Two out of four participants in the DRN, were very dissatisfied with the outcome so there was no consensus. This is the fourth time you have lied about consensus.--Andromedean (talk) 09:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but the way I read this, is that everybody agrees with the final compomise except you. The Banner talk 14:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Banner, so if this is true why is one other member complaining? That is two out of four of us. Have you tried to read beyond the notice?
    "Andromedean: let it be clear that I have not agreed to the version that 88 has put there on the page, not even close! I thought we were still debating various topics. Even on the discussion on "home advantage" issue, I have made my concession and made the suggestion I could accept. 88 countered with a different version which I haven't consented to. Personally I'm rather disappointed, to say the least, with 88's rush to put this version on the main page without a final roll call. Showmebeef (talk) 18:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC) "
    and if three out of four of us plus the volunteer suggested we discuss the wording why is this request now being rejected? --Andromedean (talk) 07:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps people felt that giving in to your demands would compromize neutrality. The Banner talk 11:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, demand is a strong word, the demands were placed on the original. The version the active editors, myself and showmebeef but not sport & politics) would have compromised to, was written by a DRN volunteer, but all the same I would be interested why you approve of this version: When asked if the British team will put some countries at a disadvantage, former head of research and development of the British Cycling Team, Chris Boardman replied, "Well, I'd like to think so, we haven't done our job if they're not." rather than the original text from the BBC article: But is Boardman not concerned that this high-tech warfare will put some countries at a disadvantage? "Well, I'd like to think so," he laughs. "We haven't done our job if they're not."
    Are we reading the same material banner? Try to take some time to read the original article please, are you really saying the version which says 'British team', conforms to Wikipedia Policy? Are you saying it fairly reflects what that article in the BBC article says in any way? --Andromedean (talk) 17:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    NCsoft

    There is a dispute as to whether the company's statement about shutdown of Paragon Studios and the impending closure of City of Heroes should be merely reported on or reproduced verbatim. I have attempted to discuss the issue with the other user, but not only were we unable to reach an agreement, another anonymous IP has reverted the changes.

    I have doubts about my own neutrality on this subject due to possible WP:COI already, and I am not going to allow myself to be goaded into violating WP:3RR. Hence I'm reporting this here.

    • The first time it was reported on [30] it was formulated as:
    Reasons for the closure are still unclear, as the announcements only reveal that the game was removed "in a realignment of company focus and publishing support"'
    • An anonymous IP later [31] changed it to:
    In a realignment of company focus and publishing support, NCsoft has made the decision to close Paragon Studios.
    • I have noticed the change and reverted the change [32] to:
    The exact reasons behind this sudden closure remain unknown, the official announcements explaining it only as "a realignment of company focus and publishing support".
    • This has been reverted back to the official buzzwords by the same anon IP as before [33]
    • I have reverted this again, giving a necessarily brief explanation in my comment [34]
    • Another anonymous IP which might be or not be the same person, has re-reverted the page [35]

    My concerns with this are as follows:

    1. The official statement may sound impressively, but in reality it is a pile of buzzwords. The only meaning to be found in it is "we decided to stop supporting the the game and/or existence of Paragon Studios".
    2. It does not, in fact "explain" the closure in any way. Thus - reasons behind it remain unknown.
    3. As noted, it is made of buzzwords. WP:MODLANG and WP:UPE#Buzzwords strongly discourage their use on Wikipedia.
    4. It is an official public statement by the company - and as such it is not neutral nor should it be portrayed as an objective truth. It is my belief that doing so qualifies as a form of propaganda, and therefore subject to WP:NOTADVOCATE
    5. Due to copying the statement verbatim, it appears to constitute WP:COPYVIO

    What I believe is the right solution:

    1. I believe the statement should be reported on rather than copied verbatim as it was
    2. This means observing WP:INTEXT and WP:ASF.
    3. As the statement does not actually explain the reasons for the closure, the actual reasons behind the closure remain unknown. I believe the citation should make note of that situation.

    It is my opinion that the wording I used (The exact reasons behind this sudden closure remain unknown, the official announcements explaining it only as "a realignment of company focus and publishing support".) is if not appropriate then at least close to being such. As noted, my own neutrality is questionable under the circumstances.

    --The Fifth Horseman (talk) 03:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    It would be routine for a company to say they are "refocusing their business" when their actual reasoning is "we're going broke." I would treat this more as a sourcing issue. If there was significant speculation as to the company's motives in independent and credible sources, we might include all viewpoints, including using the company's official position as one of them. Otherwise it's very difficult for us to cover a subject that is of a very speculative nature without the weight of expert commentary. Corporate 05:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Request to move Adolf Hitler's vegetarianism to Adolf Hitler's diet

    Your comments would be appreciated at Talk:Adolf_Hitler's_vegetarianism#Requested_move. Nirvana2013 (talk) 19:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated removal of Advert tag from Black Duck Software

    The Advert tag claims says that the page should be re-written from a neutral point of view and not have external links. I believe that I have met both criteria. I would be happy to further edit the page to address anything that is considered promotional rather than informational but I cannot do that without some specific feedback. Pjgruen (talk) 18:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Pjgruen[reply]

    Between July and November 2012 an Advert tag was added to the Black Duck Software (talk) page by three different users. Each time it was removed by user Pjgruen (Pjgruen), who has only ever edited this page and two logos belonging to either Black Duck Software itself or a website owned by that company.

    --ajchapman (talk) 10:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Understanding "prevalence in reliable sources" to determine weight

    WP:NPOV states that "in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources". In this discussion it has been argued that in determining weight, sources should be considered as "eligible" for weight if they have independently developed the information. My reading of prevalence, however, and that of dictionary.com, is that it refers to how widespread something is. If something is widespread, it already implies that it has spread somewhere from somewhere else.

    The context here is that a poll was published in an Israeli newspaper (Haaretz), and a large number of international publications, including the Guardian, the Independent, the Telegraph, the Globe and Mail and Sydney Morning Herald ran articles on the poll, citing the Haaretz article. (see here for a list of sources). It has now been argued that since these international publications are "based" on the Haaretz article, they are irrelevant for weight. In my own opinion, the opposite is the case as the story has "spread" to them and thus become "widespread", which is how prevalence (the term in the policy) is understood. I searched the archives but didn't find a discussion where this issue would have been covered. There are a few other wrinkles in the discussion as well, but the point in this section is the determination of weight as described above. Opinions on which it would be? Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    That is not an exact description of the dispute.
    Here's what the Globe and Mail says: Other major newspapers, including The Globe and Mail, The Guardian, The Independent and the Sydney Morning Herald carried stories citing the Haaretz poll and interpretation.
    In other words, there's one source which is Haaretz. There are other sources that repeat what Haaretz published. They haven't seen the poll themselves nor published their own interpretation of the results (which is quite obvious, since they haven't seen said results for themselves). So there's one source for the poll and interpretation of the results, which is Haaretz. There are other sources that say "Haaretz said X".
    So the question is if the poll and interpretation, which was published by Haaretz, gets the weight of all the sources that cite it to Haaretz as if they're independent sources verifying the information. Another question is what weight does criticism of Haaretz's interpretation, published after most of the sources published their article gets. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    NMMNG, you seem confused about what WP:WEIGHT is for. It isn't about replicated generation of information in order to demonstrate that it is true. It is about repeated mention of information in order to demonstrate that it is noteworthy. So, if something first published in Haaretz is picked up by international media, that makes it more noteworthy and more likely to be appropriate for inclusion per WEIGHT. If you have reason to doubt that the information in Haaretz is sound, that's another issue. If there is good reason to suppose that it is unsound (ie erroneous), then it should not be included, regardless of where it has been republished. But, in terms of WEIGHT, republication in other media is always going to count.
    The weight that the criticism should get depends on how substantive and widespread the criticism is, so it is difficult to answer in the abstract. If we are talking about something that has been totally or virtually debunked, then the criticism should be promintently included. If it is something that an op-ed or two has called a bunch of crap, then we have to make a realistic assessment about how important those criticisms are in the scheme of things. Formerip (talk) 01:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's put it this way. Source A says "B=C". Sources D, E, and F say "A says B=C". If I understand WEIGHT correctly, we have quite a bit of support for "A says B=C", but not necessarily for "B=C" on its own. Now let's say sources G and H say "source A was incorrect when it said B=C" (then A makes corrections). How much wight should the criticism get? Are we weighing A, D, E, and F against G and H, or only A against them?
    Out in the real world, Haaretz changed its headline after the criticism was published, and most of the sources which were citing Haaretz changed their headlines to reflect the Haaretz change. That also strengthens the idea that they stand behind "A said B=C" but not necessarily "B=C on its own". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, as I said above, it does not seem to me you are understanding WEIGHT correctly. It's purpose is not to support the truth of facts, only their noteworthiness. So, what is said in Haaretz in this case is more noteworthy the more it is reproduced or commented on. It is simply a matter of how much attention we should be pay the facts in source A.
    We may then wish to mention sources G and H, but WEIGHT dictates that we need to consider how important they are in the scheme of things.
    If Haaretz changed its headline, we need to consider how that affects what we write. Quite possibly, we should reflect the modified headline rather than the original one. But changing a headline suggests to me either an error in the detail or an editorial decision to change focus, rather than the invalidation of the whole article (i.e. Haaretz presumably still stand by B=C if it still says B=C on their website). Formerip (talk) 02:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a difference in how much weight we should give (and to what exactly) between a situation where 5 sources say B=C and where 1 source says B=C and 4 sources say "A said B=C"? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Nothing to see here. The same arguments being repeated over and over again editors who refuse to find a resolution and enjoy forum shopping since there is an obvious stalemate. ARBPIA3 is the only correct venue.Cptnono (talk) 07:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Your comment is unhelpful and unwarranted, you should stick to the relevant discussion or stay quite, do not derail. If a group of editors in in an article are refusing to abide by the core policy of WP:NPOV, making sophistic lawyerly arguments why they don't have to represent viewpoints in proportion to their prevalence in RS per WP:NPOV, then bringing the issue to the wider Wikipedia community is a reasonable step to take, in fact that is what this noticeboard is for. Dlv999 (talk) 07:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Putting aside your accusations of bad faith, there's nothing sophistic here. It's common sense. What makes sources like these reliable is that we assume they check their facts. Without access to the primary source the only facts they could check is that source A said something. They can't know if it's true or not which is why they attribute it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: Is there a difference in how much weight we should give (and to what exactly) between a situation where 5 sources say B=C and where 1 source says B=C and 4 sources say "A said B=C"? First, a lot depends on what the specific topic of the article in question is... if the article is a bio article about A, then all that coverage of A's view goes towards the notability of A... and it would be appropriate to give a fair amount of weight to A's views. If, on the other hand, the article is about B, then we must look deeper into what the sources that mention the fact that "A says B=C" say about A's conclusion... for example, suppose that after mentioning what A says, they all go on to say "However, A's conclusion does not take into account X... therefore we think A's statement is flawed". This indicates that we should pay less attention to A's conclusion about B (we would give it less weight per WP:UNDUE). Blueboar (talk) 17:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    In this case A is a newspaper and "B=C" are poll results and interpretation that were not published elsewhere without attribution to A (except in the case of one other newspaper, and we have a 3rd that says the second newspaper (and others) got the results and interpretation from A). None of the other sources deal with whether the data is valid or not, they just repeat what A said, with attribution. Additionally, when A corrected its headline, so did most of the sources that were reporting "A said B=C". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    New Islam-related templates

    Editor Ibrahim ebi has created new templates for Hadith and Muhammad. The old, general Islam templates on dozens of hadith-related articles have been removed, and these new templates added. The Muhammad template is FAR from NPOV. It has a section for Miracles, and one for Durood, a term new to me, which is apparently the practice of verbal genuflection (PBUH, praise be upon him, and that sort of thing) after mentioning Muhammad's name. This template link goes to ONE article. I've learned a fair bit of Islamic terminology editing Islam-related articles, but this is new to me and would not be understood by 90% or more of Wikipedia users.

    The hadith template seems to be in a state of flux -- I saw it change between page refreshes -- and one section of a template that may or may not be in play has a section on "Rightly Guided Caliphs", which would be seriously offensive to Shi'a Muslims.

    What the @!#$@#%#@ is happening? Is this just one pious Sunni editor doing his thing or has this been discussed somewhere? Zora (talk) 21:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    From a cursory glance at the templates, the editor doesn't appear to have actually added any potentially controversial content. There was already a miracles section and durood was already there but not as a section title and I can't see "Rightly Guided Caliphs" anywhere. To me it looks like a good-faith attempt to improve the templates. They certainly look smarter (although maybe a touch too big). If there are NPOV issues, they possibly weren't introduced by the recent edits. Maybe talking to the editor about it would be a way forward. Formerip (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    P K Aziz

    At the P K Aziz page, a particular editor has been deleting section "Indictment by Government Agencies" on the grounds that it is not neutral. Whenever I have tried to engage the editor in conversation, I have been threatened with blockage on the topic talk page and my own talk page, instead of logic or rule behind deletion. To quote this particular editor my action is "absolutely fucking" ( on summary of edit).

    Now I have shown uttermost respect to this editor and others who have tried to correct me. On getting logical feedback from another editor I evened toned down my language considerably but despite this, the said editor continues to delete the section permanently rather than keeping it in a toned and neutral way.

    I would love to hear what other experienced editors think about the matter Infinity4just (talk) 22:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The editor has explained very clearly what the problem with your edits was, namely that they are based on primary sources and violate WP:BLP, and that you are edit-warring, and should gain consensus for your addition on the article talk page. He has not "threatened you with blockage", he has warned you that if you continue to edit-war, you will be blocked. Big difference.
    I agree with the editor. Frankly, your arguments in your edit summaries and on the talk page are nonsensical and betray a woeful lack of familiarity with our policies. I advise you to read the following policies and guidelines: WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:BLP. Throw in WP:IDHT for good measure. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Infinity4just... If you wish to discuss the indictment, what you need to do is find reliable secondary sources that discuss the indictment. For example, has the indictment been reported on in the press? Once you have established that secondary sources discuss the indictment, you can (in a limited way) expand on what they say by citing the primary documents for specific details about the indictment (A further caveat: when discussing the indictment, be sure phrase any discussion of what is alleged as being an allegation. Do not present allegations as fact unless and until a trial has determined guilt). Blueboar (talk) 17:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&oldid=522673080"