Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

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

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

Rujm el-Hiri: in 'Israeli-administered' or 'Israeli-occupied' Golan?

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

---

}} Requested remedy: We request independent evaluation of this issue. If it is decided that 'administered' (or some other term) is a preferable non-partisan term over the more prejudicial word 'occupied' then we request that this replacement be used (and protected) to describe 'Golan' in the "Rujm el-Hiri" article.

The article may be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rujm_el-Hiri The article's talk page may be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rujm_el-Hiri Though the issue of 'occupied' and related language is discussed in various places on this talk page, the most current discussion (between Nableezy, Zero0000, and myself) is in the section titled: "Partisan Politics does not belong here: WP:POV and WP:OR"

Summary: The article's topic is a 5,000 year old archeological site which has nothing to do with the modern Arab-Israeli conflict (since the site was constructed before 'Israel' or "Arabs' even existed :-). A group of editors, e.g.: Nableezy, Zero0000, Tiamut, Supreme Deliciousness, have insisted on using the phrase 'Israeli-occupied' with a link to the Wikipedia article on the political history of 'Israeli-occupied territories' to modify 'Golan' in the Rujm el-Hiri article. Some editors find the term 'occupied' to be violation of NPOV in this context, since the Israeli government considers the area to be a part of its own country, and (as the map displayed within the article shows) it may be better described as 'disputed' territory. This NPOV issue has become the focus of a small edit-war. I recently did a quick 'google' search and found others who had similar conflicts with these editors (and others who have a reputation of working with them as a concerted group on anti-Zionist issues) over the same prejudicial use of the word 'occupied' and found that some other editors in the past have proposed that 'administered' would be a more neutral alternative to the more politically-loaded term 'occupied.' The use of 'administered' was rejected by Nableezy, et al, who reinserted the 'occupied' language and link, just as Zero0000 had done the previous day.

............

The diffs of the two edits may be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rujm_el-Hiri&diff=569666323&oldid=569660529

The (edited for compactness) text of these diffs:

Rujm el-Hiri: Difference between revisions ...

Revision as of 01:53, 22 August 2013 (edit) 143.232.129.69 (talk) [Note from Ronreisman: '143.232.129.69' is listed because I forgot to sign-in before making the edit] (Changed 'Israeli-occupied' to more neutral phrase 'Israeli-administered' in an effort to minimize biased language -- see talk page)

Rujm el-Hiri (Arabic: رجم الهري, Rujm al-Hīrī; Template:Lang-he-n Gilgal Refā'īm) is an ancient megalithic monument, consisting of concentric circles of stone with a tumulus at center. It is located in Israeli-administered Golan Heights ....

UNDONE: Latest revision as of 02:47, 22 August 2013 (edit) (undo) (thank) Nableezy (talk | contribs) (Undid revision 569660529 by 143.232.129.69 (talk restore accurate terminology)

Rujm el-Hiri (Arabic: رجم الهري, Rujm al-Hīrī; Template:Lang-he-n Gilgal Refā'īm) is an ancient megalithic monument, consisting of concentric circles of stone with a tumulus at center. It is located in the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights ...

............

This insertion of 'occupied' has occurred in other parts of the article and stimulated editor controversy in the past. For instance:

Revision as of 12:39, 26 November 2011 Biosketch (Rmv "recently" commentary not in any of the sources.) ... The site was cataloged during an Israeli archaeological survey carried out in 1967-1968, after the Six-Day War....

Revision as of 18:37, 26 November 2011 Tiamut (talk | contribs) (→‎History and purpose: missing detail about occupation of syrian territory)

The site was cataloged during an Israeli archaeological survey carried out in 1967-1968, after Israel occupied Syria's Golan Heights during the Six-Day War.

.............

Link to the current Talk:Rujm_el-Hiri#Partisan_Politics_does_not_belong_here:_WP:POV_and_WP:OR section. (copied text replaced by link) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronreisman (talk • contribs)

To me, the term "administered" implies consent on the part of the governed; and we don't need to debate census data in light of the thumb of Israel and its military on the scales of Golan's demographics because.....

(A) "Occupied" is consistent with UN views of the matter and

strike out by original author, explanation for strikeout is in later commment in the tree down below (B) Neither term belongs in an article about an archeological site, unless it is related to RS-based disputes over the integrity of the science being performed.

Out of curiosity, are the news reports that Israel will pay students to defend it online involved in this dispute?

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 06:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Sadly, no one is paying me anything for my time spent on Wikipedia. My opinions, actions, and words are solely my own responsibility. If, OTOH, *you* would like to send me a check to help support my wife & kids .... well drop me a line, maybe we can work something out :-)Ronreisman (talk) 00:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Three points (a) WP:TLDR; (b) the Golan Heights is no exception to any other territory occupied by Israel in 1967. It is accepted that it and the West Bank, and East Jerusalem, is technically, in law, 'occupied', as even the Israeli Supreme Court admits; (c)kerfluflfle is spelt 'kerfuffle', and 'fussing' to get things said neutrally and correctly, without POV finessing to push a national euphemism into texts, is part of our remit as editors. Nishidani (talk) 10:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

To clarify the issue, it is entirely about the phrase "Israeli-occupied Golan Heights" used to indicate the location of this archaeological site. None of the other political issues mentioned above are relevant since nobody is proposing to mention them in the article. The reason "Golan Heights" by itself is insufficient is that only a portion of them was occupied by Israel in 1967 and so it does not properly identify the site. The reason "Israeli-administered" is undesirable is that "administered" is an adjective invented by Israel to euphemise the fact of occupation (which would contradict Israeli's denial that the Geneva Convention applies, etc). The phrase "Israeli-occupied" is far and away the most common description in English and is the overwhelming opinion of the nations on Earth (few political issues are voted on repeatedly with such near-unanimity at the UN). The UN always calls it the "Occupied Syrian Golan", but I don't propose using that. Though it is much less common, I could live with the phrase "Israeli-controlled" as an alternative to "Israeli-occupied". Zero^talk 13:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that 'Israeli-controlled' is a neutral alternative.Ronreisman (talk) 00:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Though 'controlled' does not imply either 'settlement' or 'production' which is a good part of what takes place under the control. It's best to go with the term in most general use internationally,'Israeli-occupied', if only to remind Ms Rudoren of the New York Times, and their bureau chief in Jerusalem, when she or others visits the Golan, that it is not a part of Israel in international law, something their fact-checkers are beginning to ignore.Nishidani (talk) 14:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• Agree with Zero000, say "occupied"; Zero's reasoning is strong enough that it persuaded me to change my mind, specifically the part when Zero said that "The reason "Golan Heights" by itself is insufficient is that only a portion of them was occupied by Israel in 1967 ...". To help educate others on the same fact background that tripped me up, I would make it explicit saying the site "is located in that portion of the Golan Heights that has been occupied by Israel since the 1967 Arab-Israeli War".NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

First of all, it would be extremely helpful if the talk page section was linked instead of copied and pasted. It was insanely difficult for me to make sense of the text. Also, could the original poster please clarify what is being requested? Thanks! Leujohn ^{(talk, stalk me?)} 18:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm the 'original poster' and the 'request' is to reach a respectful consensus regarding a 'neutral' alternative to the partisan use of 'occupied' -- and accompanying link to a controversial political-territorial topic -- inserted into an article where none of these political issues are mentioned (eg 'Rujm el-Hiri' is an archeology topic). I agree with Zero000 that 'controlled' (*without* political article link) is an acceptable alternative. Do we have consensus? Ronreisman (talk) 00:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I should add that I only suggested "Israeli-controlled" because I agree with the general principle that archaeological articles should avoid modern politics where possible. There are very few other Golan-related articles where "Israeli-controlled" is appropriate. Zero^talk 00:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

In my view, it would create a silly WP:EGG to write this as "[[Israeli-controlled|Israeli-occupied territories]] portion of the [[Golan Heights]]". Resolution of this should be through what the RSs with the greatest amount of weight say. And I don't know of any greater-weight RSs than Israeli courts and the UN, where "occupied" has been at least acknowledged in one and is common usage at the other. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:31, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

"Occupied" is the correct and neutral word. Anything else is misleading. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 03:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree. As an outsider with no personal stake in the P–I issue, I find the phrase "Israeli-occupied portion of the Golan Heights" entirely neutral and helpful. I can understand that "occupied" may strike some as a political assessment, but I suggest they are reading more into the text than what it says. Johnuniq (talk) 03:52, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe the best solution would be to simply state "the Golan Heights" without further description. Any interested reader should click on the wikilink. However, "controlled" seems acceptable if a description must be included. Leujohn ^{(talk, stalk me?)} 17:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

That's like saying Machu Picchu is in South America, instead of specifying that it is in Peru. The Golan Heights is neither a nation nor under one-nation control/occupation/whatever. We don't say SS Edmund Fitzgerald sank in Lake Superior, we specify that it was in "Canadian waters". Likewise, this site is not just randomly on some unclaimed bit of geology. It is on a specific part, a region that in geopolitical RSs with greatest weight is called "Israeli-occupied". There is such a thing as false neutrality, when we make these calls from the seat of our pants instead of comparing the way different RS speak of them. To paraphrase the little old lady in the classic Wendy's commercial, "Where's the RS?"NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Leujohn: I agree with Zero000 and NewsAndEventsGuy(strikeout added by NewsAndEventsGuy because this falsely characterizes my position) that we need to specify Israeli-Golan, vs Syrian-Golan. The location is relevant; the recent political and military history, however, is not relevant. For instance, Syrian-Golan could be further subdivided into the different polities who currently militarily control and occupy it. In fact, territory very near Rujm el Hiri has been recently disputed between the Syrian government, several rebel groups, and the UN). The nature of the Syrian-Golan occupation, however, is irrelevant to this article's topic. Inserting them where they don't belong is a violation of SYNTH and OR. This issue is not about ethnic over-sensitivity. It's about allowing compromise the Neutrality principle with controversial partisan political rhetoric. Topic ledes should only contain language and links that are mentioned in the article. I agree with Zero000 that 'controlled' is preferable to the disputed term 'occupied.' Ronreisman (talk) 20:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not controversial partisan political rhetoric to describe any of the Israeli occupied territories as Israeli occupied. It's not prejudicial either. It's editors doing what they are absolutely required by policy to do whether they like it or not. It maximizes policy compliance. It's the most neutral and functional solution. No one is to blame. It's just what happens when you take the sources and apply Wikipedia's decision procedures to them. This issue has needlessly caused disruption to hundreds of articles for years. Editors just need to have the humility to switch off their personal views, simply follow the rules and everything will be as it is meant to be. Sean.hoyland - talk 21:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Sean.hoyland's observation that 'This issue has needlessly caused disruption to hundreds of articles for years' is a clear indication of the controversial and political nature of this issue. This is partially because Golan's status is both complex and disputed; e.g.: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14724842. A significant minority object to 'occupied' as the exclusively acceptable term because this masks real and relevant differences of opinion. The 'Wikipedia decision procedures' do *not* automatically dictate imposition of the dominant majority opinions at the expense of minority rights. The suppression of minority rights in this context is not compatible with Wikipedia's emphasis on consensus and etiquette. Of course, these concerns take a back seat to the larger issue: don't compromise the quality of an article by importing extraneous issues that don't pertain to the topic. That's why political language and links in the lede of a non-political topic should, as a general rule, be considered a violation of Wikipedia Neutrality Point of View. Ronreisman (talk) 22:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Ron, when you review RSs beware of reading in what you want to hear. That's called Confirmation bias. Try going to the BBC RS link you cited, and read the whole thing, i.e., click on the tab that says "status", and you'll find the BBC describes the place as "Israeli-occupiedcontrolled". (Correction by original author NAEG, sorry... kid distracted me)NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

You mean BBC Facts tab = "Status: Israeli-occupied" and Overview map = Occupied by Israel (1967). There is really nothing controversial at all, not even slightly, about referring to the Israeli occupied Golan Heights as Israeli occupied. Of course, the BBC's reliability on these issues is always challenged. One of my favorites from an editor is that the "BBC has an Arabic station. The Brits create Jordan, so of course their national station is not reliable." Sean.hoyland - talk 12:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

It isn't "a clear indication of the controversial and political nature of this issue". It is a clear indication of the powerful effects of ethno-nationalist imprinting on human beings. It takes a long time to do that. Wikipedia can only ask people to do their very best to follow the rules here and if they aren't able to do they should walk away or be helped to walk away. The Golan's status is not "complex and disputed" on this question. There are no "minority rights" here, there's just the sources and our policies/guidelines. It would be entirely inconsistent with policy to put "is Great" after the word "God", or "Saves" after "Jesus" or "is just a theory" after "Evolution" just because a significant minority of Wikipedia contributors have learned to prefer it that way. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

@RonReisman, your comment at 20:55 today falsely characterizes my position because I explicitly oppose saying "Israeli-Golan" for the reason that this phrasing would be an NPOV violation departing from the RSs of greatest weight. I have modified your comment by striking out my name. Please do not ascribe false positions to me. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy: my apologies for any misunderstandings that may have offended you. To be clear: I was explaining to Leujohn that I was *agreeing* with others who point out that we should not just leave 'Golan' without some adjectival language that distinguishes whether it's on the Israeli or Syrian side. I did not mean to imply that you agreed with the specific language we should use (since you favor status-quo 'occupied'), just that you did agree that unlabeled 'Golan' is not sufficient. No offense intended. Also: my other response to your question about whether I was a paid Israeli student was my attempt to make a friendly joke; we do *not* seriously expect you to send me a check. I'm just trying to reach consensus by incremental agreements (whenever possible :-) until we reach a final settlement.Ronreisman (talk) 23:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no "Israeli side" of Golan, there is a free part of Syrian Golan and then there is an Israeli-occupied part of Syrian Golan. Rujm el Hiri is in the Israeli-occupied part of the Syrian Golan, so that is what we will use.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

@Ron, no harm done, thanks for apology and clarification of your intent.

@Supreme Deliciousness, no your opinion about the facts (even if right) is not why we should use that expression. Rather, we should use that expression because that is the way it is described in the RSs of greatest weight. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I also believe the best solution would be to simply state "the Golan Heights" without further description. I'm bit frustrated that neutral editors enable POV pushers to turn apolitical articles into turf-war zone. Yeah, making this into Derry riot does not help. Some editors just love "not in Israel" game. When I looked for reliable sources about the site, its location was described as Southern Levant, or Golan specifically. I am talking about Archeological surveys.The high quality academical sources used do not specify political authority on the ground or use occupied word. Le'ts not pretend the current wording in the article is sourced. The sources that do use such wording, like BBC source are news and not related to this subject, i.e. do not mention the Archeological site, thus such sources are quite useless. We mark the point on the location map in the infobox and wiki link Golan Heights, that should be enough, for non-POV pusher. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Generally, when some RSs are offered to make a point, when one wishes to advocate for a different outcome they produce specific alternative RSs to consider, not an entire paragraph of opinion. I've an open mind. Put up some RSs to back up your opinion please. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

AgadaU. Reflecting on this, I thought that this might be a reasonable proposal, actually. But then, as usual, when I have to make a close call, I discern the underlying principle, and generalize it by analogy to see how it would act, if a precedent is established, on other articles. The proposal would, if enacted, have a wide impact within wiki. Are you suggesting that all archaeological sites in foreign territory occupied by Israel should be classified by archaeologists' usage? I.e. archaeologists never use words like ' located in the Palestinian West Bank' of a place like Tell Balata. Archaeologists often use terms Jewish terms like Samaria and Judea, to describe their sites. We, by established principle, don't, because it is recognized that such loaded words in political usage have an appropriative connotation. Nishidani (talk) 19:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Could someone provide a quote from sources currently used? Do we still pretend the current wording is supported by reliable sources?

Let's make a 5 mins survey of top three results for Google scholar search "Rujm el-Hiri location":

• Rujm el-Hiri, a Bronze Age megalithic monument in the southern Levant.
• Rogem Hiri a megalithic monument in the Golan.
• 1988-1991 Excavationa at Rogem Hiri, Golan Heights

Still in doubt? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

A bit, since all three are behind a paywall. Meanwhile, dig director refers to the location as "in Israel" in the "heart of the Golan". http://digs.bib-arch.org/digs/rujm-el-hiri.asp NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Right. If the phrase used in the original documents referenced by current article content:

• Jerome Murphy-O'Connor (15 April 2008). The Holy Land: an Oxford archaeological guide from earliest times to 1700. Oxford University Press US. pp. 457, 478. ISBN 978-0-19-923666-4. Retrieved 30 March 2011.
• Avraham Negev; Shimon Gibson (July 2005). Archaeological encyclopedia of the Holy Land. Continuum International Publishing Group. pp. 207, 443, 518. ISBN 978-0-8264-8571-7. Retrieved 30 March 2011.

is occupied then that would seems to me to be the best language to use.

Not knowing the language used in these documents could potentially be a problem. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The most reliable sources and the international community use "occupied". Case closed. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

First, I agree with the result, but disagree with the reasoing of Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs) above. In my view, this isn't a battle of which is RS is more reliable than the other RS's. Rather, this debate has to do with which RS's carry the greatest WP:WEIGHT.

Second, AgadaUrbanit (talk · contribs) seems to imply that the professional archeological literature generally has the #1 claim to "greatest weight". I disagree with this implication for the following reasons.

(A) Wikipedia is a resource for everyone, not just for professional archeologists. Whereas expert-level readers would be able to make the leap from geo-coordinate to contemporary geopolitics, elementray school readers can not do that.

(B) Wikipedia is not a hard-bound resource but a dynamic encyclopedia. Were I a hard-bound publisher of materials that had to talk about contested boundaries, I'd be slow to write "x" when tomorrow the boundary issue might be "y". Being a dynamic encyclopedia, we don't have that problem.

(C) Professionals writing in professional journals have a vested interest in gaining access to the site, which has been under Israeli control since 1967. As such, they have a motive to not kick the gatekeeper in the political tender parts when they publish their findings.

For those reasons, I do not agree that the professional archeological RS's are the RS's of "greatest WP:Weight".

Third, as a general principle, intellectual integrity admits the possibility that omission of well-documented facts can, in some circumstances, be a form of POV. In this case, Israeli occupation of this specific locale is well-documented in a wide range of RS's. Since we are neither a professional journal writing for experts nor a hard bound resource, we should describe locations in a way that makes sense for the widest general audience. For Lake Superior shipwrecks, that means stating whether the locale is in US or Canadian waters. That's easy, because it doesn't push emotional political buttons. If that logic makes sense for Lake Superior shipwrecks, true NPOV requires applying the same logic for locations in regions of conflicting international claims. In the article under discussion, that means a simple statement of the widely-documented fact that this spot is in the "Israeli-Occupied" part of the Golan, rather than a well-intentioned omission of this fact. Plus we are supposed to avoid ambiguities if possible. The site is not in the Syrian controlled/occupied/claimed/whatever part of the Golan Heights, but the Israeli. Instead of the ambiguous "Golan" why not just say "Middle East", or for that matter "Planet Earth"? No, our task is to be NPOV matter-of-fact and avoid ambiguity. This spot is considered, by nearly the entire international community, to be "Israeli-occupied", and omitting this is at worst a form of POV-by-intentional-omission and at best creates a good-faith-but-nonetheless-impermissible ambiguity.

Fourth, upon the suggestion of this Wikipedia guideline, I took a peek at the CIA World Factbook, which says "Golan Heights is Israeli-occupied". They appear to have less motive to say one thing and not another than professionals writing for other professionals in such a way that greases the wheels with the controlling authorities when they want to do field research at the site itself. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I note that Gamla nature reserve, Hamat Gader, Katzrin ancient village and synagogue, Kursi, Golan Heights, Nimrod Fortress, and Umm el Kanatir all refer to their location simply as "the Golan Heights" on first mention, though more details are in some cases provided further on. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

So more thoughts? Maybe it is a good idea for uninvolved administrator to formally close this discussion, so we sill not have to guess about the consensus established. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Whatever the geographic location, all articles from all subject areas should inform readers who are from some other country (relative to the article) where they need to book passage and to what government they need to seek visas/permits in order to visit. If these articles do not distinguish between Syrian Golan and Israeli-occupied Golan then these articles need improvement, and their failure to include that matter-of-fact information is not a reason to omit that information from the example article under discussion. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

According to Southern_Levant#History referenced content, "The term "Southern Levant" is used by archaeologists who wish to avoid taking a modern geo-political stance in a region rife with border disputes".

I looked into sources referenced for "occupied" language:

• Jerome Murphy-O'Connor (28 February 2008). The Holy Land:An Oxford Archaeological Guide from Earliest Times to 1700. Oxford University Press. p. 531. ISBN 978-0-19-164766-6. Retrieved 9 September 2013.
• Avraham Negev; Shimon Gibson (July 2005). Archaeological encyclopedia of the Holy Land. Continuum International Publishing Group. pp. 207, 443, 518. ISBN 978-0-8264-8571-7. Retrieved 30 March 2011.

The sources *do not* use occupied to describe the site's location. So not sure why occupied is being re-added lately unsourced and without consensus again, again and again obsessively to Rujm el-Hiri's lead?

Avraham Negev source used occupied term often, though not in reference to the Rujm el-Hiri site, but in the meaning of "some ancient people occupied some geographic region". Jerome Murphy-O'Connor includes "Visit" section, so I might add this info into the article. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Some time had passed from my previous post,. Does anyone have new thoughts ? Or maybe sources that mention this archeological site (Rujm el-Hiri) being "occupied"? If no response here I would request uninvolved admin to close this. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 03:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

A request for closure. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

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

Fraz Wahlah

Article: Fraz Wahlah
Discussion: Talk:Fraz Wahlah#Problems with the article

This article is in poor condition and some IP editors (probably its one user using 2-3 IPs) regularly add non-neutral content that even fails verification. I have tried to address the apparent issues with the article but these IP regularly revert back. I have tried to explain the problems on the talk but to no avail. Can someone please take a look whether this article in current shape adheres to NPOV, specially the last section titled "The Flag-bearer - BBC". --SMS ^Talk 17:01, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• Would like to note here that the version I suggest is this. --SMS ^Talk 15:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Grammarly

This article was apparently created by searching for "Grammarly" and using all results regardless of the quality of the source or the appropriateness for use in an encyclopedia article on the subject. While we've made some progress in previous discussions, there are still many NPOV and related (WP:NOT, WP:RS, WP:PSTS) problems.

A detailed breakdown of all the remaining problems is here. I'm recommending this version. The talk page is covered with previous attempts at addressing the concerns. --Ronz (talk) 16:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• Contrary to Ronz's assertion, the Grammarly article was well researched, properly sourced and written in neutral tone with proper referencing, complying with WP:NOT, WP:RS, WP:PSTS and WP:REF. The current revision as of 16:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC) and made by Ronz himself is OK for keep. A look at the talk page and the history showing the many times that Ronz had to undo himself makes it look as if he is using this article as a 'testing ground' or trying to suit an ego. May be he has never had his contributions challenged before or he is facing a substantial dispute for the first time, because I have asked him several times to wait for third-parties to clean-up whatever mess that he claimed there are in the Grammarly article, but he would not, he rather keep pushing his own side of the argument by removing disputed contents. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 10:16, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

  As editors can see from the above, there are WP:FOC and WP:OWN problems as well. --Ronz (talk) 16:44, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

A couple examples:

• The article includes, "In October 2012, it was reported that Grammarly has some 300,000-plus Facebook likes."
• The article includes a list of clients in a section titled "Use by educational institutions" whose content is sourced only by press from those institutions with the content, "Multiple universities, including University of Saskatchewan,[20] University of Queensland,[21] KDU University College,[22] Henderson State University,[23] Arkansas State University,[24] Radford University,[25] International Christian University,[26] Walden University[27] and DeVry University[28] license Grammarly for use by their students." --Ronz (talk) 16:26, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Not cool. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:51, October 10, 2013 (UTC)

We're making progress. Currently disputed are: --Ronz (talk) 15:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Grammarly Inc. collaborated with The New York Times,[12] AARP The Magazine and other organizations to celebrate the National Day on Writing in 2012.[5][undue weight? – discuss]

Grammarly was also nominated in April 2013 for Best Web Services & Applications in the 17th Annual Webby Awards, coming third place among five finalists.[15][16]

If a source says contributions to "organizations that fan the flames of Islamophobia" can we say " philanthropy to organizations opposing islamization "

At Nina Rosenwald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) an editor changed a sentence in the lead which read "Since 2000, Rosenwald and her sister, Elizabeth Varet, have donated over $2.8 million to "organizations that fan the flames of Islamophobia." to one that read "Since 2000, Rosenwald and her sister, Elizabeth Varet, have donated over $2.8 million to organizations that are staunchly pro-Israel." I revised this and objected on the talk page. The same editor has changed it so that it now reads "Rosenwald's philanthropy to organizations opposing islamization has led her detractors to label her as "anti-Muslim" and "islamophobic"". The source[1] doesn't say 'opposing islamization' and 'islamization' is in fact an extremely pov word often used by anti-Muslims, so clearly not appropriate here.

In addition, an new section has been created, "Critics of philanthropy". That's clearly a pov section heading, the criticism is that she funds anti-Muslim groups, and using 'philanthropy' to mean funding anti-Muslim groups is not exactly NPOV. The text has gone from one pov statement - " Commentators have criticized Rosenwald for her support of pro-Israel organizations"(which is the editor translating 'anti-Muslim' to 'pro-Israel' to another statement that repeats the bit about "organizations opposing islamization". Again, this is misrepresenting the source (same source) in a pov manner. Dougweller (talk) 20:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Using The American Muslim as a critic is extremely bias, so it's really not suitable to be in the lead of the article, unless it's been covered by some third party sources.--Loomspicker (talk) 21:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The section in question was sourced to The Nation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

And in answer to the second question, it is self-evidently a violation of NPOV policy to describe support for contentious political organisations as 'philanthropy'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Max Blumenthal in The Nation quotes the Center for American Progress saying her family has "donated more than $2.8 million since 2000 to “organizations that fan the flames of Islamophobia.”[2] We cannot describe donations to political groups as "philanthropy." I see nothing wrong with calling these groups "anti-Islamism", that is their stated position. They oppose "Islamism". An article in FrontPageMag, which is run by David Horowitz, who is a recipient of the donations, is called "None Dare Call it Islamism".[3] Apparently she also funds pro-Israel groups, which should not be described as "anti-Islamist", and her father supported the United Jewish Appeal, which is correctly described in the article as philanthropy. TFD (talk) 21:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

"Their stated position" clues us in to the problem here: that's the non-neutral language used by the groups and people who promote them. It also obscures the entire effect of the sources: no one is criticizing her for supporting anti-Islamist organizations, but for supporting anti-Muslim organizations. (An analogy: to be sure, the Know-Nothings opposed a Catholic takeover of the United States. Because they were bigoted against Catholics generally, not because such a takeover was imminent, and to whitewash their anti-Catholicism as legitimate opposition to a takeover is ridiculous.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

While self-proclomations can't be taken at face value, neither should the partisan opinions of her opponents. Both should be in the criticism or controversy section. The lead should be factual without editorial, sourced or otherwise. Jason from nyc (talk) 01:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

You misunderstand what a Wikipedia lead is meant to do. Many people only read the lead, so the lead "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." Dougweller (talk) 11:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it is WP:OR for us to decide which donations to which organizations are philanthropy or not. Philanthropy is for the love of humanity. Blumenthal's family is certainly doing it for what they perceive as the benefit of humanity. We may disagree with her interpretation thereof, but that is opinion, just as we may disagree with the goals or methods of any charity or non-profit. Further, the meaning of the word has morphed over time to generally cover endowments, trusts and other donations, or involvement with non-profits. . There is no question that these are in fact endowments and trusts. from or own philanthropy article "By the early 21st century the word "nonprofit" was generally accepted as synonymous with philanthropy". These are non profits. That said, consensus may certainly determine what wording to use that is supported by the sources - but there is no policy based reason against using that term. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

"it is WP:OR for us to decide which donations to which organizations are philanthropy or not". Yup - so we don't describe it as such without sources... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The section that was titled critics of her philanthropy was changed to 'critics of her largesse', I've just changed it to criticism. The criticism isn't of the fact that she is donating money, it is about the organisations that she is choosing to get the money. Dougweller (talk) 05:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The reason that section is titled "Critics" is because it tells us much more about Sheila M and The Nation than it does about Nina R. (lol). --72.66.30.115 (talk) 06:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

And this sort of comment by the IP, "(we're not permitted to call donations to organizations lefties don't approve of, "philanthropy"" smacks of a personal attack and is certainly not the type of content that should be in an edit summary. Dougweller (talk) 05:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that comma after "of" does look a bit off, doesn't it? Bad form on my part, I suppose. --72.66.30.115 (talk) 06:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Monkey wrench (spanner)

Pursuant to Dougweller's concerns, I've been looking at the report that Max Blumenthal used from the Center for American Progress, called "Fear, Inc.". A couple things: 1) the quoted phrase "organizations that fan the flames of Islamophobia" does not occur in "Fear, Inc." at all, let alone in relation to the Rosenwalds. The closest thing to it is on page 94, "Yet MEMRI’s selective translations of Arab media fan the flames of Islamophobia." AFAICT, the "Fear, Inc." report does not link MEMRI with Rosenwald largesse. 2) Nina Rosenwald is not mentioned in the "Fear, Inc." report. --72.66.30.115 (talk) 02:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Although she isn't mentioned, two of her family funds are, and she is one of the people controlling them. "“the Anchorage Charitable Fund and William Rosenwald Family Fund contributed $2,818,229 to Islamophobic organizations,” including more than $2.3 million to ]Daniel Pipes]’ Middle East Forum. Other beneficiaries flagged in the report included Frank Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy, the Clarion Fund, the David Horowitz Freedom Center, and Zuhdi Jasser’s American Islamic Forum for Democracy". Dougweller (talk) 05:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I've been very flexible and made practically every change you've recommended and still you're not happy. --72.66.30.115 (talk) 06:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Hardly flexible and definitely not made practically every change I recommended. Dougweller (talk) 11:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

It's probable that the opening quote mark in the Blumenthal article was misplaced and should have read

Rosenwald and her sister Elizabeth Varet, who also directs the family foundation, have donated more than $2.8 million since 2000 to organizations that "fan the flames of Islamophobia."

While this may be a mistake on the part of the copyeditors at The Nation, it doesn't change the sense of the quote for our purposes, so it's not a problem for us. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Gaijin42, by your definition Bin Laden was a philanthropist - he gave away money for what he saw as a good cause. Roscelese, I suppose the more correct term would be "Islamophobic", but my reading of WP:LABEL suggests we not use it. Even though the term "anti-Islamist" is what they call themselves, I do not see it as a problem. The term "anti-Communist" for example could imply that they were the only ones opposing Communism, but the term itself implies an extreme form of opposition. TFD (talk) 07:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understood the substance of my objection. The problem isn't that these organizations are the "only ones" opposing Islamism, but that their opposition to Islam is, to all evidence and to the substance of the criticism, just part of a larger project of opposing Islam and Muslims generally. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The lead section should not be written with quotes from those of the opposite side of the political spectrum, i.e. the Nation. This is highly inflammatory and partisan. It should be generic "supports conservative causes" with controversy within the article if we aspire to being an encyclopedia and not a tabloid.. A good example of an encyclopedia-type lead is in the George Soros article: "Soros is a well-known supporter of progressive-liberal political causes." It would cheapen the article if we put "Radical anti-American billionaire George Soros is a major backer of a left-wing group that is funneling money to the Occupy Wall Street movement" from the right-wing and venerable conservative journal Human Events [4]. Let's take the high road. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Keeping controversy out of the lead is against our guidelines. "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies". Dougweller (talk) 15:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC) (signing later than I wrote this)

Prominent is the operative word. This is partisan. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia not an activist vehicle to rally the troops. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

You seem to believe that prominent and partisan are mutually exclusive, but they aren't. If criticism of her donations to bigoted groups has got that much attention, it belongs in the lede, because the lede reflects the body and the body reflects the weight given in reliable sources. (Note: I have not read the article, I'm just responding to your fallacy.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm reading prominent in a general sense of widely respected, not merely widely known nor widely respected in partisan quarters. I'm hoping we'd all respond to the aspirations of general scholarship and not partisan attacks. Although I personally believe partisan criticism has a place within the articles along with a reply from the subject or her supporters. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I don't think that's what the policy is trying to say. Not "criticism from respected sources may be included," but "noteworthy criticism may be included." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

"Prominent" has nothing to do with respect, only being well-known. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Heads-up: the problem isn't over

We still have IP 72 claiming that Rosenwald focuses on "supporting human rights and democracy around the world" while trying his or her very hardest to downplay all reliably sourced negative material (refusing, for instance, to attribute a newspaper's words to that newspaper and instead naming the author, perhaps with the hope that a casual reader will assume the writer is a polemicist instead of a journalist). Please continue to keep an eye on this article; whether a financial conflict of interest or simply a user with an ax to grind, WP is being exploited here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:14, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

You can call me Mr. IP 72, Roscelese, and you're right about the problem not being over—you're still here! 1) It's not me claiming that Nina R focuses on "supporting human rights and democracy around the world", that language is from the Gatestone website. If she is spending her time and money supporting organizations working to prevent the imposition of sharia law on the world, then she is in fact "supporting human rights and democracy around the world". 2) There's no requirement that negative material be included in a BLP—look at Barack Obama, a featured article. There's nothing negative at all in its lead. 3) Huh? Max Blumenthal should get full credit for his hit piece. But, as Dougweller pointed out, we can't blame Max for the article title or subtitle because those were written by some anonymous editor trying to increase sales/views by being inflammatory, so we credit The Nation. 4) Admins, please continue to keep an eye on Roscelese's edits; whether a) don't make me laugh or b) pot, meet kettle, your good faith is being exploited here. (But don't just watch, do something about it). --72.66.30.115 (talk) 03:03, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Matilda the Musical

This article's Reception section consists of a statement that almost all the reviews of this musical theatre production have been raves, followed by 17 pull-quotes of rave reviews for various productions. That isn't a "critical reception" section of an encyclopedia article, that's marketing. I removed the quotes as violating WP:PROMO and WP:QUOTEFARM, but another editor edit-warred to restore them. Since such unrelenting postivity concerning the show (which I haven't seen, but which I'm sure is just fine) cannot possibly be allowed under the WP:NPOV policy, I'd like editors from here to take a look. It seems to me that material that violates three different policies should be removed, but the editor who restored them (who seems to have ownership issues with the article) insists that because they are referenced, which they are, they must stay until someone writes a balanced Reception section. I disagree - they should be removed and the writing of that section can start from scratch. As long as that extensive list of positive quotes is in the article, there is no impetus for anyone, especially a fan of the show, to write a policy-compliant section. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's possible that reviews have been overwhemingly positive. It shouldn't be difficult to find evidence otherwise if it's not the case. Simply removing reviews and blanking the section does not seem an appropriate response. Paul B (talk) 10:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

However the current section is somewhat over the top: I see no reason to include in the article verbatim quotes from every review under the sun. Trimming the section down to the opening sentence plus a slightly trimmed pile of references (perhaps with quotes in the references?) might be the way to go. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

It should be noticed that user Beyond My Ken is now Forum shopping. He has posted on the article talk page, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musical Theatre and now here all within a few hours. He has already been advised that blanking wasn't the correct option by me and now two others. He should of converted into prose but as he has commented at Talk Musical Theatre he has no interest in doing so. User:Ssilvers has offered to do it if no one else is interested in doing so. A reception section is always included in these articles and the correct route would be to tag and allow an edior who has an interest in verifiability to do so. What User:Beyond My Ken is deliberately forgetting to say is when he removed he left one line stub with no sources making claims such as all received positive reviews, which is even worse than what we have. It should be noted it was he who started edit warring as was invited in first revert to take to talk page, he failed to do so initially but has now decided that Forum Shopping is the way to go.Blethering Scot 19:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Jonathan A Jones that would be against the MOS as a critical review section featuring Quotes, including positive or negative is needed. The included sources or others which there are many more reliable ones should be converted into prose as is always done rather than simply blanking or a one line stub that doesn't cover the varying productions. Someone has offered to do so which wouldn't of been needed if Beyond My Ken had put as much work into fixing rather than spending all that time forum shopping. The tags added less than 24 hours ago are more than appropriate until this has been completed.Blethering Scot 19:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you referring to MOS:FILM? This specifically refers to quoting "a reasonable balance of these reviews", not the huge number currently used. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Matilda the musical is not a film and as such has varying productions. It has already started being converted into prose by SSlivers from the relevant WikiProject and their is a balance. I wasn't in any way suggesting it remain as is only converted into what it should be which is essentially a balance of reviews not a one line stub that praises without adequate backup. Eithier way Forum Shopping isn't clever. Especially when you haven't given anyone reasonable time to reply at the previous two discussion sites. Blethering Scot 07:43, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Revert war over NPOV warning tag at Federal Assault Weapons Ban article.

Today, within 81 minutes, my NPOV warning tag at the article Federal Assault Weapons Ban was reverted. I would appreciate a third opinion. Am I being unreasonable to think that my opinion of a NPOV violation involved in an difficult ongoing discussion on the article talk page deserves a warning tag in the article space? I am of the opinion that the NPOV tag is a good thing in that it alerts readers of the article to the ongoing NPOV discussion on the talk page. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 16:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Where are the specific NPOV concerns presented? --Ronz (talk) 17:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The specific problem is systemic editor bias, going on for at least five years seen commonly in Wikipedia on contentious issues is the human nature of editors of one personal point of view being disproportionately drawn to edit articles personally interesting to them. In this case editors with a personal interest in the topic of 'pro-gun' politics are drawn to a 'gun politics' article. (Largely this is subconscious.) This systemic editor bias problem is made worse by the dominance of male editors versus female editors in among Wikipedia volunteers, with US males disproportionately favoring 'pro-gun' politics. I have found it very difficult editing in that environment, with my attempts to get specific being met with hostility, and personal character attacks. I have failed to resist the temptation to rise to that bait which has served the purpose of getting me topic banned. One very specific problem in the article is the non-neutral 'framing' of the topic as being about itemized firearm features as outlined in that piece of legislation being politically characterized as mere cosmetics. The implication being that the features in the legislation are not important distinctions. This topic framing has been advanced by the 'pro-gun' politics involved. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 18:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Please see the talk page. We asked Salty to give some specific examples of the alleged "POV" problems, and they refused to do so while barraging us with more general accusations and insults. A part of why they were subsequently topic banned. North8000 (talk) 18:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Attempting to discuss the effects of systemic editor bias at Wikipedia is not an insult. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 18:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

There was no 'attempt[] to discuss' these matters. I encourage uninvolved editors to review the "discussion" and saltyboatr's unwillingness to collaborate - instead, a singular display of "I'm right, and you're all against me". Further strongly recommend review of editor saltyboatr's actual edits to the article in that interval - the inclusion of over the top biased, POV wording, accompanied by zero supportive evidence - followed by a WP:BLUE edit that was so obviously intended to be disruptive, it alone was reasonable grounds for the topic ban. Anastrophe (talk) 15:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

This was discussed pretty thoroughly over the last few days at wp:ani. SaltyBoatr, Talk:Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban and at the talk page of the article. North8000 (talk) 18:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

"The specific problem is systemic editor bias" If that's the case, then NPOVN is not the right venue for resolving the problems. --Ronz (talk) 22:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Water Fluoridation

The water fluoridation article is written as if water fluoridation is not a controversial topic. It's tone is to present as fact the benefits of water fluoridation, without giving weight to contradictory studies. Campoftheamericas (talk) 19:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The article is a featured article that has been vetted by many different editors. If a top-tier medical journal (e.g. JAMA, Lancet, etc.) published studies questioning its safety, then there would be room for contradictory views. Andrew³²⁷ 19:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

"is written as if water fluoridation is not a controversial topic." That's simply not the case. The lede contains the sentence, "It is controversial,[21] and opposition to it has been based on ethical, legal, safety, and efficacy grounds." The Water_fluoridation#Ethics_and_politics goes into considerable detail, and is headed with a link to Water fluoridation controversy.

Are there other NPOV concerns? --Ronz (talk) 22:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. The article was carefully and fairly drafted, mostly by Eubulides. II | (t - c) 02:58, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

religious views of Albert Einstein

The lede of the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_Einstein is reverting between-

Albert Einstein's religious views have been studied extensively. He called himself an agnostic, while disassociating himself from the label atheist, preferring, he said, "an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."[1]

and

Albert Einstein's religious views have been studied extensively. He said he believed in the "pantheistic" God of Baruch Spinoza, but not in a personal god, a belief he criticized. He also called himself an agnostic, while disassociating himself from the label atheist, preferring, he said, "an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."[1]

Einstein said once in a single letter that he was pantheist. People with pantheist pushing agenda are keen on keeping this in the lede, even though it's such a minor part of his religious views. 149.254.56.143 (talk) 21:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC) What do you recommend? I'm happy for that comment to be in the body, and to be more prominent than it currently is in the body. But it feels "too strong" to be in the lede. 149.254.56.143 (talk) 21:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Please be clear that your edit without attempt at consensus was reverted and you are now engaging in edit warring. In any case...

The source is not a "letter". It was his own published material (republished on his 50th birthday also) calling his own conception of God "pantheistic" (as opposed to theistic). Scholars often go much further and simply describe him as a "pantheist" (which is not stated in the lede). "Pantheistic" is one of only a small handful of labels he ascribed to his own beliefs and probably the most specific label. It specifies what Einstein means when he uses the word "God" - a crucial understanding of Einstein's belief and use of the word God. NaturaNaturans (talk) 22:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I *entirely* agree with the comments presented by NaturaNaturans above - the comments represent my understanding of the issue at the moment as well - hope this helps in some way - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

NaturaNaturans makes the accusation of edit-warring; ignoring the wikipedia recommendation of BRD. NaturaNaturans is clearly here to push the POV of "pantheism", and inserts this claim into very many articles. Here the claim is too strong for the lede, having a single weak reference. I welcome an independent view point. 149.254.56.220 (talk) 19:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Biography of young Turk leaders

Parts of the biography of two Young Turk leaders, Nazım Bey and Mehmed Reshid, is being removed by HouseOfArtaxiad and MarshallBagramyan.[5] [6] Can someone restore the info back?

There is a misunderstanding, I had added the following information based on a study on the Armenian genocide by Ugur Ungor, a Dutch scholar from Kurdish ancestry who is one of the leading researchers on the Armenian Genocide. He is not a Turk or a denialist but a promoter of the Genocide. Other authors relate a similar story to what I added and it is not anti Armenian at all. Both of these persons, Nazım Bey and Mehmed Reshid, were related to the Armenian Genocide, the older versions of their articles were dominated by their role in the genocide with few personal information about them or their motives. It was a very black white presentation. Important aspects of their biography were missing. Such as that they were both Muslims expelled from their homeland by Christian armies. Reshid descended from an ethnically cleansed (Ethnic cleansing of Circassians) Circassian family by the Russians. There is a relevant relation between his family history and his fear to be again ethnically cleansed by the invading Russians and the Ottoman Armenians whom he considered to be Russian allies. Nazım was a succesful resident of Thessaloniki but was imprisoned and maltreated in a Greek prison during his towns capture in the Balkan Wars. After his release he became a radical Christian hating Turkish nationalist. Ofcourse these earlier events do not mean these persons were justified to commit genocide on the Armenians or anyone, this was only added as an explanation for their personal motives and early family history.

• Plz see here the edit for Nazım Bey.[7] His early biography, his family life in his home town, his prisonment in a Greek jail and the resulting personal vengeance is being removed.

HouseOfArtaxiad was reverted when he first removed the text but in his second deletion gave the following (wrong and WP:OR) reasons:

"The same Turk author also wrote justifications for Mehmed Reshid's psychopathic tendencies. It's clear he is just trying to justify mass murders. If either of them were mentally scarred, they should be the ones to write about it, not someone else.)"

Declaring an author unreliable because of his ethnicity seems racist, btw he is Kurdish, he is not trying to justify but explains their motives, demanding that Nazim and Reshid should write about their personal problems is WP:OR

• See here for Mehmed Reshid. [8] His probably vengeance motives were first removed, later he removed that his family descended from ethnically cleansed Circassians by doing WP:OR. His explanation:

"His family could not have moved there in the 1860s if he himself was born in 1873. Some minor fixes"

Ungor's source states that he was born in the Caucasus to a Circassian family who moved to the Ottoman empire. [9],[10]

Ungor is a reliable academic source and is used on many wiki articles. Some of his sentences regarding Nazim and Reshid have been removed by because they probably give a less vilified personality. The problems is that these persons are being demonized by selective info. I do not think anyone but an admin has the ability to convince HouseOfArtaxiad and MarshallBagramyan so pardon me for not beginning an edit war.

Here is the original online page of Ungor's book regarding Nazim. [11] and here regarding Reshid [12] Thank you for your time. Fatbob5 (talk) 16:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem, as it relates to the Mehmed Reshid article, is that Umit Ungor contradicts himself. I have to say I'm baffled by the quote FatBob scrounged up on page 106 when on page 61 of the same book Ungor says, "Reshid was born into a Circassian family in Russian Caucasia on 8 February 1973. When the Tsarist government intensified its campaign against the Circassians in 1874, his family fled to the Ottoman Empire." I take this to be the more accurate statement but, still, it's an obvious, glaring contradiction.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

There is no contradiction, page 61 says "Reshid was born into a Circassian family in Russian Caucasia on 8 February 1873. When the Tsarist government intensified its campaign against the Circassians in 1874 his family fled to the Ottoman Empire" and page 106 says "..was born in the Caucasus but his family had to flee the onslaught of the Tsarist Russian army in the 1860s." One page gices an exact date the other not. The point is that he was descended from ethnically cleansed Circassians, this was an important motivation (revenge, fear) to explain his role in the Armenian Genocide and this is deleted from the article. Fatbob5 (talk) 09:04, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Abu Zubaydah article violates Wikipedia NPOV criterion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abu_Zubaydah for the Talk discusssion.

My comments and the comments of others suggest that it is unlikely that anyone would dispute that this article is exceedingly biased. This is discussed in great detail in the talk page link given above. It is my sincere desire that, if this article cannot be deleted, then at the very least it should have a NPOV banner added to it to warn the unsuspecting reader that this is a very biased presentation of the circumstances surrounding the case of Abu Zabaydah and GITMO in general. Detailing all the problems would take pages. Suffice to say, for NPOV banner purposes, that it should not take long to discern the article is severely biased, makes numerous assertions that would be difficult to substantiate under any circumstances (such as someone's state of mind), and presents a number of conclusions that are not apparently warranted by the cited data. Based on other articles I've seen in Wikipedia with NPOV banners, this article would seem to be an appropriate candidate for such a banner. Edward Carr Franks, PhD 19:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edfranks (talk • contribs)

Talk:Jim DeMint

I am of the opinion that someone from the Heritage Foundation is requesting that non-neutral text at Talk:Jim DeMint be considered for inclusion into the encyclopedia. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 07:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

What's the non-NPOV addition that they're proposing? I glanced at the talk page and there is indeed someone claiming to work at the Heritage Foundation (not necessarily a COI) but they were just proposing some fairly mundane early-life bio details. But, I just skimmed it so I might have missed something. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Scare quotes for 'Islamophobic'?

At Nina Rosenwald an editor has added scare quotes to the word 'Islamophobic', stating that "re-wrote sentence to remove its tautological ring; "islamophobia" needs to stay in quotes to show Wikipedia recognizes it is a politically loaded term, vague, controversial and deprecated (by the AP)." I'd already objected to scarequotes on the talk page and another editor had removed them, but since then the scare quotes were replaced for this particular word. I'm not at all convinced that it is NPOV to select words in this way for scare quotes in order to show how Wikipedia feels about the word. Dougweller (talk) 20:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

"Islamophobia" (or its derivatives) needs to stay in quotes to show Wikipedia recognizes that it is a politically loaded term, used by only one side in the debate who usually use the word (or its derivatives) to slur their opponents and stifle debate. It is vague, controversial and deprecated (by the Associated Press). It's also as phony as a three dollar bill—there is no such mental condition as an irrational fear of Islam. --72.66.30.115 (talk) 22:19, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for that last bit? bobrayner (talk) 23:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I did a quick look at DSM-IV-TR (2000) on GoogleBooks: a search for "phobia" returned 56 pages, a search for "islamophobia" returned 0 pages. (I recognize this is, at best, partial evidence of its non-existence.) --72.66.30.115 (talk) 17:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, almost every claim in that comment was false or fallacious. The word is used in mainstream news and scholarly publications to mean hatred of Muslims. "It's not a real mental condition!" is a typical cry of the sort of person who wants to claim that Islamophobia paradoxically a) is nonexistent and b) is justified. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:22, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

The IP is being pretty clear in announcing their pov - "there is no such mental condition as an irrational fear of Islam" means "fear of Islam is rational". Their edits suggest that he is trying to push that view in our articles, which is unacceptable. Dougweller (talk) 06:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

And on further consideration, what would we think about an editor who said "there is no such mental condition as an irrational fear of Judaism"? Would we see them able to edit appropriately on articles relevant to Jews? Dougweller (talk) 07:59, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikilink the first instance of Islamophobia and call it a day. No scare quotes. Binksternet (talk) 00:15, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Don't call them SCARE quotes, as is the case with most English speakers outside the US, and half the problem goes away. As "quote marks" they emphasise that it's a word not written in the voice of Wikipedia, but commonly used by some. HiLo48 (talk) 00:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Not me calling them scarequotes, but Wikipedia. We've got WP:SCAREQUOTES besides our article on them. Dougweller (talk) 06:03, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Must be our systemic bias on display. I'd never heard of scare quotes before using Wikipedia, and you have to admit, it's not a very sensible name. They're used for far more than scaring people. HiLo48 (talk) 07:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Me neither, English is not my first language but I have never come across this expression. AadaamS (talk) 12:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

There is no justification whatsoever for quotes, regardless of what we call them. It is a well-documented term widely used in academia and elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

To say that it "needs to stay in quotes to show Wikipedia recognizes that it is a politically loaded term" is to express an opinion that it is a "politically loaded term." While "scare quotes" may be an Americanism, the use of quotes implies that the description is questionable. For example, if we write "Americans speak "English"", it implies that possibly their language may not be real English. TFD (talk) 03:15, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

We all have opinions. Here's the AP's, from Politico: 11/26/12 3:16 PM EST "The Associated Press has nixed "homophobia," "ethnic cleansing," and a number of other terms from its Style Book in recent months. The online Style Book now says that "-phobia," "an irrational, uncontrollable fear, often a form of mental illness" should not be used "in political or social contexts," including "homophobia" and "Islamophobia."" [13].

And here's Salman Rushdie's: "A new word had been created to help the blind remain blind: Islamophobia. To criticize the militant stridency of this religion in its contemporary incarnation was to be a bigot. A phobic person was extreme and irrational in his views, and so the fault lay with such persons and not with the belief system that boasted over one billion followers worldwide. One billion believers could not be wrong, therefore the critics must be the ones foaming at the mouth... 'Islamophobia' was an addition to the vocabulary of Humpty Dumpty Newspeak. It took the language of analysis, reason and dispute, and stood it on its head." [14]. --72.66.30.115 (talk) 07:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• I'm new to the issue. The article contains solid sourcing for its claim that people have accused the Gatestone Institute of being Islamophobic: an article in the Nation by Max Blumenthal. That article contains a factual mention (including direct quotes from other publications) that others have called the institute Islamophobic. On the other hand, there is no reliable source in the article that people have called Rosenwald herself Islamophobic. Unless a reliable source is added that part of the statement should be removed at once on BLP grounds. Whether to use square quotes? The answer hinges on whether that's the prevailing accepted term for anti-Muslim bigotry. Is it or not? If not, what is the best term? That's not a neutrality question, rather a practical question of wording and tone. The article links "Anti-Muslim" as a pipe to Persecution of Muslims, a different subject. Some prejudices are commonly referred to as phobias even though the term is clearly incorrect or misses the point, e.g. homophobia (the issue is not that people are afraid of gays, but that they are anti-gay). Other prejudices are referred to as "anti-" or "mis-" (e.g. Misogyny). We should use the most straightforward, common word, certainly in the article lede, for making the factual assertion. In the body, if it is important to point out that people used a more charged word or neologism, as opposed to the basic one, then that can be used along with proper sourcing. That probably should carry quotes, not necessarily scare quotes. Rather, quotation quotes, because we're quoting something a source says. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:51, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

As for Nina Rosenwald, the source for that might be [15] but that should only be used to call her anti-Muslim, not Islamophobic. Part of the problem has been the many changes in wording - at one point the article said, for instance, "Rosenwald's philanthropy to organizations opposing Islamization has led her detractors to label her as "anti-Muslim" and "islamophobic"." "opposing Islamization" was added by the IP and had no basis in any source, it was simply a pov statement by the IP. An earlier version by the IP was "Rosenwald's philanthropy led an American magazine to label her "The Sugar Mama of Anti-Muslim Hate" in 2012." Again, that obviously didn't represent the source which was criticising where she gave her money, not just being philanthropic. We also had a section heading which read "Critics of her philanthropy" and then "Critics of her largesse" - that change was made by the IP with the edit summary "we're not permitted to call donations to organizations lefties don't approve of, "philanthropy". I would be happy with just 'anti-Muslim'. No quotation marks and we certainly do not need a link, it's hard to understand the term. We could have the quote "Rosenwald’s wealth has fueled a rapidly emerging alliance between the pro-Israel mainstream and the Islamophobic fringe"[16] in the article. So far as I can see, it was the IP who added 'Islamophobic' to the article with [17]. In any case, let's drop the term as a label for her although I can see no reason not to use it appropriately for Gatestone. Dougweller (talk) 08:57, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Doug, if you'd look a little closer at the diff you provided, you'd see that "Islamophobia" is there in the left hand column, i.e. before my edit. --72.66.30.115 (talk) 17:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

And, imho, "organizations opposing islamization" is more neutral (and elegant) than "organizations described as fanning " the flames of Islamophobia.” "Opposing islamization" was just my attempt to generalize about the organizations although the phrase is not explicit in the sources (like Nina Rosenwald's name is not explicit in "Fear, Inc."). --72.66.30.115 (talk) 17:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't have sources for this but I see the word islamophobia used in two contexts:

• the correct one, where discrimination against muslims is meant.
• the incorrect one, where critics against islamism, islam or sharia laws from a humanitarian, atheist, pacifist or democratic point of view are labelled islamophobic instead of responding to criticism with counter-arguments. Thereby implying that the critics suffer from a mental illness, an ad hominem attack.

So I think the latter should be "islamophobia" and the former islamophobia, in same sense of the quote "freedom from discrimination protects humans, not ideologies or ideas". AadaamS (talk) 12:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

As editors we can't make such decisions. I don't understand the bit about mental illness. Dougweller (talk) 14:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

As editors we can do the same thing the editors at AP are doing: stop using phony words like "islamophobia" and "homophobia", words designed and used to create heat but no light. --72.66.30.115 (talk) 17:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Phobia is a type of anxiety disorder. The term itself is disputed, of course we can make decisions about how Wikipedia uses the term or at least discuss our usage of this word. AadaamS (talk) 23:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

See etymological fallacy. It is quite clear that Islamophobia is not an 'anxiety disorder' - and nor is it a 'phoney word'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

So if the term is completely uncontroversial and accepted and is never used in the pejorative sense, maybe the section Islamophobia#Criticism_of_concept_and_use should be deleted from the Islamophobia article? AadaamS (talk) 09:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

What is clear, Andy, is that "Islamophobia" appears to name a phobia but there's no such phobia—that's why the word is phony. It is most often used as a pejorative and is very controversial. An encyclopedia would be wise to avoid using the word without clearly marking it as controverted. --72.66.30.115 (talk) 18:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

What is clear, 72.66.30.115, is that you haven't read the article etymological fallacy that I linked above. And cut out the crap about words being 'phony' - it is self-evident from your editing history that your sole purpose in editing Wikipedia is to promote Nina Rosenwald, using every phony argument in the book. It doesn't work... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::::::Andy is right. There's a fallacy here in assuming that Islamophobia is some sort of psychological phobia. That's akin to the argument "I can't be anti-Semitic, some of my best friends are Arabs". It isn't a phony word. Phobia in fact is defined as "an extreme or irrational fear" in my OED, not as an anxiety disorder. But you've been told that already. The word 'anti-Semitic' is also pejorative and for some people controversial, as is 'racism', etc. But we should not be using scare quotes for them either. Dougweller (talk) 18:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

As a psychologist I dislike the term. Yeah phobias are anxiety disorders, and they are irrational fears, but, this term (Islamaphobia) has taken on a meaning that has been used many times in secondary sources. I see no need for quotes around it. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Another labeling question

Or maybe not labeling, but we have " Media and organizations self-described as leftist, progressive or Muslim, including The Nation, the Center for American Progress, and The American Muslim, have categorized her and the Gatestone Institute as anti-Muslim and "Islamophobic". The 'self-described' bit was added by the IP, and it leaves the reader unclear about which was self-described as what. If you read it in order it's technically accurate, but is it acceptable? Dougweller (talk) 09:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I removed that without seeing your objection. It is self-evidently not neutral. Secondly, the view of Max Blumenthal is attributed to The Nation, which is then described as 'leftist' or 'progressive', which is unconscionable, in that it attempts to undercut the notice of criticism by . I think one should just mention she has been criticized in the lead, and in the Criticism section put the relevant detail from Blumenthal and others.Nishidani (talk) 13:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

It is accurate that The Nation calls itself "the flagship of the Left", the Center for American Progress calls itself progressive, while The American Muslim describes itself as Muslim, hence it is not labelling. When reporting opinions from these sources, that information may be useful. For example, "The left-wing magazine The Nation opposed the war in Iraq." In this case, however, the descriptions are used in order to cast doubt on the information in the publications, the implication being that other reliable sources would report differently. If that is true then sources are needed that say that. Incidentally, "leftist" is normally pejorative and should be avoided, the neutral term is "left-wing." TFD (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

TFD, you almost got it right. You said "When reporting opinions from these sources, that information may be useful." But then in the next breath you forget that it is the opinion of these sources that the organizations supported by Nina Rosenwald are anti-Muslim, and that is a very controversial opinion that the reader should be alerted to, somehow. --72.66.30.115 (talk) 17:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

To introduce a self-descriptor into every reference using The Nation, or The New York Times ('liberal' etc.etc.) is obviously bad practice. It translates out as a policy suggesting that everytime any news organization is presented on wiki, it must be qualified, which however no one does routinely. To repeat, one attributes to journalists, Max Blumenthal is not 'The Nation' etc. One uses descriptors when reliable secondary sources, in reporting something, explicitly identify the source as 'leftist' 'Muslim' etc.('According to the leftish newspaper The Nation, Nina Rosenwald . .'.(sourced to mainstream RS). It is not an editor's right to introduce these terms at will. 'Left-wing', 'leftist', even 'liberal' have strong negative connotations in American usage. Nishidani (talk) 19:15, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Windows 8

Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_8

Bias in opening paragraphs: Windows 8 is a complete joke of an operating system developed by Microsoft for use on personal computers... Windows 8 introduced stupid major changes to the operating system's platform...

Suggest removing all edits by user 81.129.178.84 who introduced the bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmhattingh (talk • contribs) 09:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Another IP removed the vandalism, I've dealt with some other related vandalism. Dougweller (talk) 09:50, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

This kind of vandalism should be removed immediately and the editor responsible for it given a warning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.75.111.162 (talk) 01:34, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

can an editor show a portion of the source (somehow contradicting) opinions?

1. the Diff page: [18]
2. previous discussion:[19]

summary:

• user:pluto2012 removed my tag: "Citation needed|reason=not balanced. provides partial info. Morris p.319 say also:"But if the other Arab armies did nothing, Israel would leave the West Bank alone"". I have attached this tag to a technically correct sentence "considering that Israel could never renounce its claim over Judea, Samaria"(as is appears in the source).
• However, this is a partial presentation only, since it leaves the impression that the Israeli leader David Ben Gurion planned to conquer the west bank ( Judea & Samaria) in any case, while the source says (in the same page) that the plan included Judea & Samaria occupation as a response to other Arab armies attack only.

my preferred solution: To add a phrase in order that the occupation was planned as a response to to other Arab armies attack only. (as said in the source in the same page).

note: If needed, I may quote the whole relevant page (Morris,2008, p.319 ) Ykantor (talk) 17:46, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

As usual and at different places on wikipedia (see here), Ykantor doesn't present the issue honnestly. It is obvious that no contributor could quote events partially. And in fact, it is what he does.

Just for the record but people need to read p. 317 to 319 of Benny Morris, 1948. A History of the First Arab-Israeli War to understand. In October '48, Israel was offered 3 military options regarding a next offensive but it had only the military ressources for 1. They could attack 1. Galilea, 2. Samaria/Judea or 3. Negev. Ben Gurion prefered the second one (because it would have given the control of the West Bank and of Old Jerusalem to Israel as soon as 1948) but his cabinet prefered the 3 rd one and rejected his choice. This is explained p.317 and p.318. On page 319, it is written that in the context of the choice that was made (option 3 - the attack of Negev), Ben Gurion said that if the Jordanian army would try to intervene, he would launch the option 2 as well but that he would not launch it if the Jordanian army would stay quiet.

Ykantor claims that in the context of the discussion regarding the choice between options 1, 2 and 3, Ben Gurion would have stated that he only wanted option 2 if the Jordanian army would attack, which is another to say that he would have rejected option 2 unless the Jordanian army would attack which is in contradiction with the context and even more in contradiction with the fact that he supported this attack and even stated after the choice of option 3 was made that the cabinet's decision would be "a cause a lamentation for generations".

And all in all, this is again a WP:POINT in his WP:BATTLEGROUND.

Pluto2012 (talk) 18:27, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe that the issue is accurately presented. Ykantor (talk) 18:43, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Bizarre GAN review

Hi, all. My GA nomination of Banjica concentration camp was just failed by User:PocklingtonDan due to this editor's claim that the article in question "focuses too much on the Jewish victims of the camp." Furthermore, the editor claims that some statements aren't sourced (on the contrary, every single statement in the article is sourced) and misrepresents some of what is said in the article in order to justify not promoting it. Kindly, if someone other than PocklingtonDan could please look at the article and the GA review. At present, it doesn't look like the user's review comments are talking about the same article as the one I nominated. I'm still not sure if this is some sort of troll attempt (note, the user's been on Wikipedia since '06) but it all seems very strange, almost like a GA review from the Twilight Zone. Can someone please check it out, the user appears to have some sort of anti-Jewish bias judging from the comments (statements that sources have a pro-Jewish "slant or agenda" , etc). Overall, I don't know what to think of this and if anyone can give any input on this I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks, 23 editor (talk) 20:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any signs you tried to discuss this with the editor. You might try that first to see if you can alleviate some of their concerns. Understandable that you don't like that the article failed, but you may be able to work with them to get it to a pass. Ravensfire (talk) 21:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I've contacted them, but for some reason I think their problem isn't with the content of the article but with performing GA reviews in general. I'll re-nominate it, hopefully with another editor reviewing it. 23 editor (talk) 21:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

They could be new to the GA process. Some of their comments I think could benefit from some discussion (firing range) but there were others that I did somewhat agree with (calling out the number of Jewish detained and no other breakdown is rather odd. Adding more groups to the breakdown would be informative). Take what you can from the review, hopefully you'll get some discussion going with the editor and end up with a better article at the end of the day. Ravensfire (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

It looks more like questionable behavior by PocklingtonDan. See related discussion at WT:Good_article_nominations#GA_Nomination_Spam. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:55, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Its only because of J. Johnson that I am notified that this discussion is going on. I failed your article's GA review on grounds of neutrality, and I still maintain that this was the correct decision. The sources in your article state that around 3% of the inmates were Jewish. Yet you focus on Jewish inmates throughout the article, and the makeup of the remaining 28,000 inmates is given far less treatment. The word "Jew" appears 21 times. The word "anti-fascist" appears 4 times. Yet 97% of the inmates were non-Jews (primarily fascists) according to your own sources. Your article is therefore showing multiple problems - lack of neutral point of view, synthesis - its just fundamentally flawed. You must follow the sources. I explained this quite clearly in your GA review. I have been a wikipedia editor since 2006, I work primarily on articles relating to ancient Rome and ancient history, I am not anti-Semitic and my edit history shows this. Frankly, it is outrageous that you accuse me of anti-Semitism. I simply refuse to treat this topic any differently than any other. I will not pussyfoot around it due to the subject's perceived sensitivity. The situation is simple - the sources do not support your focus of the article on Jewish suffering. 97% of inmates were non-Jewish, and they must be the focus of the article. Simple. I see that Ravensfire for one seems to appreciate what I was driving at. - PocklingtonDan (talk) 19:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

My discussion linked to by J. Johnson is in what way sign of "questionable behaviour"? I raised a point of order for discussion, *after* the GA review, that I feared that 23 editor was rushing too many articles through for GA nomination, and failing to bring each of them up to a good standard. This is a genuine concern (he had 6-7 articles for GA review in a week, and none of them were ready for GA in my opinion) -PocklingtonDan (talk) 19:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I should also note that I responded to the editor and advised them that I would happily re-review the article for them within 24-48 hours should they choose to re-submit it after addressing my concerns. I really don't see there is any issue here - PocklingtonDan (talk) 20:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I point out that this is the neutral point of view noticeboard. Discussion of your questioned behavior in doing several rapid-fire quick-fails is more appropriately done at the GA venue linked to. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:17, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

J. Johnson, if you didn't want to discuss it here, I would suggest that you probably shouldn't have brought it up. There was no mention of "questionable behaviour" (itself a character slander) before *you* mentioned it. I'm not going to let you essentially trash-talk my character on this page and not respond to it in-place, that would hardly be fair. You continue to expand discussion of it here by now claiming that I made "rapid-fire quick-fails". I did nothing of the sort, I made several article fails (3) over the course of several days, and each GA review I did took me several hours (as my edit history shows) and was very fully fleshed out and commented on, compared to the vast majority of GAs. Just because my several hours of review was done in one sitting rather than spread over the course of several days or weeks does not make it any less in-depth or rigorous, or imply that it is a rush job as your wording may suggest. Again, if you don't want to discuss this here, don't bring it up. If you want us not to discuss this here, feel free to remove my and your comments on this matter from this page. But if you leave your off-topic comments in-place, I am perfectly justified in responding to them in-place. Perhaps you would like to revert your comment stream on this matter, so that the thread here can get back on-topic without you leading us off into the bush... -PocklingtonDan (talk) 22:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• @23 editor: I just watch this page but if you all want the opinion of an uninvolved editor, I have to say that @PocklingtonDan:'s review is well-thought out, extensive in the explanation of the few issues there are with the content, and quite balanced. GA involves other experienced editors because they have a better grasp on how to balance an article (among other things) and I'd agree that the article is quite good, but still a bit POV-y around the edges with the emphasis on the Jewish aspect. Kudos to both of you, always AGF, and here's hoping that the issues can be resolved so GA is attained, and eventually even get it to FA. So there §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Banc De Binary

This is a "brokerage" operating out of a small country, which has been pretty universally excoriated as a scam operation. Nonetheless, eager editors have been adding and deleting content, some of it possibly original research and some of it certainly lacking in NPOV, so that the length swings by thousands of characters in a single edit; and a handful of editor keep trying to trim it back to look like this is just another busines, with dissatisfied customers and quibbling regulators. There's also what I see as a disquieting tendency to put undue emphasis on the Jewish connections of one of the firm's principals. Could we get a few new eyeballs here? --Orange Mike | Talk 13:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)