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 71.162.98.172 (talk) at 14:02, 1 November 2013. 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

    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)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]
      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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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]

    It appears that the creator of this article, and the person fighting against all the changes, may be a paid editor. Discussion here. --Ronz (talk) 16:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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. If "many scholars" call Einstein a pantheist it will be trivially easy to find reliable sources, in which case it can stay in the lede. I welcome an independent view point. 149.254.56.220 (talk) 19:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Civility, BRD, and edit warring are problems, but those are topics for other noticeboards. Putting those aside for the time being, I'm having trouble understanding the argument against saying he was a pantheist (and, if it's determined he was, then it certainly belongs in the lede of such an article). It doesn't sound like the integrity or reliability of the source is in question. The problem, if I'm reading correctly, is that Einstein only mentions his pantheism once and it isn't written about in a significant number of secondary sources? With that premise, it seems like the only reason it wouldn't be included would be if there are other sources saying he contradicted himself, changed his mind, or meant something different.
    In other words, if the reliability of his pantheism quote isn't in question, and as long as the quote, as a primary source, is only used to make "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge" (i.e. without editor analysis/interpretation -- see WP:PSTS), there would have to be a pretty compelling case, using other sources, against its inclusion. --Rhododendrites (talk) 16:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    Yes, I looked at it as well and agree with Loonymonkey. Seems quite tame. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I am amazed at how quickly you go from 0 to 60 in perceived injury. Like, someone wonders if you might have an anti-Jewish bias, and you turn that into an "outrageous" (!!!!) accusation of anti-Semitism. So when you accuse me of trash-talk and character slander because, in the course of a discussion touching on your behavior, I pointed out another discussion where your behavior was questioned — well, I am inclined to greatly discount your baseless fulminations, even to ignoring them. Alternately, I will remind you that your accusation of a personal attack, where none exists, is in itself a violation of WP:NPA. And I strongly advise you to consider that the criterion of slander is false statement, not hyper-sensitivity on your part. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


    • @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 §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    Larry Sanger

    Does this article read like an advertisement for Sanger's post-Wikipedia projects to anyone else? In particular, the Citizendium section seems quite questionable. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Request more eyes on MV Seaman Guard Ohio incident

    As a breaking news event, there are editor(s) who appear to be solely interested in pimping every detail that hits any newswire in what appears to be an effort to stoke any potential flames. More outside eyes would be helpful. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    NPOV tag on article with currently hot topic in the news

    A few days ago the article Washington Redskins name controversy was tagged for not being neutral. I am the major contributor to this article, but not by intention. I edit the article on the larger issue Native American mascot controversy and only add to the other article when I run across something specific to the "Redskins" that I cannot integrate into the main article. An editor who has not contributed to the article added the tag, but has not done nothing else. No one else has participated in the discussion, so I plan to remove the tag after one week, but I welcome other input. The problem is that the issue may have two sides, but only one is substantially represented in reliable sources. FriendlyFred (talk) 21:24, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Babur and Ali-Shir Nava'i

    User Lysozym has been aggressively reverting my edits on Babur to keep the following version:

    Zahir-ud-din Muhammad Babur (14 February 1483 – 26 December 1530; sometimes also spelt Baber or Babar) was a conqueror from Central Asia who, following a series of setbacks, finally succeeded in laying the basis for the Mughal dynasty in the Indian Subcontinent and became the first Mughal emperor. He was a direct descendant of Timur, from the Barlas clan, through his father, and a descendant also of Genghis Khan through his mother. Culturally, he was greatly influenced by the Persian culture and this affected both his own actions and those of his successors, giving rise to a significant expansion of the Persianate ethos in the Indian subcontinent.[1][2]

    I've been proposing the following version (which I have modified several times taking into consideration other editors' comments):

    Zahir-ud-din Muhammad Babur (14 February 1483 – December 1530; sometimes also spelt Baber or Babar) was a conqueror from Central Asia who, following a series of setbacks, succeeded in laying the basis for the Mughal dynasty in the Indian Subcontinent and became the first Mughal emperor. He was a direct descendant of Timur through his father and a descendant of Genghis Khan through his mother.

    Babur was also a poet and a writer. He wrote both in Persian and his mother-tongue Chaghatai Turkic.[1][2] His memoirs Baburnama, which were originally written in Turkic,[3] have been translated into many languages.

    Babur is regarded as a great leader and is held in high esteem both in the Turkic- and Persian-speaking worlds. While some sources claim that he was mostly influenced by and spread the Persian culture,[4][5] others hold that he mainly contributed to the expansion of the Turkic culture.[2] Soviet and Uzbek sources regard Babur as an ethnic Uzbek, but most scholars refute this view.[6]

    As you can see, Lysozym has been pushing for a one-sided account of Babur's life. His justification is that the Encyclopedia of Islam and Encyclopædia Iranica are the only reliable sources on this subject. Lyzosym's version clearly puts a Persian hue on Babur and his empire. While some sources support this, others such as Encyclopædia Britannica hold that Babur's empire was Turkic in nature. The issue has been discussed at some length on the article's talk page. I've done my best to correct and modify my edits taking into consideration other editors' comments.

    I believe that as long as there are opposing views on a matter, we cannot say that one of them is right and the other is wrong, especially when there are huge amounts of literate supporting both sides. Lyzosym has called me a "nationalist" and a "nothing but a POV pusher", so I decided to hear what other editors think on the matter.

    Lysozym has also been revering my edits on Ali-Shir Nava'i. See this edit for example. I don't think the version suggested by him is neutral. Lysozym thinks the article should clearly state that Nava'i was an ethnic Uighur when there are opposing views about this. Nataev talk 10:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


    Can you point to good secondary sources (not encyclopedias) that attest to the Turkic nature of the Mughal empire? That would help determine how much weight the different views should receive. Better yet, some kind of really solid literature review in an authoritative book on the subject. TheBlueCanoe 03:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I forgot to mention that Lysozym has been deleting material from the body of the article as well. His version is the following:

    Babur is considered a national hero in Uzbekistan[41][42] and Kyrgyzstan,[43] and is held in high esteem in Afghanistan. In October 2005 Pakistan developed the Babur (cruise missile), named in his honour.

    F. Lehmann has said that

    His origin, milieu, training, and culture were steeped in Persian culture and so Babur was largely responsible for the fostering of this culture by his descendants, the Mughals of India, and for the expansion of Persian cultural influence in the Indian subcontinent, with brilliant literary, artistic, and historiographical results.[14]

    I've been proposing the following version (which cites additional sources to support what I wrote):

    Some sources claim that Babur was influenced by the Persian culture and gave rise to the expansion of the Persianate ethos in the Indian subcontinent.[44][45]

    For example, F. Lehmann has written: His origin, milieu, training, and culture were steeped in Persian culture and so Babur was largely responsible for the fostering of this culture by his descendants, the Mughals of India, and for the expansion of Persian cultural influence in the Indian subcontinent, with brilliant literary, artistic, and historiographical results.[17]

    Other sources hold that Babur mostly contributed to the growth of the Turkic culture.[2][46] Although all applications of modern Central Asian ethnonyms to people of Babur's time are anachronistic, Soviet and Uzbek sources regard Babur as an ethnic Uzbek.[47][48][49][50] At the same time, during the Soviet Union Uzbek scholars were censored for idealizing and praising Babur and other historical figures such as Ali-Shir Nava'i.[51] Babur is considered a national hero in Uzbekistan.[52][53] Many of Babur's poems have become popular Uzbek folk songs, especially by Sherali Jo‘rayev.[54] Some sources claim that Babur is a national hero in Kyrgyzstan too.[55]

    Babur is also held in high esteem in Afghanistan and Iran. In October 2005, Pakistan developed the Babur Cruise Missile, named in his honor.

    Still, I will find more secondary sources to support what I wrote. Nataev talk
    I've cited Dilip Hiro who writes: "Babur regarded himself a Timuri Turk." Also, I've written that according to Hiro (and others) Babur considered Uzbeks as his enemies. I think this proves that I'm not trying to push my personal point of view. Nataev talk 12:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The version I am restoring is a consensus version that was written a few years ago by User:Sikandarji who is an academic expert on South Asian history (unfortunately, he is not active anymore). It is based on the authoritative academic reference works Encyclopaedia Iranica and Encyclopaedia of Islam (please note that Nataev is not only refusing these academic sources, he is even deleting them from the intro, trying to mislead the readers by stating that there is some kind of academic dispute on this issue; well, there is none - there is the overwhelimg majority of scholars on one side, and unreliable (mostly nationalistically motivated) sources on the other side, like the ones preferred by Nataev). User:Nataev, on the other hand, obviously does not know/does not understand/does not want to understand WP:RS. The sources he is citing are not reliable according to WP:RS. The improtance of WP:RS has been explained to him by at least 3 different users. But he either does not undestand or does not want to understand. He also does not understand that a generalist encyclopedia like Britannica is vastly inferior to highly specialized academic reference works such as Encyclopaedia Iranica. His claim that Babur was an Uzbek is not only his own POV based on unreliable sources, it is also 100% wrong. This claim is being rejected not only by all reliable and respected experts, but also by Babur himself in his autobiography (Baburnama). A link to a relevant (translated) passage has been given in the respective talkpage. Wikipedia is not about the quantity of sources, but about the quality of sources. And ALL reliable academic sources agree that:

    • Babur was a Turkicized Mongol (meaning that he was a Mongol in origin, but his tribe was linguistically Turkicized)
    • Babur was fighting the Uzbek invasion of his native land
    • Babur was defeated by the Uzbeks and had to flee further south
    • Babur invaded India with the help of local tribes (and much support from Safavid Persia) and founded the Mughal Empire
    • Babur was culturally highly Persianized; the Persianization of the Mughal Empire foung its climax during the reign of Humayun and Akbar the Great when Persian not only became the sole official language of the Empire, but also of the Mughal family itself

    Babur's contribution to "Turkic culture" (whatever that may be) was his biography, written in Chagatai language, his mother-tongue. Besides that, there is no other contribution (if Nataev thinks otherwise, he should present a proof). Here, I would like to point out the excellent German article on the Mughals (de:Mogulreich) where the question of identity and language is highlightened and supported with many scholarly sources. There is absolutely no doubt that the Mughal Empire - founded by Babur - was essentially Persian in terms of courtly culture, language, literature. Nataev is a notorious POV pusher. Not only in the Babur article (as I have described), but also in the article Ali Shir Nava'i. Here, too, he wants to "Uzbekize" a man who had nothing to do with Uzbeks. Nava'i was - evidently! - an Uyghur. All academic sources agree on this point. The only one who does not accept this is Nataev. --Lysozym (talk) 16:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    And Nava'i's Uzbekization is interesting - part of a Soviet renaming of a language. Hopefully I've made that clear in the article and I think the talk age (can't recall without changing). He's definitely not an Uzbek, even if politicians called him one many decades ago. Dougweller (talk) 18:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Dilip Hiro is a journalist,[1] not a historian, therefore he is not a reliable source. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. And Nataev calling another user a sock doesn't suggest good faith editing. Dougweller (talk) 19:44, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems like you all disagree with me. Then let's just keep the current version of the lead section. I'm happy that the paragraph about Babur's legacy has been left as it is. Maybe the fact that Soviets approached Babur as an Uzbek isn't important enough to be mentioned in the intro. Still, we do need to say something about it in the body of the article. I'm OK with the current version. Dougweller, I didn't call anyone a sock. Why do you say that? Lysozym, don't cross the border. "Nataev is a notorious POV pusher" − it's ironic to hear this from a user who had an account called Tajik. I haven't yet become notorious. You seem to think you're the only expert on these topics. "He also does not understand that a generalist encyclopedia like Britannica is vastly inferior to highly specialized academic reference works such as Encyclopaedia Iranica." — this is just your opinion. Nataev talk 03:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I misunderstood, you haven't called him a sock. However, we should judge editors by their actions, not their usernames, particularly of an old account. It is true that in most cases we should avoid using generalist encyclopedias. Dougweller (talk) 05:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    OK! Nataev talk 06:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The legacy section is still not OK. It is not "a claim by some" that Babur's Empire was Persianate in its essence. Babur did not invent the Persianate culture of India, it was already there, once introduced by the Ghaznavids and Ghurids. But Babur's Empire took that Persianization to a whole new level. The very existence of Mughal literature and literary culture, almost exclusively Persian until the 19th century, is the living proof. Leaving that aside, there was no competition between "Turkic" or "Persian" influence. The "Turks", in this case Turkicized Mongols, were already Persianized and Islamized to a high degree. What differed was the language. While Babur himself was still very much "Turkic" and "Mongol" in terms of identity and language, the Turkic influence became almost non-existent after Humayun's 10 years of exile in Persia. When he returned to India, he brought with him many Persian artists, writers, historians, etc. The ballance between "Iranis" (Persians and Persianized Turks like Bayram Khan) and "Turanis" (Central Asian Turks and Mongols, and Central Asian Persians) shifted toward the Iranis.
    Nataev is trying to mislead the readers by claiming that there is some kind of academic dispute on this issue. To underline his claim, he cites to sources as "proof": the Encyclopaedia Britannica and the World Book Encyclopedia. In fact, none of these two actually support his claim. None of these two state that Babur "mostly contributed to the growth of the Turkic culture". I have asked Nataev to cite the relevant paragraph, so far, he is refusing to do so. Stating that Babur was Turkic or Mongol is no proof for Nataev's claim that "mostly contributed to the growth of the Turkic culture". Babur was a Turkicized Mongol, that's fact. But the Empire he founded was essentially Persian in terms of culture and language. The overwhelming Persian influence is still evident in northern India and Pakistan. In fact, Pakistan's national anthem, the Qaumi Taranah, is entirely in Persian. Only a single word - "ka" - makes its lyrics Urdu. Beside that word, all other words and the grammar are Persian. The Urdu language, which became the family language of the Mughals by the end of the 18th century, is another living proof for the essentially Persianate character of the Mughal Empire. --Lysozym (talk) 11:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Britannica says "Bābur came from the Barlas tribe of Mongol origin, but isolated members of the tribe considered themselves Turks in language and customs through long residence in Turkish regions. Hence, Bābur, though called a Mughal, drew most of his support from Turks, and the empire he founded was Turkish in character." I've changed the sentence in the legacy section to "However, other sources hold that Babur's empire was Turkic in nature." I'll provide more sources later on. Lyzosym, you're trying really hard to Persianize Babur and his empire. Now this is called POV editing. Nataev talk 03:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    "Guerrilla skepticism" and POV-pushing offsite project

    A YouTube video containing a presentation about editing Wikipedia, apparently under the auspices of the James Randi Educational Foundation, with some rather disturbing content. The presenter is Susan Gerbic, whom I believe, without being completely sure, is User:Sgerbic.

    The video is more than an hour long and can't be guaranteed to remain on YouTube indefinitely. But it contains evidence of offsite collusion on Facebook (at 40:44) and elsewhere to impose a skeptical POV on Wikipedia articles. She also gives advice as to how these targeting editors can avoid looking like single purpose accounts (29:20) and brags about running off editors with different views. (32:10 et seq.). The video claims that she has established an offsite network coordinating more than 90 editors (4:22) to impose a "skeptical" POV on a large number of articles. She also says that she has successfully used Wikipedia to drive web traffic to the Randi foundation's website, and started articles about its members. (ca. 50:00 et. seq.)

    Lawyering and improvised rulemaking to prevent paranormal literatures from being cited as evidence of the substance of paranormal beliefs is a longstanding problem. Let's face it, claiming that an astrology textbook is an "unreliable source", being "in universe" because it assumes astrology is worthy of study, is transparent sophistry, and unproductive lawyering of the worst kind. Our page Aries (astrology) contains next to nothing about what astrologers think about Aries, a subject with a vast literature. This POV-pushing offsite project has done readers a disservice. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003!

    No, WP:BALANCE and WP:RS prevent paranormal literatures from being cited as evidence of the substance of paranormal beliefs. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this has been brought up before. The youtube video is from 2013 but the themes are similar. Otherwise, concur with TheRedPenOfDoom. EDIT: Many fringe/psuedo-science articles start off with a massive POV in support of the article's subject with no (or minimal) critical commentary added. These article have fervent supporters that frankly don't care about Wikipedia policies or guidelines, just pushing their brand of dreck. Having more editors that can help present a balanced view is always a good thing. Ravensfire (talk) 23:12, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering the amount of content - and the number of editors - which present fantasy, snake oil, and other follies as though they were fact, an influx of "skeptical" editors is likely to be a net positive. Of all the real-world ideologies that might drive people to edit en.wikipedia, few are so well aligned with WP:V.
    However, if you have specific examples of problematic editing, it would be good to look at diffs and see if there's any improvement we could make. bobrayner (talk) 23:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    So long as it is the skepticism that is in line with science and on topic, I don't see what the problem is. If it is the pseudo-skepticism that treats anyone's studied beliefs on matters outside of empirical science as automatically inferior to one's ignorant misconstruing of the subject (perhaps by "revealing" "shocking" "secrets" about some such beliefs through holding the believer to standards of evidence that make it hard to prove the earth is round while freely citing 19th century fringe sources or just completely throwing anything out the window when it doesn't suit one's argument), then it would be as much of a problem as any other zealot forcing their personal views on any topic. But, I'd have to see evidence of that first. So far (3:20-ish), I'm seeing that she wants everyone to continue to work within the guidelines of the site. "Islam is a monotheistic religion traditionally founded by Muhammad in the 7th century" is a rather objective statement. "Islam is a monotheistic superstition made up in the 9th century by raiders who wanted some mythical figure to unite under like those idiot Christians" would just as POV as "Islam is the true religion established by God's final Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H.)," or "Islam is a non-Christian terrorism cult worshiping the moon demons Allat, Muhammad, Termagant, and Baphomet," but I've yet to find anything in the video suggesting that they'd be doing anything along those lines. And as a related video states, "skepticism is a method, not a position," and it's a position that Wikipedia endorses. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I do think that this version, for instance, of the article on Aries (astrology) contains more of the sorts of information you'd expect to find in an encyclopedia article on Aries in astrology. It is properly referenced to respected astrological writings. The claim that those sources do not reliably describe what astrologers believe about Aries, or that they are unreliable "in universe" sources because they assume, however falsely, that astrology is true, is quite simply rank nonsense. Nobody goes around claiming that the Catechism of the Catholic Church is an unreliable "in universe" witness to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.
    The lawyering away of astrological sources for what astrology teaches is simply gaming the system. I also find it mildly surprising that here we have evidence of an apparently large scale POV pushing and off-site canvassing effort, boasting about driving away editors, and apparently many people don't find that problematic. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 00:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you provide evidence that this (what appears to be) WP:V-focused recruitment drive is connected to the difference in the astrology articles. Also, the Catechism would be problematic to use as it is a primary source. An academic work summarizing and clarifying the Catechism would be appropriate to cite as an example of Catholic beliefs as their beliefs. The version of Aries you prefer is horrifically POV, akin to citing Chicken Soup for the Catholic Soul in the article on bread to note that bread consecrated by a priest is the flesh of Christ. If you look at the article transubstantiation, it presents the idea as a religious doctrine instead of as empirical science, even explaining the philosophy that keeps it away from the realm of testable chemical changes, all while citing academic instead of popular sources. The version of the Aries article you pointed to, presented the ideas as scientific facts that can (and have) been tested (and shown to be bunkum). What is needed is a summary of academic works explaining the different claims about Aries, as well as how they (don't) hold up under scientific scrutiny, rather than how-to works written to give credit to fortune telling charlatans. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The claim that the Catechism of the Catholic Church is a "problematic" "primary source" simply underlines that a double standard is at work here. It is, in fact, heavily relied on in articles about Roman Catholic beliefs, including Catholic Church itself, in which most of the citations are to it. If the Catechism is an unsatisfactory witness to Roman Catholic beliefs, editors need to get busy removing it. Somehow, I don't see that happening. (Claims that the Catechism is a "primary source" speak mostly of unfamiliarity with its contents, as well.)
    The better version of the article on Aries in astrology presents nothing as "scientific fact". Science is quite irrelevant to the substance of astrological beliefs, as I think we agree. The scientific POV is simply as out of place in an article about what astrology has to say about the zodiac sign Aries. The simple question is whether astrological beliefs can be referenced to historically important astrological textbooks and literature. I think they can.
    More importantly, this isn't about verification of statements in any article about astrology. It's about a project dedicated to offsite canvassing to impose a specific POV on articles. That used to be something of a big deal around here; times have changed, I suppose. A belief that astrology is wrong and that it ought to be discouraged does not justify turning a blinkered eye to a huge body of former learning and contemporary folklore. The astrology articles are only relevant to show that the aims of this project are at odds with building the encyclopedia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Offsite canvassing to improve the encyclopedia is needed and wanted. --Ronz (talk) 15:45, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CANVAS, a longstanding behavioral guideline, disagrees. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm uneasy about this. If this was a group of Fundamentalist Christians coordinating through Youtube to combat the a perceived secular bias in a number of Wikipedia articles would it be treated so breezily? I see the following questions here:
    1) Are any of the accusations made a breach of rules? Specifically:
    Offsite collusion. Encouraging and then hiding single purpose accounts. Running off editors with different views. Establishing an offsite network to impose a POV on articles. Using Wikipedia to drive web traffic to the Randi foundation's website. Starting articles about Randi foundation members.
    2) Is an underground POV pushing network problematic in itself?
    3) Should there be different rules for different POVs?
    4) Does it become more or less problematic if it comes into the open?
    5) Does WP:CANVASS apply?
    JASpencer (talk) 17:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This, more than anything, surprises me. It has always been my understanding that offsite canvassing and coordination of edits in service of a particular point of view was at minimum strongly frowned on, as is the attempt to create, coordinate, and conceal a number of single-purpose accounts. (I looked at some of the Randi foundation articles, and most of them made a fair case for notability; none seemed to be particularly problematic.) But criticize this enterprise, and a small army appears to proclaim that none of these things are problems. I suppose I'm just getting too old to get it. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If you'd like people to investigate problematic editing, could you provide some diffs that you think are problematic? bobrayner (talk) 05:12, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "Science is quite irrelevant to the substance of astrological beliefs, as I think we agree." - Wrong, science has tested astrology and found it to be utter bollocks. It did so centuries ago. It is not a matter of non-overlapping magisteria, it is scientifically false, it is anti-scientific, it is, as far as Wikipedia, wrong, superstitious, backwards, and something that should be dismissed as a lying and foolish sham. Astrology does not equate to common and untestable religious beliefs, such as "God(ess/s) exists," "God(ess/s) chose to answer that one prayer I made last week (but perhaps not the others)," "God inhabits bread and wine in a way totally unperceptible to any and all human senses when a priest blesses it," "Tenzin Gyatso used to be Thubten Gyatso," etc.
    As for the supposed double standard re the catechism, if you actually read anything I said, I pointed out that the transubstantiation article primarily cites academic works instead of a $20 "course" in transubstantiation titled "I am Priesthood and you can too!", so there is no double standard compared to an article that cited popular works by fortune tellers. If the Aries article cited academic works such as S.J. Tester's History of Western Astrology or Roger Beck's Brief History of Astrology, I wouldn't have any problem with fuller descriptions that listed beliefs as beliefs. If the Aries article was well supported by such sources and neutrally phrased, and if there was a centralized and coherent ratification of the most basic assumptions of all astrological beliefs that all astrologers must believe or else not be astrologers, then it might be used in relevant articles on occasion. Even still, random unacademic works for a popular (and credulous and superstitious) audience, be it astrological, Catholic, Hindu, atheist, or fans of Insane Clown Posse, do not belong on this site as proper sources.
    And I second (or rather third or fourth) the motion that many have brought up: show us direct proof (in the form of diffs) that this recruitment drive has resulted in any problematic editing. You haven't been doing that, and it's starting to come off as a bad-faith conspiracy theory against new editors hoping to fulfill WP:V and WP:NPOV against your own pro-superstition/anti-science POV. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This is exactly the problem in a nutshell. Whether astrology is nonsense or pseudoscience or whatever makes no difference for WP:V; it's nonsense with a vast literature. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia only of science, and the scientific viewpoint has no special privilege here. What we have here is a failure to engage its own sources on their own terms, born of a colossal failure to make the necessary assumptions. This is a problem going on over many years, over hundreds of edits and dozens of talk pages and notice boards. The attempt to impose a specific POV on Wikipedia by lawyering away astrological classics, or assuming that they must be science or pretending to be science, is why this offsite project to impose a specific POV on Wikipedia is a problem. And, as usual, it's backed up by the usual sequence of ad-hominems (pro-superstition/anti-science POV... random unacademic works for a popular (and credulous and superstitious) audience).
    There is a place for the scientific case against astrology; it's made at some length at Astrology itself, and it does not belong in Aries (astrology), which ought to be about what astrology claims about Aries, whether those claims are true, false, or nonsensical. The sources are in fact fairly low lying fruit, if new and fanciful objections were not constantly being invented as to why any of the sources from mainstream publishers and recognized classics can't be used as sources, contrary to WP:RS. Insisting on academic sources for a pop-culture subject is exactly the kind of lawyering to impose POV that I'm talking about. So's the predictable demand for thousands of edits, when the problem is staring at you right in the face on this page.
    I'd also point out that Ian.thomson's statement here would appear to contradict the letter and spirit of the old arbitration decision on paranormal subjects, which recognizes that In addition to firmly established scientific truth, Wikipedia contains many other types of information. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" (from Wikipedia:Verifiability). The use of offsite campaigning on these subjects is also condemned there. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    According to Gerbic's talk, "Guerrilla skepticism is the act of inserting well-documented, well-resourced well-cited information into Wikipedia and to pages that really want to have improvement" (at 3.00 mins). She also says "we want to follow all the guidelines" of Wikipedia. Sounds terrifying. This is not "rather disturbing content" at all. There is nothing at all that resembles "bragging" about running off editors (supposed to found at at 30.10). That's such an outrageous misrepresentation of what she says, I find it difficult to accept it as a good faith summary. She is answering a question about "how your edits get pushed off the page" (in other words why do other editors revert contributions). She just says that most of her edits don't get reverted, but that she failed to get her edits on what sounds like "the "Bill Marr page" (referring to Bill Maher?). That's it. No bragging. No reference to "running off editors with different views". There's nothing at 29.20 about single purpose accounts. Yes, they are trying to improve articles on the Randi foundation's activities. There's nothing wrong with that. The most "disturbing" thing about the presentation is her hat. Smerdis of Tlön's misrepresentations are far more disturbing. Paul B (talk) 14:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever spin you want to put on it, at least I was not so unkind as to mention the hat. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:10, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Your point that astrological beliefs about the properties of Aries (etc) should be described in perfectly valid. If a particular book is indeed an astrology "classic", it should be possible to demonstrate its notability and to place it in a historical context of continuities and changes in astrological lore. Paul B (talk) 18:09, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)No, Smerdis, whatever anti-scientific spin you want to put on it, the hat and your paranoid fear that outdated superstitions will be presented as something other than fact are the only things wrong here.
    Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Paranormal meant by that portion of the final decision that statements of fact outside of science and not contradicting it (non-overlapping magesteria) are also present in the site. This is demonstrated by reading the rest of the RFC:
    And from Wikipedia:FRINGE:
    As for the claim that I insist we need academic sources for pop-culture subjects, don't put words in my mouth, it's just one more thing that makes it hard for me to assume that you're acting both competently and in good faith. Astrology isn't a pop culture subject, it is pseudoscience. Harry Potter is a pop-culture topic, it presents the subject as fiction, and the article follows suit while citing academic and journalistic sources for any real world information. It does not cite "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them" or fanfiction for information about the general topic. Astrology makes claims about our world that are just as false as claims that the Jewish lizard Masonic Pope is out to take over the the flat but hollow world. It requires academic sources (as there's little respected journalism reporting on astrology, except maybe a few puff pieces from when Pluto was reclassified as a dwarf planet), and there are academic sources out there (I presented a couple) that present astrological beliefs in a neutral manner (instead of being completely credulous).
    And again, you are completely ignoring the request to present any real evidence (beyond conspiracy theorism and an anti-scientific POV) that this recruitment drive has resulted in any POV-pushing. And my assessment that you're pressing an anti-scientific POV is WP:SPADE, not WP:NPA. You do not want an increased scientific and skeptical focus on the site. That is an anti-scientific POV. We haven't asked for "thousands of edits," we have asked for ONE. You have presented nothing. Don't throw slippery slopes as an excuse to get out of presenting any evidence to your accusations.
    As for suggesting that Aries shouldn't handle the scientific assessment, that contradicts Wikipedia:NPOV#Point-of-view_forks. Heck, this whole witch hunt of new users dedicated to following WP:V contradicts Wikipedia:NPOV#Giving_.22equal_validity.22 and WP:AGF. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow. Now you can see what people trying to expand those articles are up against. First, I'm not conducting a "witch hunt" against new users. I haven't attempted to identify any new user drawn by this campaign. What concerns me is the attempt to impose a particular POV, and the delight apparently taken in running off and frustrating editors whose opinions differ.
    My "paranoid fear that outdated superstitions will be presented as something other than fact are the only things wrong here?" Sheesh. I'm just trying to get the "outdated superstitions" to just be presented. There are plenty of places to point out that astrology is pseudoscience, astrology being one of them; astrology and science another. But in an article on Aries (astrology), it ought to be possible to mention that astrologers claim that Aries are headstrong, and that this relates somehow to astrological beliefs that Aries corresponds to the element of fire and the planet Mars. And as far as I'm concerned this is a reliable enough source to back up those assertions; if more bulk were needed, again, I'm talking about really low hanging fruit here. And this isn't an "anti-scientific POV", its simply recognizing that our world contains easily accessible documentation for what astrologers believe about Aries. It's the table-pounding that these are somehow scientific claims that need academic sources that is completely wrongheaded here, and represents tendentious editing, gaming the system, to impose this POV on articles. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's be absolutely clear. The pov that you are against isn't a problem. The canvasing you are against isn't a problem. These things are actually wanted and needed. They improve our articles and our editor base.
    Now if you have specific NPOV concerns with specific articles where there's already some attempt at resolving the problems, then by all means write up a report here to get others involved.
    Finally, I agree that the Aries article could be improved. However, if you have any specific NPOV-related concerns about specific content there, it's lost in this report. --Ronz (talk) 22:15, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The POV manifested by Ian.thomson is a problem. Offsite canvassing is also something that used to be strongly frowned on here. Attempts to impose a specific POV on a wide spectrum of Wikipedia articles is a problem.
    This discussion, I think, is evidence enough that there are editors who actively campaign to remove references to astrological and other paranormal literatures. Conspiracy or not, they carry on in a quite overbearing manner. They distort policy and make ridiculous demands of sources -- specifically demanding, for instance, that astrological beliefs can't be sourced to astrological textbooks because every such textbook assumes that astrology is worthy of study. Because their POV judges that impossible, no astrology text can verify astrological beliefs. This is a caricature of Wikipedia policy, and gaming the system. And they seemed to be moved mostly by moral dudgeon; no one should believe in astrology, so by God (oops, he's 'in universe' too) nobody is going to learn anything about astrology on Wikipedia.
    Disagree, and you are an enemy of science and a destroyer of standards. I think there's plenty of evidence for these charges right here. To be honest, my interest in astrology amounts to little more than finding it picturesque; but moral dudgeon annoys me. Some two years ago I began an essay on this very problem. The result was predictable. Now it comes to light that according to the video, there seems to be an offsite project devoting to imposing this POV. Yes, that's a problem. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 23:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    If you'd like people to investigate problematic editing by "guerilla skeptics", could you provide some diffs that you think are problematic? bobrayner (talk) 12:34, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    You're asking me to document years of abuse across dozens of articles. Here are some examples of deletion of sourced material in just the Aries (astrology) alone article alone for bogus and improper reasons since 2012. The same story is told across hundreds of pages; see Talk:Astrology and its archives.
    This is just a small example of the bad faith dismissal of astrological textbooks and classics as "unreliable sources" and the characterization of astrological content as "in-universe cruft". These edits were made to push a particular POV, and make no sense in its absence. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:12, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    the dismissal of non reliable sources as non reliable sources is a perfectly legitimate position. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:16, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    and I am not sure what your links from 2010-2012 have to do with showing that a group that appears to have formed in 2013 has conducted inappropriate editing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:20, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for those (old) diffs, lhcoyc; but I'm confused. Do you have some reason to believe that Wiki13, IRWolfie-, Dominus Vobisdu, Allens, and 79.166.190.197 are "guerilla skeptics" or acolytes of Susan Gerbic? bobrayner (talk) 14:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know whether any of those editors collaborate with Susan Gerbic. They do seem to share a common POV that dismisses all astrological sources; that POV, and tendentious editing to establish it as orthodoxy, is the underlying problem. This has been going since at least 2011. And as I said, this has been going on a long time, and is one of the reasons I'm no longer as active here as I used to be. (You can tell Susan that she can put another notch in her hilt.) - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:33, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for a review of a neutral point of view related issue

    I have posted a report on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, it may be viewed here. Yambaram (talk) 17:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Resolved

    I looked at the addition that this user made by checking their user contributions for that board around the time of this posting; I see that this request seems withdrawn. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for comment on NPOV-related issue on Stormfront (website) talk page

    I'm posting this here to publicize my RfC which can be found here: [2] The dispute is that I believe the lead of the article is lacking neutrality by omitting two RS, one of which is used in another article (Jared Taylor) in exactly the same manner as I am proposing.--Kobayashi245 (talk) 20:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Pramukh Swami and BAPS

    Any insight would be helpful:

    A scandal broke out a week ago in the BAPS group about two former swami's that accused the head of this organization of rape. I have been dealing with Swaminarayan topic for a few days now. Could some one explain the WP:BLPCRIME policy as it relates to this. This is a sensitive topics and any input would be helpful. Here is what is posted now in the controversy section:

    On 22 Oct 2013, BAPS responded to the allegations made by two former sadhus (Sanjay Shah (Priyadarshandas) and Rakesh Bhavsar (Nishkamsevadas) ) that the claims made against Pramukh Swami and his sadhus are utterly baseless and false.[1] Indian reported that “Pramukh Swami, who heads BAPS, and four other top swamis, of alleged assault dating back to the 1970s when they were students at the gurukul.”[2]

    Here are additional sources:

    http://www.dnaindia.com/ahmedabad/report-ahmedabad-sexual-harassment-case-against-more-sadhus-1907573 http://www.baps.org/Announcement/2013/Message-for-All-5347.aspx http://www.indianexpress.com/news/baps-refutes-allegations-by-former-sadhus/1186609/ http://www.sandesh.com/article.aspx?newsid=2878833 http://www.dnaindia.com/ahmedabad/report-ahmedabad-2-ex-sadhus-accuse-pramukh-swami-and-4-of-sexual-abuse-1908114 http://www.gujaratglobal.com/index.php/current-news/2222-now-baps-sadhus-in-sex-controversy http://daily.bhaskar.com/article/GUJ-AHD-swami-maharaj-performed-unnatural-sex-on-me-for-over-25-years-in-gujarat-and-on--4413768-NOR.html

    Main question here is that should these allegation be on Wiki for Pramukh Swami Maharaj under a controversy section. Reply here and there. The main controllers of the article claim that this man is relativily unknown outside of India but in the article itself, it states that he is single-handedly responsible for global growth.

    Please join the discussion on the talk pages. I think it is important to have many people's view on this.

    Bluespeakers (talk) 14:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    3rd party eyes needed at No Gun Ri Massacre

    There seems to be a problem developing (reoccuring) with views regarding the accidental killing the refugees at No Gun Ri during the Korean User. From what I can see User Cjhanley appears to have reliable print sources on his side but I am not familiar with the details of the article and not involved in either article or Talk page. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Some of Cjhanley's sources appear to be reliable, and others have serious documented deficiencies. I welcome a set of fresh disinterested eyes. WeldNeck (talk) 18:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Ten Lost Tribes

    The Ten Lost Tribes article has come to have a non-neutral tone, which is not uncommon with religious topics. Instead of neutral descriptions of both the religious and secular viewpoints, it has become decidedly one-sided with POV edits such as "fanciful accounts", removing sourced content with the edit summary "utterly false", changing section headings to "lore" with the ES "the tribes exist as fiction only, not in reality", and so on. Block quotes espousing one view are included in the lead section, but a consensus at Talk:Ten Lost Tribes#RfC: Should block quotes be included in the lead section? shows the community feels the quotes violate WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE in the lead. More eyes looking at this article would be helpful in helping it become more neutral. Bahooka (talk) 21:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    It has been pointed out to Bahooka on several occassions (including in edit summaries and on the article talk page) that the academic viewpoint is the mainstream viewpoint,and that Tudor Parfitt is the scholar summarizing the mainstream viewpoint.
    Bahooka has insisted on pushing a religious POV on this article to promote his religious views over the mainstream academic view, with his latest attempt being to insert "Religious" for "Apocryphal" at the beginning of a sentence describing the appearance of early accounts of lost tribes. Please refer to the Talk page discussions as well as the edit summaries.
    The religious POV has been afforded a voice, and the article still has problems with the use of primary religious sources in an improper manner, thus the WP:OR and "Religious text primary" tags.
    For the sake of convenience, here is a relevant post from the Talk page

    First of all, please read the quotes from Parfitt in the "Japan" section

    Tudor Parfitt writes that "the spread of the fantasy of Israelite origin... forms a consistent feature of the Western colonial enterprise"

    "It is in fact in Japan that we can trace the most remarkable evolution in the Pacific of an imagined Judaic past.

    The point of introducing the term fanciful" in that sentence is because the stories are all far-fetched fabrications based on fantasitical misinterpretation or extrapolation of biblical tales.

    Using only the term "Accounts" makes it seem like the subject of the sentence is based on actual historical events instead of fictional fabrications based on biblical stories that are somewhere between myths and pseudo-history.

    --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 21:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Benjamin Franklin Institute of Technology

    This article appears to have been written by the subject of the article. For instance, "90% of BFIT graduates find a job or continue their education" (in bold letters) and "Our Graduates...".

    "Our"?

    1. ^ http://www.baps.org/Announcement/2013/Message-for-All-5347.aspx
    2. ^ http://www.indianexpress.com/news/baps-refutes-allegations-by-former-sadhus/1186609/0
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&oldid=579739674"