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

RfC Notice: Living members of deposed royal families and the titles attributed to them on WP

I have opened an RfC on articles about living members of families whose ancestors were deposed as monarchs of various countries and the titles and "styles" attributed to these living people, often in a misleading way and inaccurate way in my opinion. Please join in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies "Use of royal "Titles and styles" and honorific prefixes in articles and templates referring to pretenders to abolished royal titles and their families"[1]

Robert Scarano, Jr. – Biography does not adhere to NPOV policy. Content out of date.

Biography does not adhere to NPOV policy. Content out of date. Initial bio paragraph contains no sources and is biased and out of date.

For example, here is the Professional Bio per the Brooklyn Chamber of Commerce: What does your business do? When and Why did you join the Brooklyn Chamber? Founded in 1985 by Robert Scarano, Jr., AIA, FARA, ALA, award-winning Scarano Architects, PLLC is responsible for the design of over 400 multi-family and mixed-use properties designed and built in 2004, primarily in Brooklyn and Manhattan. Working with a wide range of developers in both profit and non-profit sectors, such as The NYC Housing Authority and Chamber Members Strategic Construction Corporation and The Kay Organization, Scarano designers achieve a new dimension for the architectural vocabulary that is respectful of the history of a given area, while providing gracious, livable space. In October 2004, the firm completed its unique office roof extension, which has become a visual signpost for travelers on the Manhattan Bridge, instantly identifying Vinegar Hill. - See more at: http://www.ibrooklyn.com/member_promotion/scarano.aspx#sthash.cDDl7IqI.dpuf

Here is an example of one editor removing large amounts of information (see Awards and Professional Honors that were all deleted below) and replacing with entirely different content: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Scarano,_Jr.&diff=prev&oldid=496283904

Vandalism of Parcheesi

The article Parcheesi has been repeatedly vandalized by user 68.196.14.175 , who always says that the game can be won simply by bringing a wheel of cheese. The most recent case is [2] . Others extend back to last August. All four levels of warning have been posted on the (otherwise blank) user-page, with no response but more vandalism. I have just asked for the vandal to be blocked, but the request was taken down with a statement that the complaint was not actionable. Will someone please enlighten me? J S Ayer (talk) 04:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like vandalism or trolling rather than an NPOV issue. Try WP:AIV, WP:RFPP, or -if you have a strong stomach- WP:ANI. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

reported on WP:AIV. Mangoe (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Marian Dawkins

The POV dispute on this page was not resolved, but the POV tag was removed. 124.168.8.38 (talk) 02:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

To clarify the above, the POV dispute was not resolved to the satisfaction of an IP contributor. Several other editors agreed that highlighting some criticism of an aspect of the subject's work (probably a misreading of her work, btw) was not suitable for a BLP. If there is an article on the topic, everyone notable can have their WP:DUE say, but a biography is not the place to coatrack negative opinions. Johnuniq (talk) 04:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

No, you mislead the issue. Several editors (such as DrChrissy, Epipelagic) who have a conflict of interest case on the noticeboard and OWN problems(concerned by multiple editors) are adding propaganda for Marian Dawkin. The content they added has clear violation of policies, such as injection of original research.124.170.221.69 (talk) 23:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, this sounds like a WP:WEIGHT issue. If Dawkins' work is widely discussed in sources, then any criticism of it in the article should be present roughly in proportion to the incidence of the criticism in reliable sources, as compared to to the incidence of other handling of Dawkins' work in reliable sources. So criticism isn't wrong as such, but having just criticism is non-neutral due to weight. The Amazon score shouldn't be included in any event, IMO. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

DNA Tribes in Population history of Egypt Article-WITHDRAWN-I WISH TO PROCEED WITH AN/ANI

Previous discussions have involved using DNA tribes in the Ancient Egyptian race controversy article and consensus among editors of the article seems to have been met. There were also two noticeboard discussions. Now the question is whether including the DNA Tribes info in the Population history of Egypt article would be NPOV to give a balanced view of the debate. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 06:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

My particular concern is that DNA tribes is being removed for being unreliable. But then ABO blood group and craniofacial studies are being kept! I would think DNA evidence is more reliable than these other studies and it would ensure a NPOV to balance them. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 06:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

If a source fails WP:RS we shouldn't be using it. The noticeboard discussions are at [3] and the earlier one at [4]. Not getting a satisfactory answer at one forum isn't a good reason to try another, and it seems to be your personal opinion that this private company is a more reliable source than the Journal of the American Medical Association. This persistence is getting a bit disruptive. I'll also note that editors need to follow WP:SUMMARY and I've edited the relevant section in Population history of Egypt so it is closer to the main article for that section. Dougweller (talk) 11:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I wish to withdraw this claim as I wish to proceed with AN or ANI. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 23:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

And having failed at AN and ANI as well as RSN, Mediation and Dispute Resolution we have Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. Dougweller (talk) 10:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Rfc for Phil Robertson GQ Comments section

I've tried to edit the GQ Comments section with citation regarding Robertson's comments regarding "blacks". However they keep being removed. In the same exact article Robertson made disparging comments regarding Homosexuals, but they seem to be able to stay. Why can't the comments regarding blacks stay, but the homosexual comments can stay?--Ron John (talk) 00:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Phile Robertson GQ interview

Um -- how many talk pages and noticeboards do you intend to hit? The issue is WP:BLP and the consensus at the article was clear -- I see no way that WP:NPOV/N is a proper drama board to hit immediately after you return. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The BLPN noticeboard issue, is different, it concerns reporting of the age of Phil's wife when they were married. Sportfan5000 (talk) 03:41, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• Have you read WP:FORUMSHOPPING? Because that's exactly what you're doing Ron. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Resolved

I am marking this resolved because the function of this board is to help people establish discussions to reach consensus. There is a discussion established at Talk:Phil_Robertson#RfC:_Can_we_include_the_comments_Robertson_made_about_blacks.3F. It is an RfC, so people are well-alerted to this discussion by Wikipedia standards. Anyone from this board may join the discussion through that link. Because of these things, there is no ready reason for more discussion to happen here on this board when comments should happen in that existing space. If there is a future NPOV problem then feel free to bring it here for assistance in placing it within existing consensus and existing discussions. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

POV gallery at Black Egyptian Hypothesis

This article is a spinoff from Ancient Egyptian race controversy. Both are under ArbCom sanctions. A few days ago User:Dailey78 inserted a gallery of images with no discussion the talk page despite being under a restriction to gain consensus.[5] There is discussion about this at Talk:Black Egyptian Hypothesis in the bottom few sections. I've been distracted by an attempt to get editors disagreeing with the Black Egyptian hypothesis banned or blocked and hadn't gotten involved in this and hadn't recalled that Dailey was restricted from such edits. I also have always said that a gallery in these articles cannot be NPOV (although I've pointed out on the talk page that there may be times when we would include individual images). One of the images, for instance, is that of Tiye:

Tiye, King Tut's grandmother

Looks dark, doesn't she? But that's a wooden bust and what you are seeing is the natural color of the wood, and what might be interpreted as an Afro is what's left of a blue-tile covered headdress. A gallery is totally inappropriate for an article on this subject. I removed the gallery but it has now been re-inserted by the editor trying to get me banned or blocked, User:Andajara120000. Rather than get more involved in the edit-warring on this article, I've come here for more input. Dougweller (talk) 12:28, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I've just noticed that pictures were removed at the end of December 2012[6] - see Talk:Black Egyptian Hypothesis#Pictures in this article. Let the public decide. And of course restored without consensus in the past few days. Dougweller (talk) 13:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Saw this post and I have removed the gallery. I have explained my reasons in detail at Talk:Black Egyptian Hypothesis, I would invite other non-involved editors to chip into the discussion as new input to a rather stale argument would be beneficial. I would remind editors that NPOV requires us to include significant viewpoints in the literature not WP:FRINGE material with WP:UNDUE prominence. There also seems to be a tendency toward WP:OR and WP:SYN in editing to prove a hypothesis not to represent significant viewpoints in the literature. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:28, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

It is flatly untrue that I inserted a gallery without discussion on the Talk page. In fact, I inserted 2 or 3 pics in the body of the article and due to discussion on the Talk page, I inserted a gallery to provide an aesthetically pleasing format for editors to insert numerous pictures in support of the article. All of the pics support the article, as outlined on the Talk Page and repeated here. It would seem more fair and impartial to wait to hear the other side of the story, as opposed to taking action based on Doug's erroneous claims.

Please take a look at the Talk Page (at the very top), that is where the discussion happened in recent days. Why at the top you may ask? Because we have been discussing pictures on this Talk Page for a solid year.

The pics add to the reader's understanding as follows:

• Much mention is made of black skinned egyptians in the article, so Ahmose-Nefertari is shown as an example of a black skinned egyptian.
• The article mentions Queens from the South. Tiye is shown as an example of a queen from the south.
• There is a specific controversy over Tut, so Tut, his parents, and grandparents are shown. (Akhenaton, Tiye)
• At the UNESCO conference several scholars mentioned that they saw black people (in Egyptian art) in all kingdoms (Old, Middle, and New). Therefore, representative pics of Egyptians from all kingdoms were added (Khufu, Khafre, Mentuhotep, Hatshepsut, Ramesses the Great, etc.)
• There is a tabloid style controversy over Cleopatra, so another editor added her pic.
• The 25th dynasty ruled all of Egypt, and like Cleopatra, were from a different "kingdom/empire."

On the Talk page, four editors voiced support for the pics (view the top of the Talk page). One editor voiced support and then retracted support in the same day. These are the facts.

Doug provided commentary on the Tiye bust. I have never said anything about her bust or tried to make any points using her bust. Isn't Doug's commentary WP:OR. Is he a peer reviewed secondary source that can be used to discuss the attributes of Tiye's bust? Why is this bust not controversial on the Tiye page? Is anyone disputing that this is a bust of Tiye? Is anyone disputing that Tiye is Tut's grandmother, as DNA evidence has proven it? http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=185393 figure 2.

Finally, I added the pics without changing a single caption or modifying the pics at all from their source Wiki articles. A different editor made a bunch of comments on the pic of the 25th dynasty and in typical sloppy scholarship fashion, this has been attributed to my edit. It's ridiculous. Be fair. Be impartial. Be reasonable.Rod (talk) 16:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

In Doug's "looks dark doesn't she?" original research above, did it ever occur to you that she might actually have been dark? Can you prove that she wasn't dark, as your original research insinuates? Please review these quotes from peer reviewed secondary sources:

In the early 20th century, Flinders Petrie continued the discussion of Black Egyptians. Petrie, Professor of Egyptology at the Univ. of London, spoke of the "black queen" that was the divine ancestress of the XVIIIth dynasty. Petrie indicated that "southern people reanimated Egypt, like the Sudani IIIrd dynasty and the Galla XIIth dynasty." [20]

The British Africanist Basil Davidson stated "Whether the Ancient Egyptians were as black or as brown in skin color as other Africans may remain an issue of emotive dispute; probably, they were both. Their own artistic conventions painted them as pink, but pictures on their tombs show they often married queens shown as entirely black, being from the south : while the Greek writers reported that they were much like all the other Africans whom the Greeks knew."[75]Rod (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Tutankhamun

This screed is an example of why discussion on these articles is so difficult. Tiye may have been "dark", or she may not have been, though I guess it's an open question how dark you have to to be "dark" or how light you have to be to be "not dark". As far as I know, we can't be sure of that, or even if she came from the "south". It's just a sculpture made of heartwood. It looks dark for the same reason that Tut looks pale in this sculpture from the same room in the same museum. The latter is made of plaster. It's absurd to ask why it is OK to have it on the Tiye page, but not on the race controversy page. It depicts Tiye. It does not depict "race". When it is chosen to go on the race controversy page then it is made to represent "race" by the editor who chooses it. OR, by the way, applies to articles. It is perfectly acceptable to discuss issues on Talk pages. However, there are many sources that discuss the bust, the headdress and the materials from which it is made. If one were to create an article on the bust comparable to the Nefertiti bust article then these could be used. No-one doubts that Egyptians of all classes probably ranged from fairly pale to fairly dark, with the latter clustering in the south and the former in the north. The problem here is the attempt emphasise a POV about the "race of Egyptians" and to use images to promote it. Paul B (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

We should have started this discussion with the statement that virtually none of the editors involved believe in the flawed social construct known as race. However, as mentioned at the UNESCO conference, race (black, white, yellow) will continue to be used when discussing Ancient Egypt because it was used historically and the public is still interested in "race", especially as it relates to A.E. Therefore, we are stuck having mindless arguments about a construct that we don't believe in, just to provide an overview of the history and current discussions regarding the flawed construct known as "race." Now that we've properly framed this debate, some characteristics/traits/etc have to be used to group people into "races." Peer reviewed secondary sources grouped some Egyptians into the black "race" because they had black skin, because of their bone structure, etc. Many of these sources are mainstream Egyptologists. Sources such as Flinders Petrie, arguably the father of Egyptology said the 18th dynasty was started by black queens from the south. I've added a pic of a black queen from the south, Ahmose-Nefertari to support this text. The public likely does not know what black Egyptian queens look like in Ancient Egyptian art. Thus, I inserted the picture. The picture is worth a 1000 words. The pictures enrich the article. That's my position.

Regarding Tut, we have no problem adding highly contentious modern renderings (Nat. Geo) of his flesh tone, but here it is contentious to add a bust of his grandmother that was made by the Ancient Egyptians, not some modern company.Rod (talk) 18:16, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Tiye, her article states: Tiye's father, Yuya, was a non-royal, wealthy landowner from the Upper Egyptian town of Akhmin,[1] Upper Egypt is generally considered the south in the context of the A.E. civilizationRod (talk) 18:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

It is probable that Tiye's father was based in Akhmin, yes, but it is also speculated that he came originally from Asia, on the basis that his name appears to be non-Egyptian. You must know this because it is in the article you've just referred to, but you just omit that aspect of the content. And, of course, we don't know where Tiye's mother came from. So, it's speculation piled on theory and conjecture, with fragments of evidence (though, of course we also have the actual bodies of all these people, from which "race" has also been interpreted in competing ways!). We shouldn't be quoting archaic sources like Flinders Petrie for crying out loud. As for Amhose-Nefertari, like Tiye and Tut, she's black in some images and she isn't in others like this one. Since she was her husband's sister, it's unlikely that their skin-colurs were really dramatically different, and there are many cases in which the same individual will be depicted as black or as brown or as pale, as with Tut himself. Paul B (talk) 18:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::::As for it being flatly untrue that you (Rod) added the gallery without consensus, I can't find the consensus. There's a discussion which ended over a year ago, then there is you adding to that discussion at 3:20 am yesterday.[7] At the very same time you started adding pictures. You had no consensus for that.[8]. You then added a gallery, for which I also see no consensus. As for adding grandparents, really? Specific images that have had specific discussions from RS on both sides of the debate might be added with discussion, but not this way. Dougweller (talk) 18:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed Doug that was a point I tried to make. Specific images, that have specific discussions in RS that represent mainstream views of the debate should be the means for selecting images. As a side discussion from the talk page, this entire article seems to be a POV fork, which are generally discouraged. I wonder if this article should be nominated for deletion, though given the passion it seems to engender that will be a controversial move. A point to all concerned, NPOVN exists to provide an external view, if you all pile on you will deter outside comment. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

As it happens, I remember the entire history of this. The content was originally in the Afrocentrism article. A dispute arose with an editor called user:Deeceevoice, who wanted to promote the Black Egyptian position. She and user:Dbachmann clashed, and then the spin-off Race of Ancient Egyptians was created, which then went through various name changes and was itself spit into the "Controversy" article and the "Population history" article. Then there was yet more expansion of the "Black egyptians" material, leading to another spin-off (or POV fork) the "black Egyptian hypothesis" article. Other articles like Km (hieroglyph) have been drawn in. It's became a bit of a swamp. Paul B (talk) 19:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Here's the history as I remember it. The A.E. Race Controversy article was written in a fashion that promoted the POV of any debunked theory except the Black theory. Editors of good faith enriched the Black theory section (which is in an article alongside several other FRINGE theories that have been completely refuted by mainstream scholarship). The Black theory section became long and the A.E. Race Controversy article became longer. There was a consensus to split the articles due to the length of the A.E. Race Controversy article. Editors that are pro and con agreed to the split. The black theory article became a place to discuss the black theory, it's history, and any modern findings. The majority of the balance can be found in the A.E. Race controversy article, however the black theory article is also balanced as Yalens, Aua, Doug, etc. ensure that it remains that way (and I appreciate them keeping everyone honest).

Moving on to the mainstream view. The mainstream view is that Ancient Egyptians are mixed and the population included red skinned people from the north and darker skinned people from the south. According to mainstream scholarship, Egypt colonized the South at a very early stage in the civilization and mainstream scholars agree that this interaction with the south intensified in the New Kingdom. Greeks and modern historians routinely refer to black skinned Egyptians (in addition to red Egyptians and comments about symbolic colors) and most of the scholars at the UNESCO conference agreed that at least 1/3 of the A.E. were black/negroid. None of what I just said is controversial.

Getting back to the point. I hear a consensus that pics are okay in the article, as long as they are discussed individually on the Talk page first. This seems extreme, but it's the only consensus we have been able to reach in a year of discussing this topic.Rod (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Doug, my initial edit on Jan 5th at 19:20 was to add 2 or 3 pics. After discussing that edit on the talk page, I thought it might be a good idea to add a gallery so that more pics could be added in an aesthetically pleasing way. That's the entire crux of this discussion. Afterwards, a lot of discussion was generated on the Talk Page. Four editors agreed to pics in one form or another during the ensuing discussion on the Talk page. Many of those discussions have now been collapsed on the Talk page, so you would need to review the older versions of the Talk Page in history.Rod (talk) 20:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Why does the term "red skinned people" have to be invented? Just avoid calling them "white"? Of course red/ruddy has regularly been used to mean "flushed with health" in many contexts. And so has "black", to mean the same thing - coloured with health, or "tanned", as opposed to deathly pale. Famously, Homer describes Odysseus turning "black" to refer to his recovery of health. This is why simply quoting colour-terms like this as if they map onto modern racial usage is next-to useless unless it is done through expert knowledge of how such terms were used in specific context and what they meant at the time. Paul B (talk) 21:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Circumcision

Circumcision - weight of medical purposes

This article is having great difficulty having its NPOV issues addressed. Right now there are several problems which I will delineate as follows. Keep in mind, these are not the only problems the article has, but the main issues currently going on.

Major users involved that believe there is a NPOV violation: Me User:Tumadoireacht User talk:Hans Adler

Major users involved that do not believe there is a NPOV violation: User:Zad68 User:FiachraByrne User:Jmh649

The problems:

• 1) Undue weight given to the medical purposes of circumcision
• 2) The article's failure to identify the problems found in a conclusion drawn by a study that determined that circumcision does not seem to adversely affect sexual function. (split out to separate section below, with ScienceApe's permission) Zad68 00:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The relevant talk pages: 1 2 Keep in mind that these issues were also brought up before and can be found in the archives here with no resolution in sight, Talk:Circumcision/Archive 78

The problems in detail with rebuttals and answers:

• 1) I along with other users have voiced our concerns with the article giving weight to the medical reasons for circumcision. Our contention is that the vast majority of circumcisions performed in the world are done for religious and cultural purposes, not medical purposes.

Rebuttal: User:FiachraByrne:

The strongest justification for this is that the preponderance of scholarly sources on circumcision are medical. If you search a database like Web of Science for the topic "Male Circumcision" for the years 1945-2013 it returns 1,325 articles and reviews (1,144 and 181 respectively). According to Web of Science's system of article categorisation, the topic-area count for these publications breaks down as follows:

Uncollapse to see detailed analysis of sources provided by Fiachra

Infectious Diseases (344) Immunology (248) Public Environmental Occupational Health (225) Urology Nephrology (139) Medicine General Internal (134) Pediatrics (104) Social Sciences Biomedical (104) Virology (96) Multidisciplinary Sciences (69) Health Policy Services (53) Microbiology (43) Obstetrics Gynecology (39) Medicine Research Experimental (32) Psychology Multidisciplinary (29) Health Care Sciences Services (26) Respiratory System (25) Surgery (25) Medical Ethics (24) Oncology (23) Ethics (21) Dermatology (20) Demography (16) Social Issues (16) Anesthesiology (14) Family Studies (13) Tropical Medicine (12) Pharmacology Pharmacy (11) Andrology (10) Anthropology (10) Pathology (10) Psychology Clinical (10) etc The use of the results above as the sole determinant of article weight would be properly subject to criticism, but they are indicative of the disciplines which have published most widely on the topic. FiachraByrne (talk) 23:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC) Harzing Publish or Perish (Google Scholar) search query "male circumcision" Cites Authors Title Year Source GSRank 1605 B Auvert, D Taljaard, E Lagarde, J Sobngwi-Tambekou Randomized, controlled intervention trial of male circumcision for reduction of HIV infection risk: the ANRS 1265 Trial 2005 PLoS medicine 1 1412 RH Gray, G Kigozi, D Serwadda, F Makumbi, S Watya… Male circumcision for HIV prevention in men in Rakai, Uganda: a randomised trial 2007 The Lancet 2 1447 RC Bailey, S Moses, CB Parker, K Agot, I Maclean… Male circumcision for HIV prevention in young men in Kisumu, Kenya: a randomised controlled trial 2007 The Lancet 3 537 HA Weiss, MA Quigley, RJ Hayes Male circumcision and risk of HIV infection in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis 2000 Aids 4 614 X Castellsagué, FX Bosch, N Munoz… Male circumcision, penile human papillomavirus infection, and cervical cancer in female partners 2002 New England journal … 5 237 DT Halperin, RC Bailey Male circumcision and HIV infection: 10 years and counting 1999 The Lancet 6 216 S Moses, JE Bradley, NJD Nagelkerke, AR Ronald… Geographical patterns of male circumcision practices in Africa: association with HIV seroprevalence 1990 International journal of … 7 290 S Moses, RC Bailey, AR Ronald Male circumcision: assessment of health benefits and risks 1998 Sexually transmitted infections 8 221 J Bongaarts, P Reining, P Way, F Conant The relationship between male circumcision and HIV infection in African populations 1989 Aids 9 227 R Szabo, RV Short How does male circumcision protect against HIV infection? 2000 BMJ 10 293 BG Williams, JO Lloyd-Smith, E Gouws, C Hankins… The potential impact of male circumcision on HIV in sub-Saharan Africa 2006 PLoS Medicine 11 273 HA Weiss, SL Thomas, SK Munabi… Male circumcision and risk of syphilis, chancroid, and genital herpes: a systematic review and meta-analysis 2006 Sexually Transmitted … 12 324 AAR Tobian, D Serwadda, TC Quinn… Male circumcision for the prevention of HSV-2 and HPV infections and syphilis 2009 … England Journal of … 13 229 RH Gray, N Kiwanuka, TC Quinn, NK Sewankambo… Male circumcision and HIV acquisition and transmission: cohort studies in Rakai, Uganda 2000 Aids 14 365 N Siegfried, M Muller, J Volmink, J Deeks, M Egger… Male circumcision for prevention of heterosexual acquisition of HIV in men (Review) 2007 15 152 SJ Reynolds, ME Shepherd, AR Risbud… Male circumcision and risk of HIV-1 and other sexually transmitted infections in India 2004 The Lancet 16 231 N Westercamp, RC Bailey Acceptability of male circumcision for prevention of HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa: a review 2007 AIDS and Behavior 17 144 B Donovan, I Bassett, NJ Bodsworth Male circumcision and common sexually transmissible diseases in a developed nation setting 1994 Genitourinary medicine" 18 162 B Auvert, J Sobngwi-Tambekou… Effect of male circumcision on the prevalence of high-risk human papillomavirus in young men: results of a randomized controlled trial conducted in Orange Farm 2009 Journal of Infectious ... 19 139 B Auvert, A Buve, E Lagarde, M Kahindo, J Chege… Male circumcision and HIV infection in four cities in sub-Saharan Africa 2001 Aids 20 I could have (and probably should have) ordered the above by most citations rather than Google Rank; but it would not have impacted significantly on the fact that the most cited sources on circumcision are medical sources. This is not to say that social and cultural content is not appropriate but just to emphasise that the preponderance of scholarly output on the topic has been medical (even if we allow for very different publication models in different disciplines). FiachraByrne (talk) 00:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Rebuttal: User:Zad68: Exactly so... to close this loop, the relevant policy is indeed WP:WEIGHT as ScienceApe identifies. This policy states that we need to represent viewpoints in proportion to the prominence found in the published, reliable sources. As Fiachra shows, a review of all the reliable sourcing available shows that medical aspects are the most prominent view found in the sources, and that's why this article is organized per WP:MEDMOS.

Answer: The assertion that the vast majority of scholarly sources regarding circumcision are medical has not been demonstrated, but even if it is true, this seems to be a case of Ignore all rules. Circumcision has been practiced for thousands of years, and the main impetus behind it are due to cultural and religious reasons. Throughout the history of mankind, various excuses have been used to justify circumcision. For example to discourage masturbation, or to maintain personal hygiene. The most recent rationalization are medical purposes. These medical purposes however mask the true rationale behind why circumcision is performed, and have very little to do with why the vast majority of why circumcisions are actually performed. No major medical association advocates routine neo-natal circumcision other than the recommendations of the WHO for certain HIV endemic areas in Africa. Medical rationale is often used as a mask to push a pro-circumcision bias. Putting the weight of the article on the medical purposes for circumcision is inconsistent with reality and serves as a vehicle to push a bias, and therefore is hurting the article.

"If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."

Rebuttal: User:Jmh649: Ah following the policies and procedures of Wikipedia is not "gaming the rules".

Answer: My arguments were strawmanned and are being misrepresented. I never suggested following the policies and procedures of Wikipedia is gaming the rules. My contention was that even if the majority of scholarly sources regarding circumcision are medical, weight should not be placed upon it for the aforementioned reasons. ScienceApe (talk) 00:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment It is a surgical procedure even when done for cultural or religious reasons. There are medical textbook dedicated to it [9]. We do not call C-sections non medical just because a large proportion of them are done for social and cultural reasons. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Argument from analogy fallacy. C-sections are not done for social or cultural reasons. You also constructed a strawman. The issue is not whether or not the procedure is medical, the issue is whether or not weight should be put on the medical purposes of circumcision. ScienceApe (talk) 03:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, yes, they are. In China, C-sections are done so that the baby will be born at the exact moment that the grandmother's astrologist says is most auspicious. In the US, they're done so that the mother can arrange time off work or child care in advance, or so that she can be certain which doctor will do it, or because she's afraid of going into labor on the weekend (when some people believe that less experienced personnel are on staff at the hospital). If you spend ten minutes with your favorite search engine, you will easily find sources like this that show the many non-medical reasons why Western women request medically unnecessary C-sections. On average, studies find that about 5% of women in the UK and the US request C-sections purely for non-medical purposes, and the majority of those requests are granted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

This is a red herring, and it's still an argument from analogy fallacy. Circumcisions have been practiced for thousands of years for religious and cultural reasons. This is immensely important to circumcision that can not be understated nor trumped by the medical purposes of circumcision which is really little more than a new excuse to rationalize routine neonatal circumcision. C-sections have no such association with culture or religion, the analogy is utterly bunk. ScienceApe (talk) 17:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The tables provided by Fiachra showing the distribution of the scholarly sourcing clearly show that a medical presentation is appropriate for this topic. The "ignore all the rules" justification for reorganizing the article content (if that's even what is being proposed?) isn't really even an "NPOV" issue. Zad68 01:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The best I can decipher from this TLDR mess is that ScienceApe wants to use primary sources to give undue weight to certain views. And Gosh Help anyone who has to read through all that (exhausting the patience of the community is the phrase that comes to mind). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually Zad68 pasted a lengthy piece in the middle of what I wrote which turned what I wrote into a mess. But no, that's not what I suggested at all. Read the paragraph beginning with, " The assertion that the vast majority of scholarly sources regarding circumcision are medical has not been demonstrated, but even if it is true, this seems to be a case of Ignore all rules." ScienceApe (talk) 02:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I put what Fiachra provided in a collapsable box so the context is maintained but it does not take up too much vertical space. Hope that works for everyone. Zad68 02:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

It's irrelevant, I'm not contesting the number of scholarly sources that medical circumcision has at this time. ScienceApe (talk) 02:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

But I am. NPOV policy says that the emphasis the article should have is proportionate to what's found in the reliable sources, so what's found in the sources is essential to this NPOVN discussion. I guess now that we have both stated our views we should let others comment. Zad68 02:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I already answered that argument which I delineated above, you have not rebutted my answer. ScienceApe (talk) 02:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Right, although the Wikipedia content rules as applied to the reliable sources support the current article layout, I think you're saying "ignore all the rules" and reconfigure the article in some unspecified manner, based on your views. I don't feel this is a supportable suggestion. Zad68 03:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Strawman fallacy, you misrepresented my position. I made it clear that the article has to reflect reality. ScienceApe (talk) 03:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Is it possible ScienceApe that your own biases might be informing your contribution to this topic? FiachraByrne (talk) 03:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

That's an ad hominem fallacy. ScienceApe (talk) 03:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Technically, no, that was a question. Ad hominem would be "Your own biases [are] informing your contribution to this topic." - assuming you could call that a personal attack. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 07:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

No, you do not understand what an ad hominem is. An ad hominem is not necessarily a personal attack, but it can come in the form of a loaded question. The question he asked was loaded, and any answer I give is entirely irrelevant to the arguments I make whether I'm biased or not. The arguments stand on their own merits. ScienceApe (talk) 09:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Of course it was. As the question Is it possible that your own biases might be informing your contribution to this topic? could be asked anytime anywhere to anyone on Wikipedia (and the answer is pretty much always "Well, of course"). It's hard to treat it as anything other than an ad hominem. NE Ent 10:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

This table of sources is a perfect example of the evils of statistics when done improperly. The table is from "web of science", which is clearly extremely biased with respect to religious sources and therefore to say that "vast majority is medical" is ridiculous. Also notable in this table is undercoverage of historical, sociological, antorpological sources , so I guess the search (or the source) was rather dubious quality. - Altenmann >t 05:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• What "evils of statistics" are we talking about here? I just want to get on the same page so I can weigh in on a statistical issue, considering I'm a statistician. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 07:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC) =o

  I thought I explained: the selection of sources is non-representative, hence inherent bias in statistics. - Altenmann >t 07:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

  P.S. A closewr look shows it is even worse: The preface says : "preponderance of scholarly sources on circumcision are medical." and as a proof a table is given which contains only medical. I cannot believe ther are no historical sources, so clearly this table is red herring. - Altenmann >t 07:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

  P.P.S. In this table most entries are in "Infectuous diseases" DO we really need most content of this wikipedia article devote to infection? (i.e., the argument that wikipedia somehow must reflect %% of publications looks rather dubious). - Altenmann >t 07:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Proof by many examples ≠ proof by counterexample (i.e., you haven't proved your point). Show a database of many scholarly (by their terms) nonmedical papers. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 08:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
• Let's not play games. I can readdress the same to the original statistician: the onus is on him to convince us that that his sample is representative. (are you really a statistician? ) And contrary to your "≠", I did prove my point: there are non-medical articles (are you really questioning this?) and they are NOT counted in his statistics. Hence his statistics is not truthworthy. - Altenmann >t 09:29, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• A diarrhea of words followed by Q.E.D. is is both incredibly annoying and one of these. In any event, I'm not going to grace this thread with another response given the former - all you needed to do was hyperlink something. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 15:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how we can somehow de-emphasize the medical sources for what is clearly a surgical procedure. That it is most often performed electively for cultural or religious reasons does not change that basic fact. Rhinoplasty and Breast implant surgery are often elective and driven by cultural reasons, and appropriately, we base those articles on medical sources, and the same should apply to this article. The article currently states, "No major medical organization recommends either universal circumcision for all infant males (aside from the recommendations of the World Health Organization for parts of Africa), or banning the procedure." Accordingly, a balanced presentation, neither pro nor anti circumcision, is appropriate. I oppose transforming the article into an argument against circumcision, based on non-medical sources. The article already links to Circumcision controversies and Ethics of circumcision, which are the appropriate places for such material. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Strawman fallacy, and I already addressed this argument with Jmh649. What circumcision is has absolutely nothing to do with my argument. The area of contention is with the weight of the article being put on the medical purposes for circumcision. You are invoking an equivocation fallacy by equivocating the medical purposes for circumcision with the medical aspects of circumcision. Your examples relating to plastic surgery have medical aspects, but little if any medical purposes behind them. Another strawman fallacy, no one ever proposed transforming the article into an argument against circumcision or even a discussion on the ethics of circumcision. ScienceApe (talk) 09:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

WRT "C-sections are not done for social or cultural reasons" Actually they are. In Brazil more than half of women deliver by C-section and more than 80% of the upper class do.[10] In the Nordic countries the section rate is 14%.[11] The Women in Brazil are the same physically as those in the rest of the world. Were does the more than 60% difference come from? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

This is a red herring. I looked at the article you linked and I think an argument can be made that this has nothing to do with culture, but it really doesn't matter because your analogy is still fallacious. Circumcisions have been practiced for thousands of years for religious and cultural reasons. This is immensely important to circumcision that can not be understated nor trumped by the medical purposes of circumcision which is really little more than a new excuse to rationalize routine neonatal circumcision. C-sections have no such association with culture or religion, the analogy is utterly bunk. ScienceApe (talk) 09:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but I do not support "routine neonatal circumcision" and I do not support "elective C-sections". What we do have is two procedures both commonly performed for elective reasons and sometimes for medical ones. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I DIDN'T SAY YOU SUPPORTED ROUTINE NEONATAL CIRCUMCISION OR ELECTIVE C-SECTIONS. This is a red herring, learn how to follow a discussion properly. ScienceApe (talk) 16:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Some criticism of my amateur bibliometrics so I searched across a few databases. Results below - bear in mind they're not perfectly comparable (e.g. full content searches for JSTOR and Project Muse which seems to produce a fairly high proportion of false positives) and results are only indicative for questions of weight. I'll post a more detailed breakdown on the article talk page later but for now you can check it out in my sandbox here. FiachraByrne (talk) 04:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Male circumcision. Medical and non-medical records by citation database, 1997-2014.

Citation Database	Medical Records	Non-Medical Records	Total Records
Scopus	2987	387	3374
PubMed	2474	-	2474
Project Muse	111	2351	2462
JSTOR	517	3822	4339

Circumcision - sexual effects

There is a contentious statement in the article regarding circumcision's impact on sexual function:

"Circumcision does not appear to have a negative impact on sexual function."

I found the term, sexual function to be nebulous and subject to interpretation. One of the sources found here, expounds on what it meant, "The literature review does not support the belief that male circumcision adversely affects penile sexual function or sensitivity, or sexual satisfaction, regardless of how these factors are defined."

I wanted these other qualifiers which explain what sexual function means, included in the article.

Furthermore the source outlines clear problems with the conclusion it drew. "Limitations to consider with respect to this issue include the timing of IELT studies after circumcision, because studies of sexual function at 12 weeks postcircumcision by using IELT measures may not accurately reflect sexual function at a later period. Also, the self-report of circumcision status may impact study validity. This could be in an unpredictable direction, although it is most likely that the effect would be to cause an underestimation of the association. Other biases include participants’ ages and any coexisting medical conditions."

user:ScienceApe:So not only does the terse statement in the wikipedia article fail to explain what sexual function is despite the original source expounding on what it meant, it also failed to outline the limitations and problems that the source identified with the experiment. This has to be represented in the article.

Rebuttal: User:Zad68: ScienceApe, you appear to be focusing only on the AAP Techical Report here, which is just one of the four sources cited. You copied-and-pasted a lot of the AAP's discussion detailing the primary sources they reviewed in performing their synthesis of the source data to come to their conclusions. This is what we use secondary sources for: their conclusions drawn from the primary sources.

Answer: The other sources do not invalidate the problems the AAP Technical Report identified. ScienceApe (talk) 00:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

To clarify my position: The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) 2012 Technical Report (direct link to the full report) ScienceApe is referring to here cites five different primary sources in coming up with its overall assessment of the evidence, which they summarize at the top of their section titled Sexual Function with There is both good and fair evidence that sexual function is not adversely affected in circumcised men compared with uncircumcised men. They then go into a bit of detail about their assessment of one of the studies they cite, which used IELT as a measure. This AAP Technical Report is just one of four different secondary sources used here. It seems to me it would be WP:UNDUE to have the Wikipedia article go into significant detail about just one of the five primary sources that just one of the four secondary sources discusses. Zad68 01:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Just because ScienceApe disagrees with the conclusions of the best available sources does not mean that there is a NPOV issue. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion to split this into two agreed to, now done

ScienceApe you're posted two largely very different concerns regarding the article in one section here. This will end up in an unwieldy TLDR train wreck if we try to address both of these in one section. Could you please split this up into two separate sections, or even consider doing these two issues separately, one at a time? Zad68 00:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC) If you want to divide it up, you may. ScienceApe (talk) 00:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC) Thanks, done so. Zad68 00:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC) These discussions are connected and someday they will go into archives. I do not want them separated. I am putting them back into one section, but they can be in two subsections. This is just for clarity of capturing that right now there are multiple discussions around aspects of circumcision; feel free to fork the conversations as much as you like. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Another extremely long mess which fails to come to a decipherable point, but it seems that ScienceApe isn't recognizing that every secondary review has a discussion section that mentions strengths and weaknesses of studies, and we don't need to give undue weight to one small portion of one of many reviews. I do not see a NPOV issue here, but it is very hard to follow ScienceApe's posting style. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Well instead of criticizing everything I wrote, just ask me what you are unclear on. Can you tell me where in those secondary sources it abolishes the problems the AAP report identified with its own study? ScienceApe (talk) 02:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm just going to reply here since apparently the discussion on Talk:Circumcision#Sexual Sensitivity Damage Dispute is silent - I provided a citation review for you there and added a meta-analytic review, one that acknowledged no limitations in its analysis, to the article. Best, Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes Seppi333 what you added is yet another WP:MEDRS-compliant secondary source that supports what all the other sources say on this point, maybe that will resolve it. Zad68 04:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

From A 'snip' in time: what is the best age to circumcise? I will paste the relevant portions here for clarity,

Scientific evidence regarding the sexual effects of MC does not substantiate the purported harms to sexual pleasure. The better-quality studies (in terms of sample size, rigor of methodology, accuracy of analysis of findings, and generalizability of results) have found no adverse effect of MC on penile sensitivity [151,161-163], sensation during arousal [164], sexual satisfaction [146,151], premature ejaculation [165], intravaginal ejaculatory latency time [166,167], or erectile function [147,149-152]. Two RCTs found MC does not adversely affect sexual function, sensitivity or satisfaction [45,153], with one of these studies showing that the sexual experience of most men was enhanced after circumcision [45]. Some studies have found that MC reduced the risk of premature ejaculation [168,169].

This citation supports the view that circumcision does not adversely affect sexual function, which is fine. But it does not absolve all of the problems identified in the AAP report. The AAP report identified the following problems with their conclusion,

Limitations to consider with respect to this issue include the timing of IELT studies after circumcision, because studies of sexual function at 12 weeks postcircumcision by using IELT measures may not accurately reflect sexual function at a later period. Also, the self-report of circumcision status may impact study validity. This could be in an unpredictable direction, although it is most likely that the effect would be to cause an underestimation of the association. Other biases include participants’ ages and any coexisting medical conditions.

In particular the imprecise nature of self-report, ages and coexisting medical conditions is problematic in any study. ScienceApe (talk) 04:29, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

If the statement quoted at the beginning of this section is "contentious", then ScienceApe should be able to furnish reliable sources that contradict that language. We don't have a standard that all problems with a study be "absolved" (whatever that means), since academic studies are expected to identify potential problems, and every study has some problems. I do not see the NPOV problem here, unless evidence can be produced that the quoted statement does not accurately summarize what the range of reliable sources say. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

When I said the statement is contentious I merely meant that it's the object of scrutiny in this case. I don't think it needs to go, I think the problems with that conclusion need to be made clear. Do we also have a rule that states that the problems identified in a study should not be mentioned too? To leave out clear problems with the imprecise nature of self-report and the other issues the report mentioned is giving the article a slant. ScienceApe (talk) 09:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

ScienceApe's suggestion is a sensible one - namely to include some detail on the reservations about that statement contained in the article it is lifted from. Per Doc James aka UserJmh649 "Our article reflexes the best available sources" I am presuming that he means reflects or references. A reflex action, differently known as a reflex, is an involuntary and nearly instantaneous movement in response to a stimulus- which some of the debate responses here actually do resemble some of the time. A glimpse of a freudian undergarment ?

Should we also be mentioning the historical and religious sources which have acknowledged for thousands of years that one of the primary purposes of circumcising the male foreskin and frenulum is to diminish sexual pleasure ? It is remarkable that cutting substantial bits off the business end of the main human male sex organ and leaving a scar is so thoroughly "normalized ' including this current refusal to consider psychological and physical consequences, particularly in the light of the rightly loud horror at doing similar cutting to female sex organs. --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 14:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

ScienceApe, your argument still isn't addressing the undue weight issue. We use secondary sources for the conclusions they draw from their overall assessment of the primary sources. The AAP's overall assessment of the primary sources is that "There is both good and fair evidence". They don't say that there's excellent evidence, they don't say that there's terrible evidence. We reflect that in that article by using the same kind of somewhat qualified language they do: the article says that the procedure "does not appear" to have a negative effect. It would be be overstating it if the article said "definitely does not" and it would be understating it if the article said "might or might not". And again the AAP source is just one of four now five sources all stating basically the same result. Why don't you think it would be undue weight (a NPOV problem) to have the article carry a chunk of content about the comments just one of those secondary sources had about one of the primary sources they reviewed? If we went down the path of having the article include detail of every secondary source's commentaries about every primary source they used for every place a secondary source is used, the article would blow up in size by a factor of 10. And per the other noticeboard discussion you've started here, it appears you want the article to emphasize medical effects less and not more so it's very unclear what content change would make you happy here. Zad68 14:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Good, fair, and excellent are weasel words, they don't properly reflect problems with a study. My contention is that none of the secondary sources can absolve many of the problems identified in the AAP report. Namely the imprecise nature of self-report, bias due to age or co-existing medical conditions. You're invoking a slippery slope fallacy, and are basically trying to rationalize leaving out very important information. NO. You are strawmanning me again, I've already addressed this fallacy. You are invoking an equivocation fallacy with the word "medical effects". My position has always been that there is undue weight being put on the medical REASONS for circumcision. ScienceApe (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Reboot; source request

ScienceApe, without all the sophistry above, the first issue in a POV discussion should be reliable sources; where is the secondary reliable source that you want included? I've read through as much of this dispute as I can stomach, and have yet to see one reliable secondary source that ScienceApe wants included. I found one discussion on article talk that mentioned several primary sources (surveys and such). Please justify the NPOV tag with a secondary reliable source that is excluded so others can understand what the dispute is. Could you also please avoid all of the excess markup, bolding, etc along with the discussion of argument style? Reliable secondary sources that you claim are excluded or not given due weight will suffice. If those sources are about health or medical content, they must conform to MEDRS, and should not be primary sources. If they are about societal or cultural issues, they can go in Society and culture if they are good secondary sources and if due weight warrants. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Sandy is correct. I would also add that this board is not the ideal place for sorting this. These arguments should be on the discussion pages of the relevant articles. If there is a problem with the process of sorting Wikipedia guidelines, then come here, but actual debate about content to include or legitimacy of sources should be a part of the archival records of the talk page of the articles. If anyone would like to move most or all of this discussion to the circumcision talk page then I would support that move and think it would be a good thing. This noticeboard would be a great place to post a link to that discussion and to make any requests for help interpreting NPOV policy. If this content remains here rather than on the circumcision talk pages, it will not be obviously available to other people who have these discussions in the future. These discussions will happen again in the future. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's a good idea to move this back to the article Talk page, I think there is some benefit in getting this aired out in front of a wider audience than the relatively few editors who edit the article and its Talk page regularly. I'm afraid if it goes back to the article Talk page, the same editors will recycle it back up again after a few weeks, and that really wastes a lot of time. Maybe if we have a more public discussion here, the matter can be more decisively settled one way or another and that will discourage its reappearance. We can certainly put a note on the article Talk page linking back to this discussion (updating it to point to the archives when it gets archived) so that it won't be lost. Zad68 15:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Zad68; it would benefit the article for a broader audience to see the sources upon which the POV tag is based. From what I've seen so far, this is not a dispute that is going to be sorted on article talk. And unless there are reliable secondary sources behind the POV dispute, the NPOV tag needs to be removed from the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Note to Sandy -- it already has been removed, by me about two hours ago, see my note on the article Talk page about it. Zad68 16:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with SandyGeorgia. But with regard to sourcing and the overall article presentation, Zad68 and Jmh649 (Doc James) have already explained quite well to ScienceApe and others why the Circumcision article is the way that it is. Flyer22 (talk) 16:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

No Flyer22, all of my arguments have been repeatedly rebutted using fallacies, in particular strawman fallacies, which deliberately tried to misrepresent my position. Zad68, nor anyone else has been able to respond to the core issues I've raised. ScienceApe (talk) 17:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Sandy I don't appreciate your condescending tone. You have been very rude in all of your posts made in regards to this discussion and to me, we don't care about what you can or can't stomach, so either keep it to yourself or recuse yourself from the discussion. I already explained what the dispute is, I admit it can be a bit wordy and difficult to get through it all, but so far you're the only one who has even complained about it. You're also invoking a strawman fallacy. All of the relevant secondary sources are on the article. That's not the problem, the problem is a general assessment of the editing practices going on at circumcision. The organization of the lead, and the body is giving undue weight to the medical reasons for circumcision under the auspices that there's a preponderance of scholarly sources for the medical aspects of circumcision. People have been equivocating the medical reasons with the medical aspects, and then using the alleged preponderance of the medical sources to justify putting weight on the medical purposes of circumcision. My contention is as follows:

Answer: The assertion that the vast majority of scholarly sources regarding circumcision are medical has not been demonstrated, but even if it is true, this seems to be a case of Ignore all rules. Circumcision has been practiced for thousands of years, and the main impetus behind it are due to cultural and religious reasons. Throughout the history of mankind, various excuses have been used to justify circumcision. For example to discourage masturbation, or to maintain personal hygiene. The most recent rationalization are medical purposes. These medical purposes however mask the true rationale behind why circumcision is performed, and have very little to do with why the vast majority of why circumcisions are actually performed. No major medical association advocates routine neo-natal circumcision other than the recommendations of the WHO for certain HIV endemic areas in Africa. Medical rationale is often used as a mask to push a pro-circumcision bias. Putting the weight of the article on the medical purposes for circumcision is inconsistent with reality and serves as a vehicle to push a bias, and therefore is hurting the article. ScienceApe (talk) 17:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I have just read through another massive wall of text, full of sophistry, and I don't see the reliable source I requested. Did I miss it? If so, would someone repost. If there is not one, this is beginning to look disruptive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Evidently you didn't pay attention to what you read. The sophistry is on your part, namely strawmen. Here it is again: You're also invoking a strawman fallacy. All of the relevant secondary sources are on the article. That's not the problem, the problem is a general assessment of the editing practices going on at circumcision. ScienceApe (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Some problems that I already mentioned 1 year ago

I wrote down an incomplete list of severe POV problems with the article in January 2013 when I was shocked to find someone had passed this abomination as GA. The reaction of the article's owners suggests they found this list rather dangerous: (Only) a Vodafone IP from Frankfurt, Germany replied directly, setting up the red herring of questioning the motivations of 'intactivists'. (At the time the topic was big in Germany. Legal opinion in Germany was getting around to the position that circumcision of minors is illegal, and the big political parties had to ignore most of the medical associations in order to legalise it.) Then Jmh649 (signing as "Doc James") simply claimed that Zad68 had fixed the problems. However, Zad68's edits in the intervening time (combined diff over the 3-4 days in question: [12]) did not fix the POV problem at all, as (e.g.) the article continued and continues to place undue weight on sources favourable to circumcision and to downplay the cultural and legal issues.

So here is the list from January 2013. I think all of it still applies even today:

• "No major medical organization recommends universal circumcision for all infant males or banning the procedure." This is misleading. The Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG) states in its position paper, which is referred to elsewhere in the article: "There are good reasons for a legal prohibition of non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors, as exists for female genital mutilation. However, the KNMG fears that a legal prohibition would result in the intervention being performed by non-medi-cally qualified individuals in circumstances in which the quality of the intervention could not be sufficiently guaranteed. This could lead to more serious complications than is currently the case."
• "Significant acute complications happen rarely, occurring in about 1 in 500 newborn procedures in the United States. [...] There is an estimated death rate of 1 infant in 500,000." This is badly in need of globalisation, as the numbers will likely be significantly worse in some countries.
• "Circumcision does not appear to decrease the sensitivity of the penis, harm sexual function or reduce sexual satisfaction." This statement is seriously POV and supported through selective quotation. Decreasing sensitivity has always been the main purpose of circumcision (although the article does not seem to mention this fact anywhere), and some studies have shown it is effective.
• The words shock and trauma do not appear even once in the article. These are very significant adverse effects of infant circumcision. When the prepuce is torn off the penis, many infants fall into a shock that makes them go through the following extremely painful operation without crying or indeed any reaction. Some studies have measured this pain. Others have documented circumcision-induced trauma after a year or even in teenagers. The KNMG paper says about this and the previous point: "Alongside these direct medical complications, psychological problems and complications in the area of sexuality have also been reported, as have extreme pain experiences in newborns causing behavioural changes which are still apparent years later. Similarly, the high social costs of circumcision as a result of complications have been cited."
• There are countless citations to a severely biased advocacy document: American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Circumcision (2012). It was written by a committee of circumcision advocates. The literature review in this document has a cut-off date right after a number of major studies that would have significantly changed the outcome if they had been included. There is a lot of convincing criticism of the paper here: [13] (It's an activist source, but that does not invalidate the concrete, verifiable points of criticism such as: "In its recommendations for future research, the AAP report calls for research into potential benefits [and complications]. There is no mention of future research into the harm [as opposed to complications].")
• "There is strong evidence that circumcision reduces the risk of HIV infection in heterosexual men in high-risk populations. [...] Whether it is of benefit in developed countries is undetermined." This is very one-sided. To quote the KNMG position paper again: "Due to the large number of medical benefits which were wrongly ascribed to circumcision, it is frequently asserted that circumcision is ‘a procedure in need of a justification’. In recent decades, evidence has been published which apparently shows that circumcision reduces the risk of HIV/AIDS, but this evidence is contradicted by other studies. // Moreover, the studies into HIV prevention were carried out in sub-Saharan Africa, where transmission mainly takes place through heterosexual contact. In the western world, HIV transmission is much more frequently the result of homosexual contact and the use of contaminated needles. That the relationship between circumcision and transmission of HIV is at the very least unclear is illustrated by the fact that the US combines a high prevalence of STDs and HIV infections with a high percentage of routine circumcisions. The Dutch situation is precisely the reverse: a low prevalence of HIV/AIDS combined with a relatively low number of circumcisions."
• Just like the AAP advocacy paper, the article makes no attempt to weigh the purported benefits of circumcision against the adverse effects. The KNMG has done this, and the result was not favourable for circumcision.
• No discussion of male circumcision is complete without a comparison with female genital mutilation, especially with female genital mutilation of types Ia and Ib.
• The more politically correct term male genital mutilation is never used or mentioned even once in the article, although that title redirects to it.
• Judaism: This section misses the chance to mention the motivations for circumcision in Judaism. According already to Maimonides: "One of the reasons for it is, in my opinion, the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a state as possible. [...] In fact this commandment has not been prescribed with a view to perfecting what is defective congenitally, but to perfecting what is defective morally. The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision. None of the activities necessary for the preservation of the individual is harmed thereby, nor is procreation rendered impossible, but violent concupiscence and lust that goes beyond what is needed are diminished. The fact that circumcision weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable. For if at birth this member has been made to bleed and has had its covering taken away from it, it must indubitably be weakened. The Sages, may their memory be blessed, have explicitly stated: It is hard for a woman with whom an uncircumcised man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him. In my opinion this is the strongest of the reasons for circumcision." The latter reason of course points to possible adverse effects later in life, or even earlier for those who are less sensitive to begin with. Maimonides has been very influential on this topic.
• The article says "Circumcision may be medically indicated for phimosis [...]". This is a way to avoid saying that there is less invasive treatment for phimosis and that the prevalency of phimosis diagnoses is primarily a function of the prevalency of non-therapeutic circumcisions, and that almost every diagnosis of phimosis in a very young boy is deceptive or the result of violent or otherwise inappropriate 'hygienic' interventions, usually due to misinformation.

Hans Adler 17:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I could go through these one by one but we have already. Simple question. Were is a high quality source to support "The more politically correct term male genital mutilation" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

For several of these the answers are provided by the WP:MEDRS-compliant reliable secondary sources in use at the article. Unfortunately, specific content change suggestions aren't provided in this list, and reliable secondary sources are not provided to support and demonstrate due weight (a core part of the NPOV policy) is met. Really the suggestions need to be detailed and discussed at the article Talk page first, see the instructions at the top of this noticeboard. Zad68 19:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think his point was to go through his list one by one, he's making a general point with that list. He's claiming that you are an article owner, and are stifling the ability of other editors to make changes to the article. I gave you the benefit of the doubt when I made my first proposals for changes on that article, but throughout all of the problems we had in the talk pages, and your general behavior along with Jmh649's as a reaction to me bringing this to the NPOV noticeboard, I'm convinced that you are pushing an agenda. ScienceApe (talk) 20:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes we are pushing the agenda of "high quality sources" in line with the consensus at WP:MEDRS

I was just picking one from his list and am now waiting for Hans answer. Feel free to try to answer yourself. I have looked for high quality sources that use the term "genital mutilation" to refer to circumcision and have been unable to find any. Let alone sources that say it is more politically correct

The trick with Wikipedia is you 1)find the best sources 2) summarize the sources within an article giving the same weight they do

If you come to Wikipedia with preconceived ideas and then try to find sources to support them you will often have problems. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

This is another red herring that has nothing to do with what I just said. ScienceApe (talk) 20:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• An exclusive focus on medical literature will make this a one-sided article. If Maimonides, as Hans suggests, outlines a specific motivation for circumcision that is not medical but moral, then a "medical response" misses the point entirely. Whether circumcision does or does not affect sexual pleasure is irrelevant if the citation from Maimonides is accurate and if Maimonides is authoritative in his validation of circumcision for the reasons he gives. Excluding such historical background and justification makes little sense: sure, one can call it (today) a medical procedure, but that doesn't mean that non-medical reasons are irrelevant. Drmies (talk) 20:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

We have a whole article on the history_of_male_circumcision and give a fair bit of space to history in the main article. We however use medical literature for medical content. For historical content this is not required. Just high quality secondary sources per WP:RS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

PLEASE STOP STRAWMANNING THIS ISSUE. I have told you at least 2 or 3 times already that you are misrepresenting the core problems identified with the article. It is NOT about whether or not this is a medical procedure. The problem is with undue weight being put on the medical REASONS for circumcision. You are invoking an equivocation fallacy by equivocating medical procedure with medical reasons. Stop bringing up other articles, we are not talking about history_of_male_circumcision, we are talking about circumcision, nothing else is relevant, nor does the presence of other articles absolve the problems identified in this article. ScienceApe (talk) 20:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Drmies, Wikipedia does indeed carry this content. We have the specialized article Brit milah that goes into that particular historical justification in Judaism. The Circumcision article itself has a Society and culture section with a Judaism subsection that gives the most important aspects of the procedure to Judaism as found in reliable secondary sourcing. That subsection has a {{Main}} heading with a link to Brit milah. I did not see much discussion of that historical reason in reviewing the sourcing for that subsection, so I think between the articles the coverage is appropriate. Zad68 20:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• So what proportion of the circumcision article is dedicated to history, society and cultural aspects? 26,010 bytes. How much to the more medical aspects like indications, technique, effects, adverse effects and prevalence? 24,745 bytes. So the article is currently more about the former rather than the latter. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

No, the weight issues I identified don't have to do with the size of the material mentioned. It has to do with how the information is presented. For example how the lead and body are organized. ScienceApe (talk) 20:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

There is clear consensus that the article should be organized per WP:MEDMOS. If you think you can change this consensus try a RfC. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

That's a non-sequitur. You're obfuscating the arguments I've presented. ScienceApe (talk) 20:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Some sources

Some material for editors who want to come to an informed opinion on whether the article properly reflects a global view and all relevant aspects:

• Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors, a 2010 position paper by the Royal Dutch Medical Association
• Criminalizing male circumcision?, a 2012 case note in The German Law Journal, written by a supporter of circumcision (apparently a Muslim).
• Children’s right to physical integrity, Resolution 1952 of the Council of Europe (2013) Hans Adler 23:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
  • 1. Don't speak the language, it appears that you are saying that circumcision isn't allowed in Holland, if so, is there a source in English? 2. And, what became of that case? 3. And, what became of that resolution?

    Finally, what is the proposed text (if the sources support it, a statement to the effect that circumcision is not practiced in Holland or Germany or whatever, but rather than expecting us to follow these laws, please try to briefly summarize these sources to one or three sentences). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

    1. If you are getting a Dutch version of the KNMG position paper, you should remove "Dutch" from your browser settings. I am getting the English version. 2. The verdict could not be appealed because it was an acquittal based on a technicality: an inevitable error or law. What they meant is that over the years legal opinion in Germany shifted gradually until the view that non-medical circumcision of minors is criminal became (close to) prevailing. After the verdict there was a huge outcry mostly from the Jewish population in Germany (much less from Muslims, though the original victim was a Muslim boy), from the German churches and from abroad. Some brainiacs abroad even compared the situation to the Holocaust. At that point the Bundestag asked for input from experts, carefully selected to consist mostly of circumcision supporters, and passed a law that legalises specifically male circumcision of minors, under some easily satisfiable conditions. 3. It's a pretty fresh one. Again there has been a huge outcry from those it tries to persuade to not chop off parts of their children's sexual organs. Hans Adler 23:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

(ec) To clarify: For circumcision to be illegal you don't need a law. It's the absence of a law that does it. This is because nowadays we have children's rights. Children were once considered their parents' property, and circumcision was once considered totally harmless if not beneficial. In Europe the current consensus on the first point, and something close to consensus on the second, is that both positions were wrong. As a result, the religious freedom of parents can no longer trump their children's right to physical integrity.

The new legal conclusion may soon arrive in the Netherlands. I guess up to the first court decision saying otherwise, everybody (qualified) is essentially free to practise circumcision there as there will be a similar unavoidable error of law to the perpetrator's benefit. I doubt that politicians will seriously touch the subject before this happens. But I am not following the political situation there and may have missed something. In any case the KNMG paper is valuable primarily for its medical conclusions and assessments, which diametrically oppose those of the AAP and are at least as credible.

The resolution (number 3) is definitely short enough for you to read. Or if you prefer opinion, google for the numerous alarmist reports in Jewish newspapers. Hans Adler 00:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the suboptimal formatting, in a bit of a rush:

1) For the Royal Dutch (KNMG) the English version in here, it is reference #56 in the article. For a review of the positions of the various medical organizations worldwide, the article does not use the individual statements as primary sources for themselves, instead the 2012 book Surgical Guide to Circumcision by Bolnick et al. is used as a secondary source.

2) In the end the German legislature ended up voting with a solid majority to make the procedure explicitly legal for religious non-medical purposes. Hans appears to agree this was the result. This has been discussed before, it's in Circumcision and law.

3) This has also been discussed before. It turns out that the body that produced that document isn't actually the Council of Europe but an advisory committee (the Parliamentary Committee) that can produce only non-binding advisory statements. Subsequently the President of the actual Council of Europe made a statement assuring religious leaders that the Council would not recommend circumcision be outlawed, I'll dig that up. Zad68 23:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Back now with the links to sources covering this, as promised: Here is a newspaper article explaining the advisory role of the Parliamentary Assembly, and states that the head of the Council of Europe said "that Europe will not ban male circumcision". Here's a more recent newspaper article (December 17) that says they are indeed moving to reconsider the decision and a debate is scheduled for this month (January). This is a really good example of why it's so important to use secondary sources. Zad68 01:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the last part. I missed the entire resolution thing and found it only now, for the same reason I did not edit for months. "made a statement assuring religious leaders" seems to be code for caving in to religious protestations, which apparently still trump children's rights. Hans Adler 00:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

No problem Hans. I understand your viewpoint on this subject. Zad68 00:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

As suspected (got a long answer above with no proposed text, and no sources backing opinion). This needs to stop, or be stopped. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The article is so far off that it can't be fixed with a few isolated changes. Asking for them in such a context is a classical stonewalling technique. Hans Adler 00:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I am still waiting for Hans to answer "Were is a high quality source to support "The more politically correct term male genital mutilation"" If one was provided than we could add it to the article and this issue of his would be addressed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Third request for reliable sources

I am still trying to understand what the dispute is, and it turns out the sources supplied above by Hans Adler have already been accounted for or addressed. For the third time, without the long polemics, will ScienceApe please provide a reliable secondary source with a POV that is not given due weight in the article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

They have not been accounted for or addressed in any meaningful way. That's the problem. Hans Adler 06:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Sandy, would you consider this to be a reliable source? http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/menshealth/facts/circumcision.htm. It is written by Dr John Dean, specialist in sexual medicine, and also reviewed by Mr Chris Dawson, consultant urological surgeon. It appears to sum up various studies, and its findings don't always agree with the tone of this article. For example the Wikipedia article "Circumcision" implies that it's proven that circumcision reduces HIV risk, whereas the source I mention cites conflicting studies. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TonySoreGeet (talk • contribs) 14:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

No not a reliable source. Please read WP:MEDRS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)gleaning (in spite of evasive answers) that there are cultural and sociological issues that those claiming POV want covered, but I'm not understanding what is missing. Or, if there are significant controversies not mentioned, reliable sources to those haven't been presented either. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, TonySoreGeet; no, that site does not appear to meet either WP:RS or WP:MEDRS. I am

You're also invoking a strawman fallacy. All of the relevant secondary sources are on the article. That's not the problem, the problem is a general assessment of the editing practices going on at circumcision. ScienceApe (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

RfC Notice: Friedwardt Winterberg and Black hole firewalls

I opened an RfC titled 'What mention, if any, should be made of Friedwardt Winterberg's 2001 paper, "Gamma Ray Bursters and Lorentzian Relativity", in the Black hole firewall article?' No responses in first 24 hours apart from WP:SPA's, so I'm cross-posting here to the NPOV board. I do not believe any domain knowledge whatsoever is required to help resolve what I claim to be a simple WP:NPOV issue. Please join the discussion here [14]. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Resolved

More comments would be most welcome, and the issue itself is not resolved, but since 9 January there have been seven users giving comments in the survey section so the total absence of feedback is resolved. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Bluerasberry and I are the only non-WP:SPA's there, so User:Bluerasberry's input will be valuable to resolve the issue. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

POV template documentation - Removal of 5 yr old text "Do not use this template to 'warn' readers about the article"

Comments requested at this thread, to help forestall edit war and to discuss the proposed removal of the sentence

Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article.

From This version of Template:POV/DOC NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

John Casor and John Punch

Wayne has been editing the Anthony Johnson article in violation of WP:NPOV. We've had multiple discussions, dispute resolution, and third opinion regarding content but also included in those discussions violations of WP:NPOV.[15] The article currently in contention is the Anthony Johnson article where there are 2 examples of a violation of WP:NPOV as per WP:IMPARTIAL.

The first example is that Wayne has changed the phrasing of the article to refer to John Punch as a "servant"/"servitude" rather than a "slave"/"slavery" while leaving the text in the article that refers to John Casor as a "slave".[16][17] He's creating a narrative that implies one is different than the other while historians regard BOTH John Punch and John Casor as slaves. Using different language to describe each is a violation of WP:IMPARTIAL as it falsely tries to establish John Casor as a "slave" while John Punch was not a "slave" but a "servant". Historians regard both as slaves and have even mentioned that John Punch was the first instance of lifetime enslavement, lifetime slavery, and was the first lifetime slave.

The second example refers to Wayne interjecting a narrative when regarding John Punch that differs from the narrative of the article. Almost all of the information in the article is written as a "matter of fact" where sources are paraphrased and written in Wikipedia's voice. However, when discussing John Punch, Wayne has changed the language to include "Some historians" or "Most historians" to imply that there is doubt about this historical fact while supplying no reliable source advocating that John Punch was not a slave.[18][19] This clearly creates a distinction in narrative that the information regarding John Casor is purely factual while the information regarding John Punch is of opinion or is disputed. That's a violation of WP:IMPARTIAL and possibly the "stating facts as opinions" portion of the Neutral Point of View explanation.

For full disclosure, I have also mentioned this on the No Original Research Noticeboard. I posted this here because there is a clear difference in the way Wayne represents John Casor and John Punch. The language and narrative used for John Punch inherently belittles his role in the history of colonial slavery while creating an arbitrary difference between John Casor and John Punch, when historians make no such distinction. Essentially, I'd like to come to a consensus on if this behavior of presenting different narratives to promote a user's own point of view is okay. Scoobydunk (talk) 21:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I use "servant"/"servitude" rather than "slave"/"slavery" because that is the wording of the primary sources. Historians themselves are divided on which terminology to use. John Punch was sentenced to a lifetime of servitude for a crime, a sentence that had already been applied to white servants before him. His is only the first documented case of a black person so sentenced although, according to historians, there is evidence other black people had previously been sentenced to life but in their cases the legal records have not survived. In the case of John Casor, it is the first documented case where a person who had committed no crime could be held in servitude for life. There is no doubt that "one is different than the other."
Who the first slave was varies depending on which source you use. Historians are obviously divided on the subject. My position for my edit is supported by the book History of Black Americans: From Africa to the emergence of the cotton kingdom by Philip Sheldon Foner published in 1975 which specifically mentions that historians hold different views.

Quote: "They [historians] differ, however, on the exact status of the Negro during the time lag before slavery was established, and they argue over the date when enslavement took place...Some historians believe that slavery may have existed from the very first arrival of the Negro in 1619, but others are of the opinion that the institution did not develop until the 1660s and that the status of the Negro until then was that of an indentured servant. Still others believe that the evidence is too sketchy to permit any definite conclusion either way...Servitude for life, one essence of slavery, occurred in July 1640, in a case involving three runaway servants—two white and one black...A precedent-setting case was that of Johnson v. Parker."

Scoobydunk's edit implies that his own view is a mainstream one held by all historians. I hold that the current version is a NPOV presentation of what is known that readers can interpret how they like. Wayne (talk) 03:45, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The only difference between the two is that one was a civil case and the other was a criminal case. If you also noticed, Wayne used the word "servitude" when describing Casor here, though in the article he used the word "slave" for Casor and "servant/servitude" for Punch. This is the POV I was talking about. Also, the quote provided by Wayne does nothing to distinguish between Casor and Punch and doesn't even even speak to historian's opinions regarding the status of Punch after he was sentenced to lifetime slavery. All Foner does is mention that historians differ on when slavery, as an institution, was established, not on whether or not Punch became a slave. I'd also like to note that Wayne didn't even address the second point about using Wikipedia voice for describing facts related to Casor, but presents facts as opinions when referring to Punch. If you'd like to see the list of sources from our third opinion that describe Punch as a slave or as being enslaved then you can find them on this table.[20] I'd also like to point out that Wayne just said "I hold that the current version is a NPOV presentation of what is known that readers can interpret how they like." meaning he wants there to be confusion about Punch and his status and let readers interpret it but is perfectly fine with there being no doubtful narrative when regarding Casor. This is a violation of WP:NPOV as he presents information about Casor as an accepted fact and information about Punch as disputed or questionable. Also, my version didn't reference historians at all nor mentioned a mainstream view, I simply represented punch in the same wikipedia voice that was used for Casor and Wayne saw fit to change it.Scoobydunk (talk) 05:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Under both my edit and yours there is no dispute over whether Casor was a slave, only if he was the first. Punch was an indentured servant sentenced to lifetime servitude for a crime which many historians do not accept as slavery in the way we use the term today. Some historians consider Punch to be the first slave while some consider Casor to be the first. This is what the current article says. The Foner quote simply explains why some historians call Punch the first slave while others call Casor the first slave. Wayne (talk) 06:26, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

No, Casor was a slave the same way Punch was a slave and my edits have been impartial describing both of them with the same language and narrative. The interjection of doubt about Punch's status as slave is purely your own POV based on your own OR and over the past 4 months you haven't given a single source saying that John Punch was not a slave and no strong reliable source saying Casor was the first slave. You then contradict your position when you say "Some historians consider Punch to be the first slave while some consider Casor to be the first." because he you're saying there is disagreement about who was the first slave but then only show that disagreement when describing Punch and not Casor. That's against WP:POV because you're showing partiality to Casor, while I'm referring to both of them using equal diction and narrative. Furthermore, you using "some historians" to refer to both Punch and Casor is a violation of WP:Weight which is also a violation of WP:NPOV. When identifying strong reliable sources to support our claims, you couldn't provide one single source of a historian claiming that Casor was the first slave. Even in our dispute resolution, the few sources you did have were tertiary sources and did not take precedence over the strong secondary sources I later identified. Also, the Foner quote does nothing to defend your position of why you use a different tone, different diction, and different narrative when describing Casor and Punch. It actually works against you because IF Foner is expressing that historians disagree about who was the first slave, which he's not, then that applies equally to both, though the language and narrative you use in the article only shows disagreement about Punch's status and represents everything Casor related as a fact in wikipedia's voice.Scoobydunk (talk) 07:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Redirecton of NORN discussion: First Colonial Slave

For the past few months Wayne has been editing the Anthony Johnson article with original research. Most recently he's edited the Anthony Johnson article to say that "Some historians" consider John Punch a slave or the first instance of slavery and hasn't given a single source that substantiates this claim.[21] His most recent edits are an example of WP:WEASEL where it specifically lists "some people say" and "many scholars state" as examples of original research unless a source specifically says that. I removed language that represented the editor's analysis of historical evidence and replaced it with a statement that made no indication to a minority or majority view.[22] WLRoss promptly reinserted "Many historians describe" which is a violation of WP:OR as per WP:WEASEL.[23] I'll also point you to a talk discussion where he basically admits to an original research interpretation of the historian Foner, but still edits the article based on his interpretation of Foner.[24] Here he says "The quote makes it obvious that "some" is the most accurate descriptive."[25] I'm posting here to try and find a non original research variation of the information and to make sure we're on the same page with what constitutes as original research. Scoobydunk (talk) 17:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Who the first slave was varies depending on which source you use. Historians are obviously divided on the subject. My position for this edit is supported by the book History of Black Americans: From Africa to the emergence of the cotton kingdom by Philip Sheldon Foner published in 1975 which specifically mentions that historians hold different views.

Quote: "They [historians] differ, however, on the exact status of the Negro during the time lag before slavery was established, and they argue over the date when enslavement took place...Some historians believe that slavery may have existed from the very first arrival of the Negro in 1619, but others are of the opinion that the institution did not develop until the 1660s and that the status of the Negro until then was that of an indentured servant. Still others believe that the evidence is too sketchy to permit any definite conclusion either way...Servitude for life, one essence of slavery, occurred in July 1640, in a case involving three runaway servants—two white and one black...A precedent-setting case was that of Johnson v. Parker."

Scoobydunk's edit implies that his own view is a mainstream one held by all historians. Wayne (talk) 03:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Different views on when slavery started as an institution, not on whether Punch was a slave or not. That quote doesn't establish a claim that "some" or "most" historians describe John Punch as a servant/slave. You're taking a generalized statement about the institution of slavery and interpreting it. Your argument derives from the notion "Well, if historians disagree on when slavery started, then they must disagree on whether Punch was a slave" which is an original research conclusion drawn from a quote that says nothing of the sort. Not only that, I also supplied a quote from a strong reliable source that proves almost everyone agrees that by 1640 there were BOTH indentured servants AND slaves.

"On the first point--the status of blacks before the passage of the slave laws--the issue is not whether some were free or some were slave. Almost everyone acknowledges the existence of both categories by the 1640s, if not from the beginning." Alden T. Vaughan. The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. 97, No. 3. July,1989.

This quote, by itself, doesn't prove Punch was a slave, though I believe they are referencing the Punch case with the 1640, but it does disprove the faulty logical conclusion that tries to yield a disputed/doubtful claim on whether John Punch was a slave or not. Even though historians differ on when the institution of slavery started, this quote verifies that there is nearly unanimous agreement that slaves existed by 1640. Therefore, some historians can hold the opinion that the institution of slavery didn't start until 1660, but they can still consider John Punch and others as slaves. Still, despite being told that his interpretation which he referred to as "obvious" was original research, he continued to edit the article from his own OR interpretation. Scoobydunk (talk) 05:47, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Connecting slavery as an institution with Casor and Punch is not WP:OR as Foner mentions both as examples. The Foner quote simply elaborates on why some historians call Punch the first slave while others call Casor the first slave. Wayne (talk) 06:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The way you connected them is a violation of WP:OR as you're making your own deductions based on what Foner said about how historians regard slavery as an institution. To start with, your quote grossly misrepresents the article because your quote spans 6 paragraphs. You picked key words and phrases that fit your POV and omitted nearly 5 paragraphs of text in-between. It's clear you're trying to connect Punch and Casor to Foner's statements about how historians regard slavery, as an instution, when Punch and Casor are actually in completely different paragraphs and Foner makes no connection or mention to how historians view Punch and Casor.[26]

I'll reference your latest post where you say "The Foner quote simply elaborates on why some historians call Punch the first slave while others call Casor the first slave." No it doesn't and Foner doesn't elaborate on that either. He never refers to Casor as being the first slave or instituting lifetime servitude or slavery and he never mentions historian's opinions on the status of Casor. Here is what he says about Casor after describing the case "Johnson petitioned the Northampton County court for the return of his servant, and in March 1654, the court ordered Casor returned to Johnson and handed down the judgment that Casor was Johnson’s servant for life, that is, his slave." Never did he mention that historians considered Casor the first slave, that Casor was the first of anything, or that this case instituted lifetime slavery or servitude. He does say that about John Punch though. After describing the Punch case, Foner says "Lifetime service—in effect, slavery—was instituted for the Negro, not the whites, even though all three were guilty of the same offense." He Foner specifically says that the Punch case instituted lifetime servitude/slavery and he says it as a matter of fact, not as a matter of what some historians consider. For you to assert that "other historians call Casor the first slave" based on what Foner said is also a violation of WP:OR because he doesn't say that in any way, shape, or form.

Foner does mention that the Anthony Johnson case was a "precedent" but doesn't explain what that precedent was. However, John Russell and other qualified historians that met the standards of our strong reliable sources from the 3rd Opinion dispute resolution, have said that this case set a precedent and gave judicial sanctioning for a free Negroe to own slaves of their own race.[27] For you to assume or imply that the precedent was for the institution or legal sanctioning of lifetime servitude/slavery itself is also a violation of WP:OR. Your source doesn't say this and other sources say differently.Scoobydunk (talk) 07:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I never said that Foner supports who was the first slave. I said he supports that historians have varying views on when slavery began, ie; 1619, 1660s or believe there is insufficient evidence to support either date. I've posted sources such as , and even a University textbook called Term Paper Resource Guide to African American History that doesn't mention Punch at all, which all say that Casor was the first slave and you have posted some that say Punch is, this alone supports that historians are divided on the issue and the current article reflects that. Even Edgar Toppin, one of the leading historians on slavery, states in his book The Black American in United States History that Punch was an indentured servant who "in effect became a slave" when slavery was illegal while Casor was the first legal slave yet you wouldn't even allow that version in the article. You want the article to name Punch as the first to the exclusion of other opinions. Wayne (talk) 07:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

You mention a textbook which is a tertiary source and doesn't take precedence over secondary sources and neither does the website or the privately published book take precedence over peer reviewed scholarly sources. I've told you this, North Shoreman has told you this in our dispute resolution, and Neil has told you this in our third opinion. The fact that you still cling to it means you have a serious problem understanding the policies of Wikipedia and following the guidelines set by Wikipedia. Regardless, that's irrelevant here because this noticeboard is for your OR interpretation of Foner which never says that "some historians consider Punch a slave" and not about reliable sources. So I ask that you stay on subject and provide a source that says "Some historians" or "Many historians" consider Punch a slave, otherwise it's a violation of WP:OR as per WP:WEASEL. Also, what you said is that Foner supports your OR interpretation that some historians consider Punch the first slave while others consider Casor the first slave...which is not true. I'm the one that had to explain to you that Foner was talking about slavery as an institution and not the status of Punch and I also explained how it's possible a historian can believe that the institution of slavery started in 1660 but that slaves existed before 1660.Scoobydunk (talk) 10:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course "slaves" effectively existed before 1660, but they were indentured servants who had rights that slaves (in the modern meaning) did not have after 1660. Slavery was not legal until the Casor case.
As for your claim that the third party opinion supported you, I cited Toppin, possibly the strongest peer reviewed source available and despite the third party opinion that "Most historians believe that the ruling effectively made Punch a slave" was acceptable[28] you still rejected that edit because you didn't want to include "effectively" in regards to Punch becoming a slave by claiming "because that was a misrepresentation of a single quote from Toppin." Do you want blood or what?
I've made my case and you have made yours. Let it go now and let uninvolved editors work it out. Wayne (talk) 15:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The Toppin sources were textbooks and were not peer reviewed scholarly sources which is why they were rejected in both dispute resolutions when compared to peer reviewed secondary works and scholarly journals. Neil's opinion was based on information of a single textbook that said "in effect" and shortly after he set up criteria for establishing strong reliable sources for us to use to make a consensus and Toppin did not meet that criteria because his sources were privately published tertiary sources. This whole time you've been arguing that John Punch wasn't a slave and remained an indentured servant and you haven't provided a single source that makes this claim. This is another example of your original research since you provided 0 sources saying that Punch remained an indentured servant when you were asked to do so in dispute resolution. Instead, you give this quote by Foner and then say it's "obvious" that some historians didn't consider Punch a slave which is not what Foner says. So, again, where's your source that says "some" or "many" historians consider Punch a slave? It would be more constructive if you stick to the issue of this ORN topic instead of making irrelevant appeals about how your tertiary sources weren't used over strong reliable secondary sources during dispute resolution.Scoobydunk (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Talpiot Tomb should not be associated with Israel

There is a dispute with regards to the article Talpiot Tomb. I have had a discussion at the article's talk page with Debresser and his talk page.

It started with I changed a link to "Rock-cut tombs in ancient Israel", which redirects to an article about Israel, to "rock-cut tomb" and removed the category Category:Former buildings and structures in Israel. Talpiot Tomb is located in East Talpiot in East Jerusalem. There is a consensus in the world that it's Israeli-occupied territories. That view is of course also reflected here at Wikipedia such as in the article about East Talpiot:

East Talpiot or Armon HaNetziv is a neighborhood in southern East Jerusalem,[1] established in 1973 in the upswing of building that followed the Six-Day War, in an area unilaterally annexed to Israel. The international community considers Israeli neighborhoods in East Jerusalem to be illegal settlements,[2] but the Israeli government disputes this.[3] East Talpiot is one of Jerusalem's Ring Neighborhoods.

Debresser reverted my edit and said that "Undid revision 590366676 by IRISZOOM (talk) Revert. Removal of good link. 2. I've been there, it is in the middle of the Jewish neighborhood of Armon HaNetziv". I wrote to him at his talk page and he responded with similar remarks (the emphasis is his):

First of all, I explained myself in great detail in the edit summary. To repeat and add:

Because the link was to Rock-cut tombs in ancient Israel, and that is correct.

Even if you want to say that the status of that area is disputed nowadays, that does not detract from the fact that at least according to some it is Israel. It is a Wikipedia guideline to clarify that ambiguous status in the lead of all relevant articles. The lead of Talpiot Tomb already does that by clearly mentioning East Jerusalem.

In addition, it is de facto Israel. Just go there and see for yourself that Armon HaNetziv is a regular Israeli Jerusalem neighborhood. No Arabs there. It falls under the jurisdiction of the Jerusalem municipality. Apart from in politics, it has no connection to the West Bank.

I don't see him reflecting what the world thinks, only what his views are, as maybe best exemplified in his statements that "I've been there" and "just go there and see for yourself". Really? What is that for type of level of discussion? And how does it matter if "there are no Arabs there"? His views are similiar to those by Israel and a few supporters here and there, rejected by the international community and the vast majority of scholars.

As he didn't answer for a time that he could, based on his activity, and failed to prove why his edit are the right one, I reverted him. He is going against the consensus. When I link to show how we describe, amongst others, East Talpiot at Wikipedia, he responds with that "Wikipedia is not a WP:RS" as if that was the point. There is certainly a consensus that places in the occupied territories are not in Israel. Saying that they are is a fringe view.

Looking at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem, you see that "There was no consensus for any phrasing of Jerusalem’s location in either Israel or Palestine". While it does have a category that it's a city in Israel and another category that it's a city in the Palestinian territories, it's somewhat different because one part of it (West Jerusalem) is not regarded as occupied. We have category named Category:Archaeological sites on the Golan Heights and with the exception of a few who insert "in Israel"-categories, the must of them doesn't have it. Of the same reason, we have templates and articles wich say "of Israel" insteaf of "in Israel", such as National parks and nature reserves of Israel. We have categories such as Category:Israeli-occupied territories, including subcategories such as Category:Visitor attractions in Israeli-occupied territories, because they are not a part of Israel. Settlements are categorized as Category:Israeli settlements. We don't have an article with a list of cities in Israel but a List of Israeli cities because some of them are in occupied territory. Old City (Jerusalem) are not either described as in Israel (with the exception of a category called Category:World Heritage Sites in Israel, which I think is wrong and not least because UNESCO hasn't designated it is an in Israel, but a template was renamed to Template:World Heritage Sites in Israel and East Jerusalem to reflect it better), which is also true for the many holy places there. So there is no basis at all to associate places in East Jerusalem with Israel.

I welcome your comments. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

It is my understanding that consensus is that it is enough to mention in the lead of the article that the Talpiot Tomb is located in East Jerusalem, but that Israeli categories may be added. Just as West Bank categories, for that matter. As an example, I would bring Jerusalem. Even though there may be no consensus to say in the lead of that article that Jerusalem is located in Israel, it is still in Category:Cities in Israel. As well as in Category:Cities in the Palestinian territories. Which is precisely what I said above: that consensus is to mention the status of the location in the lead of the article, and then use categories as fit.

In addition, Armon HaNetziv, where the Talpiot Tomb is located, is de facto Israel. Just go there and see for yourself that Armon HaNetziv is a regular Israeli Jerusalem neighborhood. The area falls under the factual jurisdiction of the Jerusalem municipality. The excavation to the Tomb were done by the Israel Antiquities Authority. Apart from in name only, a matter of international politics, it has no connection to the West Bank. So even if for political correctness we can not say in the lead of the article that it is Israel, at least in categories we should reflect the facts. Debresser (talk) 21:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I deny the accusations that I go against consensus. I reverted IRISZOOM's recent edit, which unilaterally and without any prior discussion made a change to a longstanding text. Per WP:BRD, IRISZOOM was supposed to show consensus when I reverted. Instead, only with the greatest difficulty did I manage to impress upon this editor the need to seek consensus first and edit later. Debresser (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• I offer no opinion about the category. As far as the link to the other article is concerned, the article on this particular tomb is not the proper place to fight out the naming of the article on that type of tomb. I see no evidence whatsoever against the notion that this tomb shouldn't be included in that class, and since it is, linking to that article is appropriate at that point. Making a big show out of linking to some other less specific article because you don't like the name rock-cut tombs in ancient Israel or even rock-cut tombs in Israel is disruptive; if you have a problem with the name, deal with it elsewhere and change the link here if you succeed in the getting that name changed. Mangoe (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The link is named Rock-cut tombs in Israel. What I am saying is that there is an article named Rock-cut tombs, which I think is the right place to link to it when describing a general topic. I am not suggesting the article to be renamed. I am not protesting that Rock-cut tombs in Israel be included in the article, it could be in See also, for example. It's just that I don't think it's correct to link to a specific thing when it's about a general topic (rock-cut-tombs, not just in Israel), even if it would have named "in China" or "in Italy", "in the 8th century" or whatever. But I see this as a small issue, not a part of the POV issue I see with the category, and it's not why I came here. --IRISZOOM (talk) 21:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I've already commented on the example about Jerusalem.

What you think I should visit and what is "de facto Israel" is not relevant. No one disputes that Israel controls the area, they are an occupying power, but that doesn't make it "de facto" in Israel. That it was excavated by Israelis makes no difference to this.

The consensus is that it's occupied territory, it's not part of Israel. You are going against that. It's a fringe view and should be reverted. When you are saying that "political correctness" is to say in the lead that it's not in Israel but that categories should "reflect the facts", I have not much to say to you. The international community and scholars see it as occupied territory. That are facts, not political correctness. --IRISZOOM (talk) 21:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

This "fringe view", as you call it, is the official point of view of the State of Israel, and the practical status quo. It is mentioned in all relevant articles on Wikipedia, usually with a formula akin to "The international community considers Israeli neighborhoods in [whatever] to be illegal settlements, but the Israeli government disputes this". In any case, calling this "fringe" is large. Debresser (talk) 23:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

You are changing the issue now. Yeah, Israel disputes that it's occupied territory but that doesn't mean that we categorize settlements and other places in the occupied territories as if they were in Israel. The problem is that you want a tomb in East Jerusalem to have an "in Israel"-category. We do state in relevant articles that Israel disputes that but that doesn't mean that we don't refer to them as Israeli-occupied territories or that the we don't say that the West Bank is occupied because Israel disputes that. And it doesn't mean that we say that East Jerusalem, Dome of the Rock, the Western Wall, Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron etc. are in Israel just because Israel thinks so. The "practical status quo" is already reflected by mentioning that they are occupied and controlled by Israel but that doesn't change their status, which you think when you write that it's "de facto in Israel". --IRISZOOM (talk) 00:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The way the article is written, I think the link should direct to rock cut tombs in general and not to a specified sub-category. From cursory research, it's located in East or SouthEastern Jerusalem and so the article should be made to reflect this. Debresser, if you want to say that it's located in Israel, then you first must provide a source that specifically says "The Talpiot Tomb, located in Israel" or something to that effect. Even if you do turn up a source that says that, that source should only be quoted and attributed to the author in a sub section of the article and wouldn't take prevalence in the lead since it appears most sources simply say Jerusalem and Jerusalem is more accurate and direct when referring to location. It's along the same lines of why we say "Los Angeles, California" and not "Los Angeles, United States of America". Secondly, please refrain from mentioning your personal visit to Talpiot as it has no relevance to this discussion. Using that to support your argument is considered original research. As for IRISZOOM, I don't think it's necessary to muddle your position with a bunch of links to other wikipedia articles. Just post a few reliable sources that support your position. I hope this response clears up some of the disputed content. If your argument is more on whether or not Talpiot is part of Isreal, then instead of just asserting that there is consensus you have to provide a source that actually confirms that consensus.Scoobydunk (talk) 22:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Scoobydunk, the purpose of what you call my "original research" was not to prove anything in any academic way, but just to remind all of us of what we are talking about. After all, we must never forget that an encyclopedia describes things from a real world, not just the way these things are seen in a political mirror. Debresser (talk) 23:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I hadn't addressed the issue of the link to Rock-cut tombs in Israel yet on this page. First of all please note that that article has a section Tomb of Jesus, which mentions the Talpiot Tomb. It is indisputable that a link to Rock-cut tombs in ancient Israel is relevant. The article is not to be blamed that it is redirected to "Rock-cut tombs in Israel" without the "ancient". That is the result of a move on 13 May 2012 with the explanation "Not just ancient - they are still present in modern Israel". I'd move the article back any time, if only to avoid precisely this issue. Debresser (talk) 22:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I have boldly done so, with the edit summary "Undo move from 13 May 2012 that was not disucssed and open[ed] the way to controversy." I hope this solves the issue here to the satisfaction of all. Debresser (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I have yet to see a source that describes the Talpiot Tomb as being in Israel. The wiki article you linked provides no source for the proposed sites the "Tomb of Jesus" section mentions. It simply asserts that these are proposed sites with no reliable source making that assertion and it certainly doesn't create any connection to Israel. The words "rock-cut tomb" should be linked to the article about rock-cut tombs in general because people who don't know what a rock-cut tomb is or want to know more about them shouldn't be linked to a sub-category and should be linked to the actual article about rock-cut tombs. If they want to know about rock-cut tombs in Israel then there should be an external link or a sub-section on the rock-cut tombs article that will direct them to it. You changing the link to the Israel specific rock-cut tomb is a clear violation of WP:NPOV and WP:OR as you're creating a relationship between Talpiot Tomb and Israel that you've yet to provide a source confirming. Even then, this information should be in a sub-section not in the lead. Scoobydunk (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Debresser, you missed the point about why it should link to the general article.

Scoobydunk, here are some sources about the location of East Talpiot:

Construction has begun on approximately 60 new homes in a Jewish settlement in Israeli-occupied East Jerusalem, the Israeli campaign group Peace Now says. The work, in East Talpiot settlement, is aimed at creating a belt around East Jerusalem that would sever it from the rest of the West Bank, the group says. Settlements on occupied land are illegal under international law. - BBC

About 300,000 Israelis are living in the areas conquered by Israel in 1967, nearly 28 years ago. However, not all the Israeli settlements over the Green Line (the pre-1967 border) are conceived by the Israelis as identical. Residents of the Jewish neighborhoods of East Jerusalem, for instance, are not considered in Israel to be settlers. We are referring to eight large neighborhoods (Ramot, Ramat Eshkol, French Hill, Shuafat Heights, Neveh Ya'akov, Pisgat Ze'ev, East Talpiot and Gilo), all of which are situated in the municipal area annexed to Jerusalem after 1967, where 150,000 Jews are living today. - Palestine-Israel Journal

Construction and Housing Minister Uri Ariel pledged to continue building in east Jerusalem and West Bank settlements on Sunday evening as he laid the cornerstone of a 63-unit Jewish housing project in East Talpiot, over the pre-1967 lines. - Jerusalem Post

Here is a map by CIA over the Greater Jerusalem and here is a map by UN over the West Bank. You can see that East Talpiot (Talpiyyot) is over Israel's recognized territory (the area inside the Green Line). --IRISZOOM (talk) 00:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Though it sounds silly, I think using maps is still considered OR because you're making a determination based off of a visual representation. Maps are a primary source but wikipedia cautions using primary sources since many claims about them become OR. Regardless, thank you for posting some sources. I already did a search on google scholar before I got involved in this discussion and found 3 sources that said it was located in East Jerusalem or the South East outskirts of Jerusalem. One of them was from a specialized peer reviewed magazine that is regularly archived/published by JSOTR. The point is, I already know it's located in East Jerusalem and what I'm telling debresser is that if he finds a source that says it's in Israel, then he can mention that in the article but should attribute it to the author that says it. For example, Dr. XXXXXX wrote in his book "Stuff about stuff and stuff" that the Talpiot Tomb is located in Israel. Or if he finds a source that says some scholars consider Talpiot to be a part of Israel then that can be mentioned too, but neither of these should change the fact that the link should be to rock-cut tombs in general and only in a sub-section can the tomb's connection to Israel be discussed ONLY if such a connection is established through reliable sources and not field trips. Your sources do a pretty good job on making a distinction between East Jerusalem, Easy Talpiot and the west bank, Israel.Scoobydunk (talk) 04:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

@Scoobydunk, I am at a loss here. I don't yet understand what problem you see with a link to Rock-cut tombs in ancient Israel.

@IRISZOOM All the sources above is indeed original research. Debresser (talk) 10:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

<- Links or categories that refer to this location as being "...in ancient Israel" seem fine to me but the article can't be in the Category:Former buildings and structures in Israel given that the location is across the green line. Placing articles about locations across the green line in "...in Israel" categories strikes me as a topic ban worthy NPOV policy violation. What's the alternative ? I see there's a Category:Former buildings and structures in Jerusalem‎. It's only in Category:Former buildings and structures in Israel at the moment so that needs fixing. The "Former buildings and structures in Jerusalem‎" category is only in the parent Category:Former buildings and structures in Israel at the moment rather than being categorized in a way that acknowledges the existence of the green line/East Jerusalem/West Bank/Palestine or whatever, so that needs fixing.(rewritten for clarity 15:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)) There seem to be systemic problems with many of the Jerusalem related categories presumably caused by nationalists imposing their preferences on Wikipedia. It would be good to get it sorted out centrally at some point, perhaps at WP:IPCOLL, to avoid these kind of issues. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps Category:Archaeological sites in Jerusalem is a better category. It's in both Category:Archaeological sites in Israel and Category:Archaeological sites in the West Bank. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Debresser, you linking it to the tombs in ancient israel is equivalent to someone in an article about Italian Food, linking the subject of "pizza" directly to a Dominoes article. Dominoes is not representative of pizza and such a link indicates a clear bias which is considered POV. This is the same with what you're trying to do. The rock-cut tombs in ancient Israel aren't representative of rock-cut tombs in general, but you know what is? The rock-cut tombs article. Your link could just as easily be switched out for tombs in Mexico, China, South Africa, Russia, wherever and they would still have the same fortitude that Israel does, which is none. We don't link "video games" directly to the "Blizzard" wikipedia article and it's because of the same principle. It's incredibly biased and violates NPOV. As far as your comment to IRISZOOM, sources themselves are not original research. You need to familiarize yourself with NPOV and OR policies because we've clearly explained the dilemma your position presents and you're still not understanding it or just refusing to accept it. Scoobydunk (talk) 13:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Having reviewed the categorization issue, I have to agree with Sean.hoyland: categorizing it as "in Jerusalem", which it is anyway and which, as a more precise geographical category, would normally be preferred, is the proper solution here. There are several candidate categories according to type of site but forcing this into an "Israel" category is, I see now, tendentious. Mangoe (talk) 13:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Debresser's claim that the sources I used are OR is ridiculous at best. Read them again. --IRISZOOM (talk) 16:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't really care about this. Two of us have offered a solution that is already being used in dozens of articles on site in Jerusalem. Address that, and cease the squabbling. Mangoe (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I was going to respond but was on my way out and thought I first respond to that incomprehensible claim about OR.

Just as I don't oppose Category:Archaeological sites in Jerusalem being there, I don't oppose Category:Former buildings and structures in Jerusalem being there, on the contrary, it's a good solution. The issue about parent category needs to be resolved, though. --IRISZOOM (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I think we have a consensus here. The article was already in "Archaeological sites in Jerusalem" and I now changed "Former buildings and structures in Israel" to "in Jerusalem". I'd suggest doing the same for that category as for the Jerusalem article: put it in both "Former buildings and structures in Israel" and "in the West Bank". That solution is truthful and diplomatic. As to a link to "...in ancient Israel", there seems to be consensus this should be acceptable. Thank you all very much. I personally agree with this consensus as well. Debresser (talk) 19:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, where is the "consensus" about ancient Israel? Can you quote it?Scoobydunk (talk) 20:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Sean.hoyland and me said so specifically. Mangoe said that raising that issue here is disruptive. Even IRISZOOM said this is not a big deal for him, and it is not what he came here for. The only one disagreeing is you. I see consensus not to change that link or at least not to make an issue out of it, and in any case not here. So we are done here. Thank you for your valuable opinions. Debresser (talk) 00:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

It's just that I don't see why a general topic should not link to that general topic. It makes sense and I don't think someone oppose a specific topic (such as the about in ancient Israel) being linked there, including in See also. --IRISZOOM (talk) 01:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Sean.hoyland only said that he thinks such links should be in the article and no one disagrees with that. We do take issue on where it is placed in the article and what words link to it. Mongoe only offered his opinion about it being disruptive but this doesn't address the discussion of whether or not it is indeed WP:NPOV and so his input on that is nothing more than his opinion and is not constructive in determining whether it violates wikipedia's policies regarding NPOV. You nor anyone else have been able to dispute the arguments presented of why it is in violation of WP:NPOV and there was no proposed consensus regarding the matter. If Iriszoom no longer takes issue with it, then I'm happy to consider the matter resolved, but if he does, then he certainly has every right to and the matter is not resolved. This noticeboard is for disputes regarding NPOV and the way the article links specifically to tombs in ancient Israel when mentioning rock-cut tombs in general is against WP:NPOV. I personally don't care how the article ultimately reads, as I have no invested interest, but if Iriszoom wanted an additional opinion on whether or not it's against WP:NPOV, it is. There is no reason that information can't be linked in a subection and the words "rock-cut tombs in ancient Israel" be directly linked to it.Scoobydunk (talk) 02:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Scoobydunk, there is clear consensus that this is not a NPOV matter. Actually, you recently came here yourself for another issue and clearly are not an uninvolved and experienced mediator and quickly turned into an involved party in this discussion yourself. Nevertheless, things need to be judged on their merits, and the arguments above are correct regarding it being preferable to have a general link in the text and add a see also to "...in ancient Israel", so I have made that edit as well.

Great, then the issue here is resolved. Thanks everyone for the participation.

For the note, I think that Scoobydunk gave a strong impression of being neutral and experienced. It was very helpful. Best regards to everyone. --IRISZOOM (talk) 16:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Early Popes of Rome as head of the Catholic Church - opinion versus fact

• Link to first attempt at consensus: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Christianity/Noticeboard#Concerns_about_articles_on_early_.22Popes.22

• Articles being discussed: early articles on the various Popes of Rome that describe him as the head of the Catholic Church. Examples:

* Pope Linus

* Pope Pontian

* Pope Anterus

* Pope Fabian

* Pope Cornelius

* Pope Lucius I

* etc, etc.

• Update: Latest proposal

1. Saint Peter: let it stand as is. There is no "head of..." presently.
2. Pope Linus through Pope Miltiades (r. 311-314), "bishop of Rome"
3. Pope Sylvester I (r. 314-335) through Pope Sixtus III (r. 432-440), "most eminent bishop of the Church"
4. Pope Leo I (r. 440-461) through Pope Damasus II (r. 1048), "most eminent bishop of the pre-schism Church"
5. later popes, "preeminent bishop of the Roman Catholic Church" (here the suggestion of higher rank would be desirable, I would think)

• Update: List of current proposals:

* Specify that it is the Roman Catholic Church's opinion that the Popes were head of the Catholic Church, all the way up to the Great Schism.

* We will remove "Pope" for the first 4-5, up until Nicaea, use "Pope ____ was Bishop of Rome and head of the Western church", and after Nicaea, we'll use "head of the Catholic Church" (since in at least the Western or Latin church was pretty firmly established).

* Removing the phrase "head of the Catholic Church" altogether until the Great Schism.

• Update: Summary of the problem:

It has come to the attention of some users that describing the Pope as "head of the Catholic Church" is not an established fact for use as a descriptor for pre-schism Popes. Instead, since it is the RCC's opinion, there is a POV issue here. Editors are currently working out a way to solve this problem that gives the articles the most smooth sounding text and most NPOV article. There is also controversy as to when it is acceptable to start using "head of the Catholic Church" as a descriptor, with some users advocating the Council of Nicaea (by which time the Pope's primacy was established at least in the Western church), and other users advocating the Great Schism, where we can factually say that the Pope was the head of the Roman Catholic Church.

• Concerns: It is the opinion of the Roman Catholic Church that the early Popes were the head of the Catholic Church, but this view is not shared by the rest of Christianity (Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Protestants). Because of this, I am recommending that the phrase "according to the Roman Catholic Church" be added before or after the phrase "head of the Catholic Church" in each article where the Pope of Rome is described as such. This is in accordance with Wikipedia's NPOV policy, which establishes that opinions should not be asserted as facts. Gold Standard 00:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually it is NOT the opinion of most Catholic historians or histories that very early Popes were "head of the Roman Catholic Church", although it is the opinion of everyone that many later ones Gold Standard wants to change were. For the early ones the phrase should just be removed, as previous discussions suggested, and has been done in many cases. This has been escalated prematurely, and brought to the wrong place. Johnbod (talk) 01:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about "bringing it to the wrong place". Which later ones do you think should retain the phrase? After what point was it the opinion of everyone that the Pope was the head of the Catholic Church? Wouldn't just about all non-RC say that it wasn't until after the Great Schism? Gold Standard 01:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Note, Gold Standard is pushing an Eastern Orthodox POV (i.e. "Pope of Rome") which he wishes to impose on Roman Catholic articles, and is forumshopping here because he's not getting a willing audience at WikiProject Christianity no matter how many times he and his partner in this endeavour to deign to repeat themselves, despite countering their assertions with rational arguments backed by WP:POVNAME, WP:UCN, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and the need for disambiguation. Forumshopping here shows that Gold Standard is engaging in some WP:IDHT behaviour.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• ColonelHenry, please note that I am no longer advocating renames, I am advocating the insertion of a phrase that specifies that this is the RCC opinion. Secondly, I posted here because our discussion seemed to be going nowhere, not because "I wasn't getting a willing audience". Here we can get additional opinions on the matter. Additionally, I am not forumshopping. This purpose of this discussion forum is for after you have already attempted discussion at a talkpage, and for the sake of these pages, WP:Christianity served as the talkpage discussion for all those articles. Gold Standard 00:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• There's just something ridiculous about refusing to let the head of the Catholic Church can't call himself or be referred to as the head of the Catholic Church because of two newbie editors pushing the militant Eastern Orthodox POV that "hey we're Catholic too"--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• But this is for pre-schism Popes, so he is not "calling himself that". Additionally, I have been editing Wikipedia for nearly 2 years. Your attitude towards this issue does not seem to be one of civility but one of repeatedly accusing the opposing side of pushing some agenda, rather than actually being concerned with whether or not the proposal solves a POV issue. Gold Standard 00:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Calling out someone who is pushing an Eastern Orthodox POV agenda usually means that I believe they're pushing an agenda. There's no need to solve a POV issue that doesn't exist except in your militant POV mind. Tilting at windmills, dude.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• So guilty upon accusation? I honestly want to understand your perspective on this issue, so can you answer these: Is it opinion of the RCC or fact that the pre-schism Popes were head of the Catholic Church? If opinion, then how can this be justifiably presented as fact? If fact, then please prove that it is fact. Gold Standard 01:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• You've wasted most than enough of my time with your petulant WP:IDHT behaviour, and any effort I make here is futile--wasted words. You won't change your mind. I won't change my mind. I don't piss against the wind.--ColonelHenry (talk) 01:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• You have accused me of WP:IDHT, but that does not apply because the consensus of the community has not "decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive". Therefore, IDHT applies equally to you as it does me. A good start to us reaching a consensus here is for you to present an honest rebuttal, asserting that there is a way that the RCC's opinion can be justifiably presented as fact, or that the phrase itself is factual. Gold Standard 01:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

As a side note, this project sorely lacks active and competent Orthodox editors. There is a systemic bias in Wikipedia against minority viewpoints, and it dismays me to see editors with those viewpoints accused of pushing them while we're trying to push back with a more popular viewpoint that is also not neutral. LoveMonkey (talk · contribs) is just one example of Orthodox editors who have been shunned away from productive editing and it's often Catholics doing the pushing. So please be WP:CIVIL to brothers in Christ because we desperately need them here. Elizium23 (talk) 19:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• More Concerns: That no discussion will actually take place until WP:CIV is observed by all participating editors. I tend to agree that escalation to this venue is premature, but I also agree that a great many accusations and recriminations have passed through attempts at discussion up to this point. I have points that I would like to make to contribute here, but I will not be joining in until I see WP:CIV observed by all parties. It's just this editor's choice. I will not partake in shouting matches. I do not choose to work in an environment outside of WP:CIV. This entry is an attempt to restore what is already the Wikipedia policy, without which no good decisions will be possible. It is the most constructive thing I have to offer at the moment. Evensteven (talk) 03:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand how you guys can post so many times in this section without providing reliable sources to back up your claims. If you have reliable sources that call them "Popes" then they'll continue to be called Popes. Gold Standard, if you want to provide a scholarly source that makes an argument or claims that these Bishops were not yet Popes and that their were no Popes until the Great Schism, then you would be justified. If you can't find a source speaking to that specific matter, then you should at least be able to find strong scholarly sources that refer to these people as Bishops instead of Popes and that would at least give your argument some credibility instead of being heavily based on OR. If both parties find sources that make both claims or use both titles when referring to this figures, then phrasing should be used that indicates the title(s) is/are disputed. But, please, let's stop the back and forth and start actually building an argument based on reliable sources to substantiate your claims. From there, we can make a NPOV determination of the phrasing that should be used in the articles. Sound fair?Scoobydunk (talk) 04:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry to step in here and burst the bubble but, speaking as a Roman Catholic, I will suggest that "head of the Catholic Church" is indeed a biased POV phrase when applied to pre-Schism Popes. The Orthodox Churches have a perfectly equal right to call them "head of the Eastern/Oriental Orthodox Church" in the same lede paragraph, and I don't know what the Protestants want, so I think we are going to have to drop the descriptive phrase and find an alternative way to present that information. I would support "head of the pre-schism Christian Church" as a first start. I guess describing them as "head of" anything is repugnant to Orthodox, so I'd like Evensteven and Gold Standard to suggest a phrase. Elizium23 (talk) 04:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

OR, instead of you guys continuing the OR by creating your own terminology for how to refer to historical figures, you can just find reliable sources and use the terms they use.Scoobydunk (talk) 04:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I propose we call them "Pope", as in fact we settled on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard. Evensteven (talk) 05:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not proposing any OR, I am just saying that while reliable Catholic sources will call them "head of the Catholic Church", the reliable Orthodox and Protestant sources may not, and by WP:NPOV we are bound to represent all viewpoints in those sources without presenting the most popular one as Truth. Elizium23 (talk) 05:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The current issue is "head of the Catholic Church". It's not a title, but a descriptive phrase. In my view, it seems either to add nothing to "Pope", or else to add POV in the form of RC claims for papal supremacy. I have wanted to ask the proponents of the phrase what it is that the phrase adds that is essential to describing the Pope. Perhaps there is something that has not occurred to me. But this question has not been asked in prior discussion, so far as I am aware. Evensteven (talk) 05:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

It's his job description. It's a short summary of what a Pope does in one sentence. We can't say Pope Linus was Pope of the Catholic Church because we didn't inform anyone about who he is if they don't already know what a Pope does. Elizium23 (talk) 05:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

It is the RCC's opinion that that is his job description, and the fact that it is an opinion should be clear. Gold Standard 05:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

My suggested phrase is "... was Bishop of Rome and according to the Roman Catholic Church, head of the Catholic Church. Gold Standard 05:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

This proposal sounds clunky to me. I had thought maybe simply to remove the phrase altogether. But I would like time to consider Elizium23's comment to see what else I can come up with. Evensteven (talk) 05:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree, but I figured that it is most neutral to include the Roman Catholic position and specify that it is the RCC's opinion. Gold Standard 05:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I think what is most neutral is not having an opinion there at all, and it saves having to attribute the opinion too. Evensteven (talk) 05:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps, we will see what the community decides. Gold Standard 05:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Scoobydunk, we are no longer discussing the issue of the title of "Pope". Gold Standard 05:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, "give it a shot" time. After the schism, what about "leader of the Roman Catholic Church"? If that sounds too bland, "chief hierarch of the Roman Catholic Church". (Do RCs use "hierarch" like that? Maybe that sounds too eastern to them?) The word "Roman" makes the phrase neutral by making it specific. After the schism, "Catholic" alone has too much possibility of raising POV issues, mostly around conflicting claims of catholicity, among which RC and Eastern Orthodox are not the only parties.

Before the 5th century, "bishop of Rome". In prior discussion, User:Rwflammang called that "the pope's oldest title, and the title from which all of his authority derives", which seems to me to sum it up nicely. But, that's his title, and "Pope" is also his agreed title, and we're looking for a job description. So, "chief pastor of the Church in Rome". Perhaps that would serve for all the pre-schism popes. Feel free to rip this one up if you wish. It's my first attempt. Evensteven (talk) 06:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I do not believe RCs use "hierarch". "head of the Roman Catholic Church" or "leader of the Roman Catholic Church" would most likely be preferred. I think your second suggestion is getting there, but "bishop of Rome" is more historical than "chief pastor", since "bishop" is the consensus translation. What about post-5th century, pre-schism popes? Gold Standard 06:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Read again, please, more slowly this time. Evensteven (talk) 06:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

My apologies. Doesn't "bishop of Rome" mean the same thing as "chief pastor of Rome" as a job description, though? Gold Standard 06:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

That's ok. I'd say yes and no. I'm not sure myself how necessary a job description is, but I don't see any reason why there shouldn't be one. "Bishop of Rome" is an official title, but we've already agreed to use "Pope" as the title. I would agree to either of them as title if anyone wanted to reopen that discussion. User:Rwflammang caused me to rethink a little the position I took in the prior discussion. But we don't want a title for the job description; we want a job description. That's what I'm hoping "chief pastor of Rome" might be. I did a lousy job of wording my proposal. Sorry for the opaque text. Evensteven (talk) 06:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

What about "head of the church at Rome"? Gold Standard 06:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

No. For Orthodox, "head" is a reserved word in this context. Only Jesus Christ is the head of the Church. To say that of a pope would be POV. Evensteven (talk) 06:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Overseer? Leader? Pastor could suffice too but I'm not sure it's the best. Gold Standard 07:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure either. My proposal was my best guess. I've been waiting to hear from a Catholic or two to find out if we've just been talking to each other in the wind. Perhaps Elizium23 can offer a signal. I'd appreciate a minute from Johnbod if he can. Scoobydunk? And it would be worth hearing from ColonelHenry. Anyone? Is there a reason to think this is going anywhere? We're lopsided here. Evensteven (talk) 07:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

It's also late where I am. See you tomorrow. Evensteven (talk) 07:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Lots of heat here and almost no light. We can dispense with the specific claim of being head of the Catholic Church and consistently lead off all of these as having been "bishop of Rome and thus listed among the popes". It is not necessary to assert that "the pope is the head of the Catholic Church" in every article. Mangoe (talk) 13:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The current formula was agreed in a previous discussion last March at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Catholicism/Archive_2013, section 27 (see also S35 and 48), which is the proper place really. I hadn't really followed it & agree more with those at S35. There may well be other sections that are relevant. It was done to avoid repetition in "Pope Foo was Pope from ..." etc. If Western church is used most neutrality issues disappear, or Roman Catholic church; at the same time while Orthodoxy also uses "Catholic" they do not do so prominently or as a "brand name", and many other discussions have found that "Catholic" as a term for the RCC or Western church is not itself POV or ambiguous, although we generally add "Roman". My issues are more to do with accuracy. Without checking historians for more exact dates and persons, generally "Pope" should be avoided for the first 4 or 5, and "head of the Foo church" (whichever words are used) until some point in the 3rd or 4th century when the primacy of Rome in at least the Western or Latin church was pretty firmly established. After that there isn't really a problem, and there's no need for Mangoe's very weaselly formula, or "according to the the RCC" for a plain historic fact, as Gold Standard wants. In fact, after a series of edits I did in September, & a couple more just now, Pope Pontian who succeeeded in 230 is now the first described at the start as "head of the Catholic church". All refs to a role as "head" should probably go for the next ones as well - I'd be inclined to say all to Pope Sylvester I (r. 314-335) though cases might be made for other points. Johnbod (talk) 14:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I have to say that a convention worked out away from the rest of the Christianity project is subject to question. If what I suggested is too weaselly, perhaps we could eliminate the redundancy by saying "X was pope from NNN to NNN", following the convention for others referred to by regnal names. The primacy issue really is the issue: after Nicea I would agree it's not questionable, but for these ante-Nicene bishops the claims to heading "Brand Name Church" are anachronistic. Mangoe (talk) 14:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Whether to use "Pope" as the first word was the main focus of the first debate, & people got very worked up over it. Personally I'm not very concerned, and "Pope Foo II was Bishop of Rome [and head of the Western church] from ..." seems fine to me. After some point in Late Antiquity the "Bishop of Rome" can be dropped. A link to Pope can be worked in for the next mention. Silvester I was pope during Nicea, so this aligns with my cut-off point above, though of course at that point it's arguable that the real "head of the Catholic church" was the yet-to-convert Constantine I. Johnbod (talk) 15:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

That strikes me as a reasonable formula. Mangoe (talk) 15:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Good. I'd add that something like "thus listed among the popes" is fine for the very early "popes", to some point in the 2nd century; but even that they were sole bishop of Rome is very uncertain, as several of the articles say. Johnbod (talk) 17:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Just clarifying a few things: we will remove "Pope" for the first 4-5, up until Nicaea, use "Pope ____ was Bishop of Rome and head of the Western church", and after Nicaea, we'll use "head of the Catholic Church" (since in at least the Western or Latin church was pretty firmly established). My only concern here is that Nicaea seems quite early, and you even say that it was only established as true in the Western church. Other than that, I think this is a reasonable proposal. Let me know if I misunderstood any part of it. Gold Standard 18:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it is anachronistic to say that any Popes were head of "brand name church", and I want to bring to your attention the fact that Catholic Church is the same article as Roman Catholic Church. Just a heads up. Gold Standard 19:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• As a procedural note, I would like to give my opinion that it would be difficult for an outsider to this topic to enter this discussion because there is no clear statement of the problem or the proposed remedies. At the top of this page there are suggestions for how to use this noticeboard. It helps a lot to summarize the issue here (2-3 sentences) then summarize solutions, so that people on this board can decide if they want to engage further. Thanks for trying to work this out. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

* I added a list of current proposals at the top. The problem was already summarized under "Concerns", but I'll add a longer one. Gold Standard 18:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Bishop of Rome is the only title for these early popes that would not be anachronistic. It also has the advantage of being accurate, which is not true of all the suggestions I've seen here. Rwflammang (talk) 20:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• I echo Blue Rasberry, and the topic is still not very clearly stated. Moreover, the second "proposal" is not one, but three. Never mind; it's a start.

From Mangoe, "Lots of heat here and almost no light." and "I have to say that a convention worked out away from the rest of the Christianity project is subject to question." I couldn't agree more heartily. I respect Johnbod's ability to cover topics of such wide scope, but (generally) that ability often comes with the price that (sometimes important) details get left behind, and by his own admission his attention has not been too focused here. So I have to respectfully disagree that "the current formula was agreed" anywhere. There were multiple related issues in the archived discussions; only some were settled - others were dropped. So I'm not entirely sure what "current formula" means, but I think "head of the Catholic church" is part of it, and that happens to be the main issue that those prior discussions did not settle. Furthermore, the discussions reveal that this formulaic text was added to the Pope articles by a single editor (I don't know whom - it doesn't matter) without prior discussion anywhere. Finally, I was the one who declared the "Pope" issue closed only yesterday, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard, and since I still find some of it here, I guess I was premature. I would just ask please that there not be any more "settled" unsettled questions after we're done here. And I would ask that the "historians" be consulted about the details. My experience with Project Christianity thus far has shown me there are some very knowledgeable people in the community. As you can see, I'm a details person. So Johnbod, perhaps more edits right now are premature also?

I think we settled yesterday that the title of "Pope" was not a POV issue (maybe I should say "at least from an Orthodox perspective"). However, the heat from the "discussion" obscured possible differences about just when it was best to refer to someone as "pope" and when to use a different title, especially "bishop of Rome". I have little to offer that discussion, but would like to see those most familiar with the history put a stamp of approval on whatever is decided, in the name of reliable sources. I would venture that article naming and consistency issues, while important, need to take a priority below WP:RS. Disambiguation too (that has come up). But let's not let some artificial idea of "agreement" stand in the way of doing the right thing for these articles. If we have to live and deal with heat in arguments around here, let's not let the heat rule WP, either in content, or in work environment! INSERT: Oh, Rwflammang got in ahead of my edit. I'd back everything he's said. END INSERT

As for "head of the church", I'll start with the Orthodox view, namely Col 1:18, "He [Christ] is the head of the body, the church." In a nutshell, that the source document for Orthodox statements on the subject. That implies that whatever other views are out there, they stem from different scriptural interpretations. The Orthodox one is strict, straightforward, and literal [See my correction below in this section]. It's also important to us, important enough that disagreements about it are historically traceable back to ... well, way back. Is that not enough to establish it as a significant POV issue? It's an element within papal supremacy disagreements between Catholic and Orthodox that precede the schism! I think that puts it above the ability of even WP:RS to decide, for all reliable sources have some point of view.

For neutrality's sake, we as encyclopedia editors do have some leeway, and in fact are forced to use it here by the very fact that WP:RS is not sufficient. We have to recognize that our sources do not need to maintain neutrality the way we do, and some seek it more than others. Any historian, church or not, learns how to weigh and measure the reliability of sources, and employs professional judgment about neutrality in a source while doing so. We just need to look at the source's neutrality, and to keep its own POV from speaking in the voice of Wikipedia. That's research, but it's not original research. There are at least two simple techniques that come to mind (probably many more that could be mentioned): 1) do not quote passages that contain the POV, but instead summarize without it, and 2) identify the POV for what it is with an "according to" phrase or some such. We also have options on WP for maintaining internal neutrality, such as simple omission of phrasing that contains it. Isn't this stuff drearily familiar? But I hear way too much about WP:RS in heated discussions, as though it's a sacred cow. I really don't want to throw it out, or even weaken it. But it doesn't automatically do our job for us. It's a tool, and we have to use it the right way.

The proposals laid out above give some examples of attempts to address it. I've tried putting a proposal out there for a substitute for "head of the church", in order to be constructive and cooperative. But I'm not particularly attached to it. And without consensus here that it (or some revision) should be adopted as part of an agreed "formula", I'd prefer to vote no on it; in fact, as things stand right at this moment, my vote is no. My own real preference is just to remove "head of the church". That's simple, no POV, and amounts to reverting a series of edits initiated by just one editor. Carry my suggestion as far as you like, but at least through the pre-schism popes. That at least removes ties to the schism itself, and all the heats it generates.

It's worth remembering that removing POV from articles can do a lot to contain heated discussions by preventing them from occurring in the first place, thus saving everyone a lot of time and distasteful activity.

P.S. I ask pardon if I've come across as heated. A lot of wild accusation was leveled against me yesterday and I'm still tingling from it. But the work has needed to be done now. WP:CIV really is critical to the ability to function here. Evensteven (talk) 22:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

[CORRECTION INSERT] There's no apparent confusion on this page, but I do need to apologize for my blunder in characterizing the (specific) Orthodox biblical interpretation as "literal". Orthodox do sometimes interpret literally, but it's my weakness to jump to its association with "strict", which I did here. The error was entirely mine. The Orthodox interpretation recognizes the use of metaphor in the quoted passage, part of which can be summarized as "just as the human body has only one head, likewise the Church". [END OF INSERT] Evensteven (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

FWIW -- the entire issue boils down to whether people "in the line of Apostolic Succession as Bishop of Rome" are by that fact "Popes of the Catholic church." Let us leave aside the simple fact that until later no one distinguished between "Catholic" being the "universal church" and "Catholic" being a specific hierarchical structure. There is no evidence historically that the early bishops of Rome, who were by tradition in apostolic succession to Peter, who is now credited as the first Pope although he never used that title, used that title either. The modern Catholic church maintains that anyone in the proper succession was by that very fact also a "pope", with a few anti-popes tossed in. If we were to be rational, we would say

• "Linus, Bishop of Rome, and Pope of the Catholic church by virtue of apostolic succession from Peter."

And so on. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

True. Not used as a title very early. It originated in a very early affectionate informal diminutive of "father", loosely "papa", used in many congregations throughout the early church for their own bishops. It still appears in Orthodoxy. In Russia, some people call the village priest by that term. For application in WP, a rational objective would be to identify when it really started to be the formal title deluxe for bishops of Rome, making it stand out from all that prior usage. Evensteven (talk) 23:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, even Orthodox today revere "Pope Gregory I (the Dialogist)" as a saint, and call him "Pope" even in church services, not bishop or partriach. It would seem it was well established before 600. Evensteven (talk) 23:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Yikes! After making such a point about this for two days, I need to question my own memory of it now. In church services, it is normal to refer to anyone being remembered officially as "Saint Q", or "Saint Q, Bishop of R" (or whatever the title is, if any). Hence "St Athanasius, Patriarch of Alexandria". Still, I think it is "St Gregory, Pope of Rome". If anyone wants, I will look for a more official verification. Evensteven (talk) 00:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Apostolic succession is the passing of ordination from one bishop to the next, it has little to do with the office of Bishop of Rome. Elizium23 (talk) 23:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Um -- the rule is that consecration of anyone in the clergy of a church following apostolic succession is by "apostolic succession" - "apostolic succession of bishops" is pretty much the rule. The succession of "Bishops of Rome" is also a subset thereof. Is there a reason why you think that the succession of bishops of Rome would not be by apostolic succession? [29] Apostolic succession is the line of bishops stretching back to the apostles. Thus the succession of "Bishops of Rome" is "apostolic succession". Which I woulda thunk would be obvious to any follower of hierarchical rules. And a concenient way to phrase the Catholic teaching. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Except that one would attain that office by means of Apostolic succession, just as any other bishop would. Here's a thought: in church history, is there ever any occurrence of the bishop of Rome being referred to as "Patriarch"? Might not "Pope" have been used instead, from the time that the church had developed enough to have "patriarchs"? Evensteven (talk) 23:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, unless one were already a bishop before becoming Pope. I confess I was thinking of early history, when that wasn't presumed. Evensteven (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The Chair of Peter is an office, not a degree of Holy Orders. One is not ordained to it, one is elected. There is Petrine succession or Papal succession but nobody is going to term this as apostolic succession which has a specific theological meaning for Christians. It means transmitting the unbroken line of ordinations from one bishop to another. Look at Pope Francis on catholic-hierarchy.org. You will see his "episcopal pedigree" of apostolic succession on his page. Note that it doesn't say a thing about his predecessors in the Chair of Peter. For that you will have to consult the see's info page at Diocese of Roma. My home diocese has a succession of bishops occupying its office as well, and nobody calls that Apostolic Succession. Elizium23 (talk) 05:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

the entire issue boils down to whether people "in the line of Apostolic Succession as Bishop of Rome" are by that fact "Popes of the Catholic church."

Not really, another big issue is at what point it is acceptable to describe him as "head of the Catholic Church". "Pope" does not imply that he was head of the Catholic Church. Gold Standard 01:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Lots of sources for the Pope holding the specific title of "Bishop of Rome" going back quite a ways, lots of sources on history of the Catholic church making the same claim, and all linking direct succession to Peter as Bishop of Rome - thus making me wonder why there would be any controversy in my proposed wording. Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there was any controversy about the Pope being called Bishop of Rome. The issue that was raised at the start of this section was at what point it is appropriate to refer to him as head of the Catholic Church. Let me know if I misunderstood what you were trying to say here, but I don't think anyone would argue against the Pope being the Bishop of Rome and I don't think that is the issue here. Gold Standard 03:47, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Collect, I think Elizium23 has been trying to say that there are two types of succession: 1) one Pope to the next, and 2) at ordination as bishop. Only the latter is an "apostolic succession", even if the "see of Peter" once belonged to an apostle. In ancient times these occurred together in time, but now a person always becomes a bishop much earlier before becoming a Pope. Nevertheless, there were always the two types of succession. Evensteven (talk) 10:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not breaking off engagement with this discussion, but I feel I am getting hyper-active on it, and starting to get in the way of the discussion rather than contributing. Time for a break; back in a couple of days. Evensteven (talk) 00:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

See a correction I inserted above. I'm still trying to rest a bit longer, though. Evensteven (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Rested enough. Having spot-checked Pope Lucius I, I discovered the addition of "head of the Catholic Church" was made on 06 Jun 13, in accordance with the closing of the "RFC on Papal article consistency" (29 May 13) found in the archive mentioned above. The official closure stated that agreement was reached on the wording, although I don't see it in the discussions, but the edit was definitely not a loner done outside channels. Assuming the same for the other articles, it's safe to say the issue revolves around the forum in which it all took place. I'm not seeing another POV or anything from that particular RFC, so I think this discussion is on track to deal with any oversights from there. In the RFC, the focus was on article consistency, so I think anything we can do here to maintain consistency would be helpful, as long as we can just remove the POV. The attempts we have above at getting some replacement language can still work if we have enough input. I've stated my preference for vacating the current language, but that was just looking at it from the standpoint of removing the POV, as a simple solution. Another RFC element was the lead sentence in the articles, though. It wasn't considered the highest priority, but was part of a cooperative effort I'd just as soon not undermine here. The problem still remains, what should the replacement language be? Evensteven (talk) 02:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Brainstorm! I'd like to replace my former proposal with this: before the schism, "preeminent bishop of the western Church"; after the schism, what would Catholics say to "preeminent bishop of the Roman Catholic Church"? Evensteven (talk) 02:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Support. I think this is a good solution. It's consistent and NPOV. Gold Standard 03:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I've had a notion for a tweak I prefer slightly, for before the schism: "preeminent bishop of the Church in the west". "Western church" could sound like it was a separate church from some other, and I prefer to present a picture of the undivided church, especially to readers to whom it might be a surprise. But thanks for the support, and I can fall back if you wish. Evensteven (talk) 04:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The only problem with that is what page would we link "Church" to? With "Western church", we can link it to "Latin Church" (and it automatically redirects there), but with "Church in the west", it would be tough to find a way to NPOV link "Church", seeing as linking the RCC or the EOC would both be anachronistic. If we were to go with "Church in the west", perhaps we would link "Church" to One true church? Gold Standard 07:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid I must suggest another change; no choice this time. The pre-schism church always gave primacy to the Bishop of Rome. The main source of later primacy issues lay in what "primacy" means. The Orthodox view has always been that it is a primacy of honor rather than authority or supremacy. But I liked "preeminent" from the first thought of it precisely because it seemed a word of fitting honor, and so it seems to me now. I think that from an Orthodox perspective, the pre-schism popes should in no way be slighted. Hence, I revise my proposal for them to "preeminent bishop of the Church". In this case, "preeminent bishop of the catholic Church" would also work perfectly. I'd prefer a small-c "catholic", lest a capital suggest a division in the "universal" church. Evensteven (talk) 07:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Our edits crossed in time, Gold Standard. But re my newest, I'd say linking "Church" to One true church would work fine. Evensteven (talk) 07:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, great Gold Standard 07:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

That could work, but how does "preeminent" imply primacy of honor rather than authority or supremacy? Gold Standard 07:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't, really. But neither does it imply primacy of authority rather than honor. And if one already has a perspective on it, one can virtually read one's own perspective there. That's the beauty of it; it doesn't push at anyone. One can scarcely get more neutral. Evensteven (talk) 08:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Excellent, good work. I think we should do "preeminent bishop of the Church" (Notice the linked page and notice the lack of "catholic"; I don't think lowercase "catholic" is used many places, if at all, on Wikipedia) for pre-schism, and "preeminent bishop of the Roman Catholic Church" for post-schism. Gold Standard 08:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. That's the proposal then, and my preference too. But post-schism is different because the whole context is different. Parallel wording is nice, if it works for Catholics. We'll see. And linking "Church" there to One true church would be POV. Evensteven (talk) 08:51, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

One other question: Are we using this on all the Popes? Even for the earliest ones like Linus? At what point in history was the Pope considered to have primacy (of honor in the EO view, of authority in the RC view)? If not, then at what point will this be implemented? Gold Standard 18:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

That's probably an open question, for which I could only hazard a guess. But since "primacy" in general involves differentiating one from another and arranging in some order of precedence or hierarchy, I'd say that was a sign that it was a part of developmental process within the church. The Church certainly had dealt with a similar issue by the time it had patriarchs, because "patriarch" is a higher or superior title. "Higher" or "superior" in what way[s] is also subject to development. My understanding is that primacy was given to Rome by the whole church, and that this was at least partially due to the locale of that bishopric in the capital of the Roman Empire. That was certainly a reason given when the see of Constantinople was seated as second in honor within Christendom (4th century), unseating Alexandria's traditional place there. Perhaps the historians can say what other things came into play. The Roman Catholic Church has rather emphasized the Papacy as the see of Peter, but that could be a later influence for all I know. What seems likely is that primacy grew gradually, and perceiving it now across the centuries is likely to prove difficult. I scarcely think it could apply to Linus: too early. But when to start? I think I need help even with a proposal on how to handle that question. Let's await some input. Evensteven (talk) 22:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I think more feedback would be good, so I'll put urgent discussion notices on relevant Wikiprojects. Gold Standard 01:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Looking through comments above in this section, I see Johnbod's suggestion that "head" not be applied before Pope Sylvester I (r. 314-335), "though cases might be made for other points". Perhaps that's the right cut-off here also. Anyone can make a case for the other points if desired. Evensteven (talk) 22:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

That may be the right cut-off, however, we will retain the current wording, rather than head, correct? Gold Standard 01:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I also have a point of protocol here. It seems to me that despite voluminous input, we have not heard for some time any objection to the point that "head of the Catholic Church" is POV. Have we in fact agreed that it is POV? If not entirely, then have we agreed that is it it is POV when applied to Popes from before the schism? Evensteven (talk) 22:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC) typo fix Evensteven (talk) 23:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I was under the impression that we all had established that. The only thing that came close to an objection was ColonelHenry but he objected to us addressing this issue at all. Gold Standard 01:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I can't see how there could be any valid objection to it for popes after (at the latest) the Great Schism. It is the earlier ones, especially the much earlier ones, that are the problem. If Western Church is used "head" seems ok to me for several centuries further back. Johnbod (talk) 04:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

In my focus on Catholic/Orthodox issues, I have overlooked something; another flaw has occurred to me regarding my proposal: I am sure it would be considered POV by the Copts and other Oriental Orthodox, as it applies to the time between Chalcedon and the east/west schism, because they also stake claim as the "one true church". I know this is not the most populous branch of Christianity, and it is decidedly under-represented in Europe and North America, the heart of native English-speaking in the world. However, identifying "the one true church" in a specific way certainly goes to the heart of a division that has lasted over 1500 years, and is not of either historical or contemporary insignificance. In addition, the English-language Wikipedia holds a position of prominence above all others by virtue of the fact that English is used and understood throughout a wider distribution of peoples than any other language in the world (it's not just speaker count). As such, I think it appropriate that we do what we can to avoid POV against significant groups whose numbers are just small in the areas many of us live in. I sometimes think we get to thinking too much in terms of "democracy" and votes. It's not always possible to represent the views of minorities, but where we can, and where it's a high priority for them, it's in WP's best interest to be fair. Many educated Egyptians learn English; likewise elsewhere. And with this issue, it also looks practical to me to accommodate.

A wording tweak also. I find, looking at dictionaries, that "preeminent" often carries an implication of superior rank, though it doesn't mandate that. The Orthodox view the popes as having ecclesiastical rank equal to the patriarchs - highest level. I think "most eminent", while retaining the desired "highest standout" character of "preeminent", does not have the same suggestive power of superior rank, and so is preferable terminology here.

Thus (incorporating prior tweaks) I suggest the proposal be changed as follows, including an optional link as specified here (note the link to Chalcedonian Christianity):

1. Saint Peter: let it stand as is. There is no "head of..." presently.
2. Pope Linus through Pope Miltiades (r. 311-314), "bishop of Rome"
3. Pope Sylvester I (r. 314-335) through Pope Sixtus III (r. 432-440), "most eminent bishop of the Church"
4. Pope Leo I (r. 440-461) through Pope Damasus II (r. 1048), "most eminent bishop of the pre-schism Church"
5. later popes, "preeminent bishop of the Roman Catholic Church" (here the suggestion of higher rank would be desirable, I would think)

Let agreement to this proposal stand as an agreed means of removal of current POV, not as a mandate that the exact terminology and its application here stand in perpetuity. It is also agreed that changes to other non-POV language or application to other Popes should require discussion at the forum level of Project Christianity, with reference to this discussion. Evensteven (talk) 21:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Strong support. Gold Standard 20:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Oppose Hopeless in so many ways! We should not be doing this here anyway. These would not last a moment. Johnbod (talk) 04:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Just "hopeless"? No reasons? You say there are many ways. What? Evensteven (talk) 05:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I have commented enough above - this section is already unreadably long, and any proposal worked out should be made in a more appropriate venue with a link to these discussions. But don't try running this one. Can't you see how ridiculous, OR and POV it would be to describe Pope John Paul II only as preeminent bishop of the Roman Catholic Church? "eminent" is uselessly vague, and not used in sources. And so on. Johnbod (talk) 13:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

The discussion is certainly long, I agree. Venue you have a strong point on, and I have an additional one, but we're here now and for brevity's sake I don't see a need to go further with it at this time. "Ridiculous, OR, and POV" I don't agree, for reasons given above, but I don't insist on "preeminent" for post-schism popes, I only propose it. I invite you or others to suggest another wording, even including "head" since it seems that important. I did not personally propose that language because in my opinion it inflames opposition to the RC Church (and not primarily in Orthodox quarters), and thus I wished to distance myself from it personally, as well as from any implied reference to Orthodoxy. That's only an opinion and a preference; enough said there. "Eminent" is vague in just the right way, and that's why it's useful. I agree it may not be used in sources; it doesn't need to be. See references to (misapplication of) WP:RS above. Evensteven (talk) 16:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

The point about POV here is that "the Pope is head of the Catholic Church" is POV, AND "the Pope is not head of the Catholic Church" are both POV. It's not either/or; it's both/and. Evensteven (talk) 17:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC) strike-out the typo Evensteven (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree that using "eminent" to describe the post-schism Pope is not as accurate as using "head", but previous discussions stressed consistency among all the Pope articles. If consistency is no longer the primary issue, "head" could be used for post-schism Popes. Additionally, I agree that the section is unreadably long, but what are you proposing that we do about it? Move it back to WP:Christianity? If you want to, then I would be okay with it, but I'm not going to move it again because last time I did so I was accused of forumshopping. Gold Standard 23:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I should add that it is not my POV, or yours, that are at issue in the least. It is the unagreed POV of billions of people, whole populations, nations, cultures, as well as religions, at least one thousand years of history (more in some cases), etc. The issue is completely panoramic in scope. It is in the world. That's how it got into Wikipedia. We don't and can't define it. We can only recognize it. Evensteven (talk) 20:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC) I am not ashamed of being new here, but I do apparently have to search for WP ways to state things. This particular POV is a part of WP:Systemic Bias. Evensteven (talk) 23:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

NPOV violation on the Wikipedia article on Stop Islamization of America.

The Wikipedia article on Stop the Islamization of America is in violation of Wikipedia policy regarding NPOV.

The Wikipedia policy on NPOV is clear, and non negotiable.

The conflict between this article and Wikipedia policy has been commented on by myself, as well as other editors.

This is an exchange between two editors that can be found on the 'talk' page of the Wikipedia entry on SIOA.

• * *

There are three citations next to the word "Islamophobic" in the lead. Only one of the three sources (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette) even uses the word, and it's attributed directly to CAIR. That makes it the opinion of a biased third party, not that of the source. We can mention this with attribution, but not in Wikipedia's voice. Federales (talk) 02:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The lede used to read "anti-Islam," which is a synonym. Perhaps you can discuss this with the user who changed it? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The user who changed it? That would be you. "Anti-Islam" may or may not be a synonym, it is immaterial; unless there is a RS saying so, we can't put it in Wikipedia. In this case, we do not have a source stating that this organization is "Islamophobic", therefore it is subject to removal. Federales (talk) 03:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Uh, no, I've actually reverted away from that phrasing in the past. [8] Like I said - if you don't think "Islamophobic" is an acceptable synonym of "anti-Islam," then either reach out to the user in question, or rephrase it in a way that suits you. Do not remove sourced content because you don't like it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not "sourced content". It's a statement of opinion being quoted by sources, which you are improperly trying to state in Wikipedia's voice. The sources don't say the organization is Islamophobic; the sources say that third parties say so. This requires attribution. Federales (talk) 04:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm not responsible for your reading comprehension problems. All three sources describe the organization/its activities as anti-Islamic, anti-Islam, or anti-Muslim. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no need to be uncivil. OK, so if all 3 sources say "Islamophobic", let's see quotes. Show us where the sources say this, as opposed to, let's say "125 religious leaders", or CAIR. I have no objection to using the term "anti-Islamic", which is objective and neutral. But "Islamophobic" is a slur, and is non-neutral. Federales (talk) 07:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Repeating myself: "All three sources describe the organization/its activities as anti-Islamic, anti-Islam, or anti-Muslim." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• * *

In summation, none of the sources cited in this Wikipedia article call SIOA "Islamophobic".

Neither Wikipedia editors Roscelese, nor Binksternet have shown any interest in working to improve this Wikipedia article, and bring it into compliance with Wikipedia policy.

I am appealing to the larger Wikipedia community to take notice of this violation, and to help these editors regain their composure, set their politics aside, and work together to improve this article. Livingengine1 (talk) 01:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The issue is whether the article is neutral or not. I think it is neutral in the version which Livingengine1 says is not neutral. The critical point is about labeling the group as "Islamophobic". Livingengine1 complains about the word which is supported by five references. What Livingengine1 should know is that there are more possible references which make the identification—basically all the scholarly and investigative sources call this group Islamophobic. Professor Deepa Kumar of Rutgers writes that the SIOA name "is based on the notion that Muslims are conspiring to take over the United States", which is definitively Islamophobic. "Anti-Muslim racism" is a synonym for Islamophobia, and Kumar lists SOIA as one of several "leading sources of anti-Muslim racism". Professor Audrey Osler of Leeds writes that SIOA has as one of its mottoes the following: "Racism is the lowest form of human stupidity, but Islamophobia is the height of common sense." Professor Peter Gottschalk of Wesleyan describes two American groups as Islamophobic on page 119—SIOA and Yerushalmi's Society of Americans for National Existence. Thus we see three high quality sources agreeing that the group is Islamophobic. Binksternet (talk) 02:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

There is discussion about the wording in the talk page archives. The intention is to prevent a group of POV editors guarding an article from getting a new editor banned over a content dispute. But unless the meaning of "involved" is defined, and editors are separated in discussion threads by whether or not they are involved, it seems pointless. 04:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for listing your sources Binksternet. I haven't checked all of your sources since you included quotes, so my first opinion will be based on the assumption that you best represented your sources in regards to your position. I'm sorry to say, but for the few quotes you give, they don't support a claim that SIOA is a islamophobic group. You basically committed OR by interpreting their accusations of racism as islamophobic. A reliable source needs to specifically say that SIOA is an islamophobic group for you to characterize them as such in the wikipedia article. This is also why your last two sources are not sufficient. "Contemporary Debates in the Sociology of Education" only mentions the motto of SIOA but doesn't assert that they are an islamophobic group. Their motto only claims that islamophobia is "common sense" and I think you can add that in a sub-section but it doesn't directly say that they are an islamophobic group. In your last source, Shafir specifically uses the term "anti-sharia" when describing the SIOA and never says that they are islamophobic. It works against you more because Shafir is very liberal with his usage of the terms "islamophic" and "isloamophobia" throughout many parts of the book but when describing the SIOA he uses "anti-sharia" On page 119, I only noticed that he referred to the Tea Party and Republican Party as islamophobic but didn't say anything about SIOA. So based on what you've provided so far, if you want to include "anti-sharia" then that's supported by the sources, but none of them call the SIOA "islamophobic". I also feel that even if you do find a source, then it should be mentioned and attributed in a sub-section of the article since none of these sources refer to them as "islamophobic" and putting what is seemingly a minority opinion about terminology in the lead is unmerited. The lead isn't for presenting specific conflicts or minority opinions, the sections of the article are for that. Hope this helps.Scoobydunk (talk) 04:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks like you missed page 119 of the book Lessons and Legacies of the War On Terror within which Peter Gottschalk has a chapter called "Religion out of place: Islam and cults as perceived threats in the United States". Gottschalk says on page 119 that SIOA is Islamophobic. Shafir is one of the editors of that collection, not the writer. You have some complaint about Shafir but he is nonetheless a professor of sociology which qualifies him as a higher level source. The other editors include history professor Everard Meade, and law school dean William J. Aceves. No matter what you think of Shafir, Wikipedia does not require its sources to be free from bias. Binksternet (talk) 06:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I have no complaints about Shafir, nor do I really care who the writer is. I did a search of the book using the term "SIOA" and none of the 3 pages referred to the group as Islamophobic. However, on page 119 I stopped reading after it referred to the Tea Party and the Republican Party as Islamophobic since I thought they were the two groups you were referring to in your initial comment. Further down it does make a claim to support your view. In the future, you're better off just quoting the content that supports your argument instead of quoting a bunch of stuff you've interpreted to support your position and referencing to an entire page. That being said, you have 1 source that refers to the SIOA as islamophobic but 1 source isn't strong enough to be equally considered or referred to as the other terms anti-muslim, anti-islam, or anti-sharia. Including it in parentheses equate the terms and implies an equal representation/usage of terms which is against WP:WEIGHT and why we're here on the WP:NPOV noticeboard. So if you want to include a subsection about Islamophobia and attribute the direct quote relating the SIOA to Islamophobia, then that would be appropriate, but its inclusion in the lead is unnecessary. The lead is not a place to mention every descriptor and detail about every issue and the language and facts that best summarize and are generally used/accepted should be used instead. A side note, putting "Islamophobic" in parentheses means that it's equivalent to other terms and I believe islamophobia has a more severe denotation. Not that my belief is of any relevance, but the terms aren't identified as interchangeable or equivalent in your source, so parentheses shouldn't be used. If it is added to the lead, I wouldn't oppose "....and, according to some, is Islamophobic". I hope this sounds more agreeable to both parties.Scoobydunk (talk) 07:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The label is critically important and should be in the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 14:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion on what's important is what we call POV. At this point, it's clear that the term is not commonly used and therefore shouldn't be used in the lead. I already explained why and 1 source does not override the many other sources that use "anti-muslim" or "anti-islam". So to mention it in the same context as other more commonly used terms is a violation of WP:WEIGHT and is thus a violation of WP:NPOV. I also suggested wording that could see it being in the lead, if other parties agree then, I'll stand by that decision. However, if they disagree then it should be mentioned in a subsection.Scoobydunk (talk) 18:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't have any personal involvement with this issue, but I have been looking into Geller and SIOA for about 7 months because of Wikipedia editing disputes. I have seen from scholarly sources (lots of them) that "anti-Islamic racism" is a synonym for Islamophobia, a point you appear to have missed. I wonder how familiar you are with the literature on this topic, since you are apparently looking for a black/white absolute statement "SIOA is Islamophobic" rather than a contextual comparison wherein SIOA's activities or beliefs are discussed in the context of anti-Islamic racism. Binksternet (talk) 21:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

This "contextual comparison" is also known as original research. Your responsibility is to provide evidence for your position and people on this noticeboard are suppose to review that evidence and I've done exactly that. You have 1 source that does call the SIOA a islamophobic organization but the rest of them don't. You've simply made inferences from their usage of terms like "racist" or "racism" and asserted that's the same thing as Islamophobia. It's not your responsibility nor privilege as an editor to make those inferences and conclusions based on others' work. I believe I also said a source that directly equates Islamophobia to anti-muslim, anti-Israel, and anti-sharia would also give grounds for it's inclusion as a synonym. What's more striking is that with 7 months of research you've only turned up 1 source to support your argument, which is fine, but that clearly doesn't give the term "islamophobic" equal weight when compared to anti-muslim and to represent them as such is a violation of WP:NPOV.Scoobydunk (talk) 22:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you're asking for a source that defines Islamophobia as prejudice against Muslims? Have you never encountered the term before? [30] –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Contextual comparison is how scholars write. If you were reading such a book on the topic, and your reading comprehension was high, then after reading the passage you would know that the writer considers SIOA a hate-filled racist organization, one that aims to rid the USA of all Muslim influence, this being the core definition of Islamophobia in the USA. It's not that hard. Basically, any Islamophobia topic expert will understand that SIOA is being described as Islamophobic. Professor Peter Gottschalk of Wesleyan is not alone in his assessment—in fact, he voices the mainstream scholarly opinion. Binksternet (talk) 02:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Just so you know, you also need a source to make a claim on what is considered the "mainstream" point of view and thus far, you have one source that calls the SIOA islamophobic which certainly doesn't suggest it's the mainstream point of view. Secondly, if you don't have any more sources to present, then there really is no reason to continue. I can just as easily arbitrarily equate anti-mulsem groups as losers, scumbags, idiots, and so forth but that would be a result of my own OR on what I consider qualifies as each of those terms. Likewise, another person could equally refer to the SIOA as "defenders of freedom from tyranny", "Saints", and "Geniuses" and their opinions would hold just as much weight as mine. Both of them are against WP:NPOV as it's a representation of our own personal feelings towards the group. It's certainly not a tall order to provide sources for the claims you want to make if they are indeed representative of the "mainstream" view. That being said, this board is for discussion about what is and isn't considered against WP:NPOV and I've made my contribution that you adding it to the lead, the way you added it, is against WP:NPOV. If you have new sources that substantiate the claims you want to make then I'm willing to take a look at them, but if you're just going to continue to assert things while providing no sources, then there's no reason for me to change my position. Scoobydunk (talk) 03:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

At the very least I would have expected that you would bring some evidence to the contrary, that you would show some high quality reliable sources that say SIOA is not Islamophobic. Without those, your dislike of the scholarly mainstream opinion is not going to carry the day. Binksternet (talk) 05:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

In addition to familiarizing yourself with wikipedia policy you should also familiarize yourself with reasoning and critical thinking. You have the burden of proof for wanting to claim that your position is the mainstream view or that the SIOA is Islamophobic. You're the one making an assertion about the scholarly mainstream opinion yet you've provided nothing to support that assertion. I, on the other hand, have made no such assertion and have only delivered an opinion on the evidence or lack of evidence that has been supplied thus far. I'm not making a counter argument, I'm just telling you that your argument is unsubstantiated, the "sources" you cite are insufficient, and the way you present the material is a violation of WP:NPOV.Scoobydunk (talk) 07:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

RFC involving application of UNDUE and not completed films

There is an RfC involving the application of UNDUE and whether it is appropriate to include not completed films in Filmography sections of articles. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Actors_and_Filmmakers#Request_for_Comment_-_Include_non_completed_projects_in_Filmography_sections.3F -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Keeping it honest - Proposal to REQUIRE talk page thread before using POV tag

Please share your thoughts at

Template_talk:POV#Keeping it honest - Proposal to REQUIRE talk page thread before using POV tag

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:35, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

RfC notice: at Superpower article

I opened an RfC entitled Superpower article revision, no POV at the Superpower article. Please join the discussion and help reach a consensus. Antiochus the Great (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

NPOV dispute on the Derek Kilmer Wikipedia entry

"Justin Olypen" has been, as I understand Wikipedia conventions, violating NPOV guidelines with the following inflammatory entries:

"Special Interest Lobby Groups and Middle East Policy

Through his cosponsorship of the United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2013 [16], Rep. Kilmer works to send more Washington State tax dollars to Israel for weapons that have been widely documented in their use against Palestinian civilians.[17]

Kilmer has visited Israel with special-interest lobby groups working to increase funding for Israel's military [18]

In January of 2014, Kilmer plans to hold an "exclusive" meeting for major pro-Israel lobby donors behind closed doors. [19]"

I have amended the entries thus:

"Through his cosponsorship of the United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2013 [16], Rep. Kilmer supports Israel's national defense.[17]

Kilmer has visited Israel with special-interest lobby groups working to increase funding for Israel's defense.

[18] On January 13, 2014 Representative Kilmer will address the AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) Technology Division invitation-only luncheon. [19]"

Please compare for "neutrality."

We have been reverting each other's revisions; if the intent of this noticeboard is to weigh and resolve such POV disputes, please do so here; I would rather not continue this cycle ad infinitum.

I have notified "Justin Olypen" of this New Section in Wikipedia NPOV/noticeboard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Czypcamayoc (talk • contribs) 22:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Please notice difference in wording between "defense" and "military", twice. Also, please see source regarding AIPAC meeting as the complaintant is merely arguing for less specificity. - Justin olypen

I have again added increased specificity from cited articles, so article now reads: "Through his cosponsorship of the United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2013 , Rep. Kilmer supports increased US taxpayer funding of Israel's military.

Kilmer has visited Israel with special-interest lobby groups working to increase funding for Israel's military. He describes situation as "complicated".

On January 13, 2014 Representative Kilmer will address the AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) Technology Division invitation-only luncheon, behind closed doors, in a location only known to those who donate $1,500 to pro Israel lobby group, AIPAC. "

czypcamayoc replies: Looks good. I have no objection to the current language.

("Through his cosponsorship of the United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2013 [17], Rep. Kilmer supports Israel's military. Kilmer has visited Israel with special-interest lobby groups working to increase funding for Israel. He describes situation as "complicated"[18]. On January 13, 2014 Representative Kilmer will address the AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) Technology Division invitation-only luncheon, behind closed doors, in a location only known to those who donate $1,500 to pro Israel lobby group, AIPAC. [19]") — Preceding unsigned comment added by Czypcamayoc (talk • contribs) 22:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)