Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to the neutral point of view noticeboard
This page is for reporting issues regarding whether article content is compliant with the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy.
  • Before you post to this page, you should already have tried to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page. Include a link here to that discussion.
  • State the article being discussed; for example, [[article name]].
  • Include diffs to the specific change being proposed; paste text here.
  • Concisely state the problem perceived with the text in question.
  • Keep in mind that neutrality is often dependent upon context.
  • It helps others to respond to questions if you follow this format.
Sections older than 14 days archived by MiszaBot II.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:NPOVN-notice}} to do so.

Additional notes:
Search this noticeboard & archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53

Countries in Europe[edit]

Hello all,
There's a disagreement about whether our article on Kosovo belongs in Category:Countries in Europe. Like most Kosovo NPOV problems, the usual people on each side have said their piece and we've ground to a halt. Outside views would be very welcome. Any suggestions? bobrayner (talk) 14:11, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

The status of Kosovo is a hot topic. Bobrainer has been for long time a partisan promoter of Kosovo independence on Wikipedia articles and his intentional unwillingness to understand the complexity is disruptive. He behaves as if he is unaware of all, and he finds one source treating Kosovo as independent country and thinks it should be accepted as universal truth. Obviously WP:UNDUE applies, cause roughly half of countries of the world recognized Kosovo independence, the other half didn't, some organisations accepted Kosovo, some didnt. Bobrainer is an extremely problematic editor on Kosovo-related topics because he always does its best to present the pro-independence POV and ignore the other view or even the complexity of the issue. FkpCascais (talk) 11:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I think this says more about you than about me:

Bobrainer has been for long time a partisan promoter of Kosovo independence on Wikipedia articles and his intentional unwillingness to understand the complexity is disruptive.
— User:FkpCascais

Yes, escape... You don't have any maps or articles because Albania was never big or shrinked or blabla... You just talk bullshit, go to school pal and learn some history. Good bye you nationalist dreamer and keep on hating Serbs, good for you, do whatever. If something shrinked it was not Albania for sure, but your brain...
— User:FkpCascais

One sincere question: you are so partisan allways about it, are you being payed for editing Kosovo subjects just the way Albanian nationalist want? Because if you are you should step out of this subjects right away.
— User:FkpCascais

...and so on. Let's try to avoid personal attacks, and stick to the point, please. Should our article on Kosovo be in Category:Countries in Europe? bobrayner (talk) 13:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Why are you mixing a comment I made long time ago to an editor who came to my talk-page promoting Greater Albania and I made fun of him? Do you personaly feel involved in it? (The second one you posted here, the first and third were indeed directed to you)FkpCascais (talk) 13:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
This is the discussion you removed that comment from and you didn't even participated in it, the discussion was only between me and the other user. You wanted to mislead others here that I that I attacked you, such low punch on your behalve, shame on you. FkpCascais (talk) 13:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Let's try to avoid personal attacks, and stick to the point, please. Should our article on Kosovo be in Category:Countries in Europe? Uninvolved editors would be welcome. bobrayner (talk) 14:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Until there's no longer a dispute over Kosovo's status either way, it shouldn't be placed in the category-in-question. by GoodDay. But i guess that you will ignore this outsider's observation, as you dont like it. Maybe it is time for you to drop the subject and leave. #JustSaying...--Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 15:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello Anastan! I'm glad you found time to comment.
You've been insisting that there are many reliable sources which say Kosovo isn't a country in Europe. If you'd like to retain some credibility, you really ought to provide those sources. Perhaps that's a higher priority than cherrypicking one comment which suits your current position. bobrayner (talk) 16:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I will, but on the relevant page, where you should be too. I could guess that you will mention "cherrypicking" for a comment that does not suit your current position, and actually is a . uninvolved editor's comment. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 16:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Since I have played a large part in the discussion and the editing, it is only right I state my case for outsiders. We know that there are sources that call Kosovo "a country" as it is recognised by over 50% of states. In fact many entities are called "countries" in many reliable sources such as the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic and Somaliland but the general pattern is that where sovereignty is disputed by the entity from which one is breaking away, these are not included in their respective "countries in" category. To date, nobody has provided an argument as to why Kosovo deserves an accolade denied to Republic of China which was before 1971 on the UN Security Council, and the State of Palestine which has 135 recognitions, a number I personally predict Kosovo will not reach given the gradual slowdown in incoming recognitions since 2008 (as with Libya, it would need pro-west revolutions to take place in dozens of countries before this became a reality). That summarises my view. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 18:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Kosovo's inclusion in Category:Countries in Europe being in violation of NPOV. Many editors aspire to elevate Kosovo's independence status to equal with Romania or Germany, but that category is not the place to begin. If we cannot agree that the opening line should be "Kosovo is a country" for any reason then it is illogical to follow suit with other listings. For example, attempting an indirect precedent on a category page is like moving Kosovo from the second list to the first at Template:Vehicle registration plates of Europe. It would be pointless to do that unless you moved them all and abolished the "States with limited recognition" cell. --Vrhunski (talk) 00:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Vrhunski. I notice that (a) this is the first time you've ever edited a noticeboard, (b) this is your first edit in two months, and (c) this topic area has long had problems with sockpuppets and onsite & offsite canvassing. What brings you here? bobrayner (talk) 20:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I am free to edit where I so choose, and locating this discussion was not difficult since it is hardly obscure. You sought opinions from uninvolved editors and I gave you one, though clearly you do not appreciate it. If you suspect sockpuppetry, be my guest and do the honours of reporting me. Had I been one of those to have edited here then I could have extended my "original comment" with the points I raised. If my "other account" has not been used on this noticeboard then I am not in any contravention by editing here, right? As for what I have been doing these past two months or even past two years, the answer is none of your business. In the meantime, unless you can prove the rest of us wrong in our observations I suggest you keep your eyes and ears open, and you mouth firmly shut!! :) That way you might learn something :) Thank you! --Vrhunski (talk) 22:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
In other news: Anastan has been insisting that there are many reliable sources which say Kosovo isn't a country in Europe. Anastan still hasn't provided any sources. Can Anastan provide these sources, or is it just another sleight-of-hand? bobrayner (talk) 20:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
That comment has now become stale and you know very well that the arguments to oppose Kosovo appearing at Category:Countries in Europe does not rest on one or more statements from Anastan that state Kosovo is not a country. And what? Shall we just say Islamic State is a country because no source (at least on Serbian Google) finds no source to dispute this? [1]. --Vrhunski (talk) 22:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Could it please be noted by contributors/editors that Bobrayner has requested input on the relevant article's talk page, not for subjective arguments to be conducted on this noticeboard. Relevant policy and guideline based discussions would be appreciated in the appropriate venue as opposed to spreading deliberations across various Wikipedia venues. Thank you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:44, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Iryna Harpy. However, I am still concerned about the tendentious editing, and would appreciate more eyes on the problem; for instance, Anastan's claims to have lots of reliable sources saying that Kosovo isn't a country in Europe, and then complete inability to provide any of those sources. bobrayner (talk) 19:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Bob, stop with this awful editing attitude, and drop the subject here. Go to the relevant page where we are, and stop spamming this page only to keep it off the archive. New word for me, and it looks like to you too - STOP FORUM SHOPPING. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 09:33, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello Anastan! I'm glad you found time for some personal attacks and an irrelevant reference to forum-shopping. Perhaps, instead, you could find time to provide the many reliable sources which, you claim, prove that Kosovo is not a country in Europe? I haven't found them, and you still haven't provided them. On the other hand, lies about sources are not unusual on WP:ARBMAC topics. bobrayner (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, lies about sources are not ok, i agree. You should stop doing that then, as you may be blocked. Also, i do not plan to provide anything to you anymore, as there are more then enough opinions already. Also, i do not plan to further communicate with rude editors who misrepresent basic information's and comments. That very, very bad. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 00:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
At the end, why not, just to point how deep and one sided dispute with reality one editor can have. If you have one source, that is not a fact, thats just your view on the situation. Kosovo is not a regular country, but a disputed territory that want to be a country. One day. Maybe... "Kosovo government will never gain full control of the disputed territory", "The disputed territory of Kosovo", Quality of Life in Kosovo (Disputed Territory), "Kosovo is a disputed territory following the collapse of Yugoslavia", "Kosovo remains a disputed territory largely because of three conditions", "it has been a highly disputed territory", "from the still-disputed territory of Kosovo", Danish Ex-KFOR Soldier: Kosovo Is Not A State... etc, etc, etc, a lot, lot more... --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 10:48, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Half (all?) of those sources are not even reliable, particularly with regard to this question (a graduate student essay, a Serbian news site, etc.) The fact that you trot them out like this only speaks to your own bias and POV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:58, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
@Bobrayner: As the discussion on the Kosovo page has only yielded another stalemate, would you prefer that the issue be referred to CfD (as in discussion as to how the category/categories be treated), or via the DRN? This is obviously not going to be resolved as a consensus decision on the article's talk page, therefore my preference would be to have a neutral sysop/neutral parties evaluating the policy and guideline based arguments. As you'd be aware, I have made a case for my own preference, but I'm a genuinely neutral party with arguments grounded in theory over other forms of RS.
As a plea to other parties involved, don't keep using this page as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. bobrayner brought it up here in order that uninvolved editors join in at the discussion is taking place on Talk:Kosovo. Personal attacks and WP:UNCIVIL interaction on this noticeboard is not productive. It is consensus that is being sought, not further division (and derision). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Someone should notify User:Future Perfect at Sunrise about this discussion. Anyway, I think this is a no-brainer. Yes, Kosovo is a country in Europe. That's how various international organizations, like the World Bank classify it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Those citations were indeed taken from publishers unlikely to be deemed reliable. Concerning the question of "various international organisations" that classify it as a country, this entire debate is about what makes Kosovo's case different from regular countries and more identical to other unrecognised entities. Now let me get this straight, despite those publishers being unsatisfactory, does anybody truly want reliable sources that confirm Kosovo is a disputed territory? Is there an editor that actually doubts that Kosovo has fewer recognitions than the State of Palestine? If so, I will gladly reveal proper sources. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 06:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
If a similar issue arose with respect to the State of Palestine, then I'd take the same position; putting it in whatever "country" category is appropriate. But this is [[WP:OTHERSTUFF].Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:58, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I've read WP:OTHERSTUFF so you don't need to fix the broken link. This one is on the knife edge. We've already established things need to be looked into case by case. But all parties are guilty of introducing OTHERSTUFF elements to the discussion (mainly at Talk:Kosovo, not here). I have likened Kosovo to the other entities featured in this list, those to support the category have been providing comparison with entities in that list. One need only see for himself where Kosovo lies, therefore to suddenly grind it into top level over all else (particularly of all on account of sources from recognising bodies) truly returns us to the seminal question, does the category violate NPOV?. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 08:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources say that Kosovo is a country in Europe. Hence, our article on Kosovo belongs in Category:Countries in Europe. It's not rocket science.
I notice that Anastan has dredged up some sources - terrible quality sources - but they don't even say what Anastan claimed. How long must we tolerate this tendentious editing? bobrayner (talk) 20:55, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Interesting points! Reliable sources call it a country in Europe and Anastan has never provided a source to claim "Kosovo is not a country". Therefore it belongs in the category. You may have mentioned these once or twice, [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. To save another rebuttal per WP:ONUS, WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:BALANCE all of which trump the ostensibly "reliable source" daydream, I suggest you read the following: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]. Feel free to read it back to yourself as many times as you wish until the information registers. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 06:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Ouch! --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 18:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I'm not sure what those diffs are supposed to show except that some users (well, the two above) engage in a lot of WP:IDIDINTHEARTHAT. So you know, things have to be repeated at them since they appear to have difficulties with comprehension.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
On the contrary, I heard him the first time. Clearly if an editor cannot see that there is an issue that goes deep beyond the wording of one shallow source which has been addressed numerous times then you need to ask yourself who has difficulties with comprehension. Unless of course they understood it the first time in which case they would be the ones guilty of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 21:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The problem we have here is that we are talking about a category, not a passage, template, infobox or caption note. This is probably the one thing for which neutrality is in all honesty impossible. In the aforementioned circumstances, editors from two sides of a dispute have the freedom to dress the presentation so that all aspects are observed. For instance in mainspace there is the option of the Kosovo note template to reflect parity. But a category, well either it is there or it is not, sadly there is no middle road. In this case, the "reliable source" is taken by its subscribers to serve as some kind of trump card that ranks higher than all disputes, impartiality and objective editing. Yet if it were that simple, if an acknowledgement from the website of an organisation that has admitted the subject as a member was so reliable as to be conclusive then there would have been no dispute from editors because there would have been no dispute from the real life players. The governments of Azerbaijan, Venezuela, Bolivia and Belarus would only need to be delivered a reference from the source and all would realise they were wrong to refuse recognition and would subsequently reverse their positions. We would never have articles such as Kosovo status process, International recognition of Kosovo, 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence, International Steering Group for Kosovo, Ahtisaari Plan and Brussels Agreement (2013) if it were that simple as to behave in such a way as to ignore the problem. You do not have anything like this for South Sudan yet that country broke away three years after Kosovo. Curiously, this conversation is happening on the NPOV noticeboard though I'd question whether the OP has ever read the conditions. Per WP:WIKIVOICE (which would without doubt define a category listing since it is inflexible), there is one essential point relevant to this debate (the rest largely pertain to mainspace writing but even they could be said to be relevant):

  • Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.

"Category" is mentioned once in WP:WEIGHT and this says:

  • Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well.

Obviously there are no competing views since even a source to refer to Kosovo or Somaliland as "a country" would not do so in a way that would not address the wider issues of the dispute were they to be extended articles rather than fact-boxes.

So if 80 world states continue to recognise Kosovo as subject to Serbian territorial integrity, that cannot be classed as WP:FRINGE. As such, reliable sources do indeed cite the divided opinion over what Kosovo is according to which party. So I say finally, I have seen many editors accused of "Serbian nationalist fantasy" for their opposition to this category, and yet nobody has these past two months inserted, or proposed to include Kosovo in Category:Autonomous provinces of Serbia alongside Vojvodina, and this is the polar opposite to the country category.

Now you'll realise that balancing the scales is impossible and not simply down to the words of a source. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 22:52, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Note for admins/interested persons[edit]

Just a courtesy note to clarify that the matter is resolved. I as main opponent of the category have amended my position based partly on the discussions at Talk:Kosovo and partly on other examples as set on other articles. I believe this conversation can now be archived to make space for the newer issues. Regards to all. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 11:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

@Oranges Juicy: For those of us who haven't been following the discussions, would you be willing to write a brief précis for the benefit of future editors searching for outcomes on the various centralised boards before this section is archived? An advanced thanks for your input! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes I'll give it a shot! Give me a bit of time to revise the two discussions which will undoubtedly caused readers to think WP:TLDR. At Talk:Kosovo a related matter has now come to RfC but this noticeboard subject is concluded. I will get straight on shortly. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 07:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I haven't had time to keep up with the discussions, therefore a summary would be informative (even if stretches to tl;dr for Wikipedians not involved/interested in the subject matter). It's really a 'for the record' request for future reference for those who are interested and involved who wish to know what the outcome was. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:55, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


Opinions were sought here over whether wording within a reliable source warranted Kosovo's inclusion in Category:Countries in Europe. Arguments to oppose the inclusion were based on the practice across the site where other partially recognised disputed territories were concerned. Arguments, or should I say, the argument for inclusion of the category on the article rested solely on the source. Accepting the high figure of states recognising Kosovo (which is actually what led to the source in question, rather than the source being a conclusive reference) coupled with the realisation that other entities with slightly higher or lower recognition (and to some extent disputed territories also) had contained their relative Countries in categories, I stumbled across the rival entity Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija only to find it was drafted in asymmetrical contrast to Kosovo. I edited the article as best I could to rephrase the dubious lede and then proceeded to boldly restore the category I originally opposed, but only after consulting two or three of the editors to originally oppose the category. None objected. I believe that is the core explanation less the usual insults thrown about! :))) --Oranges Juicy (talk) 03:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Oranges Juicy. In order that this instance be closed off, and to avoid further disruption over the issue, I understand that Kosovo has been deemed a sovereign state/nation-state, and that the top level category of Countries in Europe has been applied reflect consensus (although it is further qualified by Disputed territories in Europe in order that the reader be aware that it also falls under the sovereign territory of Serbia). This discrepancy has, furthermore, been qualified by in the WP:LEAD and WP:BODY of the article.
Ultimately, the consensus for Kosovo doesn't set a precedent for other "claims", and every disputed territory must be assessed to meet the criteria for recognition on a case-by-case evaluation of RS and verifiability. As this has been hashed out thoroughly with consensus standing as the criteria meeting the requirements, for the sake of future challenges, an editor (or editors) would need to bring new sources and arguments to the table in order to overturn the consensus outcome. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
The essential factor was the wording of the rival article. Obviously Kosovo is only as top-level and sovereign as it is an autonomous province. I must be clear that the editors to argue in favour of the category did so on the pretext of a World Bank publication which as you know is no more a reliable source for the subject than a statement from an ambassador to Serbia that does not recognise Kosovo. As a matter of fact, I can safely say we won't be seeing an identical source from the all-new AIIB with its 50 inaugural members, since this world bank is in China which does not recognise Kosovo and thereby will surely not grant it membership. Whereas the EU countries are almost certain to renege, China has given no such indications that it will follow suit - and China is the last country that is about to default, adopt the Euro or seek assistance from the ECB. Of course you are right that Kosovo cannot set a precedence for other disputed states, each must be assessed accordingly. That said, if anybody now wishes to raise the profile of other breakaway republics then I certainly will be unable to argue against it after this experience. We are still debating the opening line at Talk:Kosovo, but for now, the category is welcome by all sides. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 23:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for confirming my reading/interpretation of the discussion at this point. In fact, the status of Kosovo is, by no means, settled. The dispute is ongoing, therefore it cannot be understood that there is consensus decision. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
True, but on the bright side, it can be said that there is dissensus! :-) --Oranges Juicy (talk) 08:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Kosovo is a country according to the definition provided at Country: "A country is a region that is identified as a distinct entity in political geography. A country may be an independent sovereign state or one that is occupied by another state, as a non-sovereign or formerly sovereign political division, or a geographic region associated with sets of previously independent or differently associated peoples with distinct political characteristics." Kosovo fulfills the criteria of sovereignty and therefore by definition is a country. Many editors confuse sovereignty with partial international recognition. For a state to be defined as Sovereign State, there needs to exist a recognition by at least one UN country (not by all UN countries). In the Talk:Kosovo there is a substantial clarification why Kosovo is a sovereign state, backed up by a majority of editors. The problem with Kosovo is that editors from countries opposing the Republic of Kosovo always oppose the factual existence of the Republic of Kosovo. I believe Wikipedia should take a bold move to prohibit further debates that aim at denying the existence of the Republic Kosovo. Despite Serbia's dispute, Kosovo is factually as a sovereign state, and naturally a country. (talk) 23:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

You should go back to your account (if its not blocked or banned). Its not ok to spam this many pages here on wiki per Wikipedia:SHOPPING. Go back to Kosovo talk page, and go back to your account, so we can solve this chaos you made. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 11:25, 4 July 2015 (UTC), can I kindly ask you not to spam this section of this page with your views. This is a précis which I have drafted for future reference on a matter that has been settled. This was about the category, the category is there as you wished it to be, nobody is proposing its removal. The reasons why both parties are in agreement with why it should be there despite earlier discussion is in the first paragraph. For the ongoing issues, please continue to use Talk:Kosovo, there you are free to suggest or oppose any Kosovo-related matter. Thank you. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 13:58, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

WWE Global Warning issue[edit]

This is later than I wanted to because I lost the original comment difference, but I've found it.

User:OldSkool01 I believe has violated WP:NPOV by manipulating an otherwise reliable source in Wrestling Observer. He has done this by emailing Dave Meltzer directly asking for a response to the anecdotally proven claim that Global Warning was shown on pay per view in south east Asia. Here is the notice he gave that he would do so. "I have an e-mail out to Dave Meltzer and Bryan Alvarez of Wrestling Observer, as well as Mike Johnson of PWInsider asking to confirm on their respective sites that this show did not air on PPV."

On that page you would notice that I advised that the conversation should be taking place on the then existing WWE Global Warning page. The page was deleted so I can't show what I said in response to that, but I can say that I told him he shouldn't have done that and I attempted to head it off in similar terms. I can advise that I was successful with Mike Johnson, as he laughed off something that happened "a million years ago" (his words). This was the correct reaction so no harm was done. In the case of Meltzer however the result was a manipulated source that Old Skool used to shut down the debate over whether or not the event was shown on pay per view. [24]

This source is essential to back up other sources he uses, one from a fan (published by Meltzer), two from WWE corporate, while on the talk page of the current location of the Global Warning, Professional wrestling in Australia he mentions two more from PWTorch. With the exception of WWE Corporate they were from - which isn't an issue. What is an issue is that none of those sources by themselves explicitly state that the event wasn't on pay per view. And why would they? One is a live report and the others - including WWE Corporate - are American based. Pro Fight DB on the other hand (and formerly Cage Match until that disappeared in suspicious circumstances at almost exactly the same time as Meltzer's comment appeared as per above) stated that it was a pay per view and I used some other sources that make the claim as well. Each of them were ruled by a non admin as unreliable. [25] [26] [27]. There are two others as well but for reasons unknown they are blacklisted. TVRage and TheMovieDB.

Combine this with at least three people (myself included) who through OR - yes I know that's not allowed but it serves as back up only to the above links - know that it was one pay per view. Only one, TombstoneRide, has said nothing specific. An IP who edited Professional Wrestling in Australia claimed it was shown in Vietnam - IMO likely through a pirate feed which there were a lot of in the region back in 2002. Personally I was at the event and I vividly remember Tony Chimel saying before the show started that it was on pay per view in south east Asia and gave notice that the intro of the show would be PPV style for this reason - so make some noise (I think the reliable sources say that last bit was said at least and that's why). I am of the view that OldSkool01 has been obsessing over this for a long time and has been trying to shut it down without a smoking gun. The key issue here is that he manipulated Dave Meltzer creating the source he claims is the smoking gun. Because of the manipulation of a reliable, I believe that this source should be rules out of order under WP:NPOV and that my edit here should stand, without the Cage Match reference of course and with the other sources mentioned above. I am trying to find a smoking gun at my end, but publications are hard to find in south east Asia particularly from Australia. It's likely going to be hardcopy and not online if I'm right about where the smoking gun may be. The bottom line though is that neutrality on the basis of evidence needs to be maintained, and OldSkool via manipulation has violated that neutrality. Curse of Fenric (talk) 23:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

  • I have absolutely nothing new to add to what Curse of Fenric already stated here. All of the evidence speaks for itself. Until he finds that elusive smoking gun, there is nothing to argue here. OldSkool01 (talk) 00:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
  • This link right here... is one of the links you provided above. You really should read those sources first before you link them. That site is yet another report from a fan that was there live who acknowledges that this was NOT televised live! How did you not notice that? So that makes 2 links(in addition to the many others) from a fan's perspective who was there live that mentions it not airing live. OldSkool01 (talk) 09:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Look at the actual URL - what is that after What does it stand for? The link supports me, not you. No more discussion. We need an admin here to make a judgment on your manipulation, which in effect you have admitted to by not contesting my comments of events. Curse of Fenric (talk) 10:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The URL says one thing, but what's written in the actual link says another. I also listened to that podcast you linked to. The 2 guys reviewing Global Warning(this podcast was 12 years after the event happened) are watching the DVD and they note that they did research and they can't find one single report anywhere from one single person who actually watched it on PPV. And they question if it did actually air on PPV later in the podcast. As far as me contesting any of your claims, you told the admins to check out all the links that I've provided and to read all the convos we've had. Those convos and all those links speak for themselves. Just to make it easier for the admins, here are the convos/debates that we had over the last couple of weeks. The first one is on my user talk page... and the second one is on the talk page of Professional Wrestling In Australia under the Global Warning section... The admins can read everything that was said and check out all the links/sources/references for themselves to make a decision. OldSkool01 (talk) 12:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Way to prove me right. You're trying to divert away from your manipulation. You have no NPOV, and I note from the history of this page that you've been called a bully. I disagree with the removal of your commentary because it should stay as proof that you are exactly that while "debating" this issue. That's all I need to add. Curse of Fenric (talk) 01:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
  • And now I'm a bully? This is not the first time you've called me names. I was accused of being uncivil, yet other people continue with the name calling and making false accusations towards me. I've done nothing, but continue to stay on the point of what this whole debate is about. It's all about deciding whether or not WWE Global Warning did or did not air on PPV somewhere in the world. That's it. That's what all this is about. Nothing more. We'll let the admins look at all the facts that have been presented and they'll make a decision on whether it was or it was not. OldSkool01 (talk) 03:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Note to the admins - this is about whether or not OldSkool01 manipulated a source, not whether or not Global Warning was shown on pay per view live anywhere. The latter is background only and all associated points made by him are diversions from the root issue. For the record, diverting and/or distracting from the root issue is typical of a bully. That is all. Curse of Fenric (talk) 07:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Again with the name calling. If this isn't about Global Warning then why is this section called "WWE Global Warning Issue"? That's very confusing. It should be called "Source Manipulating Issue". And with that all said, I still stand by my point on the manipulating issue that I did not manipulate a source. Asking a source a direct question is well within my rights. OldSkool01 (talk) 10:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I say it's not within your rights, and the title is not confusing. Keep deflecting - it makes you look more guilty every time you do it. Bye. Curse of Fenric (talk) 11:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I would appreciate admin help here to sort this out once and for all, thanks. Curse of Fenric (talk) 02:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

How does one get the attention of an admin here? This is rather important. Curse of Fenric (talk) 07:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

More input sought[edit]

  • Flyte35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) I was looking at old discussion on the College_tuition_in_the_United_States talk page, and noticed this discussion, in which 3 editors, ElKevbo,, and Flyte35 all agreed that if credible sources could be found to support a claim that college loan forgiveness was not inflationary, it could be included in the article. However, one of the prior editors decided to refuse to abide by the community consensus, and it has created an edit war. The other 2 editors can not be reached: One is unregistered and the other is taking time off due to vandalism and ill will. The 3rd, remaining editor, Flyte35, decided to violate community consensus (with edits, such as this one), and thus when I arrived on the scene to edit, in accordance with the consensus previously reached, and when he (or she?) deleted the post, I marked it as vandalism, but tried to talk about it in the talk page. That did not work, so we are in need of your intervention. (talk) 15:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Procedural note. This IP has only made two edits: here and to WP:RSN. On top of other issues, this looks like forum-shopping. —C.Fred (talk) 15:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
For the record, Fred, My IP address is dynamic: I am not a newbie: I have made a few more than 2 edits. But, why is the number of edits an issue? Should not the merits of the complaints be the main issue? (talk) 15:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
With regard to the forum-shopping concern, was I not told by more experienced editors to come here? See the links above. Moreover, when consensus can not be reached, what do you suggest? Is this not the proper protocol to resolve disputes and get consensus when none exists? (talk) 15:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Having looked over the edit in question as well as the relevant discussion, I agree with Flyt35 that that text is unnecessary, poorly sourced and WP:UNDUE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

How many sources do you want? I found 4 sources, and 3 are very-credible... even the 4th one was cited in the NY Times. What more do you want? God, Himself/Herself to personally weigh in!? (talk) 16:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
My apologies, Fred: The link where I was asked to come to this page was not mentioned above. My bad - here it is: Per this suggestion, I am asking for help settling our dispute with regard both to the sources as well as the view, in general. OK, I've done what I was asked, and, moreover, what else would you suggest? (talk) 16:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Just to lay things out a little more succinctly, Flyte35's edits which OP has a problem with are:
Yes, I was mistaken. The problem with the line was not that it was SYNTH; it was that it was an unreliable source. I discuss this in the talk section. Flyte35 (talk) 17:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Done! At this link. (talk) 10:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
The source is an amicus brief, which isn't good/neutral enough to make a definitive statement about the law, but seems perfectly appropriate for a "recommendations" section if it comes from a reliable source (the issuing individual/organization). So certainly the amicus briefs issued by, say, the Berkman Center, ACLU, or Stanford Law School are perspectives worth including in a section like this, but I frankly don't know about Watts.
As an additional point, I think this "recommendations" sections needs to do a much better job of attributing the recommendations in the article text. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

General question[edit]

Suppose Wikipedian "A" says that NPOV requires treating reliable sources according to their prominence, but Wikipedian "B" says that the degree of reliability should also impact how reliable sources are treated. What is the proper response to Wikipedian "B"?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Please note that in the context that Anything is asking this about, "prominence" means comparing two differing individual sources by their circulation and fame, on the one side, and reliability on the other. It does not mean anything about a preponderance of multiple sources. And the question is also not about whether the sources should appear at all, but about the proportion to which each source's opinion should be described within an article. And just to be clear, none of the sources that we're arguing about are particularly well informed, but the prominent one is inarguably prominent, and both have been deemed to be reliable as sources about their own opinion but not the subject. An analogous question: suppose Justin Bieber and an associate professor of mathematics state contradictory opinions about the existence of life on Mars. Both sources are published in ways we would normally consider reliable, and the mathematics one specifically and clearly refutes what Bieber has to say. Do we treat these sources according to their prominence? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
What a ridiculous framing. In David's rendition, "Justin Bieber" is the full editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, who together have excellent academic and journalistic credentials, are veterans in the field with a couple Pulitzers between them, and are writing in the name of their publication, and the "associate professor of mathematics" is in fact a blogger who has no science credentials whatsoever, has very little experience, journalistic or otherwise, and is barely old enough to grow a freaking beard.
It's also not correct to say that WSJ is only being argued as "more prominent", as if it were a mere argument about circulation or readership; those aren't irrelevant, but the WSJ authors also have much stronger credentials pretty much any way you look at it. Also, when David suggests that one of these pieces is more "reliable" than the other, all he really means is that that's the source he agrees with and finds more persuasive. That isn't what "reliability" means in the context of WP:RS and WP:IRS, AFAIK. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 11:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I do not see how the NY Mag piece should even be in the article. It looks to me like it is used simply as a way to call the WSJ piece "silly". It is not commenting on the issue, rather it is commenting on the comments about the issue. This is entirely too meta to be included in the article regardless of how "silly" the WSJ piece is. And silly or not what the WSJ, or any other major newspaper editorial board has to say, is a valid opinion to cite.

I am also a bit concerned about David Eppstein's ability to maintain an NPOV in this situation. The reason for this is the his comment "...insisting on adding a long paragraph based on a Wall Street Journal editorial to our article..." [28] (emp. mine). This declaration of ownership is in the same edit where he tries to justify exclusion of content because he says the Wall Street Journal is WP:FRINGE. The WSJ may have gone through the looking-glass in the last decade or so but it is still considered a respectable mainstream paper and calling it WP:FRINGE is not supportable.

The current version of the article at this time seems OK with the exception of the NY Magazine bit I noted above. JbhTalk 14:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

What a stupid misreading of my remark. Here "our" refers to all Wikipedia editors. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
@David Eppstein: Not based on my reading of the conversation and I remind you to remain civil and strike your first sentence. Thank you. JbhTalk 16:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
If you apologize for your good-faith-violating misreading of my comment, I might consider apologizing for my unintended implication that the stupidity of your misreadng extended to you personally and not merely to that comment you wrote. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Conditional apologies. Wow! Great response! Based on this exchange my reading of your prior comments were correct you can not maintain an NPOV, you can not even engage with the issues I have raised. Next time try simply saying something like 'That is not what I meant by our.... I consider WSJ to be FRINGE because... and the NY Mag article should be in the article because...' That is how collaboration is done not by throwing off rude one line comments insulting an editor who you have never interacted with. So care to try that again or should we just continue being rude to one-another? JbhTalk 17:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, since obviously the commentary above is based on the specific case, and others here may wonder, it is:Talk:When contact changes minds. In a nutshell, we have a case about a technical issue (a case of academic dishonesty) that has been used as the jumping-off point for at least one prominent editorial by a group with no particular expertise in this subject. Because of the lack of expertise, this editorial makes some obvious mistakes in its description of what happened and jumps to some unlikely conclusions about why it happened. We also have a reliable but less-prominently-published editorial pointing all of this out and offering a more likely explanation. Factchecker and friends want to use NPOV as a cudgel, to include these sources "in proportion to their prominence", which is to say to include much of the uninformed editorial but significantly cut back its refutation. Is this an appropriate reading of policy? Additionally, Factchecker seems to be unwilling to accept reasoned argument for why one source might be presenting a more accurate view of the case, instead repeatedly insisting that the only bases for choice among sources is prominence and mischaracterizing all argument to the contrary as being purely personal preference. Obviously, NPOV favors prominence and disallows personal preference, but does NPOV require us to blindly ignore all other characteristics of a source (such as how mistake-ridden it might be, how much sourced criticism it has come under, or how plausible it is) and use only prominence as the criterion when choosing editorial opinions to include in an article? —David Eppstein (talk) 16:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Just because you think the explanation in the NY Magazine blog is a "more likely explanation" does not make it so. My issue with the NY Mag piece is that it is an article about the WSJ piece and it seems to be used only to call the WSJ piece "silly". This is quite simply POV. If the article has something useful to say about the subject that is not covered elsewhere fine if not it should go. It would also be possible to use it in a section dedicated to the social and political fall-out of the misconduct but as a source for an inappropriate one-liner with no context it fails NPOV. JbhTalk 17:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
The useful parts of what it has to say, in my mind, are its pointing out the factual errors in the WSJ and its supplying a more likely hypothesis for why this paper was published. However, most of this has been repeatedly removed by Factchecker and company, in favor of leaving in the "general sillyness" quote which I agree is more purely opinion. That is to say, the reason it has no context is that the people who think it should be included have already selectively edited its inclusion to make it look like it has no context. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm.... Can you point me to a revision of the article which has what you think should be included? The WSJ article reads like two articles grafted together, one a commentary on the academic fraud (albeit from a layman's POV but it is a newspaper) and the other a right-wing rant. When I read the NYM piece I saw it as almost entirely a reaction to the 'right-wing rant' rather than the 'academic fraud' part of the WSG editorial. If the WSG piece is used for more than a brief quote the NYM piece is a good counter-balance. If only brief quotes are going to be used would you suggest a better on than the "sillyness" quote that would better show the essence of that piece?

I think there is some nuance between why the article was published by Science and why the press and others latched on to the purported results. In my opinion that is pretty important. There is a huge difference between how right-wing ideologues, scientists and "normal" people consider science, evidence and the purpose and results of scientific investigation. This article is not the place to go into that in detail but that difference needs to be recognized when we consider media reactions and how to balance viewpoints. It is key to remember that much of the population does not understand science, and so many people now think that ideology trumps facts that they are starting to make it so. Where we are writing about public reactions those people's point of view matters too. JbhTalk 19:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

This diff gives my preference for what to include from the NY Magazine. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I see no real problem with that version of the paragraph. I think it would be better if there were a footnote which gives at least one of the "factual errors" to avoid the problem of a vague assertion and to give a reader some idea of the error(s). For instance is it a technical point easy to misunderstand or something blatant, possibly for the purposes of framing the issue. I am not familiar enough with the material to judge 'facts' so I am just the type of casual reader who would look as that sentence and say 'such as?' so I think a very brief footnote would help others as well. JbhTalk 21:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
As I recall, there was only one minor factual error raised, which Singal cites and then proceeds to assert as the basis for non sequitur conclusions, presumably because he either has no clue what he's talking about or is not skilled at logical reasoning. (Questionable reasoning, innuendo and glib sarcasm can be found throughout the piece—always hallmarks of good science writing amirite?)
So as an immediate matter, the prose "pointing out factual errors in the Wall Street Journal" has got to be stricken as POV-pushing and unsupported
And, it's simply false to say I've insisted on excluding the Singal piece. I merely objected to giving it 4x as much weight as the WSJ ed board piece, without any basis whatsoever.
Only after David and/or Nomo started trimming the WSJ prose and expanding the Singal prose did I raise the objection that the WSJ ed board piece is actually entitled to more weight than the Singal blog piece, and even then I didn't actually propose eliminating the Singal prose, but I was merely raising the weight issue to point out that there was zero justification for amplifying Singal while suppressing WSJ ed board, solely on the basis of the views and personal preferences of WP editors.
Anyway, just to clear things up, Jesse Singal is no John Rennie, competently explaining scientific topics to the masses. He's every bit the partisan hack the WSJ eds are accused of being, and has extremely weak credentials relative to them. He's being presented as an expert, but he's not. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 23:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Then I propose the text columnist Jesse Singal responded, pointing out factual errors in the Wall Street Journal and theorizing instead that the main reason for the article's publication was its contradiction of prior research. It is a simple counter-point that does not lead the reader to ask an unanswered 'such as?' and does not implicitly frame the WSJ article as defective. I would, however, support re-addition of the stricken text, using error or errors as appropriate, if a factual error(s) can be articulated in a footnote. JbhTalk 11:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
If two sources simply conflict, editors shouldn't fill in the blanks; however, if a source explicitly criticizes another source, that's eligible for inclusion in the article. Whether or not to do so is up to editors' judgement of the sources' relative merits in terms of expertise, credentials, and reasoning. Rhoark (talk) 18:53, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Koch Industries brief, in-text description in Americans for Prosperity[edit]


Thank you for the comments and advice. Hugh (talk) 05:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Current article content of the Founding and growth section of article Americans for Prosperity :

The founding of AFP was funded by businessmen and philanthropist brothers David H. Koch and Charles Koch of Koch Industries.

(Supported by multiple, highly reliable source references.)

Proposed additional clause shown in bold:

The founding of AFP was funded by businessmen and philanthropist brothers David H. Koch and Charles Koch of Koch Industries, the largest privately held energy company in the U.S.

Supported by reference already in the article (no new refs needed):

  1. Cohen, Rick (September 15, 2010). "The Starfish and the Tea Party, Part II". Nonprofit Quarterly (Institute for Nonprofit News). Retrieved June 18, 2015. The charitable arm of David Koch, the more overtly and actively libertarian brother of Charles Koch of Koch Industries, the largest privately held energy company in the nation, shows up as a significant funder of Americans for Prosperity, though the number here understates its importance to the organization.  emphasis added

Talk page discussion: Koch Industries is the largest privately held energy company in the US, owned by the founders of the subject of this article

Our manual of style at WP:LINKSTYLE says "Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links: if a highly technical term can be simply explained with very few words, do so", "Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence," and "Don't assume that readers will be able to access a link at all."

Koch Industries is not a household word. Every reliable source that mentions Koch Industries includes at least a few words of description, and usually more, see for example:

  1. Mayer, Jane (August 30, 2010). "Covert Operations: The billionaire brothers who are waging a war against Obama". The New Yorker. Retrieved March 20, 2015. With his brother Charles, who is seventy-four, David Koch owns virtually all of Koch Industries, a conglomerate, headquartered in Wichita, Kansas, whose annual revenues are estimated to be a hundred billion dollars. The company has grown spectacularly since their father, Fred, died, in 1967, and the brothers took charge. The Kochs operate oil refineries in Alaska, Texas, and Minnesota, and control some four thousand miles of pipeline. Koch Industries owns Brawny paper towels, Dixie cups, Georgia-Pacific lumber, Stainmaster carpet, and Lycra, among other products. Forbes ranks it as the second-largest private company in the country...So far in 2010, Koch Industries leads all other energy companies in political contributions, as it has since 2006. 
  2. Rutenberg, Jim (October 17, 2014). "How Billionaire Oligarchs Are Becoming Their Own Political Parties". New York Times Magazine. Retrieved March 23, 2015. The environmental impact of the Koch family is not entirely an abstract question. Koch Industries is the second-largest private company in the country, and its holdings include oil refineries, oil-services companies and one of the nation’s biggest fertilizer manufacturers. 

Multiple reliable sources even report one of the owners of Koch Industries stating the obscurity of Koch Industries, see for example:

  1. Weiss, Gary (October 15, 2008). "The Price of Immortality". American City Business Journals. In time, his family’s business became the largest private concern in the U.S., if not the world. “My joke is that we’re the biggest company you’ve never heard of,” Koch says. 
  2. Schouten, Fredreka (August 23, 2012). "Who are the Kochs and how far does their influence reach?". USA Today. "...Kansas-based Koch Industries. It operates oil refineries, makes chemicals and asphalt, controls pipelines and owns a wide range of consumer products, including Stainmaster carpet and Angel Soft toilet paper..."My joke is that we're the biggest company you've never heard of," David Koch said in a 2008 interview 

Summarizing arguments in opposition of inclusion: Some editors seem to be invoking WP:UNDUE in support of the position that while we may mention in the article that David and Charles Koch, the founders of the subject of the article, are from Koch Industries, it is non-neutral to offer our readers any context, even to the extent of including a very few neutral words on first mention saying what Koch Industries is, and that the appropriate level of detail with respect to the nature of Koch Industries is none. Some editors express the view that a wikilink is sufficient context.

Collaborative work-shopping on the consensus wording of a brief, neutral, in-text definition of Koch Industries is currently stymied by a misapplication of WP:NPOV to frustrate compliance with our manual of style WP:LINKSTYLE and clarity.

I am seeking comment from editors experienced with WP:NPOV issues, less on the precise wording, but rather on whether:

  1. may WP:NPOV be used to over-ride our manual of style WP:LINKSTYLE,
  2. may WP:NPOV be used to reduce the provided context of a newly introduced proper noun to zero, and
  3. may WP:NPOV be used to support the view that a wikilink is sufficient context of a newly introduced proper noun.

Thank you for your attention. Hugh (talk) 19:59, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Why are we at the noticeboards? I thought this was being actively discussed by multiple editors at the article talk page. ? Capitalismojo (talk) 20:05, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
This is already being discussed on the talk page, and a consensus has been reached, Hugh opening this discussion might be construed as WP:FORUMSHOP. Or perhaps WP:IDONTHEAR. It definitely goes against consensus building. He's been blocked several times in the last few months for disruptive editing, at least once on this article, and continues to ignore consensus on the talk page. In addition, HughD has opened a discussion on ANI. Suggest this discussion be closed until at least the ANI discussion is closed. Onel5969 (talk) 20:20, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Hugh cannot accuse anyone of NPOV issues on these pages. DaltonCastle (talk) 21:03, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed -- this is being discussed on the talk page. Multiple editors have reached a consensus on the matter. Cheers, Comatmebro ~Come at me~ 17:30, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Content-policy noticeboards are here for when someone thinks local consensus has gotten it wrong. ANI is for behavior. I see nothing wrong with raising the question here at this time.
NPOV is a strong policy. I'd say not as strong as WP:BLP or WP:COPY, but it certainly overrides the manual of style. That said, UNDUE is misapplied, unless there is a significant viewpoint that holds the Koch brothers are actually not related to Koch Industries. I think what people have in mind is WP:ONUS to provide a reason for inclusion. If the manual of style makes a recommendation for inclusion, that could be such a reason. Rhoark (talk) 18:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. Yes, NPOV is strong. Please consider an alternative but more neutral clause such as "a large multinational corporation." May NPOV be used to exclude ANY brief, in-text, neutral, characterization of an uncommon proper noun in a Wikipedia article? Perhaps with edit summaries of the sense of "too much detail" or "off-topic"? In other words, is it ever correct to invoke NPOV to reduce the context of a newly introduced, generally unfamiliar proper noun to zero? Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 19:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC) In other other words, can the due weight of context of a newly-introduced, demonstrably generally unfamiliar proper noun be none? Thanks. Hugh (talk) 20:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Actually, Rhoark - I'm not actually sure that your comment regarding policy noticeboards is an accurate assessment in this instance. First, this noticeboard says nothing of that sort; second, it ignores, or actually seems to contradict WP:FORUMSHOP. Not only has HughD inserted this discussion here, simply due to the fact that he did not like the overwhelming consensus on the talk page (consensus which he has, and is continuing, to ignore), but he's placed similar discussions on other noticeboards, as well as ANI. Onel5969 (talk) 21:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
The only source that holds the view that Koch Industries is independent of Americans for Prosperity is a spokesperson from Koch Industries, a minority viewpoint not widely held, but included in the article. You suggested MOS might be used to support inclusion, might a preponderance of RS also be used? In this case, as mentioned above, every reliable source that mentions Koch Industries recognizes it as generally unfamiliar to their readership and includes at least a few words of description, and usually more. Can we do the same? We are encourage to provide sufficient context for clarity. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 19:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Instead of explaining Koch Industries, we should drop it from that sentence. Isn't a violation of some guideline, perhaps WP:COATRACK, to use term B to explain term A, use term C to explain term B, etc. That being said, I don't think HughD intended to be disruptive in bringing the matter here, even though he is the only editor commenting on the talk page who agrees with his argument. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:39, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
The first part, the on-topic part, of your comment is not entirely clear to me. You seem to be defending the position that the appropriate weight of a brief, in-text background definition of Koch Industries, no matter how neutral, is none? A new, generally unfamiliar proper noun may be introduced into a Wikipedia article, with no context? A wikilink is sufficient? Hugh (talk) 21:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with including it in the article, but you should ask yourself "how does this improve the article?". On the surface, it seems an unnecessary addition to the article. However, if you can find a source that attributes part of the success of the AFP to the size/power/success of its backing companies, then the inclusion would have some relevance. I haven't read through the whole article or all the links given here, but if you can find a reliable sources that gives significance to the size of its backers, then it should be included in the article.Scoobydunk (talk) 20:53, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment. To me it is very obvious that including a brief description of Koch Industries improves the Americans for Prosperity article. In support of please note that almost every reliable source that mentions Americans for Prosperity also mentions the Kochs and often mentions Koch Industries, and that the editors and authors of every reliable source that mentions Koch Industries found that their treatment was improved by including a brief description. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 21:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I suggest creating a distinct subsection of the article that neutrally but explicitly treats the apparently controversial relationship or lack of relationship between these organizations. That would be better than lots of MOS-based proxy disputes all over the article. Rhoark (talk) 21:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Proxy dispute. That is helpful; reflecting, you are right. The article until recently included a couple of sentences of reliable sources explicitly commenting on the obvious correspondence between some of the policy agenda of Americans for Prosperity and the financial bottom line of Koch Industries. Thank you for your advice. Hugh (talk) 21:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
This has been discussed in numerous sections on the talk page. Other articles regarding advocacy groups include mentions of their donor base, which was agreed to BY CONSENSUS, on the article's talk page. Numerous times. HughD has attempted to insert his non-neutral POV frequently, and is still currently doing so, in spite of consensus. Regardless of that, Koch Industries, as Hugh's own source points out, IS NOT A FUNDER of this organization. According to HughD's source, David Koch is. And mentioning him is perfectly all right. HughD's own quote shows the bootstrapping effort to get Koch Industries into the article. It's not even a direct bootstrap, but through Charles Koch. Further, HughD's own source includes a table of backers for AFP, of which Koch Industries is included. Onel5969 (talk) 21:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

IMHO, if people wanted to know more about the Koch Industries page, they can read about it there. The content proposed to be added does not speak directly about the organization Americans for Prosperity. While the Koch brothers maybe part of the organization, the company Koch Industries are not. Therefore I agree with Arthur Rubin on his assessment that additional information about the Koch brothers, and their companies in this article would fall under WP:COATRACK.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

A wl is enough context for a newly-introduced, generally unfamiliar proper noun? What do you take from WP:LINKSTYLE? Hugh (talk) 23:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Obvious coatrack. Even without the issue of Koch Industries and David Koch not being the same thing, clearly the choice of "...the largest privately held energy company in the U.S." and not "...the largest privately held paper manufacturer in the U.S." (Unless I got my numbers wrong in my quick search. both are true statements), is clearly designed to put Americans for Prosperity in a particular light. And mentioning the some supporters of a political organization will gain financially if the organization achieves its goals clearly fails NPOV. Name a political organization that accepts donations where this is not true. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Guy Macon. Yes this is becoming more obviously Coatracking. This user is continuing to turn this into an attack page. And will try every possible means to push their agenda. I guess I'll see you all on the next noticeboard! DaltonCastle (talk) 02:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

History of Kombucha = POV?[edit]

I sourced the following:

In 220 BC, during the Tsing Dynasty, the tea was valued as an energizing and detoxifying agent.

to this reference:

which states:

It also originated in China where the "Divine Che" was prized 220 BC during the Tsin Dynasty for its detoxifying and energizing properties (Roche, 1998).

another review that says the same thing is

which states:

Kombucha originated in northeast China (Manchuria) where it was prized during the Tsin Dynasty (“Ling Chi”), about 220 B.C., for its detoxifying and energizing properties.

It was reverted as being a violation of NPOV. I wanted to get the views of a wider group of editors. Thanks, petrarchan47คุ 21:14, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

The source prefaces this entire section by stating "When we study the development of civilization and the role of food and folk medicine, we often discover that many foods and beverages were used for their assumed beneficial effects on health" (my bold). The source is not WP:MEDRS for health claims and indeed the concept of "detoxification" is pseudoscientific. Thus it needs to be made clear these assumed medicinal properties were merely thoughts of a past age, rather than true objective properties which were at that time recognized. Something like: "In 220 BC, during the Tsing Dynasty, the tea was thought to have medicinal properties". Alexbrn (talk) 21:27, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
How does During the Tsing Dynasty..." not serve this exact purpose: it needs to be made clear these assumed medicinal properties were merely thoughts of a past age? petrarchan47คุ 21:47, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Then you'd have no objection changing "valued as" to "thought to be" just to made it extra clear it's their assumption? Alexbrn (talk) 21:51, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Alexbrn here and also the comments at the article Talk page here that this edit Alex made, changing the wording to the tea was highly valued because it was thought to be an "energizing" and "detoxifying" agent solves the problem. Zad68 02:19, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

That's almost exactly what I wrote, but it was called POV, and changed to "the tea was thought to have medicinal properties" by Alexbrn. My question is whether the claim of POV and his version represents a correct read of the guidelines. I got an edit warring notice for reverting his text once.
To say the the "Tsing Dynasty valued the drink as ..." is the exact same thing as saying it was "thought to be ..." except that we are loosing some context - both sources say it was "prized" - that indicates a certain value placed on the drink that is missing in the toned down "thought to be". Why not stick to the source?
Alex also claims the source is not MEDRS for health claims. This is not a health claim; it is a claim about history. Is it true that historical claims need MEDRS sources? petrarchan47คุ 05:55, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
It's a subtle but important distinction. Writing that kombucha was "valued as" a detox agent implied it actually was one; by re-wording we can rule out that untoward implication. Anyway, fixed now. Alexbrn (talk) 06:00, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Agree with above consensus. Tweaking the wording does not significantly alter the content and satisfies all parties. DaltonCastle (talk) 00:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


Hi all, Please forgive me if this is not the right place for this question. I'm not that experienced in the Neutral POV rules and I've come here to ask for information after not finding what I wanted to know on the Help pages.

What are the rules in a case where a company is infamous in the business for treating its employees and contractors badly, but every published source is just a business piece? I am talking about TransPerfect, a major translation company, which frankly I know little about. I recently encountered a large group of translators and interpreters who were all apoplectic about TransPerfect's being invited to a conference. Apparently the company is notorious among translators. Curious about the reason for that, I searched for TransPerfect online and found four kinds of posts: news articles about the company's financial success and a couple about the current lawsuit between its co-CEOs; pages published by the company; and pieces by professional translators raging about the company, mostly on blogs.
On the first ten pages of Google, there was not one example of a translator who had a good word to say for the company; every post from a translator who had worked for TransPerfect was furiously negative, except on the reviews site Glassdoor. Two blogs were specifically devoted to giving examples of TransPerfect's mistreatment of its workers. (According to several of these translator blogs, the company pays sockpuppets to post glowing reviews, many in bad English.) It was also noted on several blogs that TransPerfect has been banned from the professional translators' web marketplace ProZ because of its ill-treatment of translators and that the initial ban was actually extended to a wider ban. I can't verify this as ProZ is subscription-only.
Several people on the TransPerfect talk page mention that the page seems to be written as a promotion for TransPerfect.
Under the circumstances, it seems non-neutral that the article contains no criticism whatsoever of the company. But all the criticism I saw comes from blogs and translators' group sites. So I am just curious: does a page like this have to be left pro-company until some news organization decides to investigate it (which several people mentioned would be a juicy article)? I'm sure other Wiki editors have come across business puffery from companies that treat their employees badly. Is there a policy about this aspect of business pages? If there isn't, doesn't that mean it's not really neutral?
Thanks for any answers. Listed below are the only translators' posts about TransPerfect within first ten pages of Google, all strongly negative. Except on Glassdoor, there were no positive reviews of TransPerfect from translators. Evangeline (talk) 06:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Translation Ethics "is a translators' group blog and Facebook group created to name and shame bad practises within the translation industry, low or late payers, unethical and unprofessional behaviour"]
No Peanuts! for Translators is a group blog promoting fair practices and pay for professional translators and interpreters. There were several negative posts on Transperfect, including: "Who are you calling a one-percenter?" and "Here's where the money goes that they're not paying you"
Transperfect Translations Concerns
Segno di Caino
Yelp, Transperfect "Is TransPerfect a scam?"
Translation Musings "Transperfect co-CEOs warned to make peace or else" An article about a current lawsuit
BizJournals "Expletive-laden emails"
This is a reviews site with both positive and negative reviews of TransPerfect:

This seems more of an issue for the reliable source noticeboards and the few sources I've checked show no editorial oversight whatsoever. So, in terms of NPOV, the Wikipedia page should represent what reliable sources have to say and a bunch of criticisms from open forums do not count as reliable sources. Therefore, there's no reason to include "negative" information, since it's not discussed amongst reliable sources.Scoobydunk (talk) 07:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Edward Snowden[edit]

Edward Snowden could use more eyes. There is an longstanding, ongoing dispute scattered across many discussions about whether the lead section is neutral and what specific material should be included or excluded. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:44, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


The Israel Defense Forces article is bias and not neutral because it focuses on positive sides of the topic .To ensure the article is neutral i added links to other articles that are directly related to the subject .These links have been removed. the diff is : Line 703:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tariq Fadel (talkcontribs) 06:25, 25 June 2015

Looking over the pages of various military organizations, it seems to be standard practice to list major wars or campaigns they have been involved in, and endemic problems or controversies like United States military veteran suicide, but not controversies or scandals pertaining to isolated incidents. Those would presumably be linked from articles with a narrower scope around the particular battles. Rhoark (talk) 05:35, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Navajo Generating Station, Kayenta Mine[edit]

I hope there are some knowledgeable editors here who are willing to have a look at these two articles, which read like promotional pieces and have, besides tone, other serious problems with sourcing, much of which is from primary or otherwise associated/COI sources. Have a look at the history. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

UNHRC's rebuttal of the Secretary General's (Palmer) report included in Gaza Flotilla Raid lead[edit]

There is a disagreement as to whether the the UNHRC's rebuttal of the Report of the Secretary-General’s Panel of Inquiry (the Palmer Report) on the Gaza Flotilla Raid should be removed from the lead.

Currently the UNHRC's rebuttal ( - note that the term "UN Independent Experts" is how the UNHRC describes individuals working on its behalf) is included as a rebuttal of the Secretary-General's Panel of Inquiry. However rebuttals of the UNHRC's report (from the United States and the European Union) have all been removed from the lead leaving a situation in which one "side" is permitted to have rebuttals in the lead, and the other is not. It is my opinion that all rebuttals should be moved to the relevant body paragraphs as they clutter up the lead, but to have rebuttals of one report and not the other in the lead is POV. Drsmoo (talk) 21:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

To the other editors. The statement under question is the following:

The UNHRC later also set up a panel of five human rights experts to examine the conclusions of the Palmer report. The panel stated that Israel's blockade of Gaza amounted to collective punishment and was unlawful.

There is a discussion about this here. The RfC which discussed the earlier inclusion of EU/US role is here. My own view is stated in the discussion there, but I will repeat it here for completeness:
The statement is by five experts, the special rapporteurs. They are called "UN independent experts" because they are independent of governments. Moreover, their opinion on this matter (that the blockade was illegal) is absolutely standard, all the way from the Red Cross to the European Union. See the lead for the Blockade of the Gaza Strip, last paragraph. By contrast the EU/US statement was simply a political response by various governments to the UNHRC report, which was just weasel words, and it did not even include the reactions of the 30 supporting countries (the report passed 30-1, the US was the 1, some of the EU countries abstained.). It is simply improper to link the two as if they are somehow comparable. WP:NPOV does not mean false balance. Kingsindian  16:23, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
For the sake of clarification, the "independent experts" are working on behalf on the UNHRC. Their rebuttal of the Palmer report is the UNHRC's rebuttal of the Palmer report, which has remained in the lead while the US/EU rebuttals have been removed. I would also advise Kingsindian to refer to the relevant article Legal_assessments_of_the_Gaza_flotilla_raid#Legality_of_blockade as most (or at least a substantial number of) law experts have described the blockade as legal. (That is just an aside, and not relevant to keeping the lead neutral, I am also aware that wikipedia articles are not reliable sources.) I'm not sure why Kingsindian is going with the argument that because he favors a particular point of view, that the article's lead should as well. Drsmoo (talk) 04:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


So... there is apparently a group called Stop Educational Discrimination Against Iranians (SEDAI) and they have come to Wikipedia to advocate with regard to their issue. Orland, Nicky mathew have been trying to work with them. I've also left messages for all the editors listed above that Wikipedia is not a place for SOAPBOXing or campaigns of any kind. I just wanted to make sure the wider community is aware of this nest of advocacy and to get more eyes on the articles and deletion discussions, and make sure the people listed above can come here and get wider community feedback - this isn't personal. Thanks Jytdog (talk) 02:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Question about NPOV[edit]

Hi all.

Can anybody here point me at a Wikipedia discussion page that can assist me? I'm not sure that this page is the right place, so please excuse me if this question is better asked elsewhere.

I was looking for information about a particular food brand and discovered that about 40% of the main article for the brand name was about how the brand is the subject of a boycott. Although the boycott itself (which includes much more than just this one brand) is worth its own Wikipedia page, I didn't think that devoting 40% of an article about a brand to a single (much larger) boycott effort was NPOV in terms of weight. For example, the reason that I looked at the page in the first place was to see if the page listed products and different flavors - none of which were listed.

Since I'm not a frequent editor (and I have never edited this article before), I figured I would try asking for guidance first. No, I haven't tried asking on the article's talk page, at least partly because this article doesn't really have anything on the talk page, and isn't frequently edited.

Help please? Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techielaw (talkcontribs) 05:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Could you indicate which article it is that you're having problems with? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm talking about the Sabra_(company) article and the reference to Boycott,_Divestment_and_Sanctions that takes up 40% of the article. I'm sure that Israel/Palestine issues are a frequent edit-war issue, so I would really appreciate some feedback about the best way to approach this.Techielaw (talk) 06:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I've reduced material that seemed to be WP:COATRACK. Adding material about specific products, especially using Sabra itself as a source, would be promotional and undue - except if any secondary sources have written about the product's culinary or cultural noteworthiness. Rhoark (talk) 00:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Rhoark. I'd only just found a little time to investigate this further, and am in agreement with your evaluation and changes to the Sabra (company) article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the pointer to the WP:COATRACK - this provides some context for my concerns. I still have some concerns about the balance in this article. Since both of you seem interested in resolving, would it be better to move this discussion to the talk page of the article itself, so that we can continue editing there? Techielaw (talk) 05:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Detroit Public Schools and University Prep High School[edit]

On the talk page I found Talk:Detroit_Public_Schools#Snippet_on_charter_schools where an IP editor believes that the section on University Prep High School in the article Detroit Public Schools "reads as an ad". He made it back in 2013 and maybe things changed since then, but it would be nice if somebody can review it.

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 05:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Reykjavik Excursions Kynnisferðir[edit]

If this isn't an ad, I don't know what is. Hartenhof (talk) 10:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm... yeah... multiple problems there. It does read like an ad (so at minimum - it needs a major rewrite). There are currently no sources cited (I have tagged it). It also does not (currently) pass WP:ORG. Being one of the larger tour companies operating in Iceland, it should be notable... however, I did a quick search which did not turn up any reliable sources that are independent of the company (Google turns up a few sources that mention it in passing, but don't discuss it in much depth... and a few mirrors of our Wikipedia article.) Not willing to nominate it for deletion ... but it definitely needs work. Blueboar (talk) 13:46, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
It seems like a paraphrase of their website. The offending content was added in this edit by SPA Johannahreidars. This is what's happened since then. —George8211 / T 17:55, 4 July 2015 (UTC)


The article on Disqus may have been targeted to increase the amount of criticism in it. Currently, Disqus#Criticism and privacy concerns is abnormally long compared to the rest of the article.

Some groups of edits in time gone past, featuring lots of IPs and (at a brief check) possible SPAs:

Perhaps I'm making this overblown, but it seems a bit suspicious to me.

George8211 / T 14:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposals for a Palestinian state[edit]

Would somebody please look over the recent actions regarding the article Proposals for a Palestinian state's former grammo/typo prone biased lead section (yes, that includes my actions ;) Why? I feel that a non-legitimate edit war accusation was forced on me through an involved non-contributing (probably uncivil) editor. I am calm and am open for constructive critiques, though. Plus, I feel that the two-sidedness of the article was not addressed properly, what I had documented in the ongoing TP discussion. I do not edit war and am not a vandal! There already is a constructive coop in effect between 3 contributing editors. Thank you for your help --Miraclexix (talk) 16:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

If you want help here, you should be more clear about the content that concerns you and leave out conduct. Rhoark (talk) 17:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Americans for Prosperity the Koch's primary political advocacy organization[edit]

Article: Americans for Prosperity, also covers the associated Americans for Prosperity Foundation.


The Americans for Prosperity Foundation is the Koch brothers’ primary political advocacy group.


  1. Vogel, Kenneth P. (May 9, 2014). "Koch brothers’ Americans for Prosperity plans $125 million spending spree". Politico. Retrieved May 6, 2015. The Koch brothers’ main political arm intends to spend more than $125 million this year on an aggressive ground, air and data operation benefiting conservatives, according to a memo distributed to major donors and sources familiar with the group. The projected budget for Americans for Prosperity would be unprecedented for a private political group in a midterm, and would likely rival even the spending of the Republican and Democratic parties’ congressional campaign arms. 
  2. Goldman, Andrew (July 25, 2010). "The Billionaire's Party: David Koch is New York’s second-richest man, a celebrated patron of the arts, and the tea party’s wallet". New York magazine. Retrieved March 25, 2015. In 2004, Koch started a group called the Americans for Prosperity Foundation devoted to personal and economic freedom. AFPF is now Koch’s primary political-advocacy group. 
  3. Beckel, Michael (September 4, 2014). "The Kochs’ Political Ad Machine". Slate. Center for Public Integrity. Retrieved April 20, 2015. In all, Americans for Prosperity, the Koch brothers’ flagship political operation, alone has aired more than 27,000 ads in a combined nine battleground states, according to Kantar Media/CMAG. 
  4. Kroll, Andy (November 6, 2014). "2014: The Year of Koch". Mother Jones. Retrieved May 9, 2015. The Koch brothers' flagship organization, Americans for Prosperity, had an equally stellar Election Day. 

Talk-page discussions:

  1. Talk:Americans for Prosperity#Conflicting accounts
  2. Talk:Americans for Prosperity#Americans for Prosperity is the Koch's primary political advocacy group

A version of this content was added in March, 2015, collaboratively work-shopped on talk, please see Talk:Americans_for_Prosperity#Conflicting_accounts. The talk page consensus was that the consensus across multiple RS was strong enough for inclusion, and strong enough to support WP voice, making in-text attribution unnecessary. This content was recently 23 June deleted with an edit summary of "Return article to neutrality" by user Onel5969 as a small part of major, undiscussed content blanking. Recent commentary at WP:RSN also supported WP voice. I am currently seeking comments on the neutrality of the paraphrase across multiple reliable source references, and the neutrality of inclusion. Thank you in advance for your time. Hugh (talk) 18:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Consensus on talk page was not for inclusion. HughD's campaigning and forum shopping seem to be paying off for him. There was no content blanking, but there was a reorganization of the article, and editing to bring the article more in line with an NPOV status. An edit which had received consensus, until Hugh's campaigning tactics (posted discussions about this article on at least 8 different forums, seeking to push his POV). Onel5969 TT me 18:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Diff to the content blanking and reliable source purge, including section blanking of the "Transparency" and "Funding" sections, by user Onel5969 on 23 June: [37]. This is not a behavioral report; seeking comment on the neutrality of the paraphrase across multiple reliable source references, and the neutrality of inclusion. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 19:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • WP:NPOV requires that we present the content of the article as the reliable sources present it. The tight connection between the Koch's and AFP is one of the essential features of almost every discussion of AfP and for our article to minimize the connections is, per policy, unacceptable and non negotiable even if there were a "local consensus" to try to whitewash the connections. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Is HughD forum shopping or is Onel5969 whitewashing? Zoidberg says, "Why not both?" I see in the large diff HughD provided seems to have replaced one POV with the other POV. For the single edit that was the basis of this thread, I echo Red Pen. Neutrality doesn't consist of sweeping criticism under the rug. Rhoark (talk) 23:36, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The "Transparency" and "Funding" sections were a good example of "blackwashing", including opinions in Wikipedia's voice, and containing synthesis by adjacency. The one sentence seems appropriate, although all the sources state that they are biased against the organizations, or quote sources which state that they are biased against the organizations. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
"The one sentence seems appropriate" Thank you for your support. This thread is for discussion of the above proposed content. Your comments about other deleted article content are not appropriate here. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 01:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

It is justified to say "the German government *claimed* something" when western newspapers present evidence that it lied about an election result?[edit]

@Centpacrr: Would anybody mind having some input on this matter? This revision has: "With the completion of voting on the referendum (which the Government claimed had been approved by a "98.79% 'Yes' vote""

  • One Wikipedian's position is that the New York Times article ("Hitler gets biggest vote: Many blanks counted in, 542,953 are invalidated." New York Times, March 30, 1936.) has shown evidence that Hitler's count is lying (See talk page) so the article should say that "the government claimed" and that saying "the government stated" would bring a connotation that the German government was telling the truth.
  • My position is that the use of "claimed" is sneaky and evasive: "claimed" has connotations that one side is lying, but the word doesn't technically mean that, so it is an underhanded way of saying the government is lying. Instead there should be a direct statement such as "the German government says one thing, the New York Times says the German government is lying because of this evidence and TIME magazine says the German is lying because of this evidence." or "the New York Times stated there is evidence of a lie because..." - something to that effect (if it's not directly germane to the topic it can be explained in a footnote)

The Wikipedian posted extracts from TIME and New York Times stories that show evidence of the German government lying: User_talk:Centpacrr#.22stated.22_vs._.22claimed.22. That does not change my belief that "stated" should be used. Instead I believe there should be a footnote that explains that TIME and New York Times stated that the German government was lying. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

See my earlier comments on this issue here. As I pointed out there, the use of the verb "claimed" (which means an "assertion") as opposed to "stated" is not "sneaky and evasive" or is it "underhanded" and I would appreciate it if you would cease falsely referring to it as such and instead at least assume good faith on the part of your fellow editors. Instead it accurately reflects the two March and April, 1936 news articles (New York Times and TIME Magazine) that I cited as sources. Dictatorships such as that of the NSDAP which controlled Germany in 1936 have universally held faux elections, referenda and plebiscites for show that they manipulate to achieve false results which they then claim to represent virtually universal (98%+) approval. This is a well known tactic of such governments for propaganda purposes in an attempt to feign democratic legitimacy. (See for instance further discussion of this issue in 2011 the book "Voting for Hitler and Stalin: Elections Under 20th Century Dictatorships" Ralph Jessen, Hedwig Richter, Editors (Frankfurt: Campus Verlag GmBH), and especially two of the papers contained therein entitled: "Elections in Modern Dictatorships: Some Analytical Considerations" by Werner J. Patzelt, and "The Self-Staging of a Plebiscitary Dictatorship: The NS-Regime Between Uniformed Reichstag, Referendum, and Retchsparteifag" by Markus Urban.) To ignore this reality of how dictatorships customarily conduct "elections" in the false name of "neutrality" does not promote neutrality at all, but instead introduces an element of misleading POV itself. Centpacrr (talk) 07:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
WP:CLAIM says that we should be careful with such words as "claimed", but it does not say that they should not be used. Generalised opinions about the dishonesty of dictators, however, should not be the criteria by which we make judgements. We should be looking at what historians say about this specific plebiscite. However, this is an article on the LZ 129 Hindenburg. The plebiscite is just mentioned in passing. Frankly, I see very little difference between stated and claimed in this instance. Paul B (talk) 11:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
The use of the term "claimed" is not based on the "generalized opinions about the dishonesty of dictators", but on the information included about this specific 1936 plebiscite in the news accounts by the New York Times and TIME, the two sources cited. Why this is such a matter of concern to this thread's OP that he felt obliged to change this long standing text is a puzzlement to me. Centpacrr (talk) 11:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Those are not good sources. They are journalistic responses at the time - primary sources. We should be using the views of specialist scholars, not quoting primary-source journalism. As for the OP, he has stated (or perhaps claimed) that he wants to eliminate the word 'claimed' from Wikipedia, which is not an aspiration supported by policy. Paul B (talk) 12:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
While I do not agree that the 1936 New York Times and TIME accounts are "not good sources" simply because they are contemporary to the event, if you will look above you will see that I have already cited in this thread two such recent scholarly papers that are included in the 2011 book "Voting for Hitler and Stalin: Elections Under 20th Century Dictatorships" ("Elections in Modern Dictatorships: Some Analytical Considerations" by Werner J. Patzelt, and "The Self-Staging of a Plebiscitary Dictatorship: The NS-Regime Between Uniformed Reichstag, Referendum, and Retchsparteifag" by Markus Urban) that directly address and support the use of the term "claimed" in relation to Die Reichstagswahl vom 29. März 1936 in its context here. If the OP of this thread is in fact on some sort of personal campaign against policy to eliminate the word "claimed" from WP that seems to me to be a troubling endeavor -- especially for a sysop who should really know better. That would also seem to explain why he keeps using such inappropriate and intemperate terms as "sneaky", "evasive", and "underhanded" to describe its use by his fellow editors. Centpacrr (talk) 12:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
You referred to those sources, but did not say how they support the word 'claimed' specifically. Most sources I am aware of take the view that the reoccupation of the Rhineland (the main subject of plebiscite) was extremely popular, and that the plebiscite genuinely reflected that, even though the approval figures were almost certainly exaggerated. However, the precise ins-and-outs of the referendum are not relevant to an article on the Hindenburg. As I oppose the Orwellian aspiration to eliminates any word altogether. I see no problem with either word in this case. Paul B (talk) 12:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
While the claimed excuse to the March 29, 1936 plebiscite was to justify the the reoccupation of the Rhineland three weeks earlier, the ballot made no mention whatsoever of that but instead was designed to turn the membership of the Reichstag entirely over to the NSDAP. I addressed the specific issue of why the cited sources support "claimed" over "stated" earlier in a thread on my talk page action=submit#.22stated.22_vs._.22claimed.22 here]. Centpacrr (talk) 13:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
March 1936 plebiscite ballot

Describing The Guardian (newspaper) as being of the centre-left (as fact)[edit]

I personally feel that describing The Guardian (newspaper) as simply of the centre-left, as if it were a fact, and without equivocation or qualification, because the newspaper (unofficially) said so, from a single (and now outdated) source (being a quote from an interview of a journalist of the Guardian by another journalist of the Guardian, as a side-story in an article (about themselves; namely, their own election coverage of the United States presidential election, 2004) from the year 2004, as cited in the article ([38])), violates the requirement to be descriptively neutral. -- Urquhartnite (talk) 12:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

While the reference may be inadequate, I don't find the term inaccurate. You can find more references here. Kingsindian  12:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)