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)
Shortcut:
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

Listing of porn award nominations

I wanted to solicit opinions on whether exhaustive listing of porn awards nominations is appropriate under WP:UNDUE, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, or WP:BLPSTYLE (if you consider these lists as praise) in a biography. These nominations do not contribute to a subjects notability under WP:PORNBIO and often can not be cited to an independent source from the award givers. I had removed nominations [1] under Cytherea and was reverted[2]. Other examples where the awards nominations section outweigh the rest of the biography considering the underlying sources: Riley Reid,Skin Diamond, Ann Marie Rios, and most of the other recent porn actor pages. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with the notion that listing award nominations violates the policies cited above. Clearly, information that does not inherently confer notability on a subject may still belong in an article - in fact such information makes up a majority of most articles. If one award win is sufficient to make a subject notable, certainly other award nominations are deserving of mention. Furthermore I don't see such information as praise, and it seems to me that it gives an indication of other work the person may have done that may be of significance, which goes directly to the point of what the article should be about. The fact that a secondary source may not be available for the award nominations is irrelevant, because a primary source is appropriate for such information. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
It does matter in terms of weight under WP:PRIMARY, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." If you have an article that is dominated by these nominations that can only be supported by the primary sources, it's a problem. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I took a look at Ann Marie Rios who I have never heard of and have no interest in. I do not perceive that this article is "dominated" by the nominations. Objective listing of nominations is not praise. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
We have entire "List of awards and nominations received by..." articles for many non-porn acts. Kiss, Elizabeth Taylor, The Smashing Pumpkins, the MLB Network, Willie Nelson, Prison Break, and many, many more. Almost all primary sourced. In light of that, it would seem unfair to forbid a lesser mention in pornstar articles. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:27, March 3, 2015 (UTC)
Yes, because these are significant awards. Porn awards are not. The budget for every single porn film made in a typical year, probably doesn't come close to the cost of a single Hollywood film, and the trade awards are not covered in any significant sense by independent sources. Come back when the Washington Post and the The Times cover these awards with fornt page pictorial as they routinely do for the Oscars, Golden Globes, Emmys and the like. Guy (Help!) 11:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
JzG, I'm sure from your perspective this is true, but to someone who works in the adult industry, I bet they would argue with you vehemently over the significance. And the cost is irrelevant, there are numerous artistic, literary, science and mathematics awards that don't have the budget that a porn production does that are no less content worthy. As for your claim about the press coverage, you haven't searched well enough at least about the AVN Award. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 14:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
They can argue until they are blue in the face, it won't change the facts. People working in every industry think their industry's awards are of surpassing significance, and virtually none of that translates into coverage in the mainstream media. Same applies here. When the news magazines report the speculation, intrigue and controversies, then we'll know it's significant. Guy (Help!) 20:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Likewise, the reason those magazines treat mainstream entertainment awards as significant is because they're mainstream entertainment media. If they don't make Oscars and the like seem important, their coverage doesn't seem important. The difference is just in the advertising budgets. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:30, March 19, 2015 (UTC)
Listing of porn awards and nominations is fine. The main concern when using primary sources, is that primary sources often times require interpretation, which is why WP emphasizes reliable secondary sources. So when listing an award, you simply say this actor/actress won "X" award. You can't say, "This actress was the first to win 'X' award" or "This actress won her first reward" when using a primary source unless the source explicitly says that. As long as the information is directly taken from the source and there are no original research interpretations of it, then there shouldn't be any problem.Scoobydunk (talk) 14:52, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
If the significance of something is challenged, it can only be established by reference to reliable independent secondary sources. That is the way Wikipedia works. Factoids sourced only from primary sources, especially industry sources with an obvious vested interest, are excluded when challenged unless and until WP:RS are brought. Guy (Help!) 20:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Guy. I don't see the significance of the awards. Smallbones(smalltalk) 22:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Within the field of pornography, these awards, are as important as the Tonys are in Theater, the Golden Glove in Baseball, etc. However, I do see a concern of relying heavily on primary sources, and unless reliable sourced secondary or tertiary sources cannot be found, the awards shouldn't be given undue weight in a biography article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Hold on, two different topics being confused here. We're not talking about the Notability of the awards, we're just discussing if its appropriate to list them for a particular subject in their article. From many of the comments, I don't seen that distinction being understood. For example, the Morgan Prize or Wolf Prize are about as obscure as it gets for awards, but I don't see anyone objecting to listing a "win" for them in the article for those who have received it, nor do I recall front page coverage in the New York Times or other major publication du jour. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 02:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

And the award for Most Misleading Title goes to...the Wolf Foundation for promoting "friendly relations". InedibleHulk (talk) 03:28, March 20, 2015 (UTC)

I personally include both wins and nominations when I create new articles, but I organize the accolades neatly into tables. This discussion began over the illegible and mostly unsourced listing of Cytherea's award & nominations, which I have fixed. The solution would have been to simply tag the section for cleanup, not remove the nominations. Porn biographies should not be treated any differently from those on mainstream performers, which not only lists both awards and nominations within the article, many also have a separate article for lengthy awards/nominations listings ([3] & [4]). There are some special cases where listing nominations should be avoided (we are unable to provide a complete nominations listing for those active in the porn industry prior to 2000), but this isn't a problem for those who debuted in porn after 2000. Rebecca1990 (talk) 05:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The caveats that I would make is that the nominations are for individually notable awards (not group scenes) and that the list of nominations does not overwhelm the properly referenced prose narrative of the article. I apply the similar standards to biographies of artists. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:37, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Rebecca1990 here. If actors in other types of movies have lists of their award nominations, and even exhaustive lists of all their work, then it's fully appropriate to list the nominations for porn actors. If the majority of their article is the nominations, then I think maybe a {{stub}} should be added, if needed. Jerodlycett (talk) 03:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment - Given this discussion in its entirety, sounds like we have enough input to write a decently comprehensive section about Awards on the Porn Project page about which and how many awards and/or nominations to include in a WP:PORNBIO article.

NPOV treatment of Jesus in the New Testament

The Jesus article has a section called Life and teachings in the New Testament. If it were a secular section, it would not follow the Christian canon. In particular, secular scholars put the Gospel of John in a separate category from the other three Christian gospels, the "synoptics." Additionally, scholars emphasize the differences among the gospels. Instead, the section takes the Christian approach of conflating all four gospels into a single story. This approach is precisely the one that secular scholars, such as Bart Ehrman, warn us against. After months of discussion, no proponent of the current version could name a secular, tertiary, reliable source that treats the topic this way, and, after discussing options, other editors encouraged me to move forward with edits. I started removing references to John, since secular scholars don't consider it to be a meaningful source for the life of Jesus. Then I got reverted. Here's the diff: [5]

There is more than one possible way to fix this page, but certain editors want to preserve the Christian approach to the topic. That's understandable, but not appropriate for WP. I don't much care how the article gets fixed, but I would sure love some support form other editors who say that maintaining a Christian POV isn't right. Thanks in advance. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 02:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

It follows the Christian canon precisely because of its title: "in the New Testament". StAnselm (talk) 02:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
St Anselm is one of the Jesus editors who wants to maintain the current treatment, by which the section follows church practice. Secular scholars treat the topic differently. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Although the Q thesis continues to be the dominant solution to the synoptic problem, almost everything about the relationships among the gospels continues to be controversial, and JT's "John doesn't count" is eccentric. It's impossible to present a neutral picture by simply erasing John from the narrative. John needs to appear in the narrative, with of course cautions that only he records some incidents and that his direction is quite different from the other three. Perhaps John could be presented as a separate section, at least up until the passion narrative.
And really it is necessary to present the Christian perspective of a single narrative. It may be incorrect, but people do actually need to know what is taught as well as what scholars have supposed on their own. Mangoe (talk) 17:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Well hell no. We are not here to propagate a religious tradition. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
The idea of excluding John wasn't my first suggestion. That's how Britannica does it, and we ended up there when an editor who opposed any changes said it was the reliable tertiary source to follow. When he learned that Britannica tells Jesus' story without including John, he dropped out of the discussion on the Talk page. Honestly, I don't care which neutral, reliable, scholarly, tertiary source we emulate, as long as we treat the topic in such a way. Earlier I had proposed treating the sources separately, but editors resisted that idea, and Britannica was the only model that anyone else would point to as a model. That's how we got to excluding John. Another avenue is to put this section under the Christian Views section, and then it can remain "how Christians see Jesus" instead of a biography of Jesus. If we could agree on a neutral source to emulate, that would help. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 21:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
As I explained on the talk page, Britannica doesn't actually exclude John after all. StAnselm (talk) 21:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
The gospels are not a "biography of Jesus", and that's the prevailing position in the Christian scholarly community. Also, looking that the key page in the Britannica text, it doesn't address the "Q" theory at all and therefore ignores the prevailing view that Matthew and Luke appear to ratify Mark because they are thought to be derived from Mark. They ignore the thesis that the synoptics present the ministry of Jesus as if it were a single year because Mark appears to be constructed to be used as a single year lectionary. The principles that they propose for sifting among passages are controversial, if oft-proposed.
The upshot is that using the Britannica article as a template is a bad idea, because its approach is eccentric. There is one line of thinking which basically ignores everything but Mark (including a preference for the shortest ending), but it's just one line. Mangoe (talk) 22:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
No, the upshot seems to be to be a misunderstanding of what "Jesus in the New Testament" means, among other things. First, speaking as a Christian who has looked into the specialist reference works regarding this topic rather regularly over the years, I honestly don't know any reputable Christian academics who consider the gospels "biographical," and, honestly, that idea hasn't even had real support in the academic Christian community for at least 100 years or so. They are considered to be basically "tracts" of the kind we are familiar with today which discuss the life of Jesus, and are, honestly, about as neutral and inherently reliable as those modern tracts. And I think it might be reasonable to realize that, to the best of my knowledge, the Q source has never been included in any versions of the New Testament. Speculation on the internal relationships between the texts of the New Testament are a significant subject, and they are covered (I think and hope anyway, there is a really scary amount of stuff in academic eference sources about this topic) elsewhere. But that is not directly related to the topic of Jesus "in the New Testament" per se. And, the text of the New Testament is clearly pretty much the only material which would be relevant to the subject of the portrayal of Jesus "in the New Testament".
Optimally, I think it would be reasonable for someone to gather a listing of all the articles and subarticles, like the list I started at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Jesus work group/Encyclopedic articles. Finding the relative importance and weight well-regarded reference sources give to the various subtopics is a good idea. And I certainly would welcome seeing someone add something to that page regarding the coverage in Britannica or any other generally well-regarded reference sources. But I think it would be jumping to conclusions about what is and is not the current academic consensus.
By the way, I am aware of some recent work which has seemed to indicate that some academics are giving the Gospel of John a better record for historical reliability than the previous consensus gave it. However, I don't know that this comparatively new idea has gained a lot of academic support yet, and that raises unavoidable WP:WEIGHT questions regarding that material. Unfortunately. John Carter (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
To add another wrinkle, I deny Jonathan Tweet's supposition that the section is written from a distinctly Christian point of view. Rather, it seems to me to be NPOV coverage of a clearly POV source. The section is intended to describe Jesus as portrayed in the New Testament, and while secularists would deny the veracity of many of the claims made in the New Testament, I have yet to be convinced that a simple summary of the New Testament - which is all this section is intending - would sound significantly different if written exclusively by secularists. Jtrevor99 (talk) 04:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Our opinions are all well and good, but as editors let's follow an approach used by a neutral, reliable, scholarly, tertiary source. Earlier we landed on Britannica, but I'm not married to Britannica. I'd be happy with Harris's Understanding the Bible, Theissen's Historical Jesus, or the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. None of them use this format, a format that is devotional rather than scholarly. Mangoe suggested splitting the material up, and that's what most RSs do. This section follows Christian practice instead of scholarly practice, so it's POV. The only opposing editor who ever pointed us to a source pointed us to Britannica. When one side in a dispute wants to follow RSs and the other side is happy to figure out on their own how to cover a topic, which side is probably more in line with WP policy? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I regret to say that I see a rather obvious and rather arbitrary distinction in the above in differentiating between "Christian" and "scholarly" practice. The implication that the former is not the latter is rather completely unsupportable, considering that in most all cases the "scholars" who study the subject of Jesus do so in a Judeo-Christian-Muslim or Abrahamic perspective. Scholars from outside that perspective are not necessarily more "scholarly" than those within it. And, I regret to say, that this sentence, "This section follows Christian practice instead of scholarly practice, so it's POV," is even more POV in itself than the message of it, because the individual making it seems to be placing himself in a position where he as an individual is uniquely qualified to differentiate between sources. I regret to say that the impression I most strongly receive of this thread is that there is an effort by one individual to assert that only a particular perspective he may well find most personally agreeable to him is what should be counted as "neutral," "academic," or "NPOV," and, without clear evidence as per WP:BURDEN that such a personal differentiation between highly regarded academic sources is one that is itself broadly supported in the relevant academic community, and that sort of editing does itself rather clearly qualify as POV pushing. John Carter (talk) 16:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for asking me to clarify, John. It's not really "Christian" versus "scholarly," as I mistakenly said. It's "devotional" versus "scholarly."

There are plenty of Christian scholars doing good scholarly work in this field. As to insisting on a particular treatment, I'm happy to treat this topic any which way, provided it's a way that a mainstream, secular, reliable, tertiary source treats it. I've suggested two or three ways, and it's the other editors who insist on this one, single way. We are here on this board because the people who want to maintain the current formant can't name a source as our model to follow. Every source I find treats the topic differently. In addition, Bart Ehrman specifically calls out the current format as Christian POV: conflating the gospels into one story. So, should we treat this topic one of the ways that RSs treat it? Or should we treat it the way a contingent of editors wants to treat it? Again, your opinion is welcome, but can you show us a source? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

But you're still insisting on "secular" source, and I don't think that is required by WP policy. "Mainstream" (as opposed to fringe): yes. "Reliable": of course. But "secular"? Where do you get that from? StAnselm (talk) 21:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Two points. One, there is no particular single "Christian" view of Jesus with which Bart Ehrman disagrees. There are a huge variation of views of Jesus within Christianity, and many of them disagree with each other even more than Ehrman disagrees with them. Also, honestly, in his book "Did Jesus Exist" Ehrman seems to disagree even more with the so-called "independent" academics than he might with some Christians. And Ehrman himself is also perhaps more of a "popular" writer than pure academic, which makes it more likely that his works will contain some degree of broadly sensationalist material to give the major media sources something to hook on and discuss. That helps such general works get more sales. In matters like this, the best sources for structuring content are ultimately the recent well-regarded academic reference sources. Such sources, even a lot of those published by Eerdmans, are aimed primarily at the academic libraries market, and they tend to be very, very expensive. Sometimes in the range of one thousand dollars per volume. That being the case, they tend to go out of their way to choose as writers of their articles the individuals who have the highest general regard in their field, from all viewpoints, because if they were to choose a true partisan and his article is clearly partisan, the journals reviewing reference works will note that and maybe not give the idea of purchasing the volume as much support. The Guide to Reference website offers a free subscription for two months, or at least I got one some time ago, and it lists a number of the best reference works out there in religion as determined by their contributors, who tend to be academic or specialist public reference librarians. In controversial topics, our best option is to find what they say and, taking into account any recent developments which might be reflected only in the newer ones or too recent to be in any of them, do our best to structure our own content along the lines they indicate. Having looked at a lot of them, even if I haven't added them to our list of religion reference books, so far as I can tell, what I think you might be calling the "academic Christian" perspective most closely reflects the general academic consensus. There is a huge range of disagreement on these topics, and wide and almost innumerable variant ideas on it, but so far as I have seen most of those ideas have little real support being the few individuals who publish books to support them. John Carter (talk) 21:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
The other thing is that Wikipedia does not rely on tertiary sources; it relies on (reliable) secondary sources. But as WP:TERTIARY says, tertiary sources may be helpful for evaluating due weight. Do the question is, is the "Life of Jesus in the New Testament" section undue weight for the Jesus article? StAnselm (talk) 01:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
StAnselm reverted your change saying that "fixed other edits not part of the John removal."[6] (No idea what that means.) Both of you rely on Encyclopedia Britannica as a source. It is not a good source and furthermore does not support either version. You need to provide sources, otherwise editors have no way of deciding. TFD (talk) 02:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Here's why I keep talking about tertiary sources: "Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other." Years ago, I'm the one that added that final clause to this policy. On this topic, primary and secondary sources are in vast disagreement, and the topic is so big that broad summaries are useful. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 13:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Any further help on this discussion would be appreciated. We are at a deadlock. I continue to insist that the section entitled "Jesus in the New Testament" should be about Jesus in the New Testament - his portrayal in that text, free of historical and secular criticism, so that such historical and secular criticism can then, in subsequent sections, be contrasted against the Biblical portrayal and better understood. Omitting or introducing criticism into this portrayal does a disservice to those readers who are not familiar with the Biblical story - which is critical to understanding all facets and history of Christianity - as well as those who wish to better understand historical and secular criticism. I further am not persuaded that a NPOV synopsis of a POV account needs to have a POV tag, as Jonathan Tweet insists. Any position contrary to mine will require major reworking not just of the Jesus page, but of every page WP has for every major religious figure: this issue is not limited to Jesus, even if that's where Jonathan Tweet has chosen to fight. Jtrevor99 (talk) 18:52, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

John Carter, " there is no particular single "Christian" view of Jesus with which Bart Ehrman disagrees" That is entirely true. Please allow me to try to communicate my perspective more clearly. Ehrman distinguishes two ways of reading the gospels: the devotional way is to synthesize them into a biography and minimize the differences and contradictions, and the scholarly way to look at each text separately. This section follows the devotional practice. Ehrman is disagreeing not with a vision of Jesus but with a way of reading the gospels. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Um, you did notice that the article Jesus is intended, basically, as being a biographical article, right? While it might be possible to label something with a label when they have two different goals for making the same procedure, it seems to me that what the section of the article is trying to do is to present what material there exists regarding the biography of Jesus as can be found in the sources which we have for that purpose. The biography of Jesus would, seemingly, be the primary subject to be discussed in an article named after that person. If other useful and broadly agreed upon biographical details were considered by academia to be available from other sources, I don't doubt they would be included, but so far as I know that isn't the case. And, FWIW, those sources are basically considered the "starting point" (for better or worse) for any attempt at a reconstruction of the life of Jesus, so including the material which has been garnered from the sources available seems to be reasonable and consistent with the standards set by other similar reference works. John Carter (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
John Carter, "including the material which has been garnered from the sources available seems to be reasonable and consistent with the standards set by other similar reference works" I like this approach! You seem to be saying that we should be consistent with the standards set by other similar reference works. Can we agree that that is our common ground? Then it should be easy for us to look together at similar reference works and check whether we're doing it in line with them. Being consistent with standards is what I'm all about. Can we agree on this point? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 18:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
John Carter, I'd like to reach a compromise, and if you honestly want us to be consistent with similar works, then that's a great common understanding on which to build a compromise. Do you really want to be consistent with similar works? I do. 16:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
John Carter, if you'd really like to have our article conform to similar works, that's something we can work on together. Let's do it.Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:08, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Not everyone would agree with Ehrman's distinction between "devotional" and "scholarly" at this point. With the growing interest in canonical approaches, more scholars are looking at the canonical gospels together - e.g. [7][8][9][10] StAnselm (talk) 20:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
St Anselm, just find a secular, scholarly, tertiary source that treats Jesus the way you want WP to treat him. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 18:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I no longer see the section, so perhaps it has been removed. I'm not up-to-date about this whole issue, nor have I been following it, but perhaps I could throw in a suggestion (if it hasn't already been discussed): why not split up the section into two subsections, one of which described the more devotional syncretic version, the other of which describes the more secular or divergent view which is critical of John? Alternatively, there could be a section or subsection devoted to John and discussing his place in describing Jesus in the New Testament, and how this deviates from the Synoptic Gospels. However, that already appears to be in the article, so maybe it would be redundant. –Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 18:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Gospel of Matthew: 50 CE

THE PROBLEM: is that nobody knows when the Gospel of Matthew was written, as it is undated. Many scholars such as France 2007 p19 believe it was composed around 85CE.  Others state it may have been written as early as 50 CE. See  REF1, REF2, , REF3, REF4, REF5 REF6, REF7  Reference books such as The Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible, 2010 simply state that scholars have set the time anywhere between 50 and 115.

MAURICE CASEY: who is one of the world's leading Biblical scholars published   Jesus of Nazareth  in 2010. This work came down in favour of the 50-60 CE date.  Then several months ago Casey published Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths? 2014 which laid out the the scholarly argument for his position. See pp 93 ff

THE SPECIFIC CHANGE BEING PROPOSED: See Diff 1 Diff 2

DEBATE: GOSPEL OF MATTHEW (talk) - NPOV dispute and edit warring.

CLARIFICATION NEEDED: Is the deletion of the early 50 CE date a violation of WP:NPOV? Also can a number of editors form a "consensus that policies regarding NPOV do not apply" to this article? If so in what circumstances? - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Confusion

If anything, considering the history of the OP here, the most likely policy and guideline considerations involved here would be WP:TE and WP:POV, and, I suppose some might say WP:NOTHERE might apply as well. NPOV is unfortunately, as I think you have probably been told repeatedly already, not the only rule which we have to follow. WP:NPOV specifically includes the section regarding WP:WEIGHT, and as per that aspect of the policy in question we also have to deal with the matter of how much regard any given academic opinion in a field in which there exist a huge number of academic opinions should receive. I very strongly suggest that you perhaps more thoroughly familiarize yourself with that aspect of the policy. We cannot by definition give prominence to all the minority opinions in a field in which there are a huge number of minority opinions. Nor can we give prominence to the opinions of what are, so far as I can tell, non-notable belief systems whose beliefs are substantially at odds with the prevailing academic opinions and opinions of the more notable belief systems in those specific areas. I would welcome input from @Ian.thomson:, @In ictu oculi:, and @Andrevan: regarding whether they think this matter might be better and perhaps more finally resolved at ANI. John Carter (talk) 00:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

"We cannot by definition give prominence to all the minority opinions in a field in which there are a huge number of minority opinions." If Maurice's viewpoint isn't notable enough to be picked up by other tertiary sources (and I don't think it is), then including it is undue weight. We say that the "majority" likes a particular date, which implies already that a minority prefers different dates. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
After giving it a little more thought, i'd like to offer an additional observation. It's not really helpful to say that Casey advocates an earlier date because that's not really the story here. Casey advocates a different origin for Matthew, esp with an Aramaic rather than Greek composition. Presumably he thinks Mark is even earlier. In any case, if the reader is going to get any value out of learning about Casey's minority viewpoint, his viewpoint needs to be actually described. If his overall view isn't worth summarizing (and I don't think it is), then just calling out one aspect of his viewpoint (an early date for Matthew) doesn't help the reader understand the topic. If anything, it's misleading because it doesn't provide context. I'd love to see a developed treatment of Casey's ideas on his own WP page. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 18:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
A special thanks to Rhoark for undoing the wrongful closure of this discussion. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion that I thoroughly familiarize myself with WP:TE, WP:NOTHERE, WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT. It was most helpful! - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree that we cannot by definition give prominence to all the minority opinions in a field where there is such a huge number! I also agree that Casey needs to be picked up by other tertiary sources. I have attempted to work out a compromise proposal that addresses your concerns. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
COMMENT There was further discussion it seems at Talk:Gospel of Matthew/Archive 11, not just the section linked to. The first I can find of it is in Talk:Gospel of Matthew/Archive 10#New reference added. Further it seems that arguing began at Talk:Gospel of Matthew/Archive 8 and has continued through Talk:Gospel of Matthew/Archive 9 and not stopped. Jerodlycett (talk) 03:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
In fact, discussion of the Gospel of Matthew, in various forms, is more or less the sole interest of Ret. Prof in recent years. And that history of editing has been, almost exclusively from the very beginning, to push for minority viewpoints which his editing history indicates are basically his own. In short, this is an editor with a clear POV as per POV who seems to have few if any interests in wikipedia other than making efforts to in general advance that POV. I personally believe that, if anyone were to review the totality of his history, they might very easily come to the conclusion that a topic ban or site ban, considering the SPA nature of the editor in question, would be reasonably considered. John Carter (talk) 14:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
@John: This is confusing even for me. You have mixed several different issues into a confusing hodgepodge. As far as I am concerned we have worked all our previous issues with the exception of the 50 CE date for the Greek Gospel of Matthew. Also your continued personal attacks on me are not appropriate to this notice-board. If you have concerns about my behavior, the proper way to proceed is arbitration! Following me from site to site threating me with being banned may even be in violation of WP:WikiBullying or WP:Harassment. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
@Jerodlycett: A lot of issues that I had thought had been resolved are now surfacing. This is confusing. For past conflicts see Ret.Prof/History of Major conflicts. I will try to focus on the the 50 CE date. Hope this is helpful! - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
@Ret.Prof: I only brought this up so that others could see that there is a history of conflict and know that there may be some anger here, sadly. Jerodlycett (talk) 03:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


Compromise proposal

There appears to be about 20 secondary sources and 10 tertiary sources that support Casey's 50 CE date for the completion of the Gospel of Matthew. I propose a compromise based on:

The Scofield Study Bible: English Standard Version, Oxford University Press, 2006, p 1253
The Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible, 2010
The NKJV Study Bible, Thomas Nelson Inc, 2014 p 1507

These are trusted and up to date tertiary sources. My compromise proposal is as follows:

The date of the Gospel of Matthew has been set anytime between 50 and 115 CE. The 85 CE date remains the most widely supported.

This is just a proposal and I welcome further input - Cheers Ret.Prof (talk) 15:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't read the citation to the study Bible, and the other two sources are partisan. It's church tradition that Matthew himself wrote Matthew originally in Aramaic, so I wouldn't rely on a church source for whether this is a notable view. Maybe the article could use a section on alternate dates and why the mainstream sources reject them. E.g., "Casey says Aramaic and c 50, but mainstream scholarship say No because XYZ." Then Casey gets treatment but the reader isn't led to believe that it's an open issue. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
True, the date of the Gospel of Matthew will remain an open issue until some hard evidence is discovered. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
What reliable source says it's an "open issue"? My sources say that it's not really open any more, snd that it certainly wasn't composed originally in Aramaic. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. The Gospel of Matthew was written in Koine Greek and was composed by an unknown redactor(s). It was probably based on the Gospel of Mark, Q source and M source. As far as I am concerned, it is a closed issue. I will go to the library this week and find the references you requested. In the mean time could you cite the sources you found that state that the date of Matthew is "not really open any more". Thanks again for your input. - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Summary

I have carefully reviewed the arguments made at the GOSPEL OF MATTHEW (talk), DSN and on this talk page. I think we are in much better shape! Indeed we appear to have reached consensus as to the following:

  • WP: Fringe would not apply as there are more than 50 reliable sources. (Both secondary and tertiary including Christian ie Zondervan & non Christian ie Casey)
  • WP: Reliable sources would not apply as France, Casey and Zonervan are mainstream publications.
  • The area of discussion seems to do with WP: Weight. There are good arguments on both sides. I would propose the following:
The article which now reads

Most scholars believe the Gospel of Matthew was composed between 80 and 90 CE, with a range of possibility between 70 to 110 CE.

be changed to

Most scholars believe the Gospel of Matthew was composed between 80 and 90 CE, with a range of possibility between 50 to 110 CE.

To simply acknowledge the possibility of the 50 CE date is very, very little weight. One the other hand to deny the possibility of the 50 CE date is not supported by the scholarship and would mislead the reader in regards to the 50 reliable sources that put forward the 50 CE date.

We seem very very close to a resolution. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Alternative to the alternative

The problem with Ret.Prof's proposal:

Most scholars believe the Gospel of Matthew was composed between 80 and 90 CE, with a range of possibility between 50 to 110 CE.

is that he provides no source for it - i.e., no citation saying that "most scholars believe" that there's a range of possibility "between 50 to 110 CE." We always need sources. So I propose a slightly different wording:

[Most scholars believe the earliest possible date for the Gospel of Matthew is 70 CE, and that it was probably composed between 80 and 90 CE.

This can be sourced to Duling's article in the Blackwell Companion to the New Testament, published 2010 and a very reliable source. It also has the advantage of giving Casey's view it's proper weighting.PiCo (talk) 06:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Response to PICO

Excellent points. As you know I have used Blackwells many times in the past and this source reflects my thinking on the topic. I personally support Dunn and believe the Oral Tradition remained strong until the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE. H. Patrick Glenn Legal, Traditions of the World, Oxford University Press, 2007. pp 94 - 97 Therefore the earliest Gospels would not have come into existance until that date and the Gospel of Matthew could not have been completed until 85 CE - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Before I support your proposal, I am going to go to the library and carefully read the sources that put forward the 50 CE date. Then carefully read again WP:NOPV to see if it allows for all the scholarship that supports the 50 CE date to be deleted from Wikipedia. If so I believe we have consensus. Thanks as always for your reasoned arguments that move the discussion forward. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Multiple things occur to me here. First, I think it useful to point out WP:CIR to an editor who clearly made one of the most obviously flawed attempts at creating a new subsection I have ever seen when starting yet another rather clearly less than necessary subsection. Also, I find the grossly unsupportable intimations in the following comment and edit summary here to basically violate a rather large number of guidelines, including WP:AGF, WP:TE#One who fails to appropriately thread their posts on talk pages, WP:BALASPS, WP:REHASH (which basically applies to this entire discussion here), and the rather obvious attempt to completely rephrase the discussion by making an argument against a point which has, so far as I can tell, never been made by anyone, and is a rather obvious straw man argument. I believe the conduct we have seen in this discussion very definitely deserves some consideration for being brought to the attention of the community at one of the appropriate noticeboards. John Carter (talk) 16:10, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


It was not appropriate for @StAnselm:, as an involved editor, to hat a request for dispute resolution. This is apparently something that has been discussed previously, but not at this noticeboard. I'll note that an attempt at dispute resolution closed unsuccessfully with a recommendation to look for clarification at other noticeboards[11]. Some of the diffs above discuss the possibility of an RfC, but I don't see that it actually happened. Whatever relevant discussion has taken place, it should be linked here for the benefit of the uninvolved. Consensus can change, and local consensus cannot override project-wide policy like NPOV. If it is shown that prior discussion did address all policy-based concerns and that this is a tendentious filing, appropriate consequences can be considered at that point. Editors will kindly avoid premature unilateral threats of punishment. Rhoark (talk) 04:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there are very serious issues of WP:TE involved here. I once again ask input from editors who have previously been involved in this topic, including @Andrevan:, to offer their opinions on the optimal resolution of this matter. John Carter (talk) 20:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
This notice board is not the place for attacking another editor's personal behavior. If you believe an editor is in violation of WP:TE then arbitration is the appropriate place to raise such concerns. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Although it is appropriate to point out on this board when the board itself is being used tendentiously, and I believe many if not most of those who have had prior involvement with this topic might think that it is being used in that way. Also, I believe an essay I am in the process of constructing, with some others, at User:John Carter/Self-appointed prophet might be relevant here, at least in part because of it was discussions of this specific type which led to it being first written. It is still in the process of being developed, of course, and as it is in userspace any changes to it would still at this point be at my discretion. John Carter (talk) 14:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Withdrawing request for clarification re the 50 CE date

The threats of being banned, the many many personal attacks, the false accusations etc etc. are not appropriate to this notice board. Furthermore , being followed around and harassed has made it impossible for me to edit. Therefore I am stepping back from Wikipedia and will take an extended break until I figure out what to do next. - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

This pattern of showing a less than adequate grasp of policies and guidelines and complaining bitterly about it being pointed out to him, is, as per his history, a rather obvious pattern of Ret. Prof. Generally, it seems that the extended breaks are in the hopes, perhaps, of avoiding sanctions. And, as is obvious from his conduct in this thread itself, some of the " false accusations" are in fact clearly demonstrated as accurate. Proposing closing the thread, as any real substantive discussion can take place on the article talk page or the article on the Carey book itself, when its notability is clearly established by published reviews being available. John Carter (talk) 00:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Observations About Two Editors and a Call for an RFC

The discussions both at my talk page, User talk:Robert McClenon, and here show differently ugly behavior by two editors, User:John Carter (JC) and User:Ret.Prof (RP). On the one hand, JC, in addition to making arguments that are at least plausible for tendentious editing by RP, is engaging in the repeated personal attack of claiming that there are competency issues, and is repeatedly threatening to file reports at ANI. There is nothing in the discussions of the date of the Gospel of Matthew that in any way suggests a lack of basic competency. Disagreement with the majority of editors, and the proposal of views that are considered fringe by scholarship, may be single-purpose editing, and may be fringe editing, but it is not a lack of competency, a criterion that is more applicable to editors who have difficulty with logic or with the English language, which RP does not. On the other hand, RP does have a record of repeatedly running away when challenged, and of stating that he plans to take extended breaks, a form of editorial cowardice that neither serves him well nor serves Wikipedia well; all that it does is to permit him to introduce issues that do not get resolved, only so that they can be brought up again later as never resolved. One of RP's edit summaries accused JC of bullying him. While the allegations of wikistalking, wikihounding, and wikibullying are far more often used wildly and irresponsibly in content disputes or to cover one's own conduct than used correctly, there is some validity here. Neither editor is behaving in a constructive way. Several months ago a discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard was closed as failed with the recommendation that consensus could be sought by a Request for Comments. A Request for Comments would still be a better idea than either continued unresolved discussion or the talk of going to ANI or arbitration. (I will note that arbitration often does not work well for editors who have previously been sanctioned in arbitration.) The issue about neutral wording of scholarly disagreement about the date of Matthew is not being helped by the behavior of either JC or RP. An RFC should still be considered as to what is appropriate wording. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

First, I very much believe that questions of compatency are in no way indicated as being personal attacks as per WP:WIAPA, and I very much urge people to see WP:AllegingIncompetence. I very strongly believe that there exists no rational basis for making the unwarranted assumption that such questions are in fact Personal attacks, and believe that the OP would be very well advised to read all of the pages I have linked to. I frankly am more than a bit concerned that the OP seems to be crediting as "valid" complaints which are in general not considered such. And, frankly, I consider it more than a little odd that this statement, "The issue about neutral wording of scholarly disagreement about the date of Matthew is not being helped by the behavior of either JC or RP," is made above, considering I had said in my own last comment above that I believed the discussion could be settled on the article talk page, which would, presumably, include an RfC if such was sought. I very much question how "helpful' comments which seem to both mischaracterize the actions of others and make perhaps unfounded assumptions are in such matters themselves, and I believe it not unreasonable to "observe" that the OP has made several statements of allegations which are in themselves both questionable in terms of accuracy and in terms of helping the discussion at all. And I very strongly believe I am owed an apology by the OP for his dubiously supported characterization of my statements, which certainly do not reflect well on someone who holds any sort of responsible position here. John Carter (talk) 21:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I wish to take this opportunity to profoundly express my disgust for the conduct of User:Robert McClenon, who has made scurrilous, unfounded, personal attacks on me above, in rather obvious misrepresentations of fact, made summary judgment on a topic about which he had indicated he would not bother to review, based apparently on his own lack of review, an action which it is actually hard to believe any rational editor would make, has been specifically asked to apologize for his false allegations on his user talk page, and ignored that reasonable request. I believe Robert has displayed WP:HYPOCRISY of among the worst kinds here, and I want it on record that this conduct displaying both very poor judgment and, dare I say, obnoxious arrogance, in both "recommending" as a presumably new idea in the first comment something I had at least implicitly said myself earlier, and in the rather blatant and unacceptable accusation that a questioning of competence is a personal attack, despite the fact that there is nothing in guidelines or regular usage of that term and phrase around wikipedia to support that contention. I believe his conduct has been of the most objectionable nature in this, particularly considering the arrogant refusal to acknowledge his own error, and that a permanent record of the demonstrably poor judgment he has made during his conduct in this affair be kept in the archives here. John Carter (talk) 17:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Is this the work of someone who is here to build an encyclopedia, or someone who sees Wikipedia as a battlefield? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry if the above was not clear. What I was getting at is that on these pages there are some real battlefield comments (in this case by 69.14.41.250 but I could have picked any of a dozen others), and that tends to make everybody a bit on edge and defensive. This is not to imply that actual misbehavior is OK, but we should cut folks a bit of slack if they are somewhat touchy. This, of course, is an example of doing the right thing; the attack was simply reverted with no counterattack. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
...and Guy Macon, this is exactly my concern! This is now a battlefield where the main topic is Ret.Prof. This notice board is not the place to discuss my many weaknesses as an editor. The only issue should be the clarification I requested!! Does the exclusion of the 45 or so reliable sources that put forward a 50 CE date for the Gospel of Matthew create NPOV problem??? Also, I do not hate anybody even...JC or SA. I am just getting frustrated at the many distractions! Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I usually find Robert McClenon's observations to be spot on. I haven't spent a huge amount of time reading the history of this, but I have looked, and it appears that his advice above is sound. Ret.Prof., if as you say the main topic becomes Ret.Prof., I would advise simply not responding in any way, and instead focusing on article content. An RfC would be a great way to do that.
Ret.Prof., consider the two logical possibilities here. If (and I do mean if -- I am expressing no opinion on which possibility is more likely) there is nothing to the accusations of lack of competency and you ignore them, then anyone taking them to ANI will have a hard time backing up their claims with diffs of specific edits and it will be shot down, possibly with a WP:BOOMERANG. If there is something to the accusations of lack of competency and you ignore them, then anyone taking them to ANI will have an easy time backing up their claims with diffs of specific edits and you will end up discussing specific edits you have made with an experienced Wikipedia administrator. Either way, ignoring the subject on article talk pages and focusing on content by posting an RfC as Robert McClenon suggests is the correct strategy.
Wikipedia is a funny place sometimes. You will never get in trouble for refusing to defend yourself when someone says something about you on an article talk page and focusing on article content. Ret.Prof., I urge you to follow Robert McClenon's advice at the top of this thread. And John Carter. I urge you to do the same. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Assessment

I have carefully read the suggestions of Guy and OP. I agree! - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

1) The many weakness of Ret.Prof

These many supposed deficiencies of Ret.Prof include being an "incompetent editor who pushes fringe", "rudeness","disruptive editing", "POV pushing", "Tendentious editing", "taking breaks", "single-purpose editing", "running away", "being nonsensical to the point of incomprehensibility", "editorial cowardice", "not behaving in a constructive way", "arrogance" "being woefully illogical", "problematic edits" and "Self-aggrandizement" to the point of "being truly bizarre. Indeed he is not a "real professor" and is the kind of vexatious editor who drives away good editors" Thus he is "no longer welcome" to edit at Wikipedia.

My apologies for taking these statements the wrong way. I will assume good faith and interpret them as helpful hints. Nor will I respond to them. This notice board is not about behavior issues!
@Guy: I hope you are right when you say, "Wikipedia is a funny place sometimes. You will never get in trouble for refusing to defend yourself when someone says something about you on an article talk page and focusing on article content." Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

2)The Focus: Matthew 50 CE

In the article on the Gospel of Matthew 70 to 110 CE is the stated range for the date of composition. A date earlier than that is precluded as a possibility.

Clarification needed: Do the 45 or so reliable sources that put forward an early 50 CE date cause a NPOW problem??? - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
No. Assuming they are reliable and independent (different authors, not commissioned by the same person/group/company, and are the author's own research, not just an agreement with a previous author). Also assuming it doesn't add undue weight. Are there 5620 reliable sources that state otherwise, or 50. I would also look at ages, if sources in the past decade say 70-110 AD (this is a Biblical topic), and all (or almost all) that state 50 AD are older, then it should be held in historical context. If this is truly controversial then a sub-section or a sentence about the controversy should be added. Jerodlycett (talk) 04:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
The article does not say the range for the date of composition is 70-110 AD. It says this is what most scholars believe. It's sourced. If RP can come up with an alternative sourced statement that says something different, fine, but in two years or more he hasn't been able to.PiCo (talk) 05:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm... Most interesting! I read it as "most scholars believe the Gospel of Matthew was composed between 80 and 90 CE"... with a "range of possibility between 70 to 110 CE" as being a statement of fact. I will have to ponder this. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 05:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
There are no statements of fact in Wikipedia, only statements of scholarly opinion. Duling on page 298 mentions a certain verse in Matthew and says that "most scholars" interpret it as a reference to the Emperor Titus destroying Jerusalem in 70 AD. Elsewhere on the same page he says most scholars agree that 110 CE is the last possible date. Hence our statement that "most scholars believe [Matthew] was composed ... between 70 to 110 CE." PiCo (talk) 06:41, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

The lede presently notes that there is minority support for a pre-70 date, which I believe is the condition that was sought. Rhoark (talk) 21:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


Southern Strategy - removal of sources which don't support opening section.

The article Southern_strategy in general terms describes an alleged strategy used by the GOP, starting with the Nixon administration, to appeal to racism in southern voters as a way to win the south from the Dixiecrats. It is a politically sensitive article because can be used to cast the GOP in a negative light. A number of external articles have mentioned the notion of a "racist southern strategy" as if it were a mater of record the same way the "Pinto Memo" has been treated as established fact. The article is vague regarding exactly what the "southern strategy" really is. This is important because a strategy to appeal to southern voters who were unhappy with the Dixiecrats based on say fiscal or military defense policy is much different than a strategy that appeals based on racism. Where this is an issue is one person might say "there was a southern strategy" but it appealed to religious values vs one that appeals to racism. Thus an article that simply says "yes" doesn't actually support the hypothesis of the wiki entry which was the policy existed AND it was racist in it's intent.

There are some sources which I feel pass Wikipedia's standard for reliable sources which I feel should be added to the article. Several editors have refused to allow these sources while being accepting of and even refusing to allow changes to other sources.

I believe the article should have the following changes. First, the article needs to define what "the southern strategy" is as it relates to the text. This will better enable editors and readers to decide if a citation supports just a plan to win southern votes or a plan to win southern votes via racism. Second, I would like the article to include a second that indicates that the facts of the "southern strategy" are in dispute and includes links to sources that dispute the general narrative. Here is an example of my attempt to include dissenting view articles. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Southern_strategy&diff=653327160&oldid=653323277 Involved parties are myself, MastCell, North Shoreman, Gamaliel, The Four Deuces --Getoverpops (talk) 20:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

This is already at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. How many of these are you going to open? Gamaliel (talk) 20:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
It is also at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Wikipedia:Tendentious editing applies here -- the talk page for the article is filled with new sections being created to simply recycle the same arguments over and over. Please don't encourage him. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Gamaliel, I believe the neutrality of the article is in question, not just my edits. However, if this is a redundant notice we can remove it. I'm not a seasoned editor so if I miss a rule I apologize. North Shoreman, that comment should be removed as it is a provocation --Getoverpops (talk) 21:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

All the sources presented treat the Southern Strategy as a fact. If you think it is mere opinion, then you need to provide sources that say that, which so far you have not. Whether or not it can be used to cast the GOP in a negative light has nothing to do with neutrality. Wategate could be used to cast the GOP in a negative light, it does not mean we cannot write about it. TFD (talk) 01:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Not all sources treat the racism aspect as fact. Some sources state there was no concerted "southern strategy" at all. Others state that the understanding of what the strategy was is confused. Hence it would be reasonable for someone to say "there was no southern strategy" and be referring to one specifically targeting/trying to win over racist voters. Several sources said the actual strategy was trying to tow the line between no alienating southern voters while not back tracking on civil rights. I have provided these sources in the talk section but they were wronging dismissed. At the same time that higher level of scrutiny was not applied to other sources included in the article. --Getoverpops (talk) 04:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Please provide these references. Depending on the quality of sources, depends on how much weight that it should be given.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Getoverpops provided four sources, at least one of which is reliable (NYT). It's true that there's a counterpoint being made that the southern strategy was about business, not racism (or not just racism). In an article this long, the counterpoint deserves mention. It's a notable but apparently minority view. I'd like to see a section in the main body talking about this contrary view, and mention of it in the lede. I love President Obama and hate the way that the GOP has glommed onto one backwards vision after another in an attempt to keep people voting their way, but Getoverpops has done WP a service by bringing to light a notable view that hadn't gotten any attention. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
The NYT article (see [12] is a four paragraph book review. An very critical academic review (available through JSTOR) starts:
This is a disturbing book. In this slim volume of less than two hundred the authors set out to turn on its collective head what has emerged as the studied wisdom about post-World War II partisan change in the South. Byron E. Shafer and Richard Johnston stipulate that the demise of legal segregation largely drove the change in southern partisan loyalties from Democratic to Republican in presidential elections (something that has long been known and something that runs directly counter to their dominant thesis). They claim that race was not as important a factor in the South's congressional contests. Then they promptly dismiss in importance their first observation to conclude that economic change,not race, was "the engine" that drove partisan change in the post-1945 South (p. 2). (The Journal of Southern History, Vol. 73, No. 3 (Aug., 2007), pp. 746-748)
This review points out that the work reviewed in the Times is a small minority view -- indeed the Time's review acknowledges that this is a new theory. You also acknowledge this. If there is a place for this info (what other substantiation is there for this position -- is it a minority opinion or fringe) in the article it is somewhere in the body of the article; the originator of this discussion wants to give it equal billing in the first paragraph of the article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
First, this section would talk about various views on the subject. As it discussed views it can include opinion articles such as Herberts as well as views by participants such as Pat Buchanan. Furthermore, though you have mentioned this negative review more than once, it does not invalidate the source book as a reasonable source. The book was written by two academics in the field. The negative review would be reasonable to mention but it is not sufficient to make the article an non-reliable source. Furthermore, if we apply the same level of critical review to most of the "pro" sources in the article we will find the "pro" case is not as strong as you make it out to be. Many of the "pro" articles have mentioned it as fact without proof much the way people would mention that we landed on the moon but not prove it. Once something is taken as a given writers are less likely to critically look at references. Additionally, some of the sources the article is built on also have negative reviews. The case has never been as concrete as you have claimed. However, a section talking about dissenting views should allow for the inclusion of such material and allow the reader to decide. This certainly seems like a good compromise. --Getoverpops (talk) 19:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
You were asked above by RightCowLeftCoast to list these references. It's very premature to discuss what you want to do with the sources when you have neglected to answer the question. I know you've advocated Ann Coulter at one point and now you're recommending Pat Buchanan. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I will try to add those once I get a chance to consolidate them. --Getoverpops (talk) 20:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
More on the NY Times review. I found a law review article that refers to the work ([[13]] Generally supportive of the work, it does make an important point (see fn 66 after you dowload the article): "SHAFER & JOHNSTON, supra note 43, at 24–29. Shafer and Johnston appear to argue that for presidential elections, views on racial issues did drive partisan voting patterns of Southern whites, but for the House and Senate, it was economic self-interest." The first sentence of our Southern policy makes it clear that presidential politics is the article's focus: In American politics, the Southern strategy refers to a Republican Party strategy in the late 20th century of gaining political support for presidential candidates in the Southern United States by appealing to regional racial tensions and history of segregation. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
But that talks of the voters, not the actions or strategies of the campaigns. While it is not proof there was not a racist southern strategy or a strategy indented to appeal to racist, it also is not sound footing on which to claim there was. Do you see the logical difference?--Getoverpops (talk) 00:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
As it can be verified, the view should be given a mention. But unless more than the academically written source, and the NYT article, are the presently provided reliable sources, it shouldn't be given its own entire section. Although I might not agree with the stereotype that south=racist and thus southern strategy=racist strategy, if that's what most sources write (even if the sources themselves are biased), that's how the weight is.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I think, as a more neutral section, we should target the section to talk about what actions were taken as part of the "Southern Strategy" and to what extent sources feel they had an impact. Given the scope of the article a section talking about impact would be well within the scope of the project. Last night I put together a quick list of sources, both pro "racist policy" and against. The pro list is not comprehensive but instead looks at the sources citied in the Wiki Lead. Based on a review of these sources I think what we can agree on was the GOP was looking at how to win southern votes. The GOP, as virtually all political groups would, was cognizant of ethnicities and their moods in various areas. However, I don't think that being cognizant is the same thing as pandering too. A number of the articles either directly or indirectly support the idea that the GOP's plan at the presidential level (I'm sure both parties had members who did ugly things at local and regional levels) was to avoid antagonizing. Several cite Nixon's record on race related issues as one that does not show a policy of pandering to the South. Some of the sources suggest that it was really the south that needed the GOP (or conformed to the ideas of the GOP) rather than the GOP bending to the will of the South. Anyway, here are some sources and discussions of each:

Sources that are used to support the "Pro racism" POV.

  • Bob Herbert [1]

[2]. Both of Herbert's articles are Op-Ed pieces. Herbert is a well published Op-Ed writer with columns in major papers. However, by that standard we also can/should include columns by opinion writers like Ann Coulter. Currently Herbert's articles are being given undue weight.

  • Dan Carter:[3] The validity of this link is hard to establish since it does not include a page number. Gerard Alexander, an academic in the field, is critical of the conclusions of this book as he describes in this article (the article is a reference I mention later)[4]
  • Taylor Branch: [5] In this case it is simply unclear how this reference supports the claims made. I think this might just be an error in the page number but as it stands it is not a reasonable citation.
  • Here are two articles that are in the current Wiki article and discuss a GOP leader apologizing to the NAACP.[6][7] I think both are questionable in the context of proof of a historical action by various GOP presidential campaigns (since the Wiki article is now focusing on GOP presidential campaigns this is an important distinction). The Boston Globe articles does not even mention the "southern strategy". Instead it mentions the GOP ignoring black needs and using race as a wedge issue (specifics were not offered). The Washington Post article's author mentions "the southern strategy" but in the same way an author might mention the Ford Pinto Memo as proof that companies trade lives for profit. It is part of historic lore (several of the against sources mention this). As such it can't honestly be used to support what the "southern strategy" really was, only that it exists in the cultural mind of people. Thus these sources can not be used to support what the strategy actually was (pander to racists, avoid offending moderates in the south, become an obstacle to further civil rights reforms?). It is also important to remember this apology was given as a way to persuade voters. As such it is perhaps better to claim one has sinned in the past if the audience feels that is true, vs trying to argue that the sins didn't happen. In short, it was campaigning as much as anything.
To further the above argument that this is not proof of a southern strategy that planed to appeal to racists, Malhman, the one making the apology, talks about it on Larry King Live. He says it was a general apology for the party. That can't be seen as specific to presidential campaigns. [8]

These are articles I think don't support the idea that there was a "southern strategy" based on pandering to the racism of voters in the south. Note that I would not call "avoiding the subject" or "treading lightly around the subject" pandering.

  • Dan McLaughlin, [9] This is clearly an opinion article. However that puts in on the same footing as the Herbert articles mentioned above. This is a blog quality source reviewing a book (mentioned below). The book in question "The Lost Majority: Why the Future of Government Is Up for Grabs - and Who Will Take It" by [[14]]. The reviewer contends the book first supports the notion that pandering to racism was not the reason for the south to move the GOP. This is consistent with several other articles and probably should be mentioned in the southern article as a point in and of itself Given the detail in the Wiki entry it would seem appropriate to include sources that discuss the reasons voters changed parties. If the evidence is the majority didn't move for racial reasons then that undermines the significance of any southern strategy to appeal to racism elements.

Gerard Alexander: [10] This is an opinion article by an academic researcher in the field. The article questions the GOP's need to court southern voters at any cost. Thus the same candidates who were fighting for civil rights in the late 50s and early to mid 60s were unlikely to quickly change their tack to appeal to a segment if the need wasn't as critical. This supports the claims by other sources that claim the GOP was race sensitive to the south but did not (at least at the presidential level) play to racist fears or make promises that would specifically target racists (the general thrust of some tellings of the southern strategy).

Wallace voters ended up supporting Nixon, Reagan and other Republicans, but much more on the national GOP's terms than their own. The Republican Party proved to be the mountain to which the Deep South had to come, not the other way around. This explains why the second assumption is also wrong. Nixon made more symbolic than substantive accommodations to white Southerners. He enforced the Civil Rights Act and extended the Voting Rights Act. On school desegregation, he had to be prodded by the courts in some ways but went further than them in others: He supervised a desegregation of Deep South schools that had eluded his predecessors and then denied tax-exempt status to many private "desegregation academies" to which white Southerners tried to flee. Nixon also institutionalized affirmative action and set-asides for minorities in federal contracting.

Sean Trende: [11] Author is opinion writer. Includes the claim that McGovern was too liberal to get strong southern support and hence Nixon got much of the vote by default. This again supports the notion that a southern strategy was one which avoided antagonizing rather than appealing to racial feelings.

Kevin Williamson: [12]Another article supporting the theory that GOP successes in the south started prior to '68 and during a time when the GOP was pushing for more civil rights protections than the Democrats. This is yet another source that says the shift wasn't based on race. That doesn't prove no racist plans were laid but again, it supports the idea that the GOP was more likely to try to walk a fine line (not antagonize) vs appeal to. Note that in searching the reliable source archives I've found that NR is considered a reliable source even though it is a right leaning source.

Gerard Alexander: [13] I have been accused of cherry picking from this article. However, if the wiki article is about presidential campaigns only then, no, no cherry picking here. The author (same as WP author above) says that the repubs in the south had to engage in nasty politics to win elections, that was political expedience.

The mythmakers typically draw on two types of evidence. First, they argue that the GOP deliberately crafted its core messages to accommodate Southern racists. Second, they find proof in the electoral pudding: the GOP captured the core of the Southern white backlash vote. But neither type of evidence is very persuasive. It is not at all clear that the GOP's policy positions are sugar-coated racist appeals. And election results show that the GOP became the South's dominant party in the least racist phase of the region's history, and got—and stays—that way as the party of the upwardly mobile, more socially conservative, openly patriotic middle-class, not of white solidarity.

The bolded text (my emphasis) hits the key point. What ever the "southern strategy" was the key point of the strategy towards the south at the time, according to a number of authors, was not to appeal to racism. It seems instead they were racially cognizant and crafted a message not to offend. This also aligns with the previous comments that Nixon was not interested in offering much to southern politicians in exchange for support.

What we have is enough information to cast doubt on the original opening claim of the Wiki article. The original claim, which was changed after this dispute was filed, was an appeal to racism. The sources which purport to prove it was an appeal to racism aren't as strong as some claim. I have not reviewed all the sources in the Wiki but enough to show that the original article lead was questionable. We also have a number of sources that undermine the appeal to racism/racist theory. That leaves us with a truth that appears to probably be in the middle. There probably were some GOP candidates, especially a local/state levels who appealed to racist motives (but that is now out of the scope of the article). At the national level it appears the Nixon campaign was very continuous of the issues but there seems to be no evidence that they acted on this beyond trying to tip toe around the issue. I have seen no evidence to show that Regan's campaign was any different. Basically not promising but not antagonizing. That doesn't quite fit the spirit of even the modified lead which really suggests the GOP has sin to atone for (ie the final apology one liner I would like to see struck from the intro).

I would like input as to how to phrase a "debate about both the actions taken and the impact people thing they had on election outcomes. It's one thing to talk about something, it's another to show that promises were made or acted upon to gain support. If promises were made what were they? Is there merit to the theory that the South was basically leaving the Democrats due to both cultural drift and/or civil rights backlash? I think when authors and even participants in the events claim there was no southern strategy what they mean is there was nothing that fits the description that the "mythical southern strategy" has assumed. I wouldn't argue there was no strategy for dealing with maximizing votes in the south without alienating the other parts of the country (which were strongly in favor of civil rights).--Getoverpops (talk) 02:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

References
  1. ^ Herbert, Bob (October 6, 2005). "Impossible, Ridiculous, Repugnant". The New York Times. Archived from the original on January 22, 2012. 
  2. ^ Herbert, Bob (November 13, 2007). "Righting Reagan's Wrongs?". The New York Times. Archived from the original on January 22, 2012. 
  3. ^ Carter, Dan T. From George Wallace to Newt Gingrich: Race in the Conservative Counterrevolution, 1963-1994.
  4. ^ Alexander, Gerard. "The Myth of the Racist Republicans". http://www.claremont.org/article/the-myth-of-the-racist-republicans/#.VRQNJxrnRan. Claremont Review of Books. 
  5. ^ Branch, Taylor (1999). Pillar of Fire: America in the King Years 1963-65. New York: Simon & Schuster. p. 242. ISBN 0-684-80819-6. OCLC 37909869. 
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference Mehlman was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ Allen, Mike (July 14, 2005). "RNC Chief to Say It Was 'Wrong' to Exploit Racial Conflict for Votes". Washington Post. Retrieved October 14, 2013. 
  8. ^ King, Larry. "Larry King Live interview with Melham". 
  9. ^ McLaughlin, Dan. "The Southern Strategy Myth and the Lost Majority". 
  10. ^ Alexander, Gerard (Sept 12, 2010). "Conservatism does not equal racism. So why do many liberals assume it does?". Washington Post. Retrieved March 25, 2015.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  11. ^ Trende, Sean (Sept 9, 2010). "Misunderstanding the Southern Realignment". Real Clear Politics. Retrieved March 25, 2015.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  12. ^ Williamson, Kevin (May 28, 2012). [The Party of Civil Rights Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/300432/party-civil-rights-kevin-d-williamson "The Party of Civil Rights"]. National Review. Retrieved March 25, 2015. 
  13. ^ Alexander, Gerard (March 20, 2004). "The Myth of the Racist Republicans". The Claremont Review of Books 4 (2). Retrieved March 25, 2015. 
Op-Ed pieces can be used to verify the opinion of the Op-Ed writer, but not as sources to verify statements of fact. How heavily are the Op-Ed(s) used, bot to verify the racist POV and the not-racist POV?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


All I'm really seeing here is a need to increase the caliber of sources used for the article so we can drop these opinion pieces. So here's an article, "The Southern Strategy Revisited: Republican Top-Down Advancement in the South", written by Joseph A. Aistrup which is a scholarly article published by the University Press of Kentucky. In it, Aistrup writes:
"Since Goldwater in the early 1960s, the Southern Strategy has evolved from a states’ rights, racially conservative message to one promoting in the Nixon years, vis-à-vis the courts, a racially conservative interpretation of civil rights laws—including opposition to busing. With the ascendancy of Reagan, the Southern Strategy became a national strategy that melded race, taxes, anticommunism, and religion."
"For thirty years, the Republicans’ Southern Strategy has built winning coalitions for presidential elections in the South. For Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater, this strategy was simply “to go hunting where the ducks are” (Bass and De Vries 1976, 26). The ducks to which Goldwater referred were strongly ideological, racially motivated, white conservatives."
Then, there is also William C. Harvard who wrote in his The Changing Politics of the South about southern Republican politics saying that "whether they can make the transformation without the residue of race as a central issue is the fundamental question." So now that we have some peer reviewed scholarly sources that articulate the Southern Strategy as appealing to a racially motivated white electorate, feel free to find some reliable sources of equal strength to support your position as opposed to Op. Eds.Scoobydunk (talk) 08:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
RightCowLeftCoast, I have a question about how we handle articles by academics in the field. For example, one of the references I listed was a Washington Post Op-Ed by Gerard Alexander. Alexander is an academic in the field. Do we take his article as opinion or expert opinion? The Reliable Source guide [[15]] suggests that because the academic is an expert in the field his op-ed article should be treated as the reliable opinion of an expert. I've also included a book by said author as a reference. The NYT's book review was of a book written by two academics in this area and thus the book should be considered expert opinion as well.
Scoobydunk, Thank you for the contribution. I don't recall you being involved with this article but your opinions are still welcome. I agree that many of the sources used in this article have not been high caliber. The source you suggest was already included in the article under suggested reading. Note that while it was written by an academic it is not a pear reviewed work. Thus I would see it as expert opinion of someone in the field and we already have both books and articles written by academics for the "non-racist" view. Your quote from William C Harvard, is questionable. The book in question was edited by him. Without more detail we do not know if he is the one who wrote it or if it reflects his view. Regardless of the actual author of the quote, it is worth noting that the statement you quoted can neither confirm nor deny the appeal to racism or the walk the line theories. It acknowledges there is an issue but does not indicate which strategy was selected. I think a link to the quote would be helpful in this case.
Regardless, at this point I would argue we have at least a reasonably body of evidence from experts in the field telling us that there was no "racist southern strategy", rather there was only an attempt to avoid offending voters who, other than the recent civil rights laws, were more aligned with the GOP message than the Democratic message. --Getoverpops (talk) 16:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
At this point, you haven't provided any sources of equivalent reliability. Your last response only tries to make a false equivalency by equating peer reviewed scholarly work to opinion editorials and masking it under a subjective and generalized umbrella of "expert". Also, the University Press of Kentucky is an institution that utilizes peer review as is required by the Association of American University Presses, of which it is a member. These sources are considered the most reliable by WP reliability standards and articles should reflect what the strongest and most reliable sources say, not opinion pieces from newspapers if there are more reliable sources available. So until you have sources of equivalent reliability, then there isn't a body of evidence to contest the Southern Strategy's implementation/appeal to racism.Scoobydunk (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot two sources. The NY Times article http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/magazine/10Section2b.t-4.html?_r=1& but that's really a book review of "The End of Southern Exceptionalism" by Byron E Shafer and Richard Johnston (both academics in the field) and published by Harvard University Press. http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674032491

The transformation of Southern politics after World War II changed the political life not just of this distinctive region, but of the entire nation. Until now, the critical shift in Southern political allegiance from Democratic to Republican has been explained, by scholars and journalists, as a white backlash to the civil rights revolution. In this myth-shattering book, Byron E. Shafer and Richard Johnston refute that view, one stretching all the way back to V. O. Key in his classic book Southern Politics. The true story is instead one of dramatic class reversal, beginning in the 1950s and pulling everything else in its wake. Where once the poor voted Republican and the rich Democrat, that pattern reversed, as economic development became the engine of Republican gains. Racial desegregation, never far from the heart of the story, often applied the brakes to these gains rather than fueling them.

I'm out of time again but I think that should address Scoobydunk's concerns regarding a lack of books published by university presses. (Note, this edit was in process before Scoobydunk's reply above. It thus is not a direct reply to his 17:12 comments) --Getoverpops (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

In reply to Scoobydunk's post time stamped 17:12
You seem to be trying to be very argumentative. I noticed that you have never edited the Wiki article in question. Regardless, first, I included opinions of academics in the field (thus experts). Second, I just included a text published by a university press so that should address you second point. If you had actually been following this discussion you should have known that the source I just added was mentioned very early on. The long list I added was sources in addition to the book I added in more detail just a few minutes ago. I would ask that if you want to interject in this discussion you should at least be familiar with the whole discussion. --Getoverpops (talk) 17:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Now that you have found a source, you need to demonstate its weight. The 2006 NYT review says, "this year two political scientists called [the Southern Strategy] into question." (Oddly the book does not even refer to the term.) Google scholar shows that it has been cited 5 or 6 times, although none of the cites mention the central thesis of the book. There is no reason, and policy reasons not to, to give the views in this book any more attention that scholars in the field have. TFD (talk) 18:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
First, I don't need to show the cited book or any other source is more weighty than the existing material. That would be needed if we wanted to pick one side as "correct". All that needs to be shown is that there is reasonable debate among scholars. That has been shown. It's clear you are working hard to discredit the Shafer and Johnston source. Have you applied the same level of scrutiny to all other sources in the entry? Are you suggesting we should refuse to include any source that is not peer reviewed and that is cited at least 7 times? What is your bar for inclusion in the article? Your claim that the book doesn't mention the southern strategy term and thus (through implication) is not a relevant sources is wrong. First it specifically cites Aistrup's The Southern Strategy Revisited: Republican Top-Down Advancement in the South. Here is what the book has to say about Aistrup's work starting on page 17.

These three lines of historical progress, taken together, have encouraged analysts to posit a "presidency-driven," even a "top-down," story of partisan change (Aistrup 1996). This view has the advantage of a powerful simplification. Yet even when the focus is only the difference among institutions during this process of change, we think that a presidential story oversimplifies the picture. The Presidency could run well ahead of Congress at key points, as it did in 1972. But it could also crash back behind it in short order, as it did just four years later. And it could suggest a modest Republican decline, for example from 1988 to 1996, when Congress was showing a strong Republican advance.

Worse yet, an analysis that privileges the presidency risks suggesting that political change was a product, not of fundamental shifts within the social base for partisan politics, but rather of an institutional - a constitutional - dynamic. We think it makes more sense to look on the presidency as reflecting the potential for both growth and retreat, and Congress as representing, "the base" beyond which neither was likely to be consolidated in the long run.

[page 169] IF the focus were not on the longer-term role of the Wallace candidacy, it would be possible to say the same thing in even more provocative fashion. First, the Republican candidate for President in 1968, Richard Nixon, did better in districts carried by Lyndon Johnson (the Democrat) in 1964 than by Barry Goldwater (the Republican): 46 percent versus 30 percent. In that sense, if anyone was a "bridge" to Republicanism in 1968, it was Johnson, not Goldwater. Likewise, if the fosuc were instead on the shape of the partisan world in the longer run, then Ronald Reagan, the Republican Candidate for President in 1980, still did far better among districts carried by Richard Nixon in 1968 than those carried by Barry Goldwater in 1964: 93 percent versus 61 percent. If there was a lasting impact from earlier Republican successes, it came by way of Nixon, not Goldwater - which is unsurprising if further Republicanism was to be built on class rather than race.

Not only what TFD said, but you just copy and pasted a description of the book, which is not a part of the scholarly source itself. Sorry, but a website summary of the article is not of equal standing of peer reviewed work. So can you quote the part of "The End of Southern Exceptionalism" that actually refutes this view and substantiates your assertions? Also, it appears TFD is also right about that book not even mentioning the "Southern Strategy" once. So I think you'd be hard pressed to cite this as a source for explaining the motivations of the Southern Strategy without violating WP original research policies. Scoobydunk (talk) 18:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I did copy and paste the university press's summation of the book to show what it was about. So now you want exact quotes. Review after review state one thing and you think they are all wrong? Sorry, that is a cop out. If that is the standard then why haven't you removed any and every reference in the wiki article that doesn't provide an exact quote?

BTW, here is a peer reviewed article that denounces the idea, http://miranda.revues.org/2243, Michelle Brattain, Foretting the South and the Southern Strategy (Published in Miranda, author is Department Chair of History at Georgia State University)

Wrapped up in this narrative of party realignment is the most “modern” article of faith behind Southern exceptionalism: the Republican “Southern strategy.” Richard Nixon and his advisors, the story goes, stole a page from the Goldwater and Wallace playbooks and wooed white Southern voters into the Republican party with appeals to festering racial resentments.

... Thus contributors to The Myth of Southern Exceptionalism frequently turn their gaze elsewhere—reminding us not only that whites rioted against housing integration in Pennsylvania, but that segregation (of the Chinese) existed out west, and that NY prisons could be as brutal as Mississippi's notorious Parchman Farm. ... To those who are tempted to draw a straight line from Goldwater, through Wallace, to Nixon and beyond as evidence of Republicans manipulating white Southerners through carefully coded appeals to their racism, the new critics of Southern exceptionalism point to other, less-well-known forces working at the grassroots of Southern politics and culture—namely, moderation. This was true, as historian Joseph Crespino shows, even in the “most Southern place on earth”: Mississippi. ... By 1970, Lassiter argues, white Southerners preferred moderate policies and candidates who employed a language of abstract principles over open defiance and political extremists—a lesson that Nixon learned the hard way. One of the few “genuine” incarnations of the Southern strategy, Lassiter argues, was Nixon's decision in the 1970 midterm elections to lend his support to the Southern Republican candidates who represented the most extreme racial backlash to court-ordered school desegregation and busing. In theory (Kevin Phillip's theory to be precise) such a strategy would have hastened Southern partisan realignment. However, centrist Democrats triumphed over race-baiting Republicans in several key gubernatorial and Congressional elections. ... The national success of Nixon's appeal to middle-class whites who disdained social engineering in the name of racial equality is an extraordinarily important historical insight that challenges myths about American racial innocence. The similarity of white responses to busing across regions, for example, and the hypocrisy of Hubert Humphrey and other non-Southern Democratic liberals who resisted the application of integrationist remedies in their own backyards has newly exposed the emptiness of distinctions between de jure and de facto segregation (Crespino 178-180).

And another book that doesn't agree... Matthew Lassiter, "The Silent Majority" Princeton University Press. Page 232:

The three-way contest allowed Nixon to stake out the political center, by design and by default, as the respectable choice for middle-class voters who rejected the Great Society liberalism of Hubert Humphrey and the reactionary racial populism of George Wallace. In the first national election in which suburban residents constituted a plurality of the electorate, the Nixon campaign reached out to disaffected blue-collar Democrats but aimed primarily at white-collar Republicans and moderate swing voters in the metropolitan centers of the Sunbelt South and West and the upwardly mobile suburbs of the Midwest and Northeast. Nixon forfeited the African-American vote to the Democratic party and conceded the Deep South to the Wallace insurgency, in recognition that the Goldwater debacle of 1964 had reversed Republican trends in the high-growth states of the Outer South.

Melvin Small, "A Companion to Richard M. Nixon", John Wiley and Sons.

This "Southern Strategy/civil-rights retreat" thesis became the first, and thus the orthodox, interpretation of the administration's policies. It would be sustained in the years immediately after Nixon left office, by two groups of writers. The first were those who used the Vietnam War and the Watergate scandal as their points of reference for understanding Nixon's presidency. ...

This claim that Nixon's policies rested on liberal words and conservative deeds was exactly the opposite of what later scholars would argue.

...

There was other evidence that Nixon was not very interested in civil rights - he devoted ten pages of his nearly 1,100-page memoir to the subject. Yet, what he wrote suggested statesmanship, not sacrificing civil-rights enforcement for southern votes. Nixon expressed "justifiable price" in "peacefully desegregating schools in the South".

Many of Nixon's advisers agreed and emphasized the desegregation of school in their memoirs. "Nixon inherited a dual school system declared unconstitutional fifteen years earlier," the speechwriter Raymond Price noted in "With Nixon, "He quietly engineered its dismantling." With respect to politics, Price reiterated a line used by Nixon, that the administration had no Southern Strategy but a national strategy that included the South and that it had desegregated schools "cooperatively rather than punitively". In Before the Fall, another speechwriter, William Safire, described the president's approach to desegregation as genuinely moderate and extremely skillful - a policy of "make-it-happen, but don't make it seam like Appomattox."

...

In Nixon Reconsidered, Joan Hoff warned against "aprincipled behavior by purely ambition-driven politicians" in the United State, with its toxic mix of powerful government and superficial "media politics." In this setting, Nixon was no worse and , according to Hoff, a bit better in terms of what he achieved than other recent chief executives. She even insisted that, "most of his lasting achievements are in domestic, rather than foreign, affairs." Civil rights was a case in point. In a rejoinder to the orthodox school, Hoff defended Nixon's record as superior to that of Dwight D. Eisenhower, JFK and LBJ during the 1950s and as better than any candidate he ran against, save Hubert Humphrey in 1968. She dismissed Nixon's Southern Strategy as "short-lived"; praised his effective, albeit, "reluctant," desegregation of Southern schools; noted that it was Nixon, not Kennedy or Johnson, who put the "bite" into affirmative action; and chronicled the administration's efforts to expand opportunities for women, especially with respect to employment, despite the fact that Nixon's support of the Equal Rights Amendment was never terribly strong.

[some important points here]

The scholarly literature on the Nixon administration and civil rights has evolved in two directions. At one level , early students of this presidency established an orthodox interpretation of his policies , one that stressed the administration's conservatism and shortcomings in pursuit of a "Southern Strategy." As time passed, and as documentary evidence became available and passions cooled, scholars revised this argument and depicted the Nixon administration's civil-rights policies as complex, in terms of motivation, accomplishment, and affect. At another level, understanding of specific aspects of Nixon's rights policies has deepened , as they became the subjects of articles, book chapters, and monographs. As a result, the historiography on this subject has reached a high level of maturity and sophistication . And, yet, much remains to be studied.

So what is the bar to show that the "southern strategy" was an appeal to racism? Is being anti-bussing racism or people who feel like they put their tax dollars into their local school and they don't want to pay for kids who's parents didn't pay the local taxes to attend nor do they want their kids sent to a distant school? If we think Nixon's plan was to use racist policies can we point to any under his watch? Part of the Southern Stategy wiki article talks about the impact of the "strategy". The sources I've cited generally disagree with the idea of a southern strategy. They don't argue that some things said or done by the administration were based on race but if that is the standard do we really think any campaign is 100% clear? They also argue that the overall objective was to play the middle ground. The articles are far stronger in their idea that it was the average southern voter who's views were better represented by the Republicans and less by an increasingly progressive Democratic party that was the real cause of the shift. Hence any discussion of the "Southern Strategy" would, if they are correct, reach the conclusion that the strategy had at best a minimal impact.

Regardless, there is a clear body of evidence that does not support the telling in the current Wiki. I'm not saying the wiki needs to be changed to this version of events, only that we have enough to state this version of events should be included. --Getoverpops (talk) 04:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


It's not our responsibility or privilege to "conclude" the impact of the "Southern Strategy". We let reliable sources do that so it's not a violation of WP:OR. Also, you don't have to have direct quotes so long as your sources actually says what you're claiming it says. Thus far, the peer reviewed sources you've offered haven't supported the disconnect you're trying to create between the Southern Strategy and racism. So when you're challenged on proving what a source says, then you do need to quote it directly. All of my quotes and the ones you're going to read now, directly speak to the inherent racism involved with the Southern Strategy. Furthermore your sources don't refute the ones I've given speaking to the racist nature/purpose of the Southern Strategy. As a matter of fact, your sources actually substantiate the racist nature of the Southern Strategy.
Let's start with Brattain. In the part you quoted she says "Wrapped up in this narrative of party realignment is the most “modern” article of faith behind Southern exceptionalism: the Republican “Southern strategy.” Richard Nixon and his advisors, the story goes, stole a page from the Goldwater and Wallace playbooks and wooed white Southern voters into the Republican party with appeals to festering racial resentments." This is directly saying that the Southern Strategy was utilized by Nixon to appeal to racial resentments. She goes on to talk about how the Nixon administration used "coded" language to appeal to racist resentment and couched language in a way that Republcian voters wouldn't have to admit to themselves that they saw the racism appealing. Nothing you quoted, nor the part you bolded, contradicts the viewpoint that the Southern Strategy was an appeal to racism and this source actually explains exactly how it was.
Next we have Lassiter. Again, nothing you quoted contends with the fact that the Southern Strategy was an appeal to racism. What Lassiter disagrees with is pinning the transformation of southern politics solely on the Southern Strategy. Lassiter says that a reductionist attempt to define the transformation as an appeal to racism mischaracterizes other relevant factors that influenced the shift. However, Lassiter does agree that the Southern Strategy was an appeal to racism and admits that most scholars define the Southern Strategy and its appeal to racism as the cause for the transformation of southern politics. He says "The widespread tendency to attribute the conservative shift in American politics to a top-down "Southern Strategy," launched by the Republican party in order to exploit white backlash against the civil rights movement, misses the longer-term convergence of southern and national politics around the suburban ethos of middle-class entitlement." <--Here he blatantly says that the Southern Strategy was launched by Republicans to exploit white backlash against the civil rights movement. Furthermore, Lassiter says "I argue throughout the book that the overreliance on race-reductionist narratives to explain complex political transformations--such as the 'rise of the Right' and 'white backlash' and the 'Southern Strategy'..." So here Lassiter is talking about "race-reductionist narratives" and lists the Southern Strategy as a race-reductionist narrative. So it's pretty clear that this is another scholarly source that substantiates the position that the Southern Strategy was real and was an appeal to racism. He just disagrees with how much weight it's given in the transformation of southern politics.
Lastly, we have Small. Small talks more about Nixon's presidency rather than examining the Southern Strategy itself. So you could use this source to speak to claims about Nixon's presidency, but not so much for countering the repeated claims about the appeal to racism employed by the Southern Strategy. As a matter of fact, small does attribute the use of the Southern Strategy to race related implementation and initiatives. Small says "It was enshrined in the media as Nixon's "Southern Strategy." As president, much of Nixon's policy-making on issues of race took shape as an attempt to institute it." He then talks about his nominating two segregationist judges to the Supreme Court and having his aides work on an anti-busing executive order which both speak to his attempts to institute race. Small also says "At the convention, as part of his emerging Southern Strategy, he further promised southern delegates that he would not support 'some professional civil rights groups,' that he would oppose busing to achieve desegregation, and that he would appoint 'real men' to the courts, to the Justice Department, and as his vice president." Again, Small associates racially charged issues with the Southern Strategy which undermines your attempts to claim that it wasn't about race.
So in your last response, it's pretty clear you're starting move away from arguing that the Southern Strategy wasn't racist and are now arguing about it's role in southern politics. Unfortunately, the article in question isn't about "southern politics" and is about the Southern Strategy itself. So there wouldn't be a problem in citing Lassiter when talking about the importance/impact of the Southern Strategy in the role of political transformation, but it would have to be presented as a minority view since Lassiter already admits what the widespread view is and acknowledges his diverging opinion. Regardless, none of that or the other sources support your claim that "at this point I would argue we have at least a reasonably body of evidence from experts in the field telling us that there was no "racist southern strategy". I appreciate you supplying more scholarly sources that directly refute your earlier argument. This is how progress is made.Scoobydunk (talk) 07:03, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Can I ask again how you chose to join this discussion? Your history shows that you have never edited the article. Recently I was accused of canvasing for support... were you perhaps asked to join in for similar reasons?
Your first paragraph shows that you are totally missing the point. It IS our purpose here to conclude sufficient information exists to justify adding these sources as references to the article.
Your second paragraph (Brattain) again totally misses the point. The author is describing the common narrative. I've mentioned the Ford Pinto Memo previously as an example. It is an "article of faith" that Ford did a cost benefit analysis regarding the cost of rear impact fires vs fixing the Pinto's design. That is the common narrative. When stating that a common myth is not as people think one often starts off by stating what the common myth actually is.
So you would claim that he used a racist plan to reach out to "white-collar Republicans and moderate swing voters in the metropolitan centers of the Sunbelt South and West and the upwardly mobile suburbs of the Midwest and Northeast."? Seriously? Additionally, the comments by Lassiter are perfectly relevant to the article as a statement of supposed impact. The current article mentions it and this information would do much to support that mention.
Nixon's presidency clearly shown he was not against supporting civil rights, rather his record was rather strong on the subject. So how does a claim of appealing to racist whites align with a strong, positive record on Civil Rights issues? It would seem at this point one needs to review what claims were made (what appeals). The current article is sadly lacking in that area. Perhaps you are the one to offer that list of promises? In any case, we have sources that say Nixon's campaign was about not scaring off southern voters vs actively appealing to racism. We also have sources that say his civil-rights record was strong. That supports the people, quoted by Small, who said there was no southern strategy. Given the time frame of the interviews one must conclude their "no southern strategy" view was as compared to the reports that were out there and very damning.
In your last paragraph you can conclude what ever you want. It's clear to me that you want nothing more than to be an obstructionist for an article you have never been involved in. Odd that. You certainly haven't applied this level of skepticism to the sources used in the article. Please refrain from using trollish statements such as, "I appreciate you supplying more scholarly sources that directly refute your earlier argument. This is how progress is made.". If you cannot I will ask that you be blocked from this discussion. --Getoverpops (talk) 11:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I read Brattain's article and agree with Scoobydunk's comments about it. Getoverpops btw you should not quote long passages from texts, both for copyright reasons and because it does not invite other editors to participate. TFD (talk) 07:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
That is unfortunate as you would make the same mistake SD made. The part he used as "proof" was the author restating the myth. Are you going to pass such careful review on the sources in the article? Given that quotes were demanded I do not feel I can simply reduce the length because you don't wish to read so much. If we want that then I think we should use the professional reviewer's take on the books... SD said he wasn't happy about that.

At this point I think it would be best to move on to the next part of this process where we discuss what changes can be made within the article. --Getoverpops (talk) 11:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

You can ask as many times as you want but I'm going to stick with making my replies relevant to the conversation, instead of trying to witch hunt for instances of canvassing. Also, I'm not missing the point and your original comment was "any discussion of the "Southern Strategy" would, if they are correct, reach the conclusion that the strategy had at best a minimal impact." It is not our responsibility to conclude what the impact of the Southern Strategy was and that is what I was speaking to. You then tried to change this statement to "It IS our purpose here to conclude sufficient information exists to justify adding these sources as references to the article." This was not the statement I was responding to and it is different from the previous statement. I'm seeing a pattern of abandoning arguments and altering statements when confronted with conflicting evidence. This is what "obstructionist" editing actually looks like, as it prevents us from reaching a conclusion because the goal posts keep being moved. I'd advise that we resolve the present argument before attempting to move-on to new ones.
Regarding Brittain, I did not miss the point of her article. The parts I quoted directly discuss the racism inherent in the Southern Strategy. The "myth" that you refer to and that she discusses was that racism solely belonged to the south which undermined the existence of racism in other parts of the nation. Brittain says: "I understand the impulse to expose the myth of American racism as an exclusively Southern phenomenon and to do justice to the genuine complexity of Southern history." She also recognizes and admits that the trend among scholars was that this racism was an exclusively Southern phenomenon, or at least is presented as such. So this doesn't contradict the quotes I've supplied earlier and Brittain only attempts to distract from the subject of Southern racism by calling out instances of racism in other parts of the country like her appeals to the Philadelphia example. I didn't read Brittain claiming that there was "no racist southern strategy" or anything of the sort and that's why it doesn't substantiate your earlier argument.
Again, detailed information about Nixon's presidency are better served on his own article and isn't an opportunity to push a narrative about the Southern Strategy not being racist. It was racist and every single scholarly source we've discussed has confirmed the issue of race related to the Southern Strategy. You mention wanting to move on to discussing what needs to be changed in the article and I've already addressed this. I've spoken to exactly the type of information from Lassiter that would be a reasonable inclusion and nothing we've discussed or seen from Lassiter speaks to the Southern Strategy not being racist. Also, the parts I read from Small talked about how Nixon did use the Southern Strategy. The parts you included from Small make reference to someone else emphasizing Nixon's claim that there was no southern strategy, but this is not a claim made by the author of the peer reviewed work himself. Small also discusses Huff who admits that Nixon did use the Southern Strategy and says it was "short lived". Again, neither of these support a claim that there "was no southern strategy" used by the Nixon administration and at most can could only be used to characterized how Nixon perceived his presidency which is not inline with how scholarly published historical works perceive his presidency. So if you want to discuss a specific change, then supply it and we'll discuss it. Thus far, you haven't supplied anything to substantiate a claim that the Southern Strategy wasn't racist, and that's what caught my attention on this board. Oh, I also ask that you not to attempt to reduce my genuine sentiments to "trolling" or "obstructionism". I am actually grateful to have additional sources of peer reviewed quality that reiterate the fact that the Southern Strategy was used by Republicans to appeal to racial resentments in the south. That's how stronger articles get made, which is what I'm seeking here.Scoobydunk (talk) 15:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Getoverpops, Brattain wrote, "As a scholar, based on my own research and that of others, I do believe that there was a Southern strategy, even if the project of correctly characterizing it is ongoing." That is the essence of the dispute over the Southern Strategy, not that it did not exist. TFD (talk) 17:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
My original dispute notice was for the use of alleged and that was associated with a subject that said racism was used starting with Nixon and at least through Regan. Since then the first line of the lead has been toned down. The article still is critically missing several important subjects. First, what actions were taken to prove that such a southern strategy existed, ie one that appealed to racists in particular vs the more pragmatic policy of not offending moderate southern voters (this is discussed above). Second, what was the supposed impact of such a strategy? You can claim that isn't relevant to the article but given you supported the inclusion of a background section that dates back nearly 100 years prior to the implementation of what ever we claim is the southern strategy, it seems odd that we would leave out articles that discuss the impact of the strategy or other explanations as to why the GOP has been successful in the south if it wasn't an appeal to racism. Note that the article in large part implies that the GOP's success was due to "the southern strategy" so this would be a relevant topic. Finally, it wouldn't be bad to have a section that discusses the rise of the modern understanding. Brattain and others talk about the "myth" of the southern strategy for a reason. If Nixon's election promises to the south were not based on racist promises yet people accuse Nixon of winning the south in just such a fashion then it is reasonable to say the "southern strategy" as they understand it is a myth. The "Pinto Memo" also exists. It's just that it doesn't say or mean what popular understanding thinks (at least prior to new research which came out in the 1990s). I hope you can be helpful in integrating the new information I've posted here into the article. You don't feel it should be excluded do you?--Getoverpops (talk) 02:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it would be bad to have an entire section dedicated to an admitted minority viewpoint. It also isn't unreasonable to leave out information not relevant to the Southern Strategy. If authors advocate that Republicans were successful in the south due to other reasons, then that belongs on other articles about those said reasons. Also, it's not reasonable to say the "southern strategy as they understand it is a myth" and that's another example of your advocating original research. Besides, the sources we've discussed have affirmed Nixon used the southern strategy, so I don't understand why you keep trying to pretend he didn't. Also, I suggest you be specific in what you wish to add/change in the article. You need to actually write an amendment and describe which section you think it belongs, before we can effectively discuss whether it should be included, for instance, "I think the lead should say 'blah blah blah'"Scoobydunk (talk) 04:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Those are definitely points you are trying to make.--Getoverpops (talk) 04:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Your response is unintelligible. I'm not the one making points, I'm simply refuting the ones you've been trying to make and have successfully done so. So I take this to mean that you don't have any specific suggestions to improve the article then?Scoobydunk (talk) 06:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
That is certainly an opinion you might have.--Getoverpops (talk) 12:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I am troubled by the current POV of the article, particularly of the opening paragraph. No directive or plan from the Republican Party is cited, just anecdotal evidence. The assumption that the feelings of some political operative were universal and coordinated is then presented as fact.
That Nixon flipped Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, and Tennessee in 1968 is presented (without citation) as evidence of a premeditated, coordinated, racist Southern Strategy. That Nixon flipped Nevada, New Mexico, Missouri, Illinois, Delaware, and New Jersey in the same election is naturally pure coincidence and not worth mentioning.
Competing explanations for the political realignment of 1968 must be mentioned and the first paragraph must be rewritten to note the contested nature of the theory. Juno (talk) 03:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Well certainly there were other reasons why the GOP was successful, but that does not detract from the fact they persued a Southern Strategy. If you disagree with the arguments, then you cannot rebut them, but need to show that they have been rebutted in mainstream sources. So far Getoverpops has failed to do that. TFD (talk) 02:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
The extent to which they were "pursued" is not really clear. We have strategist who talk about it but where it the evidence it happened? What is the motivation for a strategist to say his boss is doing something bad? Is what they said open to interpretation? If we accept the "code word" view then certainly, how could it not happen. Even claims of wanting to reform welfare could be seen as "coded southern strategy". With such a definition virtually anything could be seen as proof. This makes the whole thing very slippery slope now doesn't it. A better way to present the topic is less from the POV that "this is a proven fact" vs one that says what is accused, what evidence exists for and what against (both in terms of what the strategy actually is and what the impact is). This is all the more significant given that with several elections between 1968 and 1980 (and some would argue later) it becomes hard to say if this is a real plan or shop talk blown up by political opponents or media sources who were opposed (this certainly seems true of the Herbert Op-Ed articles).
While I'm posting I want to point out a correction to something Scoobydunk said. He claimed that if I can't find an exact quote the source is not acceptable (never mind that the article uses at least one book in such a fashion). Scoobydunk actually said, elsewhere on Wikipedia, that reliable reviews would be an acceptable summary of a book. It seems his burden of proof varies.
Darkfrog24"Many of the things that happened in “Oathkeeper” happened in "'A Storm of Swords,'" I think you're going to have a hard time finding a reliable source that gets more specific than that in detailing where the incidents on the show originated within the text. So if you're just looking for something general that says that it's based on storm of swords, then you have it. If you're looking for something that specifically denotes the chapters, then you're going to have a rough time finding a reliable source. Another option is to use this quote from Washington Post and since the quote brings up the topic of the book "Storm of Swords" you can then add relevant chapter summaries from a reliable source. So you aren't specifically using original research to connect the show to specific chapters, but are just adding in chapter summaries. So you can say "Chapter 61 deals with XYZ" "In Chapter 69 Person X does ABC", so on and so forth. You should be able to find a reliable site that gives book chapter summaries and then quote it for including information about those chapters. This is a roundabout way to do what you're looking to do that doesn't violate NPOV or OR. You should probably put this under a new section in the article titled "Storm of Swords" so the topic inherently merits the inclusion of summaries from relevant chapters. To merit this topic on the article you should put the quote from the Washington Post in the WP Lead Paragraph.Scoobydunk (talk) 02:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC) copied from Scoobydunk's user page--Getoverpops (talk) 03:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
There is definitely claims that there has been, had been, a "Southern strategy". Sure there are reliable sources saying that. However, as we cannot prove/verify a negative ... can we verify that there were documents from state parties or from the RNC that there were documents of a "southern strategy"? It's like asking someone can you promise to stop beating their wife, when the person had never beat their wife in the first place.
So yes, the subject is notable, it has been written about, it has been alleged. But can documents verify that it actually happened within the RNC?
If it is questioned, it should be included in some form. I am not saying it should be given undue weight, but it should be covered in some form.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
The response you quoted to Darkfrog is applicable when the quoted source is your strongest source. That is not the case here and webpage summaries of articles are not as strong or as reliable as peer reviewed work themselves, which is what the bar has been raised to. You can not use a blurb from a webpage to refute or contend with information from a peer reviewed source, which is what I have been saying and the part you've quoted doesn't contradict that.Scoobydunk (talk) 22:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
That is a claim you are making. It seem like a self serving justification for your flip flopping on the issue but it is a claim you are making.--Getoverpops (talk) 00:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
It was a claim I made based on policy so Darkfrog could avoid violating WP:OR, and it's true. However, that becomes irrelevant when stronger sources are available. So my claims are both consistent with WP policy and there is no flip flopping.Scoobydunk (talk) 03:37, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
You are claiming that.Getoverpops (talk) 03:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
A claim substantiated by fact, yes.Scoobydunk (talk) 23:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Neurobics

The article on Neurobics was completely rewritten by an IP (with no previous activity), removing all criticism and adding only favourable references. I have reverted those changes, but other IPs (again, with no previous activity) keep restoring the non-neutral version. I am sorry if this is not the place to report this, but I don't know what else to do.--Gorpik (talk) 09:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I have requested semi-protection. If the disputes persist, read the dispute resolution policy and follow one of the procedures listed there. Discussion here would be a reasonable procedure after there has been discussion on talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
OK, I'll follow that page. Thanks a lot.--Gorpik (talk) 07:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Attention requested on Mark Ghuneim

Hi, I hope this is the right way to go about this:

I came across Mark Ghuneim a while ago. To me, it read like a puff PR piece with gratuitous name-dropping of famous artists signed to Sony and other off-topic material about the companies he's worked for that seemed seriously adverty. Since these companies each have their own articles, it seems that such material should be covered there rather than seemingly conflating the article about an executive or founder. I've tried to clean it up but my attempts have been reverted more than once.

The main author of this article has denied any COI, but has already been caught lying about ownership of a photo of the subject. Between the lying, the tenacious ownership of this article and a pattern of editing primarily celebrity tech execs, I'm finding a lack of connection highly unlikely. It certainly gives the appearance of a COI for this editor.

At this point, it seems the main author seems to object to any changes including the addition of maintenance templates like {{advert}} and {{coi}}.[16] The editor believes that I have some sort of personal vendetta and has gone as far as telling me not to edit the article [17]. At this point, I'd prefer NOT to edit the article, but I think it still needs to be cleaned up.

I've opened a discussion on the talk page but since nobody else is participating, it's not going anywhere. I'd appreciate additional folks commenting on the talk page and/or active editing.

Thanks. The Dissident Aggressor 23:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Having taken a picture of someone doesn't indicate a COI. File:Kiki Sanford at SkeptiCal.jpg was taken by Susan Gerbic, but Susan doesn't have any COI with editing her article. @Wintertanager: made a bad judgement in uploading the picture, that's it.
The two diffs you pointed out were of the editor reverting your tagging (and in the second, removal of section headings) of the article. They had already basically accused you of harassment on the talk page. A month before. You never replied. They pointed you to the talk page after the first tagging, where they were attempting to discuss the matter. You didn't discuss it.
Your claim that you are trying to improve the encyclopedic value of the article seem weak to me, though it could just be that the only edits I'm aware of are you tagging, which is just tagging.
I'll take a look at the article, but right now you don't have a halo exactly. Jerodlycett (talk) 04:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Correct, but claiming ownership of a studio photograph does present de-facto evidence that you have a connection to the person. How would one own such a studio photo without a connection?
As far as any harassment, I'm retaliating for agreeing with Wintertanager on an AFD? As far as not having addressing it, you mean like I didn't address it here? The Dissident Aggressor 16:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Does weight mean that incidents should come before a description of an organisation's aims?

At Heartland Institute and editor has moved a number of incidents to the start of the article before the section describing the position of the organisation and the various views on that. The reasoning is that there are more citations about the incidents than there are about the general organisation and its position. On the talk page objections were aired by myself and another editor at Talk:The_Heartland_Institute#Layout_of_the_page, however they just ignored continued complaints after giving their initial reason and then reverted a change back.

Does weight mean that the sections of an article should be arranged according to coverage irrespective of logical development? Dmcq (talk) 21:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

diff shows page with the incidents in a lower section and current shows it with the sections 1.1 February 2012 document misappropriation, 1.2 Call for US House ethics investigation, and 1.3 May 2012 billboard campaign before the position section. Dmcq (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Oppose section fork The subject is a think tank. This discussion involves section ordering and section forking. Policy positions are adequately summarized in the lede and included in the table of contents, as per WP:MOS. The policy positions are not buried; there is no "fold" in wikitext to bury topics below. The logical organization of the body is, let's says something about what this organization is before we dive into its policy positions. WP:RF But even if you thought policy before history, surely we can all agree that WP:NPOV requires that we do not break out certain events from the history of the subject, which might be perceived as negative or unflattering or controversial, and move them to the end in a section called "Incidents." WP:CRITS Hugh (talk) 21:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Putting various incidents before describing their aims is not 'let's says something about what this organization is before we dive into its policy positions'. That's like putting in a biography that they had an affair before saying what they are known for. The lead is not the body - the lead is supposed to summarize the body and is not a substitute. The history bit is a section titled 'History, leadership and impact' and is 5 short paragraphs long which outline over 30 years and who leads it and what its general impact has been like. It is just coatracking to stick in much larger sections about specific incidents. it is like leading the Bill Clinton article with the Lewinsky scandal because there were more newspaper articles on that than on the other things he did. Dmcq (talk) 23:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Please see WP:WikiProject_Conservatism/Style_guide#Article_structure:
Organizations
  • Lead
  • History
  • Objectives
  • Leadership or Organizational structure
  • Membership
  • Policies and positions or Ideology
  • Programs
  • Accomplishments
  • Sources of funding -- can also be placed under Organizational structure
  • See also
  • References
  • External links

Thank you. Hugh (talk) 23:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I ask my fellow editors to please assist us in clarify two simple ideas: history first or history early is a best practice in section ordering; and we don't fork historical events into two sections, the good stuff and the not so much; we integrate. Hugh (talk) 23:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
If you look at for instance Intelligent Design which is a featured article of the conservative project you'll see that the Kitzmiller trial is near the end after a section about criticisms. The history section at the beginning does not give a blow by blow step through the history - it is a backgrounder. Or look at Conservapedia which is a good article, things like the Lensky dialogue are at the bottom dealing with their views and their reception. Or in the Independent Women's Forum you'll see 2006 Duke University lacrosse case handled under policy and programs rather than under history. These were just the first 3 articles which weren't just plain history or biography or something like that I came across in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Conservatism/Recognized_content. That style guide was just written by one person and doesn't seem to reflect what is done in that project. Dmcq (talk) 00:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Intelligent Design is not an organization. It makes perfect sense a theory might have a "Criticisms" section. A "Criticisms" section, or an "Incidents" section, independent of the "History" section in an organization's article is an editorial problem: a point of view section fork. Hugh (talk) 01:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
And your reason for dismissing the other two? Or lets see an article on some organization that is involved in lots of incidents that is arranged they way you want it and not by you? Dmcq (talk) 10:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
"incidents" Please clearly state the principle you use to distinguish "Incidents" from other events in the history of the subject of the article. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 22:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
The first definition I get with Google is 'an instance of something happening; an event or occurrence', and I think that is a good one. I'm being a little more restrictive, by an incident I mean something isolated that has little connection to anything else, it does not lead anywhere and is limited in time and effect. People might jump up and down at the time but nothing much happens overall. For a blow by blow history as in a biography the incidents are included as most things are put in chronological order since a single person tends to follow a single timeline with some logic, but for an organisation that is a bad way of doing things as it mixes up things which are not very related and spreads out and obscures things that should go together. Some incidents certainly do have a long term effect on an organisation but I would count them as part of a change in a hstory rather than an isolated instance, event or occurrence. Dmcq (talk) 20:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Surely there are some people look at this noticeboard that can give an opinion on how much NPOV and WEIGHT should dictate the ordering of sections in an article? That was the grounds for the reordering of the article before this talk about a style guide above. Or are the grounds now really based on a style guide and I should have raised an RfC? I asked Hugh which they would prefer but they wouldn't answer and now it's raised here they've changed their grounds. Dmcq (talk) 11:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Given how little attention this is getting here, I'd suggest an RfC at the article talk page. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I can't see why that would be more successful, this is a major noticeboard of Wikipedia policy. I have raised my objection, I don't have support, I might as well let someone who is willing to spend their time on it get on with it. I would have much preferred to have a live decision process. Dmcq (talk) 21:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - IMO the points regarding the organization's history are spot on. Beyond that my methodology has been to start with "Macro" topics and then words towards (down) to the "Micro" ones. Macro topics are those that apply (in this case) organization wide: management/leadership/structure, policies, procedures, financial information and such, working towards more finite issues such as (again in this case) membership, positions, accomplishments, along with others such as media attention, litigation/lawsuits, or anything that would be considered a "controversy" unless the groups Notability is based on it which should be stated in the Lead. A quick perusal of the article shows that there are some sections that come across as WP:UNDUE in their placement and wording. At the very least, the Lead needs a rewrite to better reflect the entire article. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

There's no global guideline on article structure, but I think the guiding principle should be comprehensibility. As such, general information should precede specifics, and facts should precede analysis. The most noteworthy aspects of a topic should be in the lede, but beyond that don't need to quash other encyclopedic information in the article. Rhoark (talk) 02:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for those responses and analysis, I was getting a bit worried about what was happening with no response. Dmcq (talk) 11:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The inclusion of group Momoiro Clover Z in the Music of Japan and J-pop article

I want to solicit my view whether the (1) mention, and (2) way of mention, of the group Momoiro Clover Z in articles Music of Japan and J-pop, as well of the artist Kyary Pamyu Pamyu in the J-pop article, is not appropriate under WP:STRUCTURE, WP:WEIGHT, WP:BALANCE, WP:GEVAL.

I already held the user's talk page discussion in February (1), February-April (2) and April (3 and 4). The users Anosola (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and Moscow Connection (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) do not understand, do not accept or intentionally ignore my warnings about the violation of the NPOV principles. If perhaps my understanding is wrong, then fully accept it and apologize for interference. The exceptional information and image of Momoiro Clover Z was first included by Anosola on 28 July 2013 ([18]) at J-pop article, and 29 July 2013 ([19]) at Music of Japan article. The mention and inclusion of Momoiro Clover Z at Music of Japan with reason was dismissed on 14 August 2013 ([20]). However, on 5 September 2013 ([21]) user Anosola reverted the information (see with "Next edit →" two following edits), and by "Add the explanation", to substantiate evidence for support of group inclusion, just further described groups characteristics and cited one survey according which Momoiro Clover Z "attracts the highest interest level of all the female idol groups in Japan". The same J-pop edit already featured the survey, and with it was claimed how "is one of the most successful" ([22]), and removed the generally accepted claim "Starting from 2010, idol groups such as AKB48 and Arashi have gained a huge popularity across the country, and both groups dominated the Oricon charts in 2011 and 2012" ([23]). On 5 May 2014 user Anosola added the second survey to substantiate the inclusion ([24]).

The idol group Momoiro Clover Z is (just) one of many female idol groups in Japan, which by characteristics is not special or more noteworthy than the others. It is a music act which according Discography, and the TOP 50 records (albums/singles) yearly sales lists from 2010 until 2014 had only one (!) record (2013, #22 album) in the TOP 50 album and single (2010), album and single (2011), album and single (2012), album and single (2013), album and single (2014), and by sales compared to countless others music acts is unworthy of exceptional mention or it's image, besides the listing among popular female idol groups in the 2010s. The other music act, Kyary Pamyu Pamyu, is also exceptional mention, it did not gain international popularity worthy of mention, and the claim is substantiated with Katy Perry and Ariana Grande tweets, according which it is noteworthy and became "internationally popular" single because Katy Perry and Ariana Grande tweeted about it?!

Both articles, Music of Japan and J-pop, follow the "sales" as pattern (WP:STRUCTURE) by which each music act is noteworthy (WP:WEIGHT), and according their prominence is also included an image (WP:BALANCE). Isn't using characteristics unworthy of mention and two surveys or tweets making false balance (WP:GEVAL), compared to sales breaking "Balancing aspects" according which "should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect" (WP:BALASPS), the tweets and only two surveys quite biased sources, and breaking (especially as is not a music act generally worthy of mention in the Music of Japan article) already mentioned NPOV principles?

Problem with the articles is that they are not in a good condition and over time not many users majorly edited them. I even done a edit ([25]) where the exceptional mention of Momoiro Clover Z in the two surveys stayed, but it was reverted by Anosola because of personal reasons (I suspect is fan of the group), and wants the image of Momoiro Clover Z in the article. He considers that a group is the most popular because two certain surveys says so, and vague term 「特典商法」 which is totally irrelevant for the article. The user Moscow Connection tried to make a false balance listing music reviews, or YouTube views, while in the same statement contradicted self, not only by views, but as the most Japanese music acts have very strict policy about the copyright, especially the contract with YouTube.

Wikipedia is a site intended to host encyclopedic material, and since is not a website for promotion or propagation, I removed or edited their mention several times, and in the exact several times the mention was reverted and received the threat of edit-warring over unnotable music act, unnotable in extent of mention or for the specific article.--Crovata (talk) 23:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Part 1.
We have made several attempts to discuss this with the user.
1. First, the matter was discussed here: [26]. But the user deleted the section from his talk page [27].
2. Then, the matter was discussed here: User talk:Anosola#Do not edit my talk page and about your fan edits.
I was as polite as possible but when I saw that the user didn't listen, didn't care about other peoples's opinions, I just reverted the article back to the "pre-war state".
Also, the user said himself that he couldn't read Japanese [28] (at the very bottom) and that he could't understand the sources [29] ("And do you know what 「特典商法」 is? Nothing, it is nothing. It is a non existing proof from foreign Japanese language which other editors do not understand").
Part 2.
The user didn't contribute anything to the article. He just wants to delete parts about two artists that he doesn't seem to like and he wants to replace a photo of Momoiro Clover Z with a photo of AKB48.
1. First, the user himself said that he didn't care about the actual article: [30] ("I'm not very interested in the J-pop article itself [...]").
2. Then, the user said that he will actually do some work on it: [31] ("if your really want, then ok, I will waste my time on the 2010s section while have to work on other articles unrelated to Japan, and will add all other Top 50 more notable music acts than Momoiro Clover Z"). But he didn't do anything.
So basicaly, his behavior is just disruptive and rude.
By the way, I have told him about the BRD cycle, the article's talk page, etc., but he doesn't seem to understand.
And read this:
1. My last message to him: [32] ("You I thought you said that you would write something, expand the J-pop article or this article somehow. Do it, start some discussion on the article's talk page, but don't just delete the parts you don't like.")
2. His reply: [33] ("You are misusing the warning for following the NPOV principles. Already explained why the edit is late, but you're forcing me to finish it right away, alright then. No, that part has no reason and supporting argument to be there and as such by NPOV it is constructive to remove it.")
And now, again, he starts a discussion here instead of contributing anything to the article.
Part 3.
1. Momoiro Clover Z is indeed one of the most popular bands in Japan. It has indeed placed above AKB48 in the so called "Power Rating" published by Nikkei, which is "one of the largest media corporations in Japan". Kyary Pamyu Pamyu is also extremely popular. The artists deserve to be mentioned in any articles related to Japanese music. Cause they are really one of those acts that stand out. By the way, in my honest opinion, the photo of Momoiro Clover Z that the user deletes from the article is one of the best photos of Japanese bands and Japanese music related things on Wikipedia Commons. It makes the article look much better.
2. I personally think that this particular photo of AKB48 would look nice in the J-pop article as well. I added it [34]. But when Crovata started to attack me and Anosola and another editor on our talk pages and didn't want to compromise and didn't want to listen and continued trying to delete the photo of Momoiro Clover Z, I reverted the article to the mid-January "pre-war" state.
That's all. I have wasted a lot of time on this already. --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
...and that is, in short, almost everything I am facing all this time, but in the end someone has to do it, sooner the better. Again avoiding to discuss the NPOV principles, again accusing the editor for editing because of "personal reasons", again bringing up something it has nothing do with the topic or editor (like sex gender, user name meaning, accusing of being a fan, "attacks" etc.). Now even that I do not understand the sources, well at least cite the whole statement "and as such you are intentionally using against Wikipedia principles.", when there is nothing to understand since the meaning of the term is irrelevant for Wikipedia. And, again making unsourced and exceptional claims how they are "one of the most popular bands" or "extremely popular", when by sales are neither in the TOP 100 or TOP 50 music acts of Japan in the last five years. They want to compromise with the reality and NPOV principles.--Crovata (talk) 02:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
The J-pop#2010s statement "Some of the most successful groups during the 2010s include AKB48, Arashi, Kanjani Eight, Morning Musume, Momoiro Clover Z." cites an unrelated source ([35]) entirely dedicated to the Momoiro Clover Z's 2012 concert, while in the second source ([36]) Momoiro Clover Z and Morning Musume are not even mentioned in the whole TOP 25 list of the source.--Crovata (talk) 02:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
What are you talking about? I referred to you as "she" [37], you said something about me "intentionally accusing the editor of [...] being a she" [38], I explained why I thought you were female [39], you replied [40].
I have no idea about the sentence, I'm not the one who wrote it. And that's the first time I hear from you about this problem. You just wanted to delete the picture and a completely different paragraph, the one about Kyary Pamyu Pamyu. --Moscow Connection (talk) 03:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Here: [41]. The sentence was changed in January 2014 by an unrelated user. And the user is the one who added the reference you called "the second source". By the way, the source is outdated. It talks about the year 2011 when Momoiro Clover wasn't that popular yet. (By the way, the source is unreliable. It doesn't really matter here in this discussion, but it is.)
I don't really understand why you are trying to accuse me of something while it's you who made some unconstructive edits ([42], [43]) and who wanted to push your edits through by force (1, 2, 3 — You are again trying to replace the photo of Momoiro Clover with the one of AKB48 and to delete the sentence about Kyary Pamyu Pamyu and you are also copy-pasting a part from another article.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Do you even read what I am writing about? This discussion is not about You, or Me, and no one is accusing you besides warning you for your POV. There's no point to reply to unrelated stuff. That is the problem, you do not understand that I am not pushing the image or paragrapf deletion, yet that's just how the articles are written according the NPOV principles, and that you do not recognize violation of NPOV, or wrong claims and sources, and as such the difference between constructive and unconstructive edits. Actually, because it only started the 2015 the whole J-pop's "2010s" section is for now unnecessary. What had to be a normal and constructive edit became an unnecessary and ridiculous discussion, edit-war and waste of my time.--Crovata (talk) 05:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Since 2013 was not given one solid and valid argument or evidence because of which Momoiro Clover Z or Kyary Pamyu Pamyu should have such an exceptional treatment versus other more important and successful music acts of Japan.--Crovata (talk) 08:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
1. The discussion is about a picture. You just want to remove a photo of Momoiro Clover. You are wasting my time because you don't like Momoiro Clover Z and Kyary Pamyu Pamyu.
2. You have been given some solid arguments: [44], [45]. (Momoiro Clover Z beats AKB48 in both ratings.) You have been told that there's a lot more to popularity than sales charts.
4. Now, concerning Kyary Pamyu Pamyu. A random article in The Japan Times from Google Search results: [46] ("the current face of kawaii, musician Kyary Pamyu Pamyu", "Kyary has moved on to be the face and voice of the kawaii generation", "Kyary has been the catalyst for a renewed interest in Japanese pop culture abroad since her first single “Ponponpon” and its video became a viral hit internationally in 2011.".) She is definitely one of the very few Japanese artists who are widely known in the English-speaking countries. It wouldn't be right not to mention her.
5. I added a photo of AKB48 to the J-pop article, but you didn't want a compromise at all. You continued trying to remove the photo of Momoiro Clover Z. That's why I reverted everything to the "pre-war" state.
5. You are welcome to make some constructive changes to the articles in question. But don't remove the photo and the paragraph about Kyary Pamyu Pamyu. --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
This crossed every measure. The discussion is over, for the countless time the editor intentionally avoids to discuss and ignores my warning about the violation of NPOV principels, shows the lack of knowledge about NPOV principels and how Wikipedia works (and how those two articles are written), still do not understand why the image of Momorio Clover Z and that paragraph about Kyary Pamyu Pamyu cannot stay, and because of personal POV do not understand there cannot be any compromise. Wikipedia is not a fanpage, but congratulations, with your logic you managed to make feel like hitting my head on the wall. You are just wasting everyone's time. If you revert my edits this goes to the administrators.--Crovata (talk) 18:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • User:Crovata decided to continue the edit war he started in January. Two reverts again: [47], [48]. He also practically vandalized my talk page with a strange warning.
    What should I do? Could someone please tell him that it's not nice to act like this or just block him or something? --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[49]
  • And actually, now he started vandalizing.
    Look, he didnt just delete the picture and the paragraph about Kyary Pamyu Pamyu. He deleted the whole 2010s section. [50]
    By the way, in this edit he doesn't just delete all mentions of Momoiro Clover. [51] He makes an incorrect change to another paragraph. It is not true that "AKB48 [..] have had the best-selling singles and albums each year since 2010." --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Your ignorance of NPOV principels and what I am writing all time, as well lack of knowledge how Wikipedia works, also the intentional lack of desire to learn about NPOV principels is beyond any measure it became ridiculous.--Crovata (talk) 20:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Do you know what is even worse? That when someone gives you links where is clearly seen how AKB48 had the best-selling singles and albums in the last five years you ignore it. All this time defend and support the violation of NPOV principels, ignore the main issue, and did not give one single valid argument or source, it is incredible to see such a level of ignorance.--Crovata (talk) 20:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

For future reference: [52]. (Just in case it starts all over again.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Ukraine conflict

Almost every time I have attempted to edit articles related to the conflict in Ukraine, my additions have been removed. Certain users are constantly involved in edit warring over this issue. User:Volunteer Marek seems to be the most aggressive.

The main issue is the removal of well sourced material.

My recent edits (April 2015): diff, diff, diff diff

Removed (April 2015): diff, diff, diff, diff

This disruptive behaviour has been going on, and on, and on, and on... diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff diff. Diff speaks for itself (other editors, User:MyMoloboaccount, User:Leftcry, User:Herzen, User:Haberstr, and User:HCPUNXKID seem to agree with me)

And, of course, there is a blatant double standard: diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff

For example, I've tried to add the latest Crimean public opinion poll, but was reverted by User:Volunteer Marek and User: RGloucester (see diff, and diff) − "not adhering to NPOV". And User:Tlsandy joined here − "Poll in wrong article because article about annexation exists".

Bloomberg article says:

"Ukrainian political scientist Taras Berezovets, a Crimea native, recently started an initiative he called Free Crimea, aided by the Canada Fund for Local Initiatives and aimed at building Ukrainian soft power on the peninsula. He started by commissioning a poll of Crimean residents from the Ukrainian branch of Germany's biggest market research organization, GfK. The poll results were something of a cold shower to Berezovets."
"The calls were made on Jan. 16-22 to people living in towns with a population of 20,000 or more, which probably led to the peninsula's native population, the Tatars, being underrepresented because many of them live in small villages. On the other hand, no calls were placed in Sevastopol, the most pro-Russian city in Crimea. Even with these limitations, it was the most representative independent poll taken on the peninsula since its annexation." —Bershidsky, Leonid (February 6, 2015). "One Year Later, Crimeans Prefer Russia". Bloomberg News. 

Everything has been discussed here, and clearly no consensus was reached.

I am not a big fan of Putin / his authoritarian rule or Soviet / Russian imperialism (see some of my past edits: [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68]), but neither am I suffering from Russophobia.

Everything is not always black and white, and WP:NPOV says clearly include fairly all significant views published by reliable sources. This means the article should not be trying to argue for one view or another, but simply representing them proportionately.

I completely agree with User:Herzen: "It is impossible to avoid the impression that some editors of Ukraine related articles are not here to build an encyclopedia, but to avoid any mention in articles of anything that puts Ukraine in a bad light, and to insert anything into them that puts the rebels or Russia in a bad light. Editors are not even trying to maintain any appearance of being interested in trying to maintain NPOV." [69]

Thank you for any help you are able to provide. — Tobby72 (talk) 10:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your great efforts in gathering up this huge mass of evidence. I agree on Volunteer Marek, obviously, though unfortunately there are about three other editors at the Ukraine-related articles that have a very similar perspective and are equally resistant to compromise, discussion and NPOV. He/she is the most ill-mannered, though. Hopefully we can eventually create balanced Ukraine-related articles that reflect all RS-based perspectives on the conflict/crisis. It's embarrassing to leave out key facts like the Crimean opinion polls and the alleged role of the US and Victoria Nuland in what transpired, just because that does not fit a preferred POV narrative.Haberstr (talk) 12:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
This is more forum-shopping by tendentious editors. Ignore it. RGloucester 13:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
What RGloucester said. There was an extensive discussion about the proposed changes here [70]. These were overwhelmingly rejected by consensus. Tobby72 and Haberstr then moved onto another, but related article, and tried to cram these same (or very similar) changes, which had already been rejected into that one (2014 Ukrainian Revolution). When they were reverted there as well they started running around forum shopping.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
What RGloucester and Volunteer Marek said +1. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

At this point, there is ample evidence that Russia is both providing material support to the rebels as well as engaging its own regular troops. [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76]. Reliable sources report on Russian objections, but take the assumption that the overall conflict is driven by Russia as the ground truth. [77] [78] [79] [80]. Given Russian admissions of false denials and false flag operations [81], along with the well-known unreliability of Russian-controlled media [82], there is at this point no justification for any ongoing complicity of Wikipedia with Russia's maskirovka campagin. Any passage not specifically pertaining to conflicts between points of view should dispense with any qualifiers like "disputed" or "according to some". That Russia is involved with, controlling, and responsible for the conflict in Ukraine should be assumed and asserted.

That said, Russian denials are a significant point of view that we have a responsibility to report proportionately. Any editors that have an issue with the way in which that PoV is included, such as its wording or whether it belongs in a different section or different article, they should endeavor to WP:PRESERVE reliably sourced content and WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. If they feel unable to do this, they should present the problem and recommendations on the talk page rather than removing the material. Rhoark (talk) 16:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with this and the fact that Russia denies involvement is mentioned and discussed in these articles (the question as to whether this also needs to be in the infobox is a bit more tricky). But this is not enough for the editors above, who want to present "all sides" (sic). I.e. they want the articles to use Wikipedia voice to reflect the Kremlin point of view.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
So long as the "Kremlin point of view" refers to public pronouncements by officials and not outlandish fringe theories, the articles should reflect those views, along with the changes over time, rebuttals, etc., in context.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 17:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that's already in. Although putting in "rebuttals, etc." would violate WP:UNDUE. There's only so much space and time we want to attribute to these views, which is in proportion to the space and time they receive in reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Exceedingly well-put. I would have a problem with Russia's official pronouncements being deliberately excluded from these or any other articles where they are relevant, but that doesn't mean we need to treat Russian state media as a reliable "counterweight" to media outlets in the rest of the world; in fact, based on their verifiable unreliability and lack of editorial distance from the Kremlin, we shouldn't. And Russian denials of involvement should not be treated with credulous and undue weight, considering that the preponderance of reliable sources weighs against them. I find WP:GEVAL to be a very good guideline in situations like this. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Tobby72 tells that some materials were not included. What materials, exactly? For example, the Crimean opinion polls are currently included in a number of pages. I agree with Rhoark that annoying repeats "denied by Russia" should be removed from boxes on many pages. It is enough that denials are currently described in the body of these pages. My very best wishes (talk) 18:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

What materials, exactly? For example:

For his role of a "super hawk" regarding the Russian military intervention in Ukraine NATO's top commander in Europe General Philip M. Breedlove has been criticized by European politicians and diplomats as spreading "dangerous propaganda" by constantly inflating the figures of Russian military involvement in an attempt to subvert the diplomatic solution of the War in Donbass spearheaded by Europeans."Breedlove's Bellicosity: Berlin Alarmed by Aggressive NATO Stance on Ukraine". Der Spiegel. March 6, 2015. 

Removed, Restored, Removed – "Kremlin point of view"?

On 24 July, Human Rights Watch accused Ukrainian government forces and pro-government volunteer battalions of indiscriminate attacks on civilian areas, stating that "The use of indiscriminate rockets in populated areas violates international humanitarian law, or the laws of war, and may amount to war crimes." Human Rights Watch also accused the pro-Russian fighters of not taking measures to avoid encamping in densely populated civilian areas."Human Rights Watch: Ukrainian forces are rocketing civilians". The Washington Post. 25 July 2014."Ukraine: Unguided Rockets Killing Civilians Stop Use of Grads in Populated Areas". Human Rights Watch. 24 July 2014.

Removed, Restored, Removed – Kremlin propaganda?

Crimea is populated by an ethnic Russian majority and a minority of both ethnic Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars, and thus demographically possessed one of the Ukraine's largest Russian populations.

A poll of the Crimean public was taken by the Ukrainian branch of Germany's biggest market research organization, GfK, on 16–22 January 2015. According to its results: "Eighty-two percent of those polled said they fully supported Crimea's inclusion in Russia, and another 11 percent expressed partial support. Only 4 percent spoke out against it."Bershidsky, Leonid (February 6, 2015). "One Year Later, Crimeans Prefer Russia". Bloomberg News. Eighty-two percent of those polled said they fully supported Crimea's inclusion in Russia, and another 11 percent expressed partial support. Only 4 percent spoke out against it. "Социально-политические настроения жителей Крыма". GfK Ukraine (in Russian). Retrieved 12 March 2015. 82% крымчан полностью поддерживают присоединение Крыма к России, 11% - скорее поддерживают, и 4% высказались против этого. Среди тех, кто не поддерживает присоединение Крыма к России, больше половины считают, что присоединение было не полностью законным и его нужно провести в соответствии с международным правом "Poll: 82% of Crimeans support annexation". UNIAN. 4 February 2015. Retrieved 12 March 2015. A total of 82% of the population of the Crimea fully support Russia's annexation of the peninsula, according to a poll carried out by the GfK Group research institute in Ukraine, Ukrainian online newspaper Ukrainska Pravda reported on Wednesday. Another 11% of respondents said that they rather support the annexation of Crimea, while 4% were against it.  Bloomberg's Leonid Bershidsky noted that "The calls were made on Jan. 16-22 to people living in towns with a population of 20,000 or more, which probably led to the peninsula's native population, the Tatars, being underrepresented because many of them live in small villages."

Restored, Added, Removed, Removed – Kremlin propaganda?

The poll determined that 33.3% of those polled in southern and eastern Ukraine had considered Ukraine's interim government of Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk to be legitimate:Babiak, Mat (19 April 2014). "Southeast Statistics". Kyiv International Institute of Sociology; Ukrainian Policy (Kiev). Retrieved 20 April 2014. 

Removed, Removed – Kremlin propaganda?

Mykhailo Chechetov, former deputy head of the Party of Regions, committed suicide by jumping from the window of his apartment in Kiev."Ukraine's former ruling party hit by spate of apparent suicides". The Guardian. 23 March 2015.

Added, Removed, Removed – Kremlin propaganda?

On 10th February 2015, Amnesty International reported that an Ukrainian journalists called Ruslan Kotsaba was jailed by Ukrainian authorities for 15 years for "treason and obstructing the military" in reaction to his statement that he would rather go to prison than be drafted by Ukrianian Army. Amnesty International has appealed to Ukrainian authorities to free him immediately and declared Kotsaba a prisoner of conscience. Tetiana Mazur, director of Amnesty International in Ukraine stated that "the Ukrainian authorities are violating the key human right of freedom of thought, which Ukrainians stood up for on the Maidan” .In response Ukrainian SBU declared that they have found “evidence of serious crimes” but declined to elaborate."Ukraine: draft dodgers face jail as Kiev struggles to find new fighters ". The Guardian. 10 February 2015.

Removed, Removed – Kremlin propaganda?

Relevant images - Removed – Kremlin propaganda?

-- Tobby72 (talk) 13:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

As you well know, because this has been explained to you before, you have a habit of mixing in very controversial changes with fairly innocuous ones, such as adding in images. Someone who's stock of good faith has been exhausted might suspect that you're trying to sneak in POV edits under the radar. Most of the images are fine and if you were just adding them in, that'd be one thing. But you try to use them as a cover for slipping in POV stuff, such as this "Kosovo precedent" or other unsourced, non-reliably sourced or UNDUE material. For example, the stuff about Ruslan Kotsaba was just inappropriate in the article it was being added to. There might be another article where it's relevant, but there's no reason to spam it into every single Ukraine related article. Etc. These changes have already been mostly discussed on talk and rejected, likewise for other venues. As stated above, here, you are just forum shopping.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
But you try to use them as a cover for slipping in POV stuff, such as this "Kosovo precedent" or other unsourced, non-reliably sourced or UNDUE material.
Where? Addition - 5 April (added link, source), Removal - 5 April. - Tobby72 (talk) 14:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I do not have time to examine all these diffs, but in general, the justification for such removals (your first diff) is very simple: these polls are not particularly relevant to the military intervention, which is the subject of the page. I agree that some results of the polls should be included in more relevant pages, and they are included. In fact, they are included in too many pages, for example, here, where I think they do not belong. And speaking about your last diff, I would not mind to include some of that after discussion, but there was no consensus. My very best wishes (talk) 18:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

DPR – POV tag re-removed

The "neutrality dispute" notice reads: "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." I placed the notice on the article Donetsk People's Republic on February 7, (diff) and provided an explanation on the talk page (diff, diff). The neutrality notice was reverted slightly over an hour later by User:Volunteer Marek (diff). It was restored, at which point an edit war began diff, diff, diff, diff.

It was also discussed here. User:Rhoark wrote: "The neutrality of the article is clearly disputed. An involved editor should not remove the tag without consensus." (see diff, diff)

This article (specifically "Human rights" section), which has obvious POV issues, has been jealously guarded to preserve it's content. The article itself is a WP:COATRACK. Any attempt to improve has been blocked by WP:ACTIVIST editors who have it as a WP:SOAPBOX (see diff, diff, diff)

The subject is already covered elsewhere and given more than the weight it deserves. We need editors to help repair this problem by moving and merging excessive content to the relevant articles.

Other users who disagreed with the current state of the article: (diff - 18 May 2014), (diff - 12 June 2014), (diff - 7 September 2014), (diff - 3 November 2015), (diff - 1 February 2015), (diff - 8 February 2015)

Please see the discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donetsk_People%27s_Republic#POV_tag_re-removed

Thanks for taking a look. -- Tobby72 (talk) 10:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

More forum shopping. This has been covered repeatedly and explained to Tobby72 multiple times. You don't get to put in a POV tag on an article just because you feel like it. You need to substantiate these tags. If you don't, then yes, the tag can be removed (despite what the template says - the template is NOT policy, WP:NPOV is policy and it's pretty clear about that). Basically Tobby72 doesn't like what reliable sources say. So he puts in a tag per WP:IDONTLIKEIT because he cannot remove well sourced material (or add crappy-sourced material). Other users object and ask him to substantiate the tag. He fails to do this. Tag gets removed. As it should.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
There can be reasonable disagreement about whether a two-week lull in a discussion spanning months indicates it has run its course. @Volunteer Marek:, you are heavily involved, so if you don't want to wait for an unambiguous consensus, you should go to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. It's still my impression that there is an unresolved NPOV dispute about the Human Rights section, but the lack of resolution has less to do with stonewalling than the lack of a specific thesis of what exactly is non-neutral and how it should change. I share the perception there's a problem there, but someone more involved needs to articulate it. Lack of resolution does not mean that the article can be indefinitely held hostage by an NPOV banner. I suggest to @Tobby72: to come back with a concise agenda of additions, deletions, or relocations and link to that with an NPOV banner scoped to the Human Rights section specifically. Rhoark (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
This is a reasonable suggestion and if Tobby articulates that's fine. However, one thing they should NOT try to do is to repeat the same demands that they have made previously which have already been rejected by consensus.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

It should also be noted that Tobby72 has been on this POV-tag pushing bender for awhile. They were even brought to AN/I for it [83] [84], but the request was closed as stale because Tobby72 stopped editing Wikipedia when the AN/I report was made. The closure of the AN/I request stated: "Tobby72 hasn't edited in 2 days, so this might be closed as stale. We'll just have to see if he resumes the pushing of that POV tag." and "It's been about 3 days, so closing as stale. If reported user returns, a new report filing is advised".

And guess what? As soon as the AN/I report was closed, Tobby72 returned and immediately started the same disruptive behavior again. The filing on this noticeboard is just another instance of it, where he's forum shopping since his proposals were repeatedly rejected.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Tobby72 returned and immediately started the same disruptive behavior again. Where??? Donetsk People's Republic: Revision history. No personal attacks and false accusations, please. Comment on content, not on the contributor. -- Tobby72 (talk) 14:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The above is neither false nor is it a personal attack. It's an accurate description of your actions. Which part is false? And please be aware that criticism of a person's action is not a personal attack. I've provided the diffs, people can check for themselves.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Category:Opposition to same-sex marriage

Please join the discussion at Category talk:Opposition to same-sex marriage over a proposal to remove it from the supercategory Category:Discrimination against LGBT people. Arguments against include the statement that the category has a subcategory of LGBT opponents of same-sex marriage or that the word discrimination connotes an opinion, while arguments in favor include the statement that it is verifiable, neutral, and defining, or that the sexual orientation of the opponents would not change a discriminatory character of their views. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 21:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Anthony Watts (blogger)

HOUSEKEEPING NOTE - This is part of a debate at Talk:Anthony Watts (blogger) which spilled over to other threads including

We can use some more watchful eyes on Anthony Watts (blogger). The key issue in dispute is whether Watts should be described as a "skeptic" or a "denier". According to WP:WTW, the term "denier" should only be used if it's widely used by reliable sources. According to a random sampling of 10 reliable sources (including peer-reviewed journals), the vast majority used the term "skeptic":

These were the first 10 reliable sources randomly selected by Google. One could reasonably argue whether 10 sources is an adequate sample size (if so, just ask, and I can expand the sample size). But based on these results, sources refer to Watts or his blog as:

  1. Skeptic (or some variation thereof) - 9 sources
  2. Meteorologist - 1 Source
  3. Science - 1 Source
  4. Denier - 0 Sources

I also performed a random sampling (as selected by Google) of sources not behind a paywall in Google Scholar, and here are the results:

Google Scholar Totals:

  1. Skeptic - 3 times.
  2. Meteorologist - 2 times
  3. Conservative - 2 times
  4. Anti-climate science - 1 time
  5. Skeptic (in quotes) - 1 time
  6. Science - 1 time
  7. Science (in quotes) - 1 time
  8. Denier - 0 times

According to WP:WTW, the term "denier" should only be used if it's widely used by reliable sources. Based on two completely different random samplings of reliable sources, it seems pretty apparent that the overwhelming majority of sources don't use the term "denier". In fact, the total number is actually zero, let alone a wide majority. However, some editors editors are pointing to a single source,[85] by an otherwise prominent and respected climatologist who uses the term "denier" as evidence that this term is widely used by reliable sources. According to Wikipedia guidelines, the term "denier" should only be used if it's widely used by reliable sources. A single source, or small subset of sources is not a majority. I should also mention that the two subjects have criticized (Watts and Mann) each other so neither is an independent, source about the other. In any case, the key issue is this: What do the majority of reliable sources say about the matter? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

This seems like a pretty clear case. Don't include it. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Can we please get more uninvolved editors to add Anthony Watts (blogger) to their watchlist?

We still have editors edit-warring WP:BLP violations back in the article. A handful of volunteers is not enough. Can we please get more uninvolved editors to add Anthony Watts (blogger) to their watchlist? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I've removed both WP:BLP violations.[86] Can we please have more editors watch this article? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I've added it to my watchlist, but not sure that's a BLP violation. It's well sourced and attributed to the speakers. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
It's poorly sourced. The vast majority of reliable sources uses the term "skeptic". Only an extremely tiny number of sources use the term "denier". By cherry-picking an extremely small minority of sources and then portraying it as a mainstream viewpoint is a WP:BLP violation. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Depends on the sources, the use of the terms, the care when using the terms, the content of the sources, and the context. --Ronz (talk) 00:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Anyone opposed to some general article cleanup? Its poorly organized and some of the grammar is atrocious. I'd start by posting the {{GOCE}} tag and do some re-arranging to start. I have no stake in this as I didn't even know of this person until I saw this posting. I don't see a reason to remove anything, but it could be presented in a more eloquent manner. Regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 01:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
@Scalhotrod: Make it so! Essentially everyone who posted more than 2 comments in the WP:MULTI thread debate make regular appearances in the climate pages, me included. It would be awesome for non-climate eds to attempt article cleanup and organization. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
@NewsAndEventsGuy: et. al., OK, take a look. New sections, moved content around to what seemed like an appropriate place, and tried to clean up the grammar as best as I could, but some of the techie stuff makes it difficult. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

James Martin (priest)

Repeated unsourced POV-pushing since 20th March on a BLP article, labelling a priest as "Leftist" in the lead. See article history: [87]. Even if such simplifying labels would be encyclopedic, they would need reliable sourcing from an uninvolved, neutral source. Mr. Martin already asked for assistance about this issue on the help desk in the past, but the removed phrase was repeatedly re-inserted. Could another editor please look into the situation? I have notified the 2 involved accounts Bo Smithers (talk · contribs) and Big Bo Smithers (talk · contribs) about this thread. GermanJoe (talk) 16:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Desires of the article subject are largely irrelevant, but you're in the right that such a label would require a quality source (and consensus). Rhoark (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Changing the precedent on race specifications in shooting articles

Hello everyone,

I've noticed what appears to be a prevailing precedent in Wikipedia articles pertaining to shootings, wherein the respective races of the victim and the shooter are specified in the lead. This is especially true for cases of law enforcement shootings, most notably those of black individuals and white police officers. You can see for yourself.

The following are instances wherein the precedent is present:

  • In the Shooting of Trayvon Martin article, Martin is described as "a 17-year-old African American high school student" whereas Zimmerman is described as "a 28-year-old mixed-race Hispanic man" with a note detailing his ethnicity.
  • In the Shooting of Jordan Davis article, Davis is described as "a 17-year-old African American high school student" whereas Dunn (who is not an officer) is described as "a 45-year-old software developer" whose race is not specified anywhere in the article.
  • In the Shooting of Antonio Martin article, Martin is described as "an 18-year-old black male" whereas the officer (whose name was not specified) is described as "a white Berkeley police officer".
  • In the Shooting of Ezell Ford article, Ford is described as "a 25-year-old African-American man" whereas "Wampler is Asian American and Villegas is Latino".
  • In the Shooting of John Crawford III article, Crawford is described as "a 22-year-old African-American man", though the races of the officers are not specified anywhere in the article.
  • In the Shooting of Tamir Rice article, Rice is described as "a 12-year-old African American boy", though the races of the officers are not specified anywhere in the article.
  • In the Shooting of Akai Gurley article, Gurley is described as "a 28-year-old African-American man", though the race of the Liang was not explicitly specified anywhere in the article (though presumably Asian American).
  • In the Shooting of Michael Brown article, Brown is described as "an 18-year-old black man" whereas Wilson is described as "a white Ferguson police officer".
  • In the Shooting of Tony Robinson article, Robinson is described as "a 19-year-old biracial man" whereas Kenny is described as "a white Madison police officer".
  • In the Shooting of Renisha McBride article, McBride is described as "a 19-year-old African-American woman", though Wafer's race is not specified. Wafer is not a police officer. This is the only instance wherein the specification of the victim's race in the lead may be justified, but only due to the mention of racial profiling therein.
  • In the Shooting of Latasha Harlins article, Harlins is described as "a 15-year-old African-American girl" whereas Du (who is not a police officer) is described as "a 51-year-old Korean store owner".
  • In the Shooting of Michael Cho article, Cho is described as "a 25-year-old Korean-American artist", though the races of the officers are not specified anywhere in the article.
  • In the Shooting of Amadou Diallo article, Diallo is described as "a 22-year-old immigrant from Guinea", though the races of the officers are not specified anywhere in the article.
  • In the Shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes article specifies Charles de Menezes as "a Brazilian man", though the races of the officers are not specified anywhere in the article.
  • In the Shooting of Hosie Miller article (an old case from the 1960s), Miller is described as "a black farmer and Baptist deacon" whereas Hall (who is not an officer) is described as "a white neighbor".

The following are instances wherein this precedent is not present:

  • The Shooting of Andy Lopez article does not specify the race of Lopez until the biography section, though Gelhaus' race is not specified.
  • The Shooting of Cau Bich Tran article does not specify the race of Tran until the biography section, though it is implied in the lead. The races of the officers are not specified.
  • The Shooting of Kuanchung Kao articles does not specify the race of Kao until the background section, though Shields' race is not specified.
  • The Shooting of Antonio Zambrano-Montes article does not specify the race of Zambrano-Montes throughout the article, though he he indirectly identified as a Mexican American. The officers' races are specified in the following sentence in the Shooting section, not the Background section: "Flanagan and Wright are white, and Alaniz is Hispanic."
  • The Shooting of Douglas Zerby article does not specify the races of any of those involved. There is also no biography section.
  • The Shooting of Jerame Reid article does not specify the races of any of those involved. There is also no biography section.
  • The Shooting of Timothy Stansbury article does not specify the races of any of those involved. There is also no biography section.
  • The Shooting of Tyler Cassidy article does not specify the races of any of those involved. There is also no biography section.
  • The Shooting of Oscar Grant III article does not specify the races of any of those involved. Neither does the biography section.
  • The Shooting of Stephen Waldorf article (an old case from the 1980s) does not specify the races of any of those involved.

As you can see in most of the instances wherein this precedent is present, the respective races of those involved are specified in the lead, the case was that of a black man being shot by one or more officers, the vast majority of whom are white. I consider this a problem for a number of reasons, most notably being that it perpetuates an unnecessary racial divide by pointing out the event as white-on-black crime, despite how there is no justified reason to do so. It is true that white-cop-on-black-man crime is unfortunately disproportionately common (or, at least, more reported by the media), but there is no need for us to mimic the sensationalist reporting methods of our media sources. We are an encyclopedia, which strives to be objective and neutral; any implied racial undertones, real or perceived, undermine these core principles.

As you can see in the instances wherein this precedent is not present, the victims are not black nor African American, and the race of the officer (or officers) is not always white, if even specified. In my opinion, however, the respective races of those involved should not be specified in the lead unless crucial to the context, or unless it is not provided anywhere else in the article, since the information is inessential and may be misinterpreted as implying something greater by the reader.

In particular, the problem I've noticed is that:

the specification of the individuals' races outside of the biography section, without any justification for doing so, appears to me to be a violation of WP:NPOV because it connotes that race is meaningful in the context. In other words, the context in which the races of those involved are specified gives the impression that their races are important to note in that context. I understand that Wikipedia wishes to document all important or notable information, but if it is already documented in the biography section of those involved within the article, why is it necessary to specify it in the lead, or anywhere else where it is not crucial to the sentence or context? ... Basically, this information is inessential to the sentence and lead, available elsewhere in the article, and could be misconstrued as implying something greater, so it should be removed.

This is what I argued in the talk page of the Shooting of Walter Scott, and I believe this best summarizes my position. The reason why I argued this in the Shooting of Walter Scott article was because (and this can also be found in the talk page):

I believe specifying the races of those involved is just normal documentation; however, I'm concerned that the instances in which race is mentioned is problematic. In particular, I was concerned about racial specification in the lead, which I believe gives the impression that the races involved are meaningful, which in turn violates WP:NPOV because it superimposes racial undertones which may otherwise not be there. For example, it is still unclear, if not discredited altogether, that George Zimmerman racially profiled Trayvon Martin or that race was a factor at any point. It was widely discussed, but from my understanding there is no evidence that race was a factor in Zimmerman's decision. As for the case of Michael Brown, it is unclear whether Wilson was racially motivated, though there isn't really any evidence of it of which I am aware. Despite this, their races are specified in the lead in a way which, I believe, connotes that their races are meaningful in the context of the shooting and what occurred.

Feel free to peruse the talk page section pertaining to this issue for the rest of the discussion.

Having said that, I propose that we change this precedent by omitting the race specifications of those involved in the lead. I don't think it's important or essential to the leads of any of the articles I mentioned above, and a simple rewording could both improve flow and remove any potential for misinterpretation of the lead. Naturally, any race specifications located in the article which are crucial to the context in which they are specified should remain, just as should the race specifications in the biography (where applicable); however, outside of those two instances, I believe any and all race specifications should be removed per WP:NPOV, so long as the race(s) is specified elsewhere in the article. Even if the article does not actually imply any racial undertones, and even if the editors who originally put and kept this information in did not intend for any (I doubt they did), it's important to consider how the reader might interpret what is being stated. Since race specifications like those shown above are unnecessary and liable to be misconstrued, why not eliminate this possibility by omitting them?

Even simply omitting the races of the officer(s) and/or shooter(s) would improve the neutrality of the article and largely resolve this issue, since one could argue that the race specification of the victim is important to the flow. Omitting the race specification of the shooter, especially in cases wherein the shooter is an officer, would help to eliminate any perceived racial tensions implied between the victim and the shooter. The information in the biography (where applicable) should suffice for any interested reader; no need to state both races outright and risk misunderstanding.

Feel free to respond with your thoughts, whether they be criticisms, opposition, or support. I want what's best for Wikipedia, and I personally believe eliminating the race specifications in the lead and elsewhere in the article per criteria stated above would improve all affected articles. Sorry about the length, by the way, but I wanted to make my case as clear and cogent as possible, seeing as I'm suggesting a change, however minor, to a number of articles (and future articles).

As a courtesy, I'll alert Mandruss, NeilN, Lklundin, Mattscards, Cwobeel, Ian.thomson, all of whom were active participants in the previous discussion from which this sprang.

Oh, and should I notify the talk pages of each one of these articles? If so, then... Uh, how do I? Sorry, kind of new here. –Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 17:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Responses (race and shooting)

What is or isn't appropriate article content is determined by policy and guidelines, and not by precedent. As for the specific issue, whether such matters are discussed in the lede or not is a matter of WP:WEIGHT - if the sources we cite suggest that it is relevant, then so should we. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

That's the rub, at least in Walter Scott. Although most RS mentions the races of both parties, and they have talked about a racial profiling problem in North Charleston, they otherwise mostly discuss race only in the context of the larger ongoing debate, without anything specific regarding Slager vs Scott. I've witnessed first-hand how racist southern-U.S. cops speak to black men, and it wasn't at all like Slager spoke to Scott in the dashcam video of the traffic stop. The same situation was present, I think, in Michael Brown; any evidence that that shooting had a racial motivation was purely circumstantial based on Ferguson PD's shabby history in that area; there was no allegation that Wilson used any racial slurs when speaking to Brown and Johnson, for example. And the question as I understand it is, in such a case, is mention of race in the lead justified? ―Mandruss  18:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, is it justified and is it essential or important to mention in the lead, if we were to be specific. But yes, whether it's justified is pretty much what I mean. –Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 18:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
@AndyTheGrump: Of course policies and guidelines are what determines appropriate article content, but those policies and guidelines still need to be interpreted. Policies and guidelines are meant to be interpreted; that's what gives them meaning. I believe, based on my interpretation of the policies and guidelines, that such instances of race specification are not neutral, and could be misinterpreted as implying more than is probably there. By "precedent", I mean the sort of pattern we're setting and condoning through our collective editing. Anyway, just because the sources structure their leads a certain way (and usually in a sensationalist manner), that does not mean that we have to, or should, follow suit. Wikipedia interprets the sources and provides its own summary of the content therein; except where we are quoting from the sources themselves, we have no obligation to specify the races of those involved, or any extraneous or otherwise inessential information for that matter, in the sort of manner we have been in these articles or their leads. If you read the articles being cited, they are obviously POV and most are written in a manner as to draw attention to certain information, usually with an agenda of discussing the general picture—in this case, the racial tensions and various issues surrounding race in the United States and elsewhere. Why must we translate this POV, knowingly or not, onto our articles simply because that is how the sources structure their leads? We are meant to be encyclopedic, not journalistic. I don't think WP:WEIGHT applies in this circumstance because that largely deals with essential or otherwise important information. The race specifications in the lead are, I believe, neither essential nor important. –Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 18:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Approach it bottom-up. The lede should be a reflection of the body. It would not be OR to include race as a biographical detail in the body, as long as there's no unsupported claim about the importance of race. Consensus can decide whether or not it's due. If the body says using reliable sources that race was a factor leading up to the shooting or in the aftermath, it is likely to belong in the lede. If sources don't consider it important, it would be undue in the lede. NPOV doesn't demand uniformity of treatment across different articles. Rhoark (talk) 20:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
The entire question rests on the meaning of "consider it important", and we're seeking such an interpretation here. One school of thought says that RS considers race important because they almost invariably mention that Slager is white and Scott was black. As I said previously, they are saying more than that about race in coverage of this story. But they don't say this particular shooting had a racial component, because there is no factual basis for such a claim. Slager could be the only non-racist cop in NCPD, for all we know. This is the question we are trying to answer. ―Mandruss  20:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
If a source mentions the race, that is a viable basis for the article to also mention the race. Editors should not read into the mere mention of the race to put a claim in the article that race was important. That would be OR. If there's not a claim in the article that race was important, race is undue in the lede. If the source does claim race was important, either as a cause of the incident or in public perception, then that claim can and should go in the body and the lede. Rhoark (talk) 21:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, why should public perception be important here? How would that even be measured? By the RS? Most the RS I checked mentioned the races of those involved in passing, only to proceed to discuss what they believed to be the racial implications of the case. That is their POV, though, and one which we don't need to reiterate. The ones which discussed the matter in detail still mentioned the races in passing, but did not elaborate on it, which is to imply they didn't consider it meaningful to the case. I believe the reasonable conclusion here would be to omit the race specifications in the leads since the sources don't imply that race was meaningful in the event, only that some held the opinion that it reflected some greater problem—which could be mentioned in the lead or article, if appropriate, in place of specifying their races. Since we're not in the business of POV, there's no reason for race specifications in the lead (or anywhere else where it is extraneously mentioned in the article). –Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 22:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
In conjunction with Mandruss' remarks, I'd like to also point out that the sources don't actually state that race is meaningful to the case, only that it represents a greater problem occurring in the nation (in their opinion). Many, if not most, of the sources are using the race specifications as a vehicle to posit their opinions and interpretations of race relations and discrimination in general, not in facts or their interpretations of the aforementioned in those particular cases they mention. I haven't found a single reliable source which wasn't slandering one side or the other that actually claims that race was a motivating factor in most of the cases I listed above. Anyway, what I'm arguing is that the races should not be specified in the lead because it is not important in the context of the lead. The information is inessential to summarize the article, since in virtually all the cases no racial motivation or undertone is implied or stated; and the instances wherein it was, it was only to discuss how there were accusations of racial profiling, or how the case shed light on racial profiling within the police department (like in the case of Ferguson), but not with the case itself (i.e., no racial profiling occurred within the context of the actual event). In other words, specifying the respective races of those involved in the lead of the article is not necessary to adequately summarize the article's contents; the information is inessential and ultimately not important enough for the lead. Thus, I believe it should be excluded. –Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 20:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Slager could be non-racist but that's only part of the picture. The other part is how the event is perceived and how RS cover the reaction. For example, the BBC has this. Not mentioning race in the lead of articles like Shooting of Michael Brown seems like sticking your head in the sand at best and engaging in willful whitewashing at worst (not saying that's the intent of this proposal). --NeilN talk to me 21:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
In conjunction with what I stated in my response to Rhoark above, I'll ask you the same question: why should public perception be important here? (Read the above response for elaboration.) In my opinion, it would be better to omit the race specifications in the lead and, if the sources cited in the article frequently discuss race relations, then it should be mentioned somewhere in the article with perhaps a sentence or two about it in the lead. This would render it NPOV and encyclopedic, rather than specifying the races like the POV journalist articles do. I don't believe this is anything like whitewashing, though. Race may be meaningful from a public perspective, but that should be detailed in the article in a neutral and encyclopedic manner, such as in a section describing public opinion and the perceived implications of the case, and not implied in the race specifications we use in the lead in imitating of the sources. –Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 22:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
"POV journalist articles", "I consider this a problem for a number of reasons, most notably being that it perpetuates an unnecessary racial divide by pointing out the event as white-on-black crime..." It seems like you want Wikipedia articles to artificially minimize this issue by not following what worldwide, mainstream news reports present. By dismissing all these reports as "POV journalistic articles" you're advocating doing away with the fundamental underpinnings of NPOV, replacing it with the far more subjective personal opinions of Wikipedia editors on what should be highlighted. --NeilN talk to me 23:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't think this is artificially balancing anything. I did admit that I have some personal complaints with this precedent, but I only did so as to reveal any bias I may have in this case. I recognize that my views are probably biased in some respect, but I have done my best to remain objective and neutral throughout this discussion. I do support Wikipedia documenting what news sources are reporting, but I believe we should document it in a neutral and objective manner. What exactly is the point of retaining these race specifications in the lead (and elsewhere in the article)? Keep in mind that, like I've stated above, I don't support the wholesale exclusion of race specifications. I recognize them as important for usual documentation. My problem is with certain instances wherein race is specified, which I believe skews the article from being encyclopedic to being an imitation of our journalist sources. But no, I'm not advocating anything of the sort. I don't understand how you could draw such a conclusion, especially since my statements thus far have been advocating for NPOV, not against it. I believe the current precedent is POV, or at least could be interpreted as POV, so we should consider changing it. –Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 21:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I suspect the definition of neutrality you're using differs from Wikipedia's definition of NPOV, specifically WP:UNDUE. If reliable sources regularly choose to highlight a point then that point needs to be in the article, often in the lead. It does not matter what that point is - you are focusing on race but your argument can be used by any editor wishing to downplay an issue. --NeilN talk to me 13:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Like I stated above, "I don't think WP:WEIGHT applies in this circumstance because that largely deals with essential or otherwise important information. The race specifications in the lead are, I believe, neither essential nor important." WP:UNDUE deals with views and opinions, from my understanding, but not with the structure of wording. My argument is that the race specifications are not important or necessary in the lead, and the way in which the races are specified can be interpreted as POV. The issue here is a matter of specification and term usage which could be construed as POV, not with views or opinions. The respective races of Scott and Slager are, in my opinion, factual and thus moreover not subject to this policy since it is not a view or opinion. I don't see why it's important that my argument could (hypothetically) be used by others to satisfy their own agenda; my "agenda", if it could even be called that, is to ensure that Wikipedia's wording in the lead is neutral and encyclopedic, and is not liable for misunderstanding. ―Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 18:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
"The race specifications in the lead are, I believe, neither essential nor important." That's the crux of the matter. You are substituting your own beliefs over what is highlighted or prominently mentioned in sources. --NeilN talk to me 18:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
No, I am not substituting my own beliefs; I am proposing a change based on my interpretation of the policies and guidelines. And yes, that is my interpretation of the content per WP:NPOV. I also interpret the sources as implying a POV by contrasting the races of those involved in such a stark manner, which I think should not be retained in the article at any point as per WP:NPOV. When writing in WikiVoice, our tone needs to be impartial. I believe we are not being impartial due to how we have worded many of the leads. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe we are meant to interpret the sources when writing in WikiVoice and omit, alter, or rephrase content which may be POV in order to remain neutral and encyclopedic. These are my interpretations of existing policies and guidelines, as well as my own proposed changes in this particular instance. I hope to seek consensus, or at least come to some sort of compromise which satisfies my proposal. If neither is established, then I'll just have to deal with what I believe to be POV wording in the article leads I mentioned above and hope my concerns are unfounded. ―Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 19:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
The context of this shooting and how is being covered, means that we have to mention the race of the actors. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:10, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Why do you think the context of this shooting (which I presume you to mean the shooting of Walter Scott) requires us to mention the respective races of the actors? I won't reiterate my opinion on its necessity, since I've explained it thoroughly enough above, but feel free to posit yours. Keep in mind, though, that I've expanded my argument to apply to all the articles listed above, not just the one from which this whole discussion originated. –Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 22:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Nøkkenbuer Thank you for the list of articles where the race of the victim and shooting officer were not identified. I disagree with your position. I feel that race should be mentioned in the lede of some of those articles. In Shooting of Timothy Stansbury and Shooting of Oscar Grant III for example, the racial reaction was strong. The readers of these articles need to know the races of those involved to understand the significance and motivation of those reactions.--Nowa (talk) 13:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I also agree that the races of those involved may be important, and it is worthwhile to mention them in the article. But I don't believe that they need to be specified in the lead in such a way as to draw a racial comparison between the two. In the first list, where the precedent is present, many of the articles implicitly draw a comparison between the victim and the shooter(s), contrasting each of their races in a single sentence. This can be construed as implying that race was a factor in the event, even though many of the articles argue that it is not, and the closest many articles get is to state that the reaction to the shooting involved some who believed it was racially motivated. Many of the cases, however, were not—or, at least, there is no substantial evidence for it. This includes the shooting of Trayvon Martin, the shooting of Michael Brown, and many others. There was speculation that race was a motivating factor, but us drawing such stark distinctions appear to imply that Wikipedia assumes that it was.
Many of the sources discuss the issue of race, often arguing that the case is symptomatic of a greater problem in the region; however, if this is the case in the sources being cited, would it not be more encyclopedic for us to discuss these opinions in the article and mention these speculations in the lead, rather than simply implying it in some vague sense by specifying the races of those involved, hoping that the reader doesn't draw the wrong conclusion? Right now, we are purporting these source opinions as fact, despite how that blatantly violates WP:NPOV, in particular WP:ASSERT. We should not be implying anything, especially something so sensitive as to be easily misconstrued. In matters such as this, the article should be expanded, not slanted. In my opinion, the races of the actors should be stated in the Biography or Background section, where applicable. To state it in the lead, and especially in such a manner as is done in many of them, attempts to contrast the two races in the same way many of the sources do (which are POV, sensationalist, and often written with the agenda of discussing race relations). This in turn renders the Wikipedia article biased and POV, which is something we try to avoid.
If racial motivation existed in the event (which is not the case in the majority of the articles, or at least not stated as such), then that should be discussed in the lead or within the article at some point. It should not be implied in the race specifications within the lead, however, since that is POV and assumes more than is true. Even if race was a factor in the case, why should we draw such a stark comparison between the races of those involved, oftentimes within a single sentence and at the first or second sentence of the lead? This could give the reader the impression that it is a fact that race was a motivating factor, which is reinforced when the article neglects to discuss the matter of race and the opinions of the sources regarding it. Wouldn't it be more appropriate for us to simply state the facts without any loaded implications, and discuss those factors in detail in the lead and article contents?
Many times, race is not meaningful to the case, yet it is implied as such every time it is written along this precedent. In instances where race may be meaningful, rarely is it discussed in the article; it is assumed that the race specifications suffice, despite how this is unencyclopedic and could easily be misconstrued as something more. The only instance where race allegations are discussed in detail is in the Shooting of Trayvon Martin, and yet the conclusion is that race was not a motivating factor (in fact, there is evidence that Martin's side was the racist one, ironically enough). At least in this article, anyone interested in learning about the potential racial implications of the event could find a detailed discussion of it within the article; as for the others, no such information is provided, so readers are left at the mercy of their own biases. Not even in the article about the shoorting of Michael Brown is race discussed, despite how this is by far the most detailed article regarding a shooting incident I could find, second only to the Trayvon Martin case.

The readers of these articles need to know the races of those involved to understand the significance and motivation of those reactions.

Couldn't that be covered within the article, and not implied in the lead through mere race specifications, which run the risk of readers presuming the importance of race in the case is fact, and not just the opinions of the sources? That's my entire point: how things are treated now are POV and presumptive; instead, information about race should be delegated to where the information is important to note, such as within the article and only where it is meaningful to the context. This is to prevent bias and ensure the issue is represented in as encyclopedic a manner as possible. Maybe I'm just overstating the whole issue, I don't know. It's troubling to me, though, and I think Wikipedia could do much better.
I really hate to be so verbose, but I'm trying to make sure my point is as clear as possible. I try to shorten it where I can, but I'm obviously not doing a good enough job. Sorry about that. –Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 21:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Responses II (race and shooting)

I agree with Nøkkenbuer .. Well written and a very articulated argument. Very well done. Mattscards (talk) 22:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Kokkenbuer: "Having said that, I propose that we change this precedent by omitting the race specifications of those involved in the lead. I don't think it's important or essential to the leads of any of the articles I mentioned above, and a simple rewording could both improve flow and remove any potential for misinterpretation of the lead. Naturally, any race specifications located in the article which are crucial to the context in which they are specified should remain, just as should the race specifications in the biography (where applicable); however, outside of those two instances, I believe any and all race specifications should be removed per WP:NPOV, so long as the race(s) is specified elsewhere in the article." This by far is the best compelling argument to this entire issue and agreed... I couldn't hold this man's golf clubs with the information @Nokkenbuer contributed. With the exception of Ian.Tompson, who may have decent contributions in the past, on this issue appeared as a troll most all had good contributions. @Mandrell.. I apologize... after research and reading your posts, although I disagree with your assessment of this issue, I have found a respect for your views. You appeared to be closed minded about this issue, however even though I never understood your tough support of my opposing views, I do respect your contributions to Wikipedia on many other issues after research, and it was wrong to judge you after only one encounter with you. Based on a very well respected posts of @Nokkenbuer, Mandrell, I am respectfully requesting the changes that he has proposed be changed by you. Thank you Mattscards (talk) 04:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

You are talking about changing how Wikipedia handles NPOV on a multitude of high profile articles. Changes aren't going to be made based on a discussion that's less than twelve hourse old, with multiple editors opposing the change. --NeilN talk to me 04:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments, Mattscards. NeilN has made a strong point (one which I tried to make in article talk, referring to "second-guessing" the body of reliable sources). I've found that referring to us needing to correct for bias in the media is an argument that fails every time, and quickly. It's like waving a red cape in front of a half-dozen bulls, and Nøkkenbuer's case dies right here if he persists with that part of it. The reason is that the direction and degree of media's bias is a subjective matter, so how would editors correct for it with any consistency at all? Without this principle, the notion of a POV-pusher would not exist because every one of us would be a POV-pusher. I think we could simply stick to the question I posed above about how to interpret "consider it important". We're on this page to get opinions from editors who are more experienced than we are in this area, and I think it's very premature to make any change at this point. (I'll reiterate that we're talking primarily about whether the parties should be referred to as white and black in the lead, in cases like Walter Scott. It's important to stay focused on that question, or this discussion will end up out of control and useless.) ―Mandruss  04:49, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Neil... How old are you? We all got our asses kicked by @Nokkenbuer in this discussion including myself. I see you are possibly taking this personal, and you should voluntarily remove yourself from this issue if this is the case. I understand you may even have something personal against me, which may be a contributing factor on your refusal to see reason on this issue. To this point, it has appeared to me your contributions have been leaning more of an "entitled" factor than any kind of base or structure. You have not impressed me as of yet. I have not checked your qualifications but if you have an administrative role this should be re-evaluated. Prove me wrong Mattscards (talk) 04:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

You're not helping your case, with either the tone or substance of your comments... --NeilN talk to me 04:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

What everyone is missing is the elephant in the room. Some may be using Wikipedia policy to support their views, and I have to be honest, that is exactly what this appears to me. But when something is wrong it's wrong. When Rosa Parks sat on that bus and refused to go to the back of the bus because it was wrong, when she was arrested how many people here think a Wikipedia policy (or in reality actual Alabama law) would make her, or society, would think she was wrong? n fact there were millions. We are smarter than that. Guys...Not that this even matters... I am going to lose support here now.. but I am a Democrat. Big time. I fought for Obama in the 2008 elections and 2012 on a larger scale than anyone could imagine. I have been fighting for racism equality on both sides. I am a white male and I hear racism a lot on my side a lot, and it makes me sick. I also see when it works against racial equality. This does. I see issues that makes my job harder and this is one.This has nothing to do with this topic but I feel I have others questioning my motive for my issue here Mattscards (talk) 05:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Again, you're talking about things that have nothing to with Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is not a platform for improving the state of social justice in the world. I don't think anyone doubts your motives; but you're not showing an understanding of the most fundamental Wikipedia principles. Nor would anyone expect you to, with 295 edits under your belt. It takes awhile, with a good amount of reading and editing experience, for them to sink in. I still have a lot to learn about policy after 12,000 edits. So please try to avoid comments about right and wrong and what's wrong with Wikipedia or any individual editors. Keep your contributions to this discussion policy-based or limit yourself to reading it. ―Mandruss  06:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I am not understanding your post mandruss... do you think for one minute that I have 300 posts and you may have 12 million that your views mean more than mine or that you are more intelligent than others here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattscards (talkcontribs)

Mandruss was talking about understanding Wikipedia policies and guidelines, not the validity of world views. --NeilN talk to me 07:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Neil, I am going to have to come out and say this. First of all I have a degree from Texas A&M University I don't need you to interpret a post between me and another user. Ever. It is completely useless and you should take your grandstanding tactics elsewhere. Second of all, I asked you earlier how old you were for a reason. Judging from your threats and posts I and wondering if you should be supervised more at the computer perhaps even take away your screen time. Mattscards (talk) 13:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@Mattscards: Folks here have been trying quite politely too provide you with an understanding of Wikipedia policies, but all you do is to attack these folks with fallacies and ad hominem. Not cool. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Mattscards has received a 72-hour block for 3RR and NPA. We have at least three days to possibly get something done in this thread. ―Mandruss  14:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
There should be little resistance to including attributes of identity in the lead if they appear in the body of the article but Wikipedia should exercise restraint in the wording used. Don't forget that we are using prose and we have the ability to formulate our language to leave the facts to the reader without promoting hate-mongering. We are not filling in fields in an Infobox and we are not talking about Categorization. We have at our disposal a wide range of verbal formulations. This is a matter of choosing our language carefully; it is not necessarily an all or nothing question. We should opt for toning it down if it at all sounds inflammatory. Bus stop (talk) 20:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The Walter Scott question, restated

I have to say I was expecting more input from NPOV experts, here on the NPOV noticeboard. This thread is now at 6,859 words and counting, and, with several brief exceptions, has been an extension of article talk. We could have stayed home. Speaking only for myself, I'm not interested in persuading anyone one way or the other, I just seek some consensus of expert opinions (I'd be happy with three in agreement and no more than one dissenter). I'm more than willing, nay, eager, to accept that as a community consensus and implement it in Walter Scott. To me, the question is not complicated, and can be concisely stated thusly:

  • Most RS states the races of Scott and Slager.
  • Much RS coverage of the Scott shooting discusses race issues in North Charleston, or in the context of the ongoing national debate.
  • Some RS attempts to imply a racism component to the shooting, but without actually substantiating it. What little evidence there is points away from a racism component, in my opinion.
  • Should the article's lead mention that Slager is white and Scott was black? It's already mentioned in their respective mini-bio sections.

Is any further information necessary to get a clear expert yes or no? ―Mandruss  19:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe so. Since I've expanded this proposal to apply to multiple articles, perhaps the points should be more general if it is to address the overarching issue I believe exists. For the purposes of the Michael Scott shooting, however, your summary is exactly what I'm proposing, minus the details. My issue with keeping this to only the Michael Scott article, though, is that even if this is addressed and (in my opinion) rectified, what of all the other articles? Should I seek to argue my points separately there, as well? I generalized my proposal precisely because I noticed that this issue extends far past just this article, and affects numerous other articles. Unless this issue is addressed now, I'm worried that future articles may make this same mistake, hence why I'm seeking consensus overall. If the Michael Brown shooting article is changed, that is at least some improvement, but I'm concerned it isn't enough. In any case, I naturally support the proposal to change it, either to not specifying either race in the lead, or to simply omit the race of the officer therein so as to prevent an implied contrast. ―Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 20:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
If other articles have the same characteristics that I've described above for Walter Scott, I would expect the result here to carry a lot of weight in your efforts to change those articles. I would expect the burden to be on the opposing side to show how their situation is different from Walter Scott. Beyond that, I'd like to keep the scope of this thread small enough to be resolvable in this century, but I encourage you to discuss whatever larger issues you like in separate threads here. ―Mandruss  20:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Alright, thanks. Sorry about all the trouble, but I appreciate your input in this case. ―Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 20:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Unresolved: Just in case anyone has a different impression.

Mandruss  08:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I would say so as well, though some of the other contributors to this discussion may argue that this proposal failed. I don't think enough people have weighed in, however, so I guess no change will be made. ―Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 08:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Hence the confusion, or part of it. As indicated above, I make no proposal, I am merely asking a question. ―Mandruss  08:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I thought Nøkkenbuer had some really good data to at least look into considering this change, I am kind of disappointed it did not go further. I know it would not appear in a real encyclopedia this way. Mattscards (talk) 17:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

@Mattscards: Actually, your assumption is incorrect: "Los Angeles Riots of 1992, major outbreak of violence, looting, and arson in Los Angeles that began on April 29, 1992, in response to the acquittal of four white Los Angeles policemen on all but one charge (on which the jury was deadlocked) connected with the severe beating of an African American motorist in March 1991." [88] --NeilN talk to me 18:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the Britannica reference. I'm surprised that they do this, too, since that sort of style seems too much like an editorial or sensationalist news report to me, and not like an encyclopedia. Then again, the structure of their articles is different, so it may be reasonable to specify the races of those involved for them. Is this a pattern on Brittanica, or is that a singular instance wherein they opened their article with specifications of the races of those involved? If you could find any other instances like this on Brittanica, it may help by adding context from another encyclopedia. No need, of course. I'll try to look myself. Thus far, I've found two instances in Britannica which detail the case of Trayvon Martin. One mentions neither race, whereas the second only mentions Martin's race. One, on Michael Brown, follows the same pattern as the one you cited. ―Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 12:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

perhaps, but I think Nøkkenbuer said it best:

"In particular, the problem I've noticed is that: the specification of the individuals' races outside of the biography section, without any justification for doing so, appears to me to be a violation of WP:NPOV because it connotes that race is meaningful in the context. In other words, the context in which the races of those involved are specified gives the impression that their races are important to note in that context. I understand that Wikipedia wishes to document all important or notable information, but if it is already documented in the biography section of those involved within the article, why is it necessary to specify it in the lead, or anywhere else where it is not crucial to the sentence or context? ... Basically, this information is inessential to the sentence and lead, available elsewhere in the article, and could be misconstrued as implying something greater, so it should be removed."

I think this should had more consideration than it did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattscards (talkcontribs)

@Mattscards: Nøkkenbuer has agreed to allow this thread to simply seek expert opinions on what to do in the Scott article, and to save debate for a separate thread. Are you on board with that concept? ―Mandruss  18:39, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

As you know Mandruss, I could not say anything until now. If that is the way it is wanted to be left, I will not do anything. I think it takes away from the credibility of the article, though. Mattscards (talk) 19:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Mandruss—you say "That's the rub, at least in Walter Scott. Although most RS mentions the races of both parties, and they have talked about a racial profiling problem in North Charleston, they otherwise mostly discuss race only in the context of the larger ongoing debate, without anything specific regarding Slager vs Scott." That they "mostly discuss race only in the context of the larger ongoing debate" is I think sufficient reason for us to be mentioning that one is black and the other is white, including in the lead. I think the scope of this article extends to "the larger ongoing debate". Bus stop (talk) 10:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
@Bus stop: That's precisely the kind of opinion I'm looking for, from NPOV experts. As I've indicated, there's little to be gained by making this thread an extension of article talk. Please don't take this as confrontational, but would you consider yourself an NPOV expert? ―Mandruss  10:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand. What is an NPOV expert? That is a serious question. Bus stop (talk) 11:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
An NPOV expert is someone who is well-versed in NPOV policy, has a lot of experience in the area, and has a good handle on community consensus in the area. Unless I'm mistaken, all noticeboards are places to go for expert opinions in their respective areas. ―Mandruss  11:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
A noticeboard is a place to which we go to put on the thinking cap of that noticeboard. This is my opinion. Participation at a noticeboard implies a high degree of cognizance of the purpose of that noticeboard. We are entertaining the question as to whether or not we should repeat in the lead that one is black and the other is white. Are we emphasizing such a distinction to a degree that is inconsistent with the neutral stance that our article should be maintaining? It is a good question. It is not easy to answer. I am trying to weigh all the relevant factors. My conclusion may be wrong. But my argument is that neutrality is not limited to the precise scope of this article. My argument is that in fact neutrality properly takes into consideration a preoccupation with racial distinction even if no such distinction applies within the scope of this article as strictly interpreted. We get our "neutrality" from the context that this article fits into. Bus stop (talk) 11:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
It's beginning to look like we'll have to resort to an RfC in article talk and call it reflective of community consensus. Each contributor will apply their own interpretation to a vague policy, with widely varying degrees of competence in the area, and it will effectively be a vote (not a !vote). I was hoping for something better, but I'll give this another 24 hours and then start that RfC if there is no expert input here. ―Mandruss  11:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for all your help trying to move this discussion along, Mandruss. It's really appreciated. ―Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 12:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate your input, Bus stop, and I largely agree with your opinion on noticeboards as well as your assessment of this issue. I likewise agree that we should "take into consideration a preoccupation with racial distinction even if no such distinction applies within the scope of this article as strictly interpreted", since it is important to document the races of those involved irrespective of whether race was meaningful in the context of the event. However, I don't believe the way we're documenting the races of those involved is neutral. When considering the context in which we specify the races of those involved—especially in the lead and moreover by contrasting the races of each party in a single sentence—our race specifications could imply more than was intended. To the reader, our race specifications may no longer be mere documentation and classification; it may take on the form of us implying that race was meaningful in the context in which it was stated. Why else would we specify something in a given context, unless it was meaningful to do so?
I think it may be better if we change the "precedent" (I call it that for lack of a better word) of specifying race where it does not need to be specified, since doing so could be construed as commentary and not mere documentation. Race is a controversial subject these days, especially in the articles I've listed above. We would do well to be wary of when we specify it, lest we give the reader the impression that we mean more than we do. And yes, we should consider the larger context in which a given article may fit, but we should be cautious of framing our article's contents to satisfy this context. That is the beginning of bias, and I think this precedent I've noted is at its precipice. The below response is to your previous reply to Mandruss, which I typed before this one. I considered omitting it, but decided it is worthwhile to post in order to clarify my position here. ―Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 12:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Bus stop, is it really our responsibility to be implying that the case is involved in some sort of larger debate, or anything for that matter? We're here to report the facts and opinions of others in as neutral and encyclopedic a way as possible. When we use WikiVoice, we need to be cautious to not imply we're endorsing any side (i.e. "disinterested") and to not provide any social commentary or criticism of our own. If this Walter Scott shooting is indicative of a larger issue, or if some believe that, then let them discuss that on the forums and POV editorials. There may be some greater debate about racial tensions, police brutality, unnecessary violence, and whatnot; we are not obligated to participate in it, and in fact we are prohibited from doing so.
If the discourse becomes relevant to the content of an article, and it is notable enough to document, we are to include it in the article in an unbiased and neutral manner. If this article does extend to these larger debates, like you said, then shouldn't we be documenting this controversy within the article? Implying the entirety of these debates by simply keeping the race specifications in the lead is rather absurd, and definitely doesn't justify the race specifications in the lead. If the races of those involved are meaningful, they'll be documented in the Biography or Background section, or in a new section detailing the controversy about it (assuming that section is even necessary). No need to specify both races in the article, and definitely not in the "X victim, who is <race>, killed by Y, who is <other race>" pattern so many articles have been following. (And if we do specify the races in the lead, it shouldn't follow the aforementioned formula, which seems agenda-driven.)
At this time, there is no evidence that the Walter Scott shooting has anything to do with race, so we shouldn't be implying that it does. Even if race is important to the case, however, we should address that within the article itself and not with the words we choose. If this Walter Scott case becomes a crux of public debate surrounding race and law enforcement, we could include a section about it. It shouldn't be implied in the lead by the stark distinction between the race of victim and the race(s) of the officer(s). That's just my opinion, of course. Maybe it's all my bias, after all. This should be my last multi-paragraph post, by the way, because at this point I think I've explained my perspective comprehensively enough to the point that further elaboration would probably entail repetition. Anyway, I'm exhausted of writing books, and I bet you all are tired of reading them (you're reading them, right?). ―Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 12:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
We shouldn't put on blinders when evaluating the weight properly accorded to the distinction between black and white in this article. Narrowly focussed, you are right, race is not strongly pertinent to this article. But white police officers and black victims of shootings constitute a cogent topic. It is for this reason that I do not think we err in stating and even restating (in the lead) that this is yet one more instance of a theme that is examined not only in this but in related stories. Bus stop (talk) 12:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't think my suggestions constitute "put[ting] on blinders". White-on-black crime, especially those involving white police officers and black victims, does appear to be common (though some blame the media for this perceived discrepancy). If it is relevant to the article to note this, or debates involving this, then we should within the article, but not in what we're vaguely implying by race specifications in the lead. But, like Mandruss said below, it may be futile for us to try and persuade each other. I'm willing to give it a shot, but at this time I doubt the best thing for us to do is to go into a debate of opinion. Even if one of us convinces the other, it still hasn't resolved this issue; it's just changed consensus slightly, which isn't doing much at this time. I guess we'll just agree to disagree for now, if you're okay with that. ―Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 12:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Ok, and you'll get significant disagreement there, and how often have you seen someone's mind actually changed in a debate where the answer is not clearly provided in policy? Hence, either expert opinions to settle the issue or RfC to settle the issue. If it's RfC, it will be massive amounts of debate in which no one's mind is changed, nor any position being clearly stronger than the others, and the closer will simply count !votes. Might as well skip the debate and just !vote. This is the way with most RfCs. ―Mandruss  12:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Nøkkenbuer—the "precedent" that matters most is the precedent set by sources. Are there any sources that fail to mention that one is white and the other is black? If not then the standard course of action should be to follow sources in this regard. The sources don't have to explain why skin color matters. It may not matter in this case. But we are writing an article on a topic, and sources are showing us, by example, how an article on that topic should be written. Bus stop (talk) 14:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I've already explained my position on that above. It is our job to interpret the sources, but we are not required to state everything the sources state or follow the same patterns, methods, or techniques as the sources when documenting and conveying information. We are likewise not required to mimic our sources when writing in WikiVoice; that only occurs when quoting, and when we quote, we attribute the quote the author so as to distance ourselves (WikiVoice) from the quote. Our approach is encyclopedic and neutral, which may conflict or contradict the approaches of the sources. We are not an editorial, nor a newspaper, nor a journalist collective, nor even another encyclopedia. We are Wikipedia, and we are not obligated to augment our voice and article structure, or the contents therein, to resemble that which we cite. I recommend reviewing my statements throughout this section (and all three subsections). I could quote the pertinent statements and arguments above, but that may just needlessly lengthen this section. ―Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 15:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Nøkkenbuer, Mandruss—all of our sources mention the skin color of the two individuals involved. Why would we omit that information? Bus stop (talk) 17:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I think Nøkkenbuer has given his answer to that question articulately and in great detail. Others will disagree, and at this point I think I'm one of them. But I'm saving it for the RfC because it's pointless to do it here, as I've said multiple times. We are not going to resolve this by endless circular debate among non-experts. And that's about all I'm going to say in this thread. ―Mandruss  17:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
This is a recent incident, having occurred a mere ten days ago. Have we thoroughly digested what has happened? Have sources relented in presenting what may be irrelevant information? I agree that there does not seem to be a racial component to this incident. Wikipedia does not have a policy of suppressing information when it does not seem relevant. Perhaps as the weeks, months, and years go by, sources will emerge that do not contain the racial component that now is so often mentioned in relation to this incident. This should serve as the signal to us that perhaps we can drop that dimension from our writing. But to do so at this time would seem like contrivance to me. Bus stop (talk) 17:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Pre-RfC (Walter Scott)

I guess it would be worthwhile to get agreement between a few of us here on the RfC question, so as to reduce the likelihood of a derailment due to incorrect presentation. Do we agree on the following?

QUESTION: Should the article's lead mention that Scott was black and Slager is white? Regardless of the result here, that information will be included in their respective mini-bio sections.
BACKGROUND SUMMARY:

  • Most RS states the races of Scott and Slager.
  • Much RS coverage of the Scott shooting discusses race issues in North Charleston, or in the context of the ongoing national debate.
  • Some RS attempts to imply a racism component to the shooting, but without actually substantiating it. ―Mandruss  18:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I would like to note that my opposition is more on the grounds of the wording used, not necessarily with race specifications in the lead—though I do believe this should be considered, as well. I have proposed a couple times that an alternative could be to simply break the precedent by removing the mention of the race of the offender. For example, we could say that Walter Scott is a black man, while simply saying that Slager is a North Charleston police officer. We don't need to specify that he's white. This would prevent the structure of the sentence from contrasting the two races in the format of "X victim, who is <first race>, killed by Y individual, who is <second race>". (This could apply for all the articles I've listed, excepting perhaps the Trayvon Martin one, seeing as race was a controversial and confusing aspect of the case and the racial implications are discussed in the article.)
I still stand by the argument that if race is meaningful to the case, it should be specified in the article and in the lead, but should not implied by the wording of the lead and left to the prejudices of the reader. In my opinion, at least breaking this race-contrast pattern would improve neutrality, though. I'm willing to compromise. Not because I think that's what's best for Wikipedia (I think more should be done), but because any improvement is improvement however little. ―Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 19:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────How should this article's lead treat the races of Slager and Scott? Is RS coverage of direct evidence of racism in this particular shooting required in order to mention races in the lead? Regardless of the result here, their races will continue to be mentioned in their respective mini-bio sections. Please !vote 1, 2, or 3, boldfaced. (Note, the terms used for Slager's and Scott's races will be white and black, per sources and prior consensus, and this RfC is not about that question.)

1 — omit both races
2 — mention only Scott's race
3 — mention both races, as per status quo

BACKGROUND SUMMARY:

  • Most RS coverage states the races of Slager and Scott.
  • Much RS coverage discusses race issues in North Charleston, including alleged police racial profiling, or in the context of the ongoing national debate about white-cop-on-black killings.
  • Some RS coverage attempts to imply a racism component to the shooting, but without actually substantiating it. ―Mandruss  07:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for revising it. Naturally, I support either option 1 or 2, with 1 being my first choice. ―Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 19:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Ok, but this is not the RfC and, when !voting in the RfC, you'll need to give a concise argument with your !vote. ―Mandruss  19:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. I didn't think this was the RfC, and knew it wasn't after you put in the subsection. I was just letting you know that I'm grateful for the revision, and I support it. Sorry for frivolous posting. ―Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 20:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Good prep work, Mandruss. Thanks for putting this together. I'd omit the last bullet from the background summary, to keep this simpler Some RS coverage attempts to imply a racism component to the shooting, but without actually substantiating it - Cwobeel (talk) 03:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
@Cwobeel: I like simple, too, but as that bullet is central to Nøkkenbuer's argument I think it needs to stay. The whole point is whether RS coverage of direct evidence of racism in this particular shooting is required in order to mention races in the lead, and there is no such direct evidence. Slager definitely does not speak to Scott at any point like a racist Southern cop speaks to a black man, and there is nothing racist in Slager's history. I haven't seen this question presented so succinctly to the Wikipedia community. ―Mandruss  07:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually I have added language to clarify and stress the question at hand, since it might easily be missed. ―Mandruss  07:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Enough waiting, I have started the RfC in article talk. ―Mandruss  08:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

NPOV for Terry Richardson

There has been discussion in the past (Talk:Terry Richardson) over the contentious issue of the photographer Terry Richardson's allegations of sexual misconduct. (None of which have been allegations of non-consensual behaviour, but rather suggesting he has used his 'influence' to convince models to do things they might otherwise not have done.) In recent history the editor has been engaging in WP:Disruptive Editing behaviour (and seems to have a history in doing this on other articles as well). We could use more voices in this discussion. Thanks. CaffeinAddict (talk) 19:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion about this issue, but I can tell you that there are numerous pornographic photographs of Richardson with numerous models and/or porn actresses. I'm not particularly proud of knowing that fact, but you can thank the troll who posted them on the forum I was frequenting during the time for that. I don't have a clue whether any of it was sexual misconduct or coercion, or if it's even related to these accusations, but the photographs are definitely out there. Heck, you can search for them on Google Images and find them easily, not to mention the copious news articles about it on Google. Not that this particularly matters to this discussion, or would impact the content provided on Wikipedia per se, but just in case anyone claims Richardson hasn't had sex with any of the models or any porn stars, that's almost certainly false as far as I'm concerned. As for this case in particular... I'm not very familiar with WP:BLP, but any and all accusations are usually not accepted unless confirmed. Even if the evidence is there for you to google, unless it's verified by WP:RS, there isn't a chance in hell it should be permitted. From what I can see, I'd advice significantly more WP:RS and some definite rewording to prevent POV if included whatsoever. –Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 20:42, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


CaffeinAddict while accusing others of disruptive editing, please answer the points made on the talk page. The issue of my last edit has simply been having a subheading, that reflects the content written by and supported by other editors. Why do you disagree with having the subheading? Multiple editors on the talkpage have supported this. And I was following points made by editors on the talkpage. Subheadings make the content easy to navigate.

As for the content itself, it was introduced by other editors, and to me much (although perhaps not all of it) of it looks like it reflects WP:V and WP:RS (published in mainstream sources such as The Guardian). So I would add my voice to the multiple others who supported its inclusion on the talkpage, over a period of years (although we can surely add additional and/or better sources for it) Avaya1 (talk) 00:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Nationalist POV

I have been looking over the articles related to Vietnam in general and one thing I have come up (with the exact same sentence) is

"The Cham in Vietnam are only recognized as a minority, and not as an indigenous people by the Vietnamese government despite being indigenous to the region. Both Hindu and Muslim Chams have experienced religious and ethnic persecution and restrictions on their faith under the current Vietnamese government, with the Vietnamese state confisticating Cham property and forbidding Cham from observing their religious beliefs. Hindu temples were turned into tourist sites against the wishes of the Cham Hindus. In 2010 and 2013 several incidents occurred in Thành Tín and Phươc Nhơn villages where Cham were murdered by Vietnamese. In 2012, Vietnamese police in Chau Giang village stormed into a Cham Mosque, stole the electric generator, and also raped Cham girls. Cham Muslims in the Mekong Delta have also been economically marginalized and pushed into poverty by Vietnamese policies, with ethnic Vietnamese Kinh settling on majority Cham land with state support, and religious practices of minorities have been targeted for elimination by the Vietnamese government. The Vietnamese government fears that evidence of Champa's influence over the disputed area in the South China Sea would bring attention to human rights violations and killings of ethnic minorities in Vietnam such as in the 2001 and 2004 uprisings, and lead to the issue of Cham autonomy being brought into the dispute, since the Vietnamese conquered the Hindu and Muslim Cham people in a war in 1832, and the Vietnamese continue to destroy evidence of Cham culture and artifacts left behind, plundering or building on top of Cham temples, building farms over them, banning Cham religious practices, and omitting references to the destroyed Cham capital of Song Luy in the 1832 invasion in history books and tourist guides. The situation of Cham compared to ethnic Vietnamese is substandard, lacking water and electricity and living in houses made out of mud."

This statement or something similar to it has occurred in these articles: Champa Religion in Vietnam History of Champa Southeast Asia, South China Sea

I think this is an attempt to push a nationalist POV by making one country (Vietnam) look bad and evil even though other countries have done this in the past. It doesn't matter if it is referenced, just look at the tone used in these articles. The evidence comes from the fact that the user who keeps adding this is User:Rajmaan (talk) and this user had been warned not to add in these kinds of edits in another page.

I would support removing all of these statements although it would be nice if other comments from other users are available. Any comments on dealing with this issue would be welcomed. Thanks. Ssbbplayer (talk) 13:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

First of all you violated one of the guidelines for using this noticeboard. Notice it says at the top, 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. If you brought this up on the talk page of those articles I would have been happy to discuss the content. (and no, posting a complaint without bothering to wait for a response and filing this report within just under twenty five minutes of leaving a notice on the talk page does not show that you "tried to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page". Since you didn't bother waiting for a response.
Now that you didn't bother to do that and already filed a complaint here, if you have a problem with the content, find other sources that provide another POV on the Chams and add them to the article alongside the content I added. I will stand by my edits- I used reliable sources, and the content I added is paraphrased material from the sources with no embellishments or exaggerations. On the contrary, the original sources as they are in the articles, are far harsher in allegedly making Vietnam "look bad and evil". Take it up with National Geographic and the academic journal I used. And nobody is stopping you from adding "bad and evil" content on countries other than Vietnam. Go ahead and find sources on Vietnam's neighboring countries if you are so worried about POV, or find your own sources on minorities in Vietnam as I said. By your logic, we should delete all information about every single other genocide that occurred on planet earth because they make some nation look bad, even if reliably sourced. And I was not "warned" by any authority figure or admin, the person who "warned" me, was an edit warrior and a sockpuppet master who was banned multiple times with a history of pushing Mongolian nationalist POV. You know how many respected editors filed complaints about him at ANI, edit warring and sockpuppet investigations? [89] [90] [91] [92].Rajmaan (talk) 23:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
That user part was something I did not know previously. It's just that this had appeared in many pages so I though it would be better to discuss here rather than saying the same thing on many talk pages. I also realized that you mostly added them and I was surprised that apart from that editor you mentioned above, no one commented. Even if the Vietnamese government has a poor human rights record without a doubt, I am not saying that we should delete all information about every single other genocide, (I might had misunderstood others) but to state that one occurs requires a lot of evidence to back up that claim. One particular concern is the statement on Vietnam on Southeast Asia under the section "Indianized Kingdoms" and the article on 1471 invasion of Champa since in those sentences, they mention genocide but I looked at the references and they did not mention this word at all. I will move this discussion to those pages of concern. Ssbbplayer (talk) 02:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Are these article titles neutral?

Do the article titles

And, to a lesser extent,

show a NPOV?

Most of these are not mentioned in our article on Jihad, which mentions many types (greater jihad, lesser jihad, educational jihad, missionary jihad, intellectual jihad, economic jihad, jihad of the heart, jihad by the tongue, jihad by the hand, jihad by the sword) which have no separate article.

In addition, the sources that supposedly show that these are WP:COMMONNAMEs are rather dodgy -- a lot of anti-islam blogs or news sources mentioning that various anti-islam groups use the term. The article titles don't seem neutral to me. Compare such neutral article titles about similar practices as as Marital conversion and Missionary dating.

Note: I know almost nothing on this topic and am not involved in editing any of these articles, so I may be walking into a minefield here... :( --Guy Macon (talk) 13:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

(A) Haven't taken time to form opinion but if I did I'd proceed this way....
(1) Is the article so far written as being about the alleged practice or about the neologistic term?
(2) Do the available RSs suggest the article should be about the alleged practice or about the neologistic term?
(3) Do the RSs say the alleged practitioners use this term to describe their own acts or is it a term used by their "enemies"?
(4) Good questions raised by others?
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't think they are POV... However, "Rape jihad" does seem to be a little used neologism... so that one probably needs to either be retitled, or merged (no opinion on which is best). "Love Jihad" seems to be more widely used, and so is probably OK. No opinion on the others (yet). I am still looking into their prevalence. Blueboar (talk) 13:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I have looked at almost 895 news stories.not a single one mentions rape jihad in the title, nor does any single one show what rape jihad is supposed to mean. I propose a merge. sexual and love jihad seem to have gained prevelance as far as I can see. However they are so fringe that they should not be mentionded in jihad FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 15:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
895 news stories not about the subject are irrelevant, ChitChat (and I have reasons to not believe you in any event). What is relevant are the ones you keep deleting from the article even though the exact phrase "rape jihad" occurs in their titles. Pax 16:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Rape jihad does not mention the name of a religion; Christian terrorism does. Both articles were recently subjected to AfD and reviews over the same days (i.e., it was impossible to participate in the discussion of one at the deletion review without being aware of the other, since there were only three topics under review that date and none could be URL-accessed independently as in, say, a parked browser tab). Charges of being synthetic neologisms were leveled at both, and Christian terrorism swam through easily despite being a demonstrable smear-job of an article. I would argue that the systemic bias (I would go so far as to describe it as subconscious hypocrisy) of a preponderance of editors is noticeably on display during such contrasting events: to wit: Islam can do no wrong and must be "protected" from criticism, whereas Christianity can do no right and much be pillaged at every opportunity.
Detractors of "rape jihad" were given opportunity at the recent AfD to suggest a new title, and no more suitable term was forthcoming. Pax 16:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Islam can do no wrong [...] whereas Christianity can do no right - you are aware that we have Islamic terrorism, right? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
We have Islamic terrorism for, among other things, because Islamic terrorists keep posting videos of themselves being proudly terroristic. Similarly, we can have, among other reasons, Rape jihad because jihadists are publicly issuing justifications for them being all rapey. Pax 20:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
And strangely, though we have "Rape jihad", we have no article on Rape crusade, or Christian rape, because of course WP is sooooo biassed against Christians. Paul B (talk) 19:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
We might have articles on those if they were prevalent, let alone contemporaneously ongoing, events. But they're not. Pax 20:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
You have spectacularly missed the point. The point is that your absurd claim that on Wikipedia "Islam can do no wrong [...] whereas Christianity can do no right" is falsified by the evidence of articles and their content. Few people would dispute that Islamic terrorism is far more significant in the modern world than Christian terrorism (unless we extend the meaning of 'terrorism' to the point of uselessness). The balance of articles on Wikipedia reflects that fact very very clearly. Paul B (talk) 21:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I think a little context might help. So if we look at this way, what does it convey?

Take away the cache of using jihad as a buzzphrase and it puts these in a new perspective. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure that's in good faith, but are you making a an assumption that everyone is equally prejudiced linguistically / ethnically / religiously / whateverly ? It made no difference to me, I still think what I wrote previously, with not a flutter heartbeat difference. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
To answer NewsAndEventsGuy's question, "Do the RSs say the alleged practitioners use this term to describe their own acts or is it a term used by their "enemies"?", I would observe that, in at least the case of rape jihad, that the practitioners are Arabic-speaking and do not use the English term; they are, however, boisterous in their advocacy of the practice. Pax 17:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Looking at Rape jihad, I find basically no reliable sources, but only ultra-conservative propaganda outfits. There are better sources in the article, but they don't seem to use the term. It's a classical example of WP:SYNTH. This term definitely seems to be a neologism without encyclopaedic value. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Synth, neologism and RS arguments were centerpiece at the last AfD, and failed to secure consensus for deletion. Labeling the sources "ultra-conservative propaganda" is just an adhom smear without any regard for veracity - and given that the jihadists (ISIS, Boko Haram) agree with the "propaganda outfits" who are simply relaying what the jihadists said, veracity isn't even an issue. Pax 20:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I disagree with that reading of the situation very much. Can you show any sources where ISIS or Boko Haram use the term "rape jihad"? As for the recent AfD: It had very limited participation (by number of editors), and "no consensus" is not "keep". Moreover, consensus can change. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Yup. The usual suspects using the usual spin to push the usual line. Not remotely encyclopaedic titles for articles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Who are you labeling a "usual suspect"? Have they been "suspected" somewhere else previously? Or are we just dropping civility already? Pax 20:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
"ultra-conservative propaganda outfits". And WP:CIVIL doesn't apply to descriptions of sources. Particularly when the description is demonstrably true. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
From a sufficiently socialist perspective, anybody telling the truth is an "ultra-conservative propagandist". For example, Islamists are openly boasting about raping their slaves, but it's a political football to even mention that they are. Pax 07:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Scalhotrod, why do you claim that "jihad" means "holy war" when our article on the subject clearly states (backed up by reliable sources) that it means "struggle"? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps he used the primary definition of Jihad as found on Merriam-Webster: "1. a holy war waged on behalf of Islam as a religious duty..." ScrapIronIV (talk) 19:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
@Guy Macon:, ScrapIronIV, Well, I was using it the way that I've predominantly seen it used in the media as well as what I was taught going as far back as elementary school. My apologies if my usage is out-of-date or out-of-touch with its WP article, but the same point could be made using "struggle"...
The commonality is "jihad", what purpose is using this word accomplishing? Are these titles POV editing or miscommunication or something else? I don't know, but I'm trying to encourage open minded communication. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
The problem with replacing "jihad" with "struggle" is that "jihad" holds multiple meanings and connotations which are important to the articles. Moreover, "struggle" can be misleading, since "Rape struggle" could easily be misinterpreted as meaning "struggling during rape". This applies to all those article titles. I think "jihad" should be retained both because its use is important to the articles, and because the articles primarily discuss the jihadist activities of Islamists (including activities by Muslims which satisfy the definition and practice of "jihad"). In other words, these articles appear to exclusively (or almost exclusively) deal with conduct by Muslims, usually Islamists, who conduct such activities as a part of Islamist jihad; thus, I believe "jihad" should be retained. When I first reviewed this issue, I hadn't even considered "jihad" to be the problem. I was more concerned about the terms "love" and "rape", which itself may be POV. ―Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 20:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't think he was advocating replacing Jihad with struggle or holy war. He was making a point (and it was a good point) getting us to think about whether the titles would be NPOV even without a word that is associated with Islam. --Guy Macon (talk)
Then I probably misunderstood his point. My bad. I agree with his point, then, though I stand by my argument—namely, that we shouldn't be avoiding Islamic terms simply because they're Islamic, especially when the article's contents are primarily or exclusively related to Islam. But I guess that's kind of a banal point, isn't it? Sorry about that. ―Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 04:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
"Struggle" verges into WP:WEASELWORD. "Holy War", even if it were purely synonymous with jihad (which it isn't, has no RS using it in such fashion, i.e., "holy war rape", etc. Meanwhile, the specific phrase "rape jihad" has acquired enough cachet to become an organizational tag item at various sites: [93],[94], etc. Pax 06:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


Please take note of related discussions at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Gatestone_Institute_used_as_source_for_Rape_jihad.2C_WP:OR.3F and Talk:Rape_jihad#Proposed_merge Rhoark (talk) 21:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Why, exactly, does that article even exist? I'm surprised that hasn't been deleted yet. ―Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 04:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
It is now at AfD. Meanwhile, one individual is going for some kind of record for breaking the most rules editing an article. :( --Guy Macon (talk) 13:39, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Good God. I really wanted to avoid these discussions and was hoping Rape Jihad's AfD would quell the likes of Freeatlast and Rhoark for a month or two, but they're both engaging in a ridiculous amount of edit wars and policy violations (such as creating false AfD discussions or repeatedly blanking articles despite being told several times that it was a violation of WP:BLANK). These guys clearly have some sort of agenda that they value far more than the procedures and policies we're supposed to follow. --DawnDusk (talk) 03:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I have no opinion about these two users, since I haven't been involved in this issue until after it was posted on the Noticeboard (and just recently), but if such activity is occurring, I recommend you or someone else seek arbitration. ―Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 04:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes @DawnDusk:, please start a filing on how you're pitting WP:BLANK against WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. That will boomerang so hard. Rhoark (talk) 14:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
There is no living person named "Rape Jihad" and the article in question is not a biography. "BLP" is not a magic word that allows you to delete anything you don't like, and Wikipedia's BLP policy does not protect large political organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood from criticism. Please stop vandalizing Wikipedia. (Note that I !voted for deletion at the AfD.) --Guy Macon (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

'Comment'Everywhere I see a discussion about sourcing of rape jihad or any other changes to the article, there are users DAWNDUSK and PAX arguing that the article is good in its current form, while all other editors try their best to make them understand that the article is a poorly sourced POV neologism. I can see that more than 'SIX' discussions have taken place about the sourcing of this article and each one of them says that sourcing is very very bad, and now this discussion has reached consensus that even the title is a POV(which it so blatantly IS). I hope there is some change to the article soon.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 09:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Why do you think the article title is POV? ―Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 12:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Quick peek for random quality control, result OR/SYNTH At Rape jihad there is a section on "justification". I clicked one of the refs, which turned out to be Katharine Lackey, "Pamphlet provides Islamic State guidelines for sex slaves," USA Today, December 13, 2014. That RS does talk about sex enslavement, but stops short of identifying the practice as "rape jihad"; saying this explains justification for something that is not even mentioned in the source is classic SYNTH/ORIGINAL RESEARCH. If we use dodgy sources, or even good sources such as this one in dodgy ways, we have bigger problems than POV titling. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, I understand that, and certainly do support some serious reworking of the articles in question; however, I'm trying to make sure we remain on-topic, since the issue raised is one of POV article title, not content. People are already being rather hostile toward each other so far, and some are veering off-topic and into forum territory. I'm not disagreeing with you; I think it's pretty obvious that the articles have some significant, if not fatal, flaws. That's probably best kept to their respective talk pages, though. I'd help out, but I probably know less about these topics than you do (or anyone else in this discussion, for that matter). ―Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 13:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
POVFORK? Rape Jihad at least seems like a POVFORK of Wartime sexual violence NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Love jihad has some coverage in the Indian media, so not much an issue. AFAIK, Rape jihad is a neologism with extremely rare usage and none by reliable sources. --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 13:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Fold into Clandestine_HUMINT_asset_recruiting ? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Not convinced on that one. "Love jihad" has much more independent/secondary attestation than "rape jihad" and is not principally a state intelligence activity like HUMINT recruiting. Rhoark (talk) 15:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
alright, it was just a quick peek anyway NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:13, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Rape jihad is a term that is part of the jargon of islamophobia. If significant secondary sources explained how "anti-islamists" used this term, the article would be justified. However it would start by saying something like, "Rape jihad is a term used by sources generally described as islamophobic", and the article would be about who uses the term, where and why. Instead the article treats it as a generally accepted concept, which is why the article is biased. TFD (talk) 16:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. The question should not be "are these article titles neutral?" That's really to miss the point. After all The Protocols of the Elders of Zion are not really protocols written by the "elders of Zion", but the article is still quite properly called that. We also have Allah as Moon-god, even though he isn't; and Muhammad in the Bible even though he isn't. The title simply describes the concept. We could certainly have articles discussing these concepts, if they are notable ebnough, but that would require sources talking about the idea of "rape jihad" or "sexual jihad" or whatever. That's certainly not what the Rape jihad article does, though the Love Jihad one clearly describes the fact that it is discussing a disputed concept/catch phrase. Others, such as Offensive jihad are rather more uncertain cases. Paul B (talk) 18:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is literally described in the first sentence of the article as "an antisemitic hoax purporting to describe a Jewish plan for global domination". It's named that because the book's title is The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. We name the titles of articles about a book the name of that book title. Nothing strange there. As for Muhammad in the Bible, I don't see the problem here. The article describes the alleged prophesies of Muhammad in the Bible. Allah as Moon-god documents the notable criticism and opinion of some who purport that Allah is actually a moon god. I feel like you aren't considering the context of the article's contents in relation to their titles. What other succinct, accurate, and neutral article titles could be used? Yes, you could misinterpret the article title as conveying something if you're completely ignorant of its contents; but anyone who actually went to the article would understand why it's called that. Or do you think God as the Devil, Jesus in Scientology, and Surah of Wilaya and Nurayn are all likewise POV? I think the point being made here is that the article titles are POV because of the content of the articles, and because of the controversial words used in the title. Since these terms are not adequately verified as used by reliable secondary sources, and because it combines two very controversial terms which may convey something POV, there may be issues about these article titles. ―Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 20:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The "Protocols" has in fact been published under numerous different titles. We call the article "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" because that's the WP:COMMONNAME in English. I really don't know what point you are trying to make here. I am not challenging the titles of the articles I gave as examples. I gave them as examples to point out that article names do not have to reflect "truth" or be innoffensive. You can't legitimately object to "rape jihad" as a title if there is is significant discussion of the supposed phenomenon in sources under that name. That is quite clearly established with Love jihad, I think. It is far far less clear in the case of 'rape jihad'. While I see nothing especially wrong in a discussing a distinction between "offensive" and "defensive" forms of jihad, IMO those particular articles do not fully establish that the distinction is sufficiently established to merit separate articles. We have to look at these on a case by case basis. Paul B (talk) 12:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Nevermind, I see where I was mistaken. I thought you were arguing that the article titles are problematic because they are conveying something, like the "Elders of Zion" having those "protocols", or Allah being a moon god. I realize now that we are both in agreement. I apologize for the misunderstanding. You can chock that up to my up-for-24-hours poor reading comprehension last night. We have no disagreement, and what we did have was contrived from misunderstanding on my part. Thanks for dealing with my mistake so courteously. I agree with your assessment. ―Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 19:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, isn't it also biased to assert that this term is Islamophobic and thus those who consider it real are Islamophobes? What evidence do you have that this is an Islamophobic term? The article may be biased or POV, but switching it to the opposite POV still makes it POV. I do not deny that there are serious problems with these articles, which may include their titles, but I am hesitant to label them as Islamophobic. Critical, even critical to the point of POV, is not necessarily hatred or discrimination or any sort of -phobia. ―Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 20:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
No. The term is obviously islamophobic to an informed unbiased observer. It associates a particularly emotive term with strong negative connotations with a term that has varied and complex meanings, but is strongly associated with Islam, suggesting that "rape" is an intrinsic feature of Islam, and is intimately linked to it. There may be people who don't consciously understand this propaganda trick, and there may be people who believe that the association is factually correct and thus neutral. The first group invalidates your argument that everybody who considers this term is an islamophobe, and the second group consist of islamophobes who don't admit that they are indeed islamophobic, but neither helps the the status of the term. For similar (though weaker) examples, consider American imperialism or Jewish greed. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I reject the implicit insinuation within the term "Islamophobia" that fear of something "strongly associated with Islam" (e.g., Sharia Law) is irrational (and thus a phobia rather than a legitimate concern). That's a "propaganda trick" orders of magnitude more severe than anything the title of this article could possibly imply. Pax 11:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Islamophobia is just the term that has become established to refer to hatred of Islam/Muslims. The etymology is irrelevant. 'Homophobia' does not really imply an irrational fear of homosexuals either. It's used for people with virulently anti-homosexual views. Anti-Semitism, for example, has a completely different etymology but an equivalent meaning. We just use words that have neen establshed in language. It's not a conspiracy or 'propaganda' to do so. The question for the article 'rape jihad' is whether that label is well established in the way that 'love jihad' clearly is. And the article should be about how and in what contexts the phrase is used. Paul B (talk) 12:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Stephan Schulz, I don't think that "[t]he term is obviously islamophobic to an informed unbiased observer". Maybe I'm just not informed, or maybe I'm just biased, but I would only consider the term (presumably "Rape Jihad"?) to be inaccurate and perhaps POV unless proven otherwise. I completely agree with you that the term "associates a particularly emotive term with strong negative connotations with a term that has varied and complex meanings, but is strongly associated with Islam", which is why I oppose it at this time, but I disagree that the conclusion of this is that it suggests "that 'rape' is an intrinsic feature of Islam, and is intimately linked to it". Assuming this term is inaccurate (which I believe it probably is), I believe that it is at worst a biased and misrepresenting title which attempts to disparage Islamic jihad and condemn so-called "rape jihad". (Although "rape jihad" is wrong, in my opinion, it is not our duty as Wikipedia to assess it as wrong, only to document information about it.) Unless there is significant documentation that "Rape Jihad" is used as a legitimate and accurate term to describe certain conduct, we should consider retitling or removing the article altogether. I don't believe it implies that "rape jihad" is "an intrinsic feature of Islam", though, anymore than do the actions of Islamists and fundamentalist Islamic extremists represents "an intrinsic feature of Islam".
I don't think an article about the so-called "jihad" practices of some Muslims (who are probably Islamists) is necessarily implicit commentary of Islamic jihad as a whole, or criticism of the very foundation of Islam as a religion, anymore than is "American imperialism" commentary of what it is to be an American or "Jewish greed" of what it is to be Jewish. Such terms are representative of behaviors or conduct—real or perceived—of a certain type of Muslim, or American, or Jew. I don't believe this "rape jihad" term is intended to describe the entire demographic of Muslims, however, anymore than "American imperialism" is intended to be a descriptor of all Americans or "Jewish greed" a descriptor of the economic attitude of Jews. Then again, I don't use such terms, so perhaps those who do mean them to describe the entire demographic. Perhaps those peopleare Islamophobic, or anti-American, or antisemitic, but it's not our job to determine whether these individuals are, nor do I think it meaningfully contributes to the discussion.
What matters here is whether the article titles accurately describe and reflect that which it titles in a neutral and encyclopedic manner; and whether the content which is titled as it is notable or worthwhile enough to actually include in Wikipedia as an article. Isn't that what this discussion is about? Whether the article titles are biased or POV? Whether the term is Islamophobic is only meaningful when documenting how the term is used, but I don't think it's important to note when determining the article's title. If it were, then—and apologies for bringing these terms up, but it's to illustrate a point—shouldn't we be bringing "Nigger" up for NPOV for being racist, or "Faggot" for being homophobic? I think the use/mention distinction is important to note here. In any case, I don't think we should be judging the views of others here. What's important is whether the article titles are NPOV. Are they? Why or why not? I'm not an Islamophobe, but I'm not going to jump to the conclusion that others who believe this article is neutral, or its title, is Islamophobic. If anything, wouldn't that be POV? But I reiterate: I may be uninformed and I may myself be biased (though I don't know what I am biased for or against). I admit that I may be misunderstanding this whole issue, so if I am, please do let me know.
I really hate being the verbose one here, but hopefully my thoughts don't fall on deaf ears (or blind eyes?). I think we're getting off-track here, and should be focusing on determining whether the article titles are NPOV. As Guy Macon noted, the reliable sources which assert that these terms are common names are dubious at best. In my opinion, unless we can find more credible sources, the topic of discussion at this point should be what to replace the article titles with, not whether they are biased. ―Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 19:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Finasteride

Formerly98 has just reverted an edit for the 3x in the past 24 hours and I would like to request a comment so that I do not enter an edit war. My opinion is that is trying to hide an artificial consensus when he is the only person that has advocated for his particular edit in the past week. {comments directed at editors instead of content removed by Zad68}

A recent article was published that stated the existing body of clinical trials for finasteride all have low quality study design for measuring side effects. While the study was funded with a grant from the NIH, it received a small donation from a foundation that is studying the harmful effects from taking this cosmetic hair loss drug. I believe he is trying to discredit the article's conclusions by intimating the authors received money from a group that is engaged in litigation, a claim that is definitely false. Objective feedback would be appreciated since he has entered edit warring territory.

Most recent edit warring diff is found here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doors22 (talkcontribs)

I find no fault with the linked edit on either a NPOV or OR basis, assuming the claim is verifiable. I think on an NPOV basis the article should expand further on the findings of the meta-analysis, such as systematic bias, misleading charts, and financial support from the manufacturer. This is qualifying information on the reliability of other sources/statements in the article that is critical to a reader's understanding. Rhoark (talk) 15:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. I agree that it would be helpful to more fully discuss findings of the article. Formerly98 is very aggressive in removing as much material as possible which requires me to be as concise as possible unfortunately. Doors22 (talk) 17:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to protest that this was posted here without notifying me. I learned about it only because this page is on my watch list. It is well established that the conclusions of studies are affected by the funding source. In fact, the authors of the paper in question mention the fact that 56% of the studies included in their meta analysis were industry funded as part of their indictment of the reliability of their reporting of AEs. If the journal reports that the study was financed in part by an activist group, and the study authors acknowledge that funding affects study conclusions, is it reasonable for us to leave this out? Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 16:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I think this is the perfect example of original research and distorting text in the article. The article applies Ionnadis and Lau criteria, an objective standard, that specifically considers clinical trials financed by manufacturing companies to have bias with respect to safety measurements. Would the author agree with you? Perhaps (I have not spoken with him), but the article mentions nothing about non-manufacturers providing gifts (not even full grants) to meta-studies (not clinical trials). For this reason, you are egregiously engaging in original research which has no place on Wikipedia. Doors22 (talk) 17:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Doors do you have a point here that cannot be addressed on the article Talk page or by holding an RFC? Its good to see that Ionnadis and Lau agree with me that funding impacts study outcomes. What exactly do you think the difference between a "gift" and a "grant" is, and how would they have different effects on investigator behavior? Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 17:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
The Ionnadis and Lau criteria neither agrees nor disagrees with your original research so stop distorting the context and substance of the study, which only evaluates manufacturer involvement in clinical trials. I am OK with your title change, but it is clear that you are the source of the POV. Doors22 (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I also don't believe you are not aware of the difference between a gift and a grant, especially since you were/are an employee of the pharma industry. From Harvard's website on research funding: "Gifts typically carry no reciprocal obligations between donor and recipient, and are often unrelated (or only indirectly related) to the business interests or mission of the donor." This is compared to grants - "In sponsored awards (which include sponsored grants and contracts), however, the business interests or mission of the source of external funds is most often related directly to the uses for which the funds are put by the recipient. Because sponsors are concerned that their funds be used to support activities that bolster the sponsor’s own mission or interests, sponsors typically provide funding for sponsored awards on the basis of a specific project or research plan and budget". This is the exact reason why the article says the funders/sponsors had no role in the design/interpretation of the study. The NIH was the one concerned with evaluating the existing body of literature on Propecia and the results speak for themselves.Doors22 (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The only relevant issue here is that money changed hands, Doors. They can call it a gift, grant, contract, bequest, bribe, or incentive plan. It still pays for research, and influences the conclusions of that research. The General Counsel for the Post-Finasteride Syndrome Foundation is Rosemary McGeady, a tort attorney for the law firm Levinson Axelrod. Surprise, surprise, Levinson Axelrod has a practice in pharmaceutical torte suits and is advertising its availablity to provide legal services to people suing Merck for alleged injuries caused by Finasteride.
But your argument is that the investigators in this study received cash from an organization that has a major law firm specializing in pharmaceutical personal injury suits represented in its senior management, but this is not relevant? Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 23:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
You are grasping at straws here. The general counsel is the mother of a man who suffered from post finasteride syndrome after taking a 5-alpha-reductase inhibitor. It apparently is true she works as a lawyer in tort law but what you have shown does not indicate they are involved in anything with respect to Propecia. That link you sent is not a direct advertisement for a propecia clients but rather an automatic search query taken from a database of firms who are qualified to handle certain types of cases. I may be incorrect on this matter, but if you search their proprietary website (and not this second rate database) they have nothing to do with Propecia cases. You are digging yourself deeper by showing making one deceptive argument after another. Doors22 (talk) 00:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
For you to equate a research gift to a "bribe" or "incentive plan" is ridiculous but alas not out of character. A small research gift with no strings attached from a non-profit has zero bearing on the outcome of the study. It is very different from the industry model where researchers and institutions are dependent on pharma corporations for both ongoing and future financing. 02:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
So up to this point its myself, Jytdog, and Rhoak on one side of this issue, and you on the other Doors. But you are still unhappy and are making this very personal, as you have the last several times there has been a disagreement on the subject of finasteride. I'd urge you to reconsider your course of action and strike your comments above. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 03:52, 18 April 2015 (UTC)