Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

→

Archive 35

Conspiracy theory definition

The Conspiracy theory article is having some POV problems. I am trying to follow WP:LEADCITE and am supported by Mystichumwipe and Mystylplx but we have editors reverting under the guise of a consensus which with the three of us think doesn't exist.

Here is what I want to put in:

A conspiracy theory in its broadest sense is "simply a theory that posits a conspiracy--a secret plan on the part of some group to influence events by partly secret means."[1][2][3][4] but it is also used as a derogatory term to denote ridiculous, misconceived, paranoid, unfounded, outlandish or irrational theories.[5]

1) "But if a conspiracy theory is simply a theory that posits a conspiracy – a secret plan on the part of some group to influence events by partly secret means – and if a conspiracy theorist is someone who subscribes to a conspiracy theory, then the conventional wisdom itself is not just suspect, but obviously absurd."(Pigden, Charles R (2007) "Conspiracy Theories and the Conventional Wisdom" Episteme: A Journal of Social Epistemology Volume 4, Issue 2, Edinburgh University Press pp. 222 DOI: 10.1353/epi.2007.0017.)

2) "What is a conspiracy theory? The discussion so far suggests that a conspiracy theory is simply a conspiratorial explanation, and that an explanation is conspiratorial if it postulates a group of agents working together in secret, often, though perhaps not always, for a sinister purpose." (Coady, David Conspiracy theories: the philosophical debate Ashgate Publishing Page 2) later on page 140 Coady reiterates that at its most basic level a conspiracy theory is the theory of a conspiracy.

3) Balaban, Oded (2005) Interpreting conflict: Israeli-Palestinian Negotiations at Camp David II and Beyond Peter Lang Page 66

4) Parish, Jane (2001) The age of anxiety: conspiracy theory and the human sciences Wiley-Blackwell page 94

5) "conspiracy theory n (1909) the theory that an event or phenomenon occurs as a result of a conspiracy between interested parties. Originally a neutral term, but more recent usage (dating from around the mid 1960s) is often somewhat derogatory, implying a paranoid tendency to see the hand of some malign covert agency in any unexplained event." 20th Century Words (1999) John Ayto, Oxford University Press, p. 15.

Keeping WP:LEADCITE in mind just what is wrong with this lead?--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I am half-heartedly involved.

It appears the issue at Conspiracy theory concerns whether the lead should say

A conspiracy theory explains an event as being the result of an alleged plot by a covert group or organization or, more broadly, the idea that important political, social or economic events are the products of secret plots that are largely unknown to the general public.(permalink)

or should say

A conspiracy theory in its broadest sense is "simply a theory that posits a conspiracy--a secret plan on the part of some group to influence events by partly secret means;" but it is also used as a derogatory term to denote ridiculous, misconceived, paranoid, unfounded, outlandish or irrational theories.(permalink)

One side asserts that the first summary is accurate and the second is an attempt to cleanse "conspiracy theory" to remove its negative connotations so it is merely a theory about a conspiracy rather than a cuckoo belief as is actually the case. Johnuniq (talk) 23:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I will point out that my version has reliable sources to back it up while the version it replaces has NONE. WP:LEADCITE clearly states "The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be supported by an inline citation." Again, keeping WP:LEADCITE in mind just what is wrong with the lead I am presenting?--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Drop the "but" and use a separate sentence on the general nature of: Some conspiracy theories are thought sufficiently unlikely that the term is often used to indicate extreme unlikelihood of a theory being correct. Avoiding any "negative" wording, but making the nature of the problem clear to readers. IMO. Collect (talk) 20:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The but likely reflects comments by authors like Keeley (see Talk:Conspiracy_theory/Archive_15#Conspiracy_theory-definitions_and_meaning) who makes a distinction between conspiracy theories in general and Unwarranted Conspiracy Theories (UCT). Clearly the referenced version is the better one.--67.42.65.209 (talk) 07:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Collect's suggested changes. I think the "but it is also used as" can give an impression that the second definition is somehow suspect, or less valid. Mystylplx (talk) 07:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

(I'm involved) Mystylplx, why do you think that "but it is also used as" casts the second definition as suspect or less valid? I'm also concerned that BruceGrubb use of quotes creates the impression that the source say exactly that, and they don't, but I expect that is more of an issue for WP:RS. In way of context, we did hold a straw poll on this issue two months ago, see Talk:Conspiracy_theory/Archive_15#Up_or_down_.21vote_on_Black_Kite.27s_suggestion in which we reached rough consensus to use the simple version, but BruceGrubb has refused to accept that or to acknowledge that most sources do use the pejorative meaning. My basic question for this forum would be are there any neutrality issues in regard to the first version listed here by Johnuniq? I don't think there are any POV issues with it myself, but it seems to me that BruceGrubb's suggest introduces a POV issue by stressing that the "broadest meaning" is neutral, and that seems unsupported by sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Nuujinn, you have admitted that you cannot read some of these sources and your claim "In your version of the lede, you're presenting the definition as a quotation, and none of the sources use that exact phrase" presented in the talk page can be proven to be false as the two sources quoted at length above do indeed use that exact phrase:

"But if a conspiracy theory is simply a theory that posits a conspiracy – a secret plan on the part of some group to influence events by partly secret means – and if a conspiracy theorist is someone who subscribes to a 'conspiracy theory, then the conventional wisdom itself is not just suspect, but obviously absurd."(Pigden, Charles R (2007) "Conspiracy Theories and the Conventional Wisdom" Episteme: A Journal of Social Epistemology Volume 4, Issue 2, Edinburgh University Press pp. 222 DOI: 10.1353/epi.2007.0017.)

2) "What is a conspiracy theory? The discussion so far suggests that a conspiracy theory is simply a conspiratorial explanation, and that an explanation is conspiratorial if it postulates a group of agents working together in secret, often, though perhaps not always, for a sinister purpose." (Coady, David Conspiracy theories: the philosophical debate Ashgate Publishing Page 2) later on page 140 Coady reiterates that at its most basic level a conspiracy theory is the theory of a conspiracy.

In fact, "simply a theory that posits a conspiracy--a secret plan on the part of some group to influence events by partly secret means" is taken straight from the first source ie a direct quote.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

BruceGrubb, we're here to get outside opinions on the POV question, not to carry this endless debate to yet another forum. And I'm sorry, you're right about the quote appearing in the one (although you attribute it to four), but that's a posed question, not a definition. I think to use a portion of the question in this way to define the term is not neutral. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

After going to the talk pages it is clear that you and several others are ignoring NPOV. The version with actual references is the superior version so give it a rest.--216.31.124.148 (talk) 18:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Nuujinn, the version you and several other editors support has NO references to back it up--not a single one. Are you and those other editors now claiming that a book published by the freaking Oxford University Press doesn't know what it is talking about without thing to back that up?!? Do any of you understand how insane that position is? When I challenged Knight's claim of the phrase first appearing in 1909 I at least had reliable sources to back up my position; so far all we have seen contesting my position is a bunch of empty OR rhetoric and not a single RS backing up any of it up.--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Sanity check on Calgary Stampede

Resolved

 – Going to mark as resolved. Thanks for input, and more is always welcome. Resolute 18:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Specifically the animal welfare section. Another editor has periodically made edits that, in my opinion, are an attempt at slanting the section towards an anti-chuckwagon racing POV. See my reversion from yesterday's changes here. I feel that the changes made do not reflect the sources that pre-existed, while new additions are from advocacy sites and blogs that do not qualify as RSes. Knowing the controversy exists, I went to significant lengths to try and present both sides as neutrally as possible. Given I wrote the article in its current state (and took it to FA), I would rather not resort to simply reverting such changes without other views so as to avoid appearing to be taking a WP:OWN stance on the article. As such, I would appreciate opinions on both the section of the article, and the appropriateness of my revert. Thanks, Resolute 17:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

minor comment: The couple refused, attending and participating in a private demonstration of rodeo and chuckwagon events.. Seems unlikely they actually refused, the Royals don't usually make public announcements about such issues. DS Belgium (talk) 17:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Reading your version it seems POV as well.Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Good point, DS Belgium. I will reword that. Slatersteven, can you give me an example? Resolute 17:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

"the animal activist community placed political pressure on travel agencies " smacks of POV, as does "Each year, the Stampede attempts to balance rodeo", which I cannot find mentioned in the sources.Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, I see you have made modifications to both passages, thanks. FWIW, the latter was cited to here (ref 112 in the article): "The two-step between contemporary animal-welfare sensitivities and hootin’-and-hollerin’ rodeo tradition continues in 2010". Resolute 17:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

And suddenly there is an IP editor tagging the hell out of the article, with no actionable reason why... on the talk page they seem upset by my intro paragraph on my FA nomination rather than anything to do with the article itself. Could someone assess this discussion as well? Resolute 18:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Recommendation: Reduction of the whole melange to perhaps three paragraphs from the current six, removal of the images, removal of such words as "argue" and "claim" and simply stating that animal rights groups are unhappy that the Humane Society works with the major fair. Heck, cutting the entire article in half would double its effectiveness. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. I would like to think that I haven't put too much bloat into the piece, so a theoretical cut down would possibly necessitate a split to a history of... child article. I'm not sure I want to do something like that at this point, but it is worth considering in the future. Resolute 22:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The section is way too long. We should provide more attention to what the Humane Society, the mainstream animal welfare group, says, and less to fringe animal rights groups. TFD (talk) 17:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The VHS is, alas, a mainstream group, while the animal welfare issue is becoming a dominant theme at the Stampede. I have tried to detail not only the local and outside views of the various humane societies, but the attitudes of Stampede itself, and changes made irrespective of outside influence. Cutting paragraphs 3 and 4 seems the most logical to me, but I fear that doing so would strip the section of historical context. I am interested in any specific suggestions you have in mind, however. Resolute 14:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I have paired down one paragraph by a couple of lines,Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I see that. Thank you, Resolute 15:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

shortemde thje following paragraph too, there is a bit too much detail.Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The Vancouver Humane Society is not a mainstream organization. It is not a member of the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies and should not be confused with the Vancouver branch of the BC SPCA, the main animal welfare group in the city.[1] Note too that the Stampede does even take place in British Columbia. TFD (talk) 16:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with all of that (and on that latter point, the Calgary Sun has had some truly amazing front pages and editorials attacking the VHC for butting into Calgary's business). However, affiliated or not, they have been major players in recent controversies and have managed to push bans at other major rodeos. I don't care for them too much, but I can't call them fringe either. That said, they aren't even identified by name in that section, so I think I only wasted your time bringing them up. Sorry about that. Slatersteven's modifications look like they are helping pare the section down. Resolute 16:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Selena Gomez and Justin Bieber

A group of active editors in both the Selena Gomez and Justin Bieber articles have made a decision to omit any and all references to their relationship. I find this decision to be in violation of our best practices and virtually unsupported by the preponderance of reliable sources on the subject. Although I am uninvolved in this issue, having only just noticed this glaring omission, I would like to hear from uninvolved editors who have not contributed to either article and are willing to take a look at this problem with fresh eyes. However, if you are involved in contributing to these articles and you wish to share your opinion, please note your involvement. Viriditas (talk) 04:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Subtle anti-Israeli sentiment in the lede of the Palestinian people article

What can I say, I really don't know what else to do so I'm here. This is the discussion, but really, apart from "it's relevant" no one has a convincing argument. The problem is best described below the aforementioned paragraph, under the RfC heading that yielded virtually no response. Here is how I presented the question – hopefully, this will be settled in an encyclopedic manner:

• Basically, the question is whether or not it is appropriate for the lead section of an article about Palestinian people to:
  1. Precede the wikilink Palestinian territories by the expression "Israeli-occupied";
  2. List, in detail, the number of Jewish residents in what is disputed as Palestinian territories in and around Israel, with a separate sub-sentence in parentheses that pertains to East Jerusalem, the wikilink of which is also preceded by the expression "Israeli-annexed". Hearfourmewesique (talk) 20:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Under international law it is occupied.Slatersteven (talk) 23:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't there be an argument that excluding this information would be much more anti-Israeli? That would be to suppress the hard information that the area is controlled by the Israeli military and has a large Israeli population. Surely?

Plus, I think "it's relevant" is actually a pretty killer argument. --FormerIP (talk) 00:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not disputing the international law, but how relevant is any of it to the lede? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 00:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Another interesting point: Palestinians have always lived in an occupied territory, first in the Ottoman Empire, then in the British Empire, then in Jordan and only then (since 1967) under partial Israeli control. Isn't this just a little undue weight towards the Israeli issue? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you should consider that the issue may be that you haven't verified whether you can reliably detect bias in the Israel-Palestine conflict topic area. You wrote an RfC statement that says "List, in detail, the number of Jewish residents in what is disputed as Palestinian territories in and around Israel, with a separate sub-sentence in parentheses that pertains to East Jerusalem, the wikilink of which is also preceded by the expression "Israeli-annexed"". You repeated it here on a neutrality noticeboard. It's the kind of sentence you might find in an article by CAMERA where standard perfectly neutral terms are transformed. Settlers become residents, occupied becomes disputed, areas outside the green line such as East Jerusalem are in Israel. It's out of touch with reality according to RS-world. I think it demonstrates an inability to see bias. You should be concerned about that if you plan to continue editing in the topic area. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Please stop your personal attacks and address the issue in question. And just for the record, CAMERA is no less a reliable source as the leftist propaganda clumsily masked as mass media you so eagerly advocate for. And lastly – before you judge me, think how many aspects you ignore in your edits and comments to fortify an agenda. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack and I'm not judging you in a negative sense. It's sound advice offered free of charge that will help you avoid conflict and making mistakes in the topic area. I'm not interested in the issue at hand because I don't believe there is one. I wasn't aware that I had advocated the use of leftist propaganda unless you are referring to the use of China Daily and Xinhua in various articles about Chinese topics and elsewhere. They qualify as leftist propaganda in some sense I guess. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

One more thing, Sean. Let's deal with your accusations one at a time.

1. Residents – please read the definition of the word, do they not reside in the area? If anything, settlers is a far more biased word.
2. Disputed – is there not at least one side that disputes the issue? Suppressing the dispute's existence is more biased than at least balancing it with neutral wording.
3. If according to Israel, Jerusalem is the undivided capital, does it not exist in your world? Or is Israel and its supporters (such as CAMERA) nothing but a sack of lies that should always be seen as such? Surely you cannot admit to such belief, but your comments strongly suggest it. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

@Hearfourmewesique

1/ Think about Nazi personnel living in France 1940 – 1945. They where certainly residents - but would you say the term occupiers was less relevant?

2/ I dare say Hitler and his chums would have "disputed" claims made against them. Dose that automatically validate the term disputed?

3/ Surly scepticism about some of the claims Israel makes re. the status of Jerusalem, does not amount to "Israel and its supporters (such as CAMERA) [being] nothing but a sack of lies"? Prunesqualor billets_doux 01:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

<- Hearfourmewesique, since Malik has separated out a section below I'll respond here. With respect, it's not a good use of your time to try to explain your position to me because I think your approach is fundamentally flawed. We just reflect what reliable sources say in a way that is consistent with the policies and guidelines of the project. To me this is just cold, heartless information processing. Assuming for the sake of argument that I had some personal views on the issues that mattered to anyone, they still wouldn't be part of the decision procedures. I honestly don't care in the slightest about the words themselves; resident, settler, colonist, disputed, occupied, Israeli village, Israeli settlement, Israeli colony, West Bank, Judea and Samaria etc etc even though these words have great symbolic significance for many people for reasons that are a bit puzzling but are always irrelevant to content decisions. The objective is simply to maximise policy compliance by ensuring that the language we use is consistent with the plurality of reliable sources (noting important discrepencies and disagreements over language of course) in a demonstrable evidence based way by actually properly sampling RS-world and faithfully reflecting what we find.

Years have been wasted in the I-P conflict topic area with people arguing and edit warring over which string of words properly describes something according to policy when sampling a large set of RS usually makes the optimal solution quite obvious. My point is that an editor may think something is biased or neutral but we have to actually know whether something is biased or neutral according to policy and be able to demonstrate that using evidence sampled from RS-world. When it comes to words like resident vs settler, occupied vs disputed, what is in Israel and what over the green line, the results from sampling of RS and the constraints imposed by policy are clear. There's no need to waste time on arguing about wording issues like these or to use words that are inconsistent with RS. That's not to say that your concerns about detailed wording tweaks in the article's lead in question here are necessarily invalid (although I personally think they are). That's up to others to decide, I won't be participating.

My point was simply that I don't think you can reliably see bias, you shouldn't assume that you can and that you should be concerned about that in the topic area as it will bring you into conflict with both policy and editors. I'm not sure which sources you meant by "leftist propaganda" but if they are mainstream sources that other RS and the community regards as reliable, dismissing them as leftist propaganda is probably another thing you should be concerned about as it will compromise your ability to make proper evidence based assessments of policy compliance. This isn't meant as criticism. There are a number of topics about various places and issues, mostly technical but also political that I'm probably too close to to reliably see bias or properly stick to policy without messing up. I don't edit them. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

This is fallacious in more than one sense, but unfortunately I don't have too much time at the moment, so I'll make it short. As I wrote on the article talk page, Palestinians were never a sovereign nation, they have always lived under someone else governing them. To this day, Israel is the first – and only – governing body that gave them control over Gaza and parts of the West Bank following the Oslo Accords. The article lede, which is supposed to give a concise summary of the entire article, does not say any of that – it only tells the reader that the territories are occupied by Israel/got annexed by Israel and that a relatively high number of Jews live on their land. It doesn't give the slightest idea as for why the territories were annexed to begin with, and what part the Palestinian (and other Arab) leaders played in the entire process. This is why I believe the article is initially presented with a strong bias and the lede should be changed to tell the whole story, rather than hand-picked parts of it. I have more to say, but I must go now. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The main point of this post, reiterated since it's already been buried under irrelevant stuff

• Basically, the question is whether or not it is appropriate for the lead section of an article about Palestinian people to:
  1. Precede the wikilink Palestinian territories by the expression "Israeli-occupied";
  2. List, in detail, the number of Jewish residents in what is disputed as Palestinian territories in and around Israel, with a separate sub-sentence in parentheses that pertains to East Jerusalem, the wikilink of which is also preceded by the expression "Israeli-annexed".
• Food for thought:
  1. Palestinians have always lived in an occupied territory, first in the Ottoman Empire, then in the British Empire, then in Jordan and only then (since 1967) under partial Israeli control. Even if anyone thinks it is relevant to the lede, isn't this just a little undue weight towards the Israeli issue?
  2. Out of all the governing bodies in the area, Israel is the first – and only – one that gave Palestinians control over Gaza and parts of the West Bank following the Oslo Accords.
  3. The main reason for annexing territories was boosting security in the area, following constant threats and attacks by Palestinian and other Arab militant groups. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Hearfourmewesique, you already started an RfC on this subject. Please stop WP:FORUMSHOPPING. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Malik, this is the irrelevant stuff. I'm trying to get the point across and get honest opinions based on all the facts. Please stop. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Not only is it forum shopping, it is clearly and demonstrably based on false pretenses. To begin with, Palestine was not "occupied territory" under the Ottomans. And the annexation of East Jerusalem had nothing, and I mean nothing, about boosting security in the area, following constant threats and attacks by Palestinian and other Arab militant groups. There is an open RFC about this on the talk page. So far Hearfourmewesique has not gotten the answer he or she has hoped for and has sought to run to the other parent for a different one. Though when getting an answer not to his or her liking even here, the user chooses a creative way of responding. Disruptive and tendentious, pure and simple. nableezy - 19:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments that are purely there to spew hate (i.e. comparing Israelis to Nazis and their leaders to Hitler) are unwelcome on Wikipedia, since – as I already wrote in the edit summary – this is not a hate forum. And you have the audacity to call me disruptive and tendentious??? Especially after "sweeping" my honest answer to your "Excuse me?" on your talk page, so that you can continue your smear campaign under the pretense of free speech just because it's your own user/talk page. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 04:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Do not remove others comments. The end. nableezy - 12:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

To quote the policy: "Editing – or even removing – others' comments is sometimes allowed[...]Removing prohibited material such as libel[...]Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism[...]Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are[...]borderline case". Comparing Israel to the Nazis is libelous, disruptive, racist, hateful and any other adjective that comes to mind, in other words – unacceptable. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

No, no, and no, but as you insist on edit-warring to remove others comments that are neither personally attacking anyone, trolling, vandalism, or in any other way disruptive Ill just let somebody else deal with you. nableezy - 19:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Medical Torture

Big problems at Medical_torture#Asserted_medical_or_professional_complicity but I don't have time to clean it up right now. Also includes at least one severe BLP violation. causa sui (talk) 00:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Astrology

Some editors at Astrology are intent on adding the following criticism of a peer-reveiwed study in Nature into the article (see here for full context: [[2]]):

"Criticisms of Carlson's study have been published in numerous astrological and other fringe journals. These arguments range from faulty design and conclusion by Professor Hans Eysenck (1986) and Professor Joseph Vidmar (2008) to the claim that the Carlson data provides statistically significant evidence favoring the astrologers by Professor Suitbert Ertel (2009)".

The sources used are: Astrological Journal, Correlation, and Journal of Scientific Exploration, all of which are non-peer-reviewed fringe sources. Nevertheless, they are being used to challenge a genuine peer-reviewed scientific study, using WP:PARITY and the fact they they are identified as fringe journals as a justification.

The noteworthiness the criticisms is questionable as none of these criticisms have been discussed in reliable sources. There is no evidence that they are part of mainstream scientific discourse.

Your input would be appreciated at the article's talk page: [[3]]. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

This conversation also took place on Jimbo's talk. N^oformation ^Talk 02:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

IMO, this issue is more relevant to the WP:RSN, because the three journals you mention Astrological Journal, Correlation, and Journal of Scientific Exploration are not scientific journals at all. For example, none of them is included into the ISI database. They have no impact factor, they are not considered as scientific by scientific community. Therefore, to include them into Wikipedia (as a source, not as a subject of discussion), means discredit Wikipedia. --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

That's essentially been the point that many editors have been trying to make. Would you be interested in swinging by and joining the discussion? N^oformation ^Talk 03:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Nicholas Roerich

He seems to have been a genuinely notable guy; but this article, apparently poorly translated from one or more other languages, is absolutely worshipful (as well as being poorly formatted and ungrammatical). I've taken a very shallow pass at it, but would really appreciate some help here, ideally from a Russian-speaking editor. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Christian Michelides

A report regarding this article recently appeared at WP:COIN. The article is about an Austrian psychotherapist whose article on De WP has reportedly been somewhat contentious. Several users have come to En WP from De WP and feel that other editors' aims conflict with WP and have cited the German article being locked several times. Some editors there feel that there's a never-ending fight between editors creating an encyclopedic article and members of a fan club who have resorted to socking to push their point of view.

As there's no evidence of a close connection besides claims of fanclub membership, I bring this report here and have asked the involved editors to discuss the issue here and ask for the help of the members/watchers of this noticeboard. OlYeller21^Talktome 19:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC) @Robertsan - stop vandalism because of bad emotions, like on the other page is told by OlYeller21"it sounds like the article is good in its current shape " and by the way - in the German version wie have "und wirkte maßgeblich an der Organisation der ersten Regenbogenparade 1996 auf der Wiener Ringstrasse mit" and its more the correct version than Yours - by the way an version preferred by Elisabeht (see German discussion) - because it is the truth - again - without Mihcelides no CSD at this time -read the source and like all your unreading, ignorierin and inaccuracies - McWien without an a. So stop vandalism because of envy and hate - article was good in the beforerobertsan-shape - you are the man on a mission i guess.--Das-Geheimnis-der-Sphinx (talk) 08:36, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I did some edits in the article, correcting the hardest POVs according to the German sources. And I deleted the unsourced parts. For CM never got any academic degree in all the studies he mentioned in the beginning, I took them out. There is only one paper he wrote as a student in Vienna to be found in the national library. Every catalogue is published by himself and only one book is in the national library, the only book he (or his fanclub) did not mention in the article. It was a catalogue for an exhibition in the rooms the company he was working for. The dog is not part of the job and so we decides to change to a more neutral photo in German WP. So I will change it in this article, too. You can see how the two two accounts talk about how to work here. McWien is blocked forever in German WP because of being a man on only one mission, to use WP for glorifying Christian Michelides (there are articles in es and francais based on the POV article in English). I hope there will be help from the watchers/members of this board here. Thank you for your attention. --Robertsan (talk) 08:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I guess all this needs discussion - we are 3 people who thinks article was in a good shape and only YOU - ONE guy, says other things - dog is part, he as studied - and where i can read here in en wikipedia, that a catalogue puplished in his own publishing house can not be a source - show me and don't regulate by yourself. and by the way again - you change without discussion when discussion is needed!--Das-Geheimnis-der-Sphinx (talk) 08:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Servie:block--Robertsan (talk) 08:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Warning user Robertsan because of his vandalism, see [4] McWien (talk) 21:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

NPOV is no vandalism, dear McWien. My Answer you can find there. --Robertsan (talk) 23:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Anti-Muslim organizations

I brought this here both because the user in question claimed it was a POV issue. I think it's a simple question of sources, but it would be very, very silly to bring these sources to RSN...

CNN, Radio Netherlands (link is dead but article is available elsewhere), and Agence France-Presse call the Party for Freedom (Partij voor de Vrijheid) anti-Muslim (as do the New York Times, the Telegraph (link is dead but the article is available elsewhere), the Economist, etc.). Given this, are we justified in placing the article in Category:Anti-Muslim organizations from the Netherlands?

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Not sure. Wilders has repeatedly and stridently declared that he is anti-Islam, but not anti-Muslim. Andries (talk) 18:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

yes, almost all right-wing extremists claim they're not anti-muslim. however, what matters in the end is the assessments of reliable secondary sources.-- mustihussain  19:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

And now we've got the same issue at Danish People's Party, where the sources include the Guardian, the Seattle Times, and the Stephen Roth Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism and Racism, and at Stop Islamization of America, where the sources include the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Mondoweiss, and the Huffington Post. This isn't about whether Wilders has denied being anti-Muslim; this is about two editors' campaign to deny that anyone is anti-Muslim. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

exactly! roscelese is absolutely right.-- mustihussain  20:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• I think some scholarly, political science sources would be preferable.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Why should we hold this designation to a higher standard than we hold any other? Why is it perfectly acceptable to source other elements of PVV's ideology to newspapers, to a paper by a graduate student (anything under a dissertation is not considered reliable, IIRC), or to a "living abroad country facts" webpage, but it's so very important to ignore otherwise reliable sources to avoid calling anyone anti-Muslim? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't recall ever having argued in favor of any of those viewpoints. What is the PVV? It sounds like an WP:OTHERSTUFF type argument to me.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

PVV = Partij voor de Vrijheid. Which article were you referring to? As for the OTHERSTUFF argument, the reason that's considered a flawed argument is because it's often comparing apples to oranges. Here, we have elements of the same class, viz. parts of the group's ideology, but you're arguing that we need scholarly sources to call it anti-Muslim, while lower-quality sources calling it anti-Islam (because they aren't against the people! just ignore their inciting of hatred) are just fine. Why should we use different standards for exactly the same sort of material? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Noone has argued that those two cases should be treated differently. (I came from the Danish People's Party article). I think we generally should use better sources to support claims about political ideologies.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I think before we state as a fact that a party is anti-Muslim, we need a source that says that is how they are normally viewed, rather than an example of where they have been called that. TFD (talk) 20:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, why should we hold this designation to a higher standard than any other? Piles of reliable sources describing the organization as anti-Muslim aren't enough, we have to go meta? Whereas propagating their claim that they're just anti-Islam, without any similar meta source, is completely fine. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Any reader with a bit of capacity of independent thinking can see that the quesiton of anti-islam or anti-muslim is pure sophistry. But yes - we need good sources - preferably scholarly sources summarizing different views on their political stances. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the distinction is pure sophistry, but in the interest of compromising with these other editors (one of whom has since been blocked for edit-warring), I tried to find sources that used terminology they would find acceptable. It hasn't helped, clearly. I'll look round for scholarly sources in a bit, I'm sure it won't be difficult to find some. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Added! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

there is an abundance of reliable secondary sources demonstrating clearly the anti-muslim nature of these parties. in addition, there is a campaign going on where the anti-muslim category is deliberately being removed from a wide range of pages without any discussion i.e. in violation of wp:brd. these pov-pushing spa-accounts need to be stopped.-- mustihussain  20:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think any of the sources presented are particularly weighty - it is easy to find exaggerated claims about the ideologies of most any political group if using only news sources and websites.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly why I've reverted those changes: all the sources have been cherrypicked by one user just because they contain the exaggerated 'anti-Muslim' claim in it. None of the sources explain the question in any depth. According to Roscelese's logic, just because a sensationalist claim has been posted between the lines by CNN we should immediately make the encyclopedia article reflect this usage. Estlandia (dialogue) 09:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

"Categorization must maintain a neutral point of view: categorizations appear on pages without annotations or referencing to justify or explain their addition; editors should be conscious of the need to maintain a neutral point of view when creating categories or adding them to articles. Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial" - WP:CAT. I've been told adding something about terrorism in a category is not acceptable based on that argument. If members of the group deny the assertion that they are anti-muslim then it is controversial. Time getting bent out of shape over the removal of a cat would be better spent making the prose clear. This would be of the most use to the reader.Cptnono (talk) 20:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

you missed the point. "anti-muslim"-category tags are suddenly being deleted by two editors, unilaterally from several pages. they don't have any consensus.-- mustihussain  21:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

No, you missed the point. I don;t care if editors are being lame or if the party in question really do hate Muslims. I care about what CAT says. Pay more attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cptnono (talk • contribs) 05:06, 11 November 2011

NPOV requires reflecting the views of reliable sources, rather than suppressing them. The category is justified in the article text; unfortunately, the users who are removing the category are also removing the article text, so maybe this is why you are confused. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

"Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial". A group or person denying something doesn't make it controversial. Terrorism related categories are widely used as are criminal convictions (with no dependency on the opinions of the convicted), holocaust denial, pseudoscience, and categories related to all sorts of things that represent facts and overwhelming consensus positions. I don't know about this case because there would need to be enough samples to establish whether it really is the case that there is a consensus view that justifies the categorization. But my point was that a denial means little by itself and manufacturing controversies that don't actually exist in RS-world is a popular sport in Wikipedia so sampling a lot of RS wouldn't hurt. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

What we should base our conclusions on are not a few newspaper articles cherrypicked by one user where the label 'anti-Muslim' has just been used passing by (probably synonymously with 'anti-Islam'). There are equally reliable sources that tell e.g. that PVV is a centre-right party [5] (and conversely, there are sources out there labelling it far right). We shouldn't attach all those labels to the articles, but as Maunus has rightly said find “scholarly sources summarizing different views on their political stances.” That is, articles that really substantiate the opinion, not just use sensationalist labels without giving a reason how is, say, PVV 'anti-Muslim' (as opposed to 'critical of Islam').Estlandia (dialogue) 09:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Your source describes the PVV as "conservative", not "centre-right". I suspect you mixed it up with the VDD. Of course, neither description is strictly incompatible with "anti-Muslim" or "anti-Islam" (a purely rhetorical distinction without practical substance). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

As I said above, I agree that there is no distinction. However, to make Filippuson (currently blocked) and Estlandia (not currently blocked) happy, I found sources that use the terminology they preferred; obviously treating the two terms as equivalent, since they are, would find even more sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Colleague, the page clearly reads PVV /Conservative (Centre-right). I'm not mixing up anything.Estlandia (dialogue) 14:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I see. I look at the text for the party ("A Dutch conservative political party which combines..."). You look at the table. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

With 119,000 hits for anti-Islam [6] and 189,000 for anti-muslim [7] this is not about "cherry-picking" but about terminology. The dichotomy of "anti-Islam" and "anti-muslim" is about the same as with "anti-gay" and "homophob" - nonexisting. BTW both lemmata link to Islamophobia. --78.53.37.169 (talk) 12:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia only cares about RS, Google search doesn't know how to identify those, so results like these have limited value. I don't think there's any way to avoid manually sampling RS in cases like this. Even if Google hits mattered you have only sampled part of the space. You've excluded the cases where neither term appears. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• The key here is to distinguish fact from opinion. In order to maintain a neutral point of view, we should not apply labels to a person or group ourselves. Instead, we should report on the labels others (reliable sources) apply to the person or group. This means we should attribute any labels to those who apply them: "Radio Netherlands has labeled the party as being 'anti-Muslim'" etc. If the person or group disagrees with that label, we would mention that as well. Blueboar (talk) 15:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• So at what point does that become unnecessary? I've cited/linked ten (IIRC) reliable sources which call it anti-Muslim. Should we name each of them? Would we also, do you think, write "The New York Times, the Washington Post, the BBC, [etc., etc.] describe Michelle Bachmann as conservative"? There is a point at which consensus in reliable sources relieves us of the need to attribute, and that point has long been passed. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

What I was saying is, with 100,000+ hits it's not about opinion but about phrasing. If PVV wouldn't be considered "anti-Muslim", it wouldn't get that many hits or vice versa. Neutrality in this case is not about creating a Polish Parliament, but about reflecting informed judgement. --78.53.37.169 (talk) 15:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Mylo Xyloto

Edit req, Talk:Mylo Xyloto#Edit request from , 2 November 2011. Thx.  Chzz  ►  06:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:PARITY

The Parity section of the WP:FRINGE guidelines is a favorite of fringe apologists, who interpret it as carte blanche to use just about any sourcing they please to support OR and SYNTH in articles on fringe topics. It is also misused to present a fringe topic from the in-universe persepective fringe topic in articles on the topic.

I've started a discussion of the talk page of the WP:FRINGE guidelines. This isn't a formal RfC, but a request for open-ended input on the question whether the Parity section needs to be re-worded for clarity. To keep the discussion centralized, please comment on the talk page of the article, here: [[8]]. Your input would be greatly appreciated. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Criticism section on Occupy Wall Street

I wrote a summary of some criticisms of the movement, using the same words as the sources. The sources were were themselves describing those criticisms. It was challenged and removed apparently because it sounds POV. I would like outside observers to take a look at it. Description here. Thanks all! B^e——C_ritical 00:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we clearly need more input over this. The 'criticisms' seem to be insults, and the sourcing is questionable, in that it isn't sourced to critics... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I provide quotes from the sources on the talk page. Aren't we supposed to use secondary sources, not primary sources? The sources are: The Chronicle of Higher Education which is the major news service in the United States academic world, CBS news site, and The New York Times, an article by Kate Zernike who was a member of the New York Times team which shared the 2002 Pulitzer Prize for Explanatory Reporting. B^e——C_ritical 04:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

There has been little outside input, and there have been no arguments offered which invalidate the sources or indicate that my summary of them was unrepresentative. All arguments seem to boil down to dislike of what's being said, not arguments that it is somehow out of Wikipedia process or rules. This isn't how it's supposed to go. You're supposed to be able to summarize good sources, and if you do it properly but people still object you're supposed to be able to call in outside help to build consensus. Anybody out there? B^e——C_ritical 00:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

This is simply untrue: "All arguments seem to boil down to dislike of what's being said" .. At least two of us are saying that the tone is not impartial, as required by NPOV. Becritical has just made the astounding claim (on the talk page) that NPOV is determined by the sources. Furthermore, he is dominating discussion there by replying to every single post. It seems that he is eager to frame the criticism as only he sees fit. Someone else please advise him to let up and let others weigh in too, as I've already tried twice. As we say, there is no deadline to get it right. -A98 98.92.187.126 (talk) 02:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

There's no requirement of an impartial tone. There's requirement that the sources be described in an impartial tone. One does that by impartially summarizing the reliable sources. If we have highly reliable sources to back it up, we can say "Conservatives and Tea Party activists say OWS is a shiftless, indolent, messy, anti-Semitic and drug-addled mob engaged in class warfare, and that the protester's grievances are far removed from the political mainstream." That's reporting what the sources tell us in an entirely impartial tone. See comparison on the talk page [9] B^e——C_ritical 03:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

That is not correct, not at all! At WP:NPOV there are multiple references to writing with an impartial tone. Rather than introducing strong and angry language, rewrite the information with a neutral tone, dropping the inflammatory quotes. Binksternet (talk) 03:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, let's see you rewrite the sources "impartially." See if you can convey how our RS secondary sources portray the conservative view of OWS without leaving out information or whitewashing our reliable sources. You will find that you are merely doing a whitewash job. B^e——C_ritical 04:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure I could do it if I worked very hard at it. The difficulty we both know that the task entails should be a signal that the material is not suited to the encyclopedia. We are not here to inflame the reader. Binksternet (talk) 04:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Did you really say that? Because that's what I've been saying, that people just don't think what our RS have to say is fit for Wikipedia. But that's not our choice to make. B^e——C_ritical 04:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

It's quite possible that this particular material run by the reliable sources is inappropriate because it's not relevant, given undue weight, is reporting on punditry and controversy rather than the subject of the article, etc. On the other hand, it's clear that there is a lot of criticism, antagonism, cultural clash, etc., over the OWS protests. I don't think you could tell the story of those protests without mentioning the response they've gotten, positive, negative, indifferent, and antagonistic. Political and cultural responses to what's essentially a political and cultural event are noteworthy encyclopedic information. So I think the problem if any is the tone, and selecting sources that are encyclopedic in scope. The proposed language seems more news-ish and essay-like than encyclopedic. Newspapers may be reliable sources, but we don't construct news articles out of them. Just my opinion, I haven't looked at this in a whole lot of depth. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Love to see you over there even if you end up disagreeing with me. B^e——C_ritical 05:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Maps of the Golan Heights

There has been a recent attempt to include in articles on sites within the Golan Heights maps that show the territory as being in Israel. This is an extreme minority claim that is rejected by nearly every single country on the planet. I think it is an obvious violation of NPOV to claim Syrian territory as being within Israel and the coordinated attempt to do so at several articles has reached a breaking point. Is it acceptable for a map to be used in the infobox of an article on a site in the Golan as showing the territory in Israel? nableezy - 17:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The details of this issue are unimportant. The important part is that if an image is put onto an article then it has to be there with the consensus of all editors. If a particular map is controversial, do not try to solve the controversy or even talk about what is right or wrong. Only identify the major points of view and make sure that they are all represented. This could mean using two maps, or one map with different borders shown and notes about who accepts which border. Talk it through on the pages in question and then if there are problems report back here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Afghans in Pakistan

Hi, can someone please look at the edits of user:Mar4d in the Afghans in Pakistan. He is editing with anti-Afghan POV, trying to make Afghan refugees living in Pakistan look veyr bad and make his own Pakistanis look good. Can someone please neutralize his edits because when I do it he keeps reverting it and I'm not in the mood for this childish revert war game. Thanks.--NorthernPashtun (talk) 16:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll not comment on user:Mar4d's edits, as I don't know enough about the subject. I would however suggest that you do little for your case by suggesting that "Pakistanis are known for lying" in an edit summary. [10] AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Andy, what I meant by Pakistanis are known for lying was to say that Pakistani officials are known for lying. They were telling the world that Osama bin Laden was in Afghanistan everytime questioned but it turned out that Osama was safely living in a giant mansion next to Pakistani military base and next to Pakistan's capital. This Mar4d is a Pakistani and he's doing the same thing here in Wikipedia in the Afghans in Pakistan article, he's ONLY adding negative things about Afghans... trying to demonize Afghans or evil doers, criminals and terrorists. He is bashing Afghans because he does not like them. This is the problem here, he's miserable and trying to waste our time.--NorthernPashtun (talk) 18:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• (uninvolved)Strong oppose:This argument seems to be defending the racist comment from the edit summary even further which is a personal attack against his opposing editor and racist in general as well. The left over part of the argument is mostly based on prejudice. The editor merits to be a typical POV pusher on basis of just that. I suggest further action should be taken in addition to the WP:3RR block on account of this. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• NorthernPashtun has since been indef-blocked as a previously-blocked sockpuppet. Some of Mar4d's edits have been concerning, however, so if someone still wants to look into this a little ... I have to plead content-ignorance here, as well, but both editors seemed to be POV-warring some in the articles to me. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 18:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Good call I guess. The content is a clear POV dispute and has to be weighed by citations, but since the editor concerned has been blocked his edits are safe to be reverted I think, as per that with him being the only opposing editor the section should be closed and blocked editor's edits reverted. Eventually other genuinely interested editors will balance the content if there's any POV possibility from Mar4d's side. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I welcome intervention into this issue as NorthernPashtun is clearly taking things out of hand here, by engaging in WP:Personal attacks and making irrelevant comments as the above diff. clearly shows. I have been editing this article with neutrality, and so far, have been trying to make sure that my sources comply with WP:RS. However, NorthernPashtun has a certain POV with which he views the particular section I'm adding and is constantly trying to tamper with reliable, sourced content to tones that do not fit the context. For example, I add information on militants from Afghanistan seeking refugee in Pakistan, yet he keeps changing it to "Afghanistan-Pakistan" without providing any valid rationale. His behaviour suggests that he is not willing to engage in open, mature dialogue but rather wants to go down the inevitable path of edit warring. It would greatly help if he lets me work and expand on the sections I am currently working on and not needlessly interfere. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I can't comment on article content, but we certainly have an edit war on our hands and I rather suspect this may not be the correct forum for this discussion. I have blocked both users for 24 hours for violating 3RR (and the incident is noted on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#that noticeboard), but a more permanent solution would be welcome.

On second thought, this may be the right place, but I'm certainly not the right one to comment on the content involved. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

At a brief look into the related Pakistanis in Afghanistan, both are coming close WP:3RR violations. They each have 2 reverts of each other over tag issues (Mar4d [11] [12]; NorthernPashtun [13] [14]), Northern Pashtun has another revert of Mar4d at [15] about which Mar4d may or may not have another one at [16] (claimed copyright infringment, so may be immune from 3RR).

After a similarly brief look into Afghans in Pakistan, both users violate WP:3RR. Mar4d reverts on smuggling [17] [18] [19] as does Northern Pashtun [20] [21] [22]. Skipping quite a ways down the article history, Mar4d adds a link [23] and is reverted by Northern Pashtun [24] and re-reverts [25]. A glance at the edit summaries suggests even more reverts - all in this 24-hour period. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 18:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

China

Just as an FYI, there is a debate about The merger of "China" (Chinese civilization) and "People's Republic of China" into one article - Talk:China#The_move_was_surprising_-_7_opinions_on_the_move

Even though there is a current debate over whether "China" should be simply defined as the "People's Republic of China" - some admins argue that POVTITLE allows the usage of POV names if most people in English refer to the subject by the POV name, even if the POV dispute is still active.

WhisperToMe (talk) 04:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Lewontin's fallacy

Trolling by banned user Mikemikev. This IP range has now been blocked for a month.

"Human genetic diversity: Lewontin's fallacy" (scientific paper) is about an argument made by Richard Lewontin that the fact that there is more genetic variation within races than between them invalidates the concept of race. This argument has been discredited in two ways. By eminent British geneticist AWF Edwards who argued that summing genetic variation on a locus by locus basis ignores correlations in the data. By Long (2010) who found more genetic variation within certain species than between them. In this case chimpanzees and humans. Maunus has removed this second dispositive point from the article absurdly claiming it is not relevant to Lewontin's fallacy.[26] The bias Maunus has displayed is transparent. I imagine he especially doesn't like this point because it directly contradicts an attempted "face saving" quote Maunus has added from ideologically aligned Jonathan Marks. In this Marks claims that races need to be "principally homogeneous" to have validity. The Long quote proves that even species are not "principally homogeneous". The Kaplan and Marks quotes also shift the goalposts and defend the position that the variation that exists does not structure into races, which is an entirely separate question (ie. truly irrelevant), and one which is currently unresolved. I find it absurd that such ideology based dissimulation is considered relevant, while simple truth is excised because editors do not like it. If you want Wikipedia to be a place where editors "big up" their ideological heroes, regardless of their integrity and competence, Maunus is your man. If you want Wikipedia to offer the truth, I suggest he be sanctioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.116.166.166 (talk) 16:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• This is a sockpuppet of Mikemikev (talk · contribs). If you want wikipedia to be a place where Stormfront.org, Neo-nazis and Antisemites can disseminate their ideology unhindered Mikemikev is your man. Also note that he misrepresents Long (2009) as suggesting that the concept of race is supported by genetic analysis when in fact he says the opposite. Also not that Long doesn't mention Edwards or his paper - the topic of the article that Mike was trying to insert the material into.. Also note that he has a long history of nasty personal attacks both on and off wiki on editors he classifies as communists or jews.[http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t800062/]·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Why have we got an article on one scientific paper? Is it much more notable than most papers? Itsmejudith (talk) 17:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

No. It hardly gets cited at all, except by a fringe pushing a POV. It is in Wikipedia because (a) Mikemikev and the like wish it to be, and (b) far too many uninvolved people don't have a clue how to determine the notability of scientific articles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

To be fair it does get some attention - but only because Lewontin's argument (whoich we don't have an article for) does. There is a fairly unanimous consensus in Anthropology that Edwards argument is trivially true but that it has no relevance for the question of race - because race does not simply mean, and has never meant, "genetically distinct population". ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's merge into Race (classification of humans), with mentions in Lewontin's and Edwards' bios. We don't even have a category for scientific papers. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Its better merged into Race and genetics which has a section on the debate already.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome to try, though given the result of the recent AfD, [27] you'll have to put up with resistance from sockpuppets, and from people who seem not to understand what the debate is about, but want the article kept anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Stop Online Piracy -- systematic removal of cn tags and re-insertion of weasel words and bias

No, I have not raised the issue on the article's discussion page. I have done this ad nauseum on the related Protect IP Act page and devoutly wish to have no further discussions with Xenophrenic. I have spent most of my free time for the past week on that page, which came to my attention through a third editor's despairing RfC, and I still owe comment on the Wikiquette case that she opened. ((Personal attack removed)) -Xenophrenic) Discussion, to put it mildly, has mostly not been fruitful.

Nor can I conceive of any conceivable reason to remove fact and cn tags. Quite outside of the doubts I may (and do) have about the foundedness of the statements attributed to various politicians, they require attribution at a minimum.

Some of the other edits (diff) also speak for themselves, for instance:

• preventing US citizen access to or use of foreign sites that allegedly are in violation of US copyright law

becomes: combating foreign rogue sites

• increased penalties for intellectual property infringement.

becomes: increased penalties for intellectual property theft

• The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and labor groups allegedly both support

becomes: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and labor groups have come together in support

A couple of of points -- some but not all of the edits change edits that I myself made. Changes are fine and even good. Changes that make the article less reliable are not. If the editor feels a need to change recent edits, the trend should be to a middle ground, no? Documentation would also be good. Elinruby (talk) 15:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Your examples are damning. Very poor handling of NPOV. Binksternet (talk) 17:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Your examples require subject matter understanding which I do not have so I cannot say whether they are NPOV or not. You say that Xenophrenic is not a listener but is an arguer; where are the arguments and discussion related to this? I am not seeing where you asked him why he made the edits which he did. Where is the discussion about this issue? Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

There has been no discussion about this issue. The unwarranted personal attacks and "commenting on editors" aside, there is some ground for legitimate concern on the part of the original poster about attribution. The missing "citation needed" tags are the inadvertent result of reverting an IP's series of POV edits. The 3 examples above actually use the verbiage (rogue, theft...) from the House Judiciary Committee sources. Since the article is already dripping with no fewer than 5 templates (at last count) demanding NPOV balancing, copy editing and expert input on top of the still present various 'cn' tags, the few swept away in the revert seemed redundant anyway. The article is in need of a major rewrite. (Thanks for the addition of some tags, Binksternet, but you just scratched the surface...) I'll be doing what I can to help remedy that, but I've been postponing any major effort until later tomorrow, as there is a committee hearing on this very bill that will be concluding. There should be an influx of additional relevant material from reliable sources from which to work. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Let me restate that. First, I apologize for only giving one link. I was very frustrated when I made that post as it undid many small changes I made attempting to correct the article's bias. I have not specifically objected to the latest round of edits, no. There seemed little point, as I have been talking about the article's bias for a week with no response. I have made a number of posts on the discussion page about specific examples of bias, such as here, where I explain why I put a pov tag on the page (Nov 10). On the same day I also said "article is largely a paraphrase of the legislation: Some secondary sources are needed and the language needs to be simpler, clearer, and to actually say something." A little later, also on Nov 10, I noted that the article does not mention that the proposed legislation seems likely to make YouTube illegal, under the header "the proposed overturn of safe harbor needs discussion and also the criminalization of streaming". On Nov 13 I explained my reasons for putting a fact tag on the content section. Xenophrenic did not respond to any of those posts. ((Personal attack removed) -Xenophrenic) Thanks for your thoughts and attention. Elinruby (talk) 08:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect. The "unwarranted personal attacks" to which I referred are your comments above about me in your opening paragraph. Please refrain from commenting on editors. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Actual wording is negotiable. I don't mind clarifying that this is an opinion. I think I should add though, that the article was the subject of a request for comment. ((Personal attack removed) -Xenophrenic) Elinruby (talk) 10:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Please refrain from commenting on editors. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey I found the link where he cites calling him "dude" as a personal attack! It's here towards the end of the sentence. I'd forgotten the anklebiting remark but will admit to saying something about ankle-biters, in an edit summary, I believe. I'm only human ;) I mean, just *look* at that page and realize that this is the result of someone else's request for comment. The article is already pretty deep down on the despair scale, because the other editors are trying to play by the rules. Elinruby (talk) 08:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

It would be well to remove from the article the words "rogue" and "theft", and the phrase "come together". Or, provide an attributed source for exactly one instance of those words and phrases rather than using them in Wikipedia's voice. Such a move toward neutrality does not hinge upon the results of legislation. Binksternet (talk) 05:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

If we are really moving toward actual neutrality, then use of weasely and whitewashed words such as "infringement" and "alleged" should also be attributed, instead of advancing one editor's particular flavor of neutrality. Describing an individual's act of murder instead as "a contravention of an individual's subsistence" in the interest of supposed neutrality seems a bit disingenuous. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I've made some revisions which remove a good portion of the polarizing tone from the article. I've kept the NPOV tag until resolved, but the others have been removed for now. I'd like to consider myself an "expert" on both the technical aspects presented in the bill, and the Intellectual Property related aspects, so please let me know what else should be done. C_(u)w_(t)C_(c) 00:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. If you or someone else has the time and inclination, the Protect IP Act is the Senate bill and that article has many of the same problems. Elinruby (talk) 11:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC) 10:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

It appears that 90% of the above listed concerns have been addressed. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I answered this, but the answer seems to have been removed. As the originator of the post, I feel that the above examples are largely dealt with, but that other examples come up on a daily basis. I have not looked at the article today so I won't make a list here. I am not certain whether to close this post, make a fresh list in a new post, or append. Closing this post seems like the most appropriate for now, as I am really tired. Elinruby (talk) 20:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Huawei

• Huawei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In brief: the company was linked to the Taliban, but denies it.

Editor Bouteloua (talk · contribs) acted in accord with best COI practice, and placed an edit-request on the talk page. However, I did not thing it presented the information in a neutral way.

The editor has now adjusted the suggestion, and asked me to re-assess it [28].

Because of the somewhat controversial nature, I'd be grateful if others could take a look - or preferably process the edit-request.

It's Talk:Huawei#Suggesting an addition

Thanks,  Chzz  ►  22:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Information re: Ballistic Optimizing Shooting System

Hello! I'm not sure as to whom I should address this. I hope the right person reads this. In your fine article on Browning Arms, you mention many of the fine inventions and patents which were originated by John Browning and the susequent Browning Arms Co. What you missed was the Ballistic Optimizing Shooting System, better known as the B.O.S.S. system. It would be good to know who invented this simple, yet unique and helpful system. I understand that it is also patented by Browning Arms - only they make it. It would be good to include that either as a sepparate article, or as part of the Browning Arms article. Thank you. Vladimir Derugin ovgd@sbcglobal.net — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.101.69 (talk) 04:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Sailor Moon (English adaptation)

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

---

I'm posting this here as an effort for a dispute resolution, so some help here would be greatly appreciated. The discussion at WT:WikiProject Sailor Moon#Is this correct?WP:Sailor Moon (The beginning starts with a different issue so if you're reading it, it may be best to skip the first few paragraphs). The question with whether that article is aWP:POVFORK or a legitimate WP:SPINOUT article. The POV contention is that it places undue emphasis on the importance (ie the overall impact and not the quantity of sources) of the English localization of Sailor Moon vs. the Japanese when sources do not support this. The counter-argument is that more sources cover the English version and its a natural spinout article.∞陣内Jinnai 23:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Jinnai. I have a slight correction to offer - it's not that more sources cover the English version, it's that it is a natural spinout article which meets the GNG. --Malkinann (talk) 23:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

it makes no sense to separate english localization and distribution. A more logical choice as jinnai has said (and so have I) is to make an anime article. Not to mention has information that can easily merge to the other daughter articles such as list of sailor moon chapters and list of sailor moon episodes. Plus it gives undue weight to each individual alteration instead of actually summarizing it.Bread Ninja (talk) 03:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

also not too long ago, you were defending the article status by saying how much influenced the series had in the west. Its not a very good spinout. Its definitely POVFORK just by looking at the title sailor moon (english adaptation). Suggesting there's a different work with the same name when its just distribution and localization. Also gives undue weight and a lot of original research. Later you've admitted an anime and/or manga article could exist and meet the GNG but denied because this article meets the GNG. This article splits into two distinct medias that can easily help make more concrete article(s).Lucia Black (talk) 06:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you think I've been inconsistent - I have been having difficulty working out what you want to do with the article, and may not have understood what you were getting at at all times. I do not feel that the current name of the article implies there is a different Sailor Moon work (although the dub was radically different, people "became" fans by arguing on the internet about dub vs sub, as discussed by Neo and Patrick Drazen). I do not feel that the English adaptations article should be merged because it is a valid SPINOUT article, supported by multiple reliable sources, which meets the GNGs. --Malkinann (talk) 11:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Meeting the GNG does not mean something deserves an article though. If you read WP:N it clearly says its just the bare mininimum for showing notability and other factors could way in for deciding whether an article should exist. In this case its my contention this is a POVFORK even if it meets the GNG and therefore shouldn't exist as an NPOV violation.∞陣内Jinnai 17:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I proposed a clarrification at WP:N#change to GNG which addresses this.∞陣内Jinnai 01:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Malkinann, is your point that because the article passes WP:GNG as you argue, then WP:POVFORK and WP:SPLIT do not have to be considered? patsw (talk) 16:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand how it is a POVFORK, as the "point of view" that the English adaptations are important comes from the sources. The daughter article was apparently spun off due to size concerns with the main Sailor Moon article. (Talk:Sailor_Moon/Archive_1#American_Sailor_Moon) At the AFD, it was argued that it had the ability to be a discrete topic. I am concerned that arguments from style guidelines such as the WP:MOS-AM are being allowed to override notability. --Malkinann (talk) 17:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

But that's the problem. The sources don't establish that the English adaptation is more important than the Japanese one which doesn't have an article and does have sources to back it up its importance nor is the localization shown to have enough unique attributes to it. What is currently in the article appears to be a glorified list of English works which completely goes against the way we split media lists. As I mentioned on the other page, we don't have Dragon Ball (English localizaton) or Dragon Ball Z (English localization) even though we have far more sources for that. That is because it would be a POVFORK to say somehow the localization is more important and unrelated to the original Japanese production that it deserves its own article. We have also suggested a more appropriate split - splitting the anime from the manga and making an inclusive list of all the types of media - that wouldn't be a POVFORK and would satisfy your concerns that there's too much info.∞陣内Jinnai 18:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Why do the English adaptations have to be more important than the Japanese Sailor Moon to get an article? We don't have any articles on Dragon Ball Z because the anime-manga manual of style was used as a bludgeon, without regard to notability. A hypothetical List of Sailor Moon media is not a good idea because of WP:SIZE, and I don't know what you'd have in mind with splitting the anime from the manga. --Malkinann (talk) 20:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

notability isn't everything. a list of sailor moon media would not go against size if the article is what it states it is: a list of media. Examples such as list of kingdom hearts media and. List of final fantasy videogames are good examples. Why the need to have a separate article for localization? Again Malkinann you admit to ignore MOS.Lucia Black (talk) 20:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I tend to give preference to content over the precise form of said content - it's a valid style of editing, and one which helps to grow the encyclopedia. I don't know what the proposed list of media would contain at present, but it would be more sensible, I feel, to make a List of Sailor Moon albums or List of Pretty Guardian Sailor Moon albums, etc, splitting it up by type, to aid in navigation and readability. The anime-manga manual of style is all too often used as a bludgeon. I generally find that it impedes me from improving the encyclopedia, so I tend to ignore it. Ignoring a rule which impedes one from improving the encyclopedia is one of the founding principles of Wikipedia, and is not in itself "bad". --Malkinann (talk) 20:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

That shows a big sign of bad faith on your part. Because it's not just 1 rule, but an entire guide. To ignore the guide is to accept exceptions as a norm when it can easily be avoided (in this case especially). And you use the same logic we are using to make a List of Sailor Moon albums but when it comes to proposed anime article you are against it because it would mean merging it back? If the anime article was made first, would you have proposed a separate article for english adaptations knowing it would mean merging the anime article back? You accept English localization as a separate entity because it meets GNG and only GNG. Even if you ignore the one guide we have for anime and manga related articles, you don't even seem to use a different general guide either. You only worried about if it passes one rule, you forget about the others. SO how are we going to move on from here? If consensus favors our proposition over yours, would that evn change anything for you?Lucia Black (talk) 21:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

These guidelines get applied independently of each other: If you create a WP:POVFORK then passing WP:GNG is irrelevant. If the consensus opposes a WP:SPLIT, passing GNG is irrelevant. If fact, asserting a article passes GNG is only relevant when it is challenged that it does not pass GNG. patsw (talk) 01:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Independently but they're all meant for all articles. Still...malkinann says its a WP:SPINOUT but its more like an attempt of WP:CONTENTFORK but focused on one specific POV which jinnai said is againt NPOV.Lucia Black (talk) 01:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

the article is rather inconsistent. Its all about english releases and distribution along with alterations made. There is heavy undue weight made specifically for the emphasis of the english localization. Not onlyis it all based off undue weight but the content can easily merge to other more relevant articles. Which for some reason seems to be ignored whenever mentioned.Lucia Black (talk) 21:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Lucia Black, I have had considerable trouble understanding your proposals for the articles - even understanding which articles you were talking about at any given point. Perhaps I overlooked the proposal you're thinking of. Could you please restate it concisely?

The reliable sources in the (English adaptations) article and the main Sailor Moon article state that the English adaptations of Sailor Moon (chiefly the anime, but also the manga) are important, moreso than other English adaptations, as they provided an influx of girls and women into the anime and manga fandom, took manga out of the 'comic book store ghetto', and along with Pokemon and Dragon Ball Z, were one of the major series of the 90s in the English-language fandom. It is a valid SPINOUT because there is more information on the English adaptations than can comfortably exist in the main Sailor Moon article. The argument from 'there is no article for DBZ' is an 'other stuff doesn't exist' argument, and ignores the sources about Sailor Moon. The Manuals of Style should serve articles, not the other way around. What is being proposed here is an erosion of notability for the sake of an outdated and generalised idea of style. Malkinann (talk) 19:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Read the article and you'll also note that the influence of the Japanese manga and anime had equal (but different) impacts and greater for the manga as it redefined the magical girl subgenre and yet inspite this there no spinout for that. Why? Because there's no need. Similarly, there is no need for a spinout of the English influence of SM which is arguably on the same level for the anime. A spinout of the anime, dealing with both, may be warranted or a spinout on the worldwide impact of SM may be warranted, but not a spinout of English SM. That's a POVFORK.

If its about the impact of DBZ, Pokemon, SM and a few others, then that should be covered all in one article.∞陣内Jinnai 19:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no spinout for that because there are not the amount of sources available for that topic as there are for the English adaptations. Perhaps one day we will have the sources, but not yet. There is the need for a spinout of the English adaptations for issues of size, weight, and notability. I still don't understand why you feel it's a POVFORK. DBZ, Pokemon and SM are covered in 'one big article', which the English adaptations is a notable spinout of - Editing of anime in American distribution. --Malkinann (talk) 21:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Just because there are more sources on something does not mean we must bow our heads and submit to the publisher-or-perish nature of Western media.∞陣内Jinnai 22:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I am deeply concerned that the reliable sources are being ignored in favour of style. I sincerely doubt that the sources about the adaptations were produced in a publish or perish environment, as I've had trouble finding academic sources on Sailor Moon. Perhaps you could post at WT:VERIFIABILITY and seek a clarification there regarding publish or perish, as you did with the GNGs? --Malkinann (talk) 22:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I am deeply concerned in your flawed perspective. The article is again separated in two convenient medias, release information being merged to their independent articles such as list of sailor moon chapters/episodes. All is left is english development and alterations which seems to have specific changes of undue weight so then trimming to general. The only way this can be justified is adding reception over it. The problem isn't that the article can't be merged its whether you willing to accept it. And its not over style. The information is best suited in the main article and the other two daughter articles I already mention. An anime article would be more reasonable than this article.Lucia Black (talk) 00:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Lucia Black, everyone has a different idea of common sense. My perspective is based on paying attention to the sources and the GNG. Yours appears to be based solely on style. Is your proposal to split the (English adaptations) article three ways between Sailor Moon, List of Sailor Moon episodes and List of Sailor Moon chapters? I would like to point out that the disadvantage with this organisational scheme is that it has the effect of erasing English adaptations as being a valid, notable topic. What are the advantages of your proposed organisational scheme? --Malkinann (talk) 19:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Not true, they are part of others that are more notable. The topic itself notable because its made uup of several pieces that are best suited for other articles. And again, not organization issue, its the fact that the article acts as a main article. If it were a valid topic, then it would have to have some sort of reception. Separating english information from the main article because of original research. Yes, it is original research by implying it a general topic but. Its not. Article is made up of several pieces.Lucia Black (talk) 01:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The English adaptations article is also part of other articles that are more notable - it is a valid SPINOUT article of Sailor Moon and the Editing of anime in American distribution articles. I have already explained to you, both here and in the original discussion, that the (English adaptations) article has reception throughout the article. An article is made valid by the existence of reception itself, not by the format that the reception takes inside the article, as you are suggesting. Your proposed reorganisation has the clear disadvantage of obscuring a notable topic, as defined by the GNGs and the reliable sources about the topic. What are the benefits of your proposed reorganisation? --Malkinann (talk) 04:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

No its not, the structure and title of the article suggest it to be equal to Sailor Moon as a seperate entity. Its not a spinout of Editing of anime in american distribution, if it were that would be the smallest spinout build up of undue weight. There's no reason to separate english information from the main article. This is english wikipedia, so most of our information is going to be about english sources about english adaptations. So nearly impossible to prove sailor moon as a special case to separate english release and distribution of it away from the main article if you're going to base the reception the main article has from the current unless you looked specific reception about the original versions of sailor moon. Its bias per english, the idea is not only localization information but releases and distribution that can easily merge to list of sailor moon chapters and list of sailor moon episodes, which then distribution history and alterations is all that the article is left with, which has heavy unndue weight and original research. The article attempts english versions as a completely separate entity from the main article, but it also made up of individual pieces that are part of something much more relevant. The topic itself isn't notable as a separate entity from the main article because its information that readers look for IN the main article. We shouldn't separate them by languages even if significantly altered from the original.

This isn't WP:SPINOUT, this is WP:CONTENTFORK and shows strong signs of WP:POVFORK.Lucia Black (talk) 05:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The structure and title of the article do not suggest it is equal to Sailor Moon as a seperate entity. It is a spinout of Editing of anime in American distribution, as a specific, reliably-sourced case study on Sailor Moon's English adaptations. The reason why it was spun out was to give appropriate weight to the English adaptation in the main article - there are too many sources on the english adaptations to comfortably exist within the Sailor Moon article. The information is summarised inside the Sailor Moon article, and the rest has been spun out into the English adaptations article. I have been giving you specific examples of reliable sources throughout this merge discussion, which you have persistently ignored. It is too notable to be merged as you suggest - to do so obscures this notable topic. This is a notable SPINOUT based on the reliable sources available, not a POVFORK. Malkinann (talk) 08:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, even if it was spun out of editing of anime in american distribution, that still doesn't justify the article for current use, being not just about the editing, but also release information and distribution which you are miraculously ignoring a lot more. You justify the article for what you think its about, you don't see what it actually is. A dumping ground for all information of english distribution which happens to include alterations. Not just editing, but release information and broadcast history aswell. The article mirrors itself as a main article whether it is or not, that's what it does. Though it came from a page that is meant merely on localization of anime, the article does not appear to be just a spun out.

but let's take this back a step, the article it was spun out from is editing of anime in english distribution. The article current state is made up of mostly specific changes per individual series along with some general information, the article structure-wise if filled original research along with again tidbits of specific anime series. Spinning out the article into its own article wasn't good idea. There was no clean up for undue weight, original research, etc. An article made mostly of those specific series, the best course of action would've been to merge that information regardless of size (because let's be honest out of the many problems, undue weight is clearly there). If it couldn't fit, make it and let me tell you, the editing and censorship is the easiest thing to summarize to something more general than to be going to each specific change they have made.

overall, splitting it to its own article wasn't the best choice given that the article itself is still to this day not properly structured nor supported. The article also isn't just a mere spin out, as it covers more than localization of sailor moon, but english distribution which the editing of anime in american distribution was not about despite being a factor in the title. the information is best suited in its respected articles even if it started out as a very very weak spin out to another article that barely makes itself out to be a main article. But it can't be a spin out of both. Its either one or the other, and you can't make reasons as if they were spinned out from both articles. The article treats itself separately whether considered a part of it or not. I personally don't think you've read the article...because everyting you've said about it didn't apply. The topic being english versions of sailor moon, not just alterations, not just distribution, but its all english versions of sailor moon. A topic like that challenges the main article sailor moon.Lucia Black (talk) 09:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Lucia Black, your unfounded and patently false assumption that I have not read the article is grossly uncivil and unhelpful. Please retract this. --Malkinann (talk) 10:20, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Please reread it...you say what the article is, but its not that...my questioning has been because you have said false things about the article. The article isn't solely about what you say it is. The article isn't just about localization, but broadcast history and release information of english releases exclusively, information much more vital to the main article or at least to the anime aspect. This is not a valid spin out considering the situation both this article and the article it was spun out are in. The article may have started out as a weak pin out but clearly its not relevant anymore, new information has made it bias to english information (what should be accepted universally and intergrated into the main article).Lucia Black (talk) 10:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I re-read the article when the discussion was started, and have been keeping an eye on it during this discussion. You, on the other hand, have apparently never even edited the article to try to fix the grievous problems in it that have lead to your proposal of this split-merge. I find your repeated attempts to discredit me by implying I have not read the article deeply upsetting, as I find your accusation that I have said false things about the article deeply upsetting. I may have become confused, as you have been both incredibly unclear and incredibly uncivil to me throughout this discussion. Could you please provide diffs where I have said false things about the article? --Malkinann (talk) 10:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

the topic itself is what leads me to merge it. If you want mee to do this the slow nd painful way and slowly clean it up and merging small information to their respected articles until there's only localization information which the article would then be small enough to merge.

regardless your statements and reasoning are only based off singular things. You refuse to see it at a grander scale. For one you're reasoning as a good daughter article being too big for the main sailor moon article in a summary while having the rest in that article, but refuse to see the other information, the title, the article divided into two specific medias only hint a more proper split could be in order. But then it gets switched around by being split from editing of anime in english distribution when clearly there was not the sensible thing to do and don't use commonsense on me, commonsense within the guidelines and policies is what I'm trying to say.

so let's forget about everything else...let's get to the main point on why its not nuetral pov. I'm just going to bring one topic at a time out of the many in this situation. So here goes: the article is bias per all english versions of sailor moon, why make a separate article separating the english versions info (which is not just localization information) when information like that is still vitally relevant to the main article? And not accepting GNG reason. Saying english versions are notable is saying the main article is notabl (because its vital to be in the main article), not the specific topic. Why distinguish them separately?

I do not see any point in attempting to follow your convoluted reasoning if you cannot accept that I have read the article, and if you cannot retract your uncivil statements insinuating that I have not, and that I have said false things about the article. --Malkinann (talk) 11:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

you make it really hard to because you switch you reasoning around and around...I just don't think you actually understand what the entire article is trully about....it deeply fustrates me that you say this but when reading the article is more than just that. Uncivility comes along way and assuming bad faith isn't what I'm intending to do. Regardless, you acuse me of ignoring points you mentioned, I accuse you of ignoring things I said. Your pointing a gun at someone who's also pointing a gun back at you and claiming there is no gun pointinng at you but are offended.

the article is all about and only about english versions of sailor moon which include but not limited to localization in which you continuously implied that it is through spinout of editing of anime in american distribution. you only see the localization part, you don't see the rest that changes the topic into something more broad. which is why you mentined how it was summarized in the main article of sailor moon and in (excessive) detail in that article.

you have switched your argument several times. First by saying it was a split mainly from sailor moon, suddenly both sailor moon and editing of anime, then it resulted from editing of anime being a specific case.

so...all in all....jinnais second comment says it all. I'm just wondering, to you what is POVFORK?Lucia Black (talk) 11:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I have consistently said from the beginning that the article meets the GNG and therefore should not be merged. It is completely unacceptable that you should accuse me of not having read the article - it's completely false, grossly uncivil, and I don't see the point in responding to your argument until you can accept I have read the article, if you cannot retract your uncivil statements insinuating that I have not, and that I have said false things about the article. It is a notable daughter article of both Sailor Moon and the editing of anime article - SPINOUT is a synonym for daughter article. It should not be merged because to merge is to obscure this notable topic. --Malkinann (talk) 20:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

That's the only thing that has been consistent, regardless. I take back that you have not read the article. Instead, I say you don't understand what the article is trully about. Spin out leads to daughter articles however not every daughter article isn't notable (that saying spin out is just a way of avoiding the word split). For one, the article relates to english versions of sailor moon, violating NPOV. Spinning out a Pov of the main topic. For example, character articles don't get often split unless it has specific reception to that character to prove it being more important than the rest of the characters in the list article. This article does not justify why it should exist. Regardless if considered a spin out of editing of anime in english distribution, the article uses summary style mainly on sailor moon. Its not really a daughter article of editing of anime in english distribution because the article isn't dependent on the editing of anime in english distribution, although it is related to it. That article is also filled with bias and unverifiable claims, so in the end, a spin out of that article isn't justified.

Saying english versions of sailor moon is notable, is saying the basic building blocks of the main article being split into a daughter article, without clarification of why it needed to be spun out to be an independent. Spinning out media is one thing because its not a pov, its media. However, this is pov of sailor moon media. This clearly fails NPOV......there's no two ways about it. Calling it a spin out doesn't justify because the article isn't merely about just localization.Lucia Black (talk) 22:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Please also retract your assertion that I have said false things about the article - you simply misunderstood me. The spinout simply takes the notable topic of English adaptations of Sailor Moon and treats it in a more in-depth way than the main article can, and in a manner which does not take the notable topic and split it amongst three articles, as you are proposing. The article was spun out, as I have already explained, in order to give the appropriate level of detail in Sailor Moon, treating it in more detail on its own page. There was too much information on the main Sailor Moon page, so it was spuyn out. How does the English adaptations article fail NPOV when the alleged POV comes directly from the sources - that the English adaptations of Sailor Moon are important? How is your proposed reorganisation beneficial? Your proposed reorganisation has the effect of obscuring a notable topic. --Malkinann (talk) 13:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

First off, the topic may meet the notability guideline, but guess what: Every notable English adaptation of an anime does. We don't have School Rumble (English adaptation, Serial Experiments Lain (English adaptation), Revolutionary Girl Utena (English adaptation), Fruits Basket (English adaptation), Ranma 1/2 (English adaptation), Black Butler (English adaptation), One Piece (English adaptation) (redirects to One Piece), Naruto (English adaptation), Pokemon (English adaptation), Dragon Ball (English adaptation), Bleach (English adaptation), Hetallia (English adaptation), Tenchi Muyo! (English adaptation), Tokyo Mew Mew (English adaptation)... All of them and hundreds more meet the GNG because they all have more easily accessible English reliable sources.

Second, when there is too much info, we summarize per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, specifically what should have been done instread of and before any spinout article. From what I've seen, that step appears to have been skipped.

Finally, it fails the NPOV specifically because it gives undue weight to indivisual and often minor changes (especially when compared to titles like One Piece where episodes were cut & pasted, merged and rearranged to form wholely new episodes with different storylines). In addition, it gives undue weight to English sources. Just because you can find more sources, especially English vs. non-English, doesn't mean you need to cover everything. There comes a point where sources don't add anything new or only minor things and we summarize content. Finally, it gives undue weight to the English version over the Japanese inspite evidence that the Japanese version had as much, if not more, impact solely because there happens to be more English sources talking about it. That's WP:Systemic bias.∞陣内Jinnai 16:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The reason we don't have such articles on these notable topics is because of the biases of the manual of style. The organisational system that you and Lucia Black are proposing has the effect of obscuring the topic of how Sailor Moon was adapted into English, making it harder for people to find information about that topic. All of these changes were noted by reliable sources, so how is it NPOV to include them? How does the existence of the English adaptations article give undue weight to the English versions "over" the Japanese? If anything, it allows the English versions to be discussed in-depth in their own daughter article, freeing up space in the main article to discuss the Japanese versions. --Malkinann (talk) 22:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

No, that's not the reason why we have such articles. Organization has nothing to do with why this fails NPOV, regardless our proposal does relate to a better organization. The article is splits english versions from the original version because there is significant ammount of localization information.

I don't see how it doesn't fail npov. Noting its existence isn't enough to split it into a separate topic. Its definitely povfork to split individually...splitting per media to cover both japanese (original) and english sources. The mainn reason why we cover japanese in general is because it was originally released there but most of the time the main articles are dependent on english. its taking english pov over japanese as if they need to be separated but they don't.Lucia Black (talk) 22:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Malkinann, do you really think the average Wikipedian reader is so dense that they cannot follow section links inside the article Sailor Moon to #English adaptations? In addition, do you honestly think the average reader won't think to look at #Reception and #Legacy where further info would likely be found?∞陣内Jinnai 23:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

My thought is that a reader might come to the "English editing of anime" article, and try to find information on the adaptations of Sailor Moon from there. I don't see how this has anything to do with the topic at hand, and I don't see how the article fails NPOV. --Malkinann (talk) 23:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

the main article also splits the information wrong. Why split media individually but then compile all english media aswell? This has nothing to do with understanding issues for the readers part. The only reason why there's a daughter page of this is because the main article is set up oddly.Lucia Black (talk) 23:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Its POVFORK, and the only reason why it looks like SPINOUT is because all english related info was forked into its own separate section when it can go to its respected sections.Lucia Black (talk) 23:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Why is it a povfork? How is it a povfork? Please stop muddying the issue with reference to the MOS-AM. --Malkinann (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

how is it NOT a povfork? The main article didn't properly organized the info and was already aiming for bias. It splits the localization and distribution of the same media separately from the main media section. Stop bringing up MOS-AM.Lucia Black (talk) 00:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

As you are asserting that it is a POVFORK even though it has been accepted as a SPINOUT for many years, the onus is on you to explain why and how it is a POVFORK. As I have already explained, the "point of view" that the English adaptations are important comes directly from the reliable sources that discuss the subject, making it a SPINOUT and not a POVFORK. Why do you still think it's a POVFORK? How do you feel the article is a POVFORK? The article has NEVER "aimed for bias", and I would appreciate it if you did not repeat such an inflammatory assertion. --Malkinann (talk) 00:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

At this point your reasoning has shifted again, now to the incredibly useless reason that consensus years ago is still valid. Consensus can change. The article does aim toward bias just by separating english localization of all sailor moon media simply for the reason of existing. I suggest you cool your jets. The article is accused of povfork sticks. POVFORK isn't about not having enough sources.Lucia Black (talk) 00:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I am simply pointing out that there is a prior consensus, which you are trying to change. The onus is on you to explain why and how it is a POVFORK. I have explained how it is not a POVFORK but a SPINOUT, I would appreciate it if you could do the same - without appeal to the anime-manga manual of style, or the general incivility I have heard from you throughout this discussion. If you cannot even be bothered to explain your position in a clear and civil manner, I don't see how I can understand your position. Your accusation that the article is a POVFORK does NOT "stick" without a clear and civil explanation of how it is a POVFORK and a clear and civil explanation how your proposed reorganisation is better. --Malkinann (talk) 00:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Stop it. Your the one getting uncivil at this point and yes accusation of povfork does stick. You seem to assume if its spinout, it can't be povfork. So I'm going to ask you what povfork means to you.Lucia Black (talk) 00:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The onus is on you to explain why and how it is a POVFORK, as you are attempting to change prior consensus. Your accusation that the article is a POVFORK cannot "stick" without a clear and civil explanation of how it is a POVFORK and a clear and civil explanation how your proposed reorganisation is better - I need to understand where you're coming from before I can even begin to think about changing my mind. I cannot see any advantages to your proposed reorganisation - only the clear disadvantage that it obscures a notable topic. --Malkinann (talk) 00:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The article is about distribution and localization of sailor moon. Those are two aspects of the main article, yet it presents itself separately.

let's look at it like this, if one article is for japanese version and the other is english version, why leave the english reception of the english version of the series in the main article?Lucia Black (talk) 02:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

let me put it in simpler terms....distribution and localization are ascpects of media, therefore POV, and forked separately from the article, hence POVFORK.Lucia Black (talk) 02:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The English adaptations article does not "present itself seperately" - it is summarised in Sailor Moon and repeated reference to issues in Sailor Moon are made in the "Editing of anime..." article. The specific issues with the English adaptations were split off in order to allow the article to focus on the general reception of Sailor Moon - for example, the aborted "Saban Moon" pilot is discussed in the English adaptations article, but isn't mentioned in the main Sailor Moon article. "distribution and localization are ascpects of media, therefore POV, and forked separately from the article, hence POVFORK" makes no sense to me. Could you please elaborate on your thinking here? --Malkinann (talk) 04:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The main article also isn't properly organized. It appears like a proper spinout because the main article separates overall media from the english versions which is unacceptable.Lucia Black (talk)

The main article is organised in a way that serves the information we have. The English adaptations article looks like a proper spinout because it is a proper spinout. --Malkinann (talk) 22:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

that's not true. The main articles media section splits media that was released in english from the same media initially released in its original language. Its not a complete povfork as it doesn't spinout from the main article however the idea still applies as its still POV influenced. Therefore a spinout of that section is still a strong POVFORK.Lucia Black (talk) 03:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Malkinan: A POVFORK is a type of spinout so you are correct in so far as that aspect is concerned. As to the structure style, that does raise a red flag especially when the infromation could be grouped into various other sections, possibly with seperate subsections for Japan and The US (or The West if enough non-US sources can be found). That kind of subdivision of a Legacy or Impact section is acceptable if there is enough prose to maintain both sections and both are clearly of signifigant weight.∞陣内Jinnai 21:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no clear advantage to the proposed reorganisation. What would happen to the the Saban pilot information? The very clear disadvantage of it is that the topic of English adaptations is lost as a daughter article to the Editing of anime article, obscuring a notable topic. --Malkinann (talk) 21:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Seems you're still missing the point. Its a subjective disadvantage. You keep proving to us more and more how POV influenced this really is.Lucia Black (talk) 23:58, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

For pointing out that the organisational system should serve the information, not the other way around? What would happen to the Saban Moon information under your proposed reorganisation? What are the advantages of your proposed reorganisation? --Malkinann (talk) 00:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to deliberately ignore the organization card you so effortlessly bring up because at this point jinnai and I have made our point very clear. This isn't for organization, this is for nuetrality. I don't know how that keeps being missed.Lucia Black (talk) 00:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Not a "card" - please assume good faith. I cannot understand why your proposed reorganisation is a good idea, as it has the effect of obscuring a notable topic, and ignores the reliable sources. --Malkinann (talk) 00:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

"obscuring a notable topic" = "non-NPOV".Lucia Black (talk) 01:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow, is that really what you understand? The topic of adapting manga and anime into English have attracted academic attention - including the Sailor Moon adaptation. It is a notable topic. Your arguments are from style over information. --Malkinann (talk) 01:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

No it goes deeper, but the point continues to be dodged whenever it takes more than 2 sentences so. I'm just using simple caveman sentences to emphasize what is being dodged.Lucia Black (talk) 01:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The topic of adapting manga and anime into English have attracted academic attention - including the Sailor Moon adaptation. It is a notable topic. Your arguments are from style over information. The anime and manga manual of style is a biased document and I don't find it helpful in maintaining Sailor Moon, so I ignore it. The sheer incivility I have been subjected to at every point of this discussion by you is quite frankly disgusting. I have had so much difficulty in even trying to understand your convoluted and ungrammatical argument and then you insult me. The more you do so, the further we get away from resolving this. --Malkinann (talk) 01:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

So you're allowed to be offended by accusations yet you are allowed to make even bigger accusations such as claiming you know our intention? You don't promote civility you demand it while not following example.

We have made it significantly clear up til now for even you to properly understand 12 comments ago but again was effortlessly dodged. Point being its POVFORK, the english media separated by the same media in the original language already shows POV influence and to spinout that pov influenced section into a daughter article proves it is a POVFORK.Lucia Black (talk) 02:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

If you feel I have misunderstood your intentions, please feel free to explain it again. I am not attempting to "dodge" anything - I simply do not agree with your assertion that your reorganisation has any advantages. The article is a SPINOUT based on reliable sources, not a POVFORK. Your proposed reorganisation privileges style over information and has the effect of obscuring a notable topic. --Malkinann (talk) 03:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

POVFORK is a type of spinout which jinnai made perfectly clear 13-14 comments ago. Again....this is not for the sake of organization, not for the sake of organization, not for the sake of organization to the 100th power.Lucia Black (talk) 03:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Jinnai and I propose changes of presentation that involve organization. You seem to think organization is the main reason while not intending affect presentation.Lucia Black (talk) 03:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Not all SPINOUTS are POVFORKS - Sailor Moon (English adaptations) is a spinout which is NOT a povfork, because it is a notable topic and a daughter article of a notable topic, which the anime manga manual of style does not serve. Your proposed reorganisation has the effect of obscuring a notable topic. I don't understand what you mean by " Again....this is not for the sake of organization, not for the sake of organization, not for the sake of organization to the 100th power" and "Jinnai and I propose changes of presentation that involve organization. You seem to think organization is the main reason while not intending affect presentation". Do you mean your three-way split of Sailor Moon (English adaptations) between Sailor Moon, List of Sailor Moon episodes and List of Sailor Moon chapters? That is what I mean when I say 'your proposed reorganisation'. --Malkinann (talk) 04:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The article's notability is based on the main article as you said a while back as part of summary style, but the fork itself is based on pov influenced section therefore povfork regardless if its existence of sources. Povfork isn't all about not having enough sources.Lucia Black (talk) 04:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand your point. The English adaptations article is a daughter article of Sailor Moon, and was spun out due to size reasons, as the amount of information could not comfortably live inside the Sailor Moon article any more. The topic of the English adaptations of Sailor Moon is a notable topic due to the reliable sources that discuss it. It is a valid spinout, not a povfork. --Malkinann (talk) 05:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

And this is where the inconsistency shows. Due to size issues it was spinned out yet claim notable on its own. The key piece of the article is made up of localization of the english versions and lavished with distribution information and copyright status for the sake of having big enough size to spin out in the first place. Having enough reliable source to merely state its existence isn't enough to spin out. Its because the main article biasly separated the english media from the same media released original language that it gives of the mask of being a proper spinoff without the question of povfork BUT! because it splits the media is split into two separate POVs making both non-nuetral POV and if that isn't fix it can lose its GA status.Lucia Black (talk) 05:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

How is it that the English adaptations article cannot be both a spinout due to size and notable? The article is not padded out to seem more notable, as you seem to be implying. The reliable sources do not merely state the English adaptations existence - they discuss the adaptations' importance, which is why the English adaptations article meets the GNG. The reorganisation you propose is biased against the notable topic of how Sailor Moon was adapted into English. It is a notable spinout, not a povfork, and the fact that the English adaptations article exists does not make either it or the Sailor Moon article NPOV. --Malkinann (talk) 06:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

if its for size it is dependent on the main article for notability (list of X chapters, list of X episodes) if its for notability then the article would have to prove its importance individually (reception) which in this case its the former. We/I are not bias against how sailor moon was localized.and just accusing us without of a basis of proof shows this discussion is turning into an uncivil finger pointing war. The main article is bias to present the media nuetrally because it splits the media released in its original language from the same media that was released in english (if you cannot understand that then clearly you do not know what NPOV is about). Information on how it was localized is relevant to the main article in its own "localization" which can be significantly trimmed to having the key details. However this article is about localization, distribution and copyright status. Meaning all aspects of english POV. Articles can fail NPOV even if they have reliable sources. Its a straight forward POVFORK. If you read it, it says POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or otherpage. Instead ofresolving that disagreementbyconsensus,another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. .Lucia Black (talk) 07:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

It was split for size because the main article was too big - being split for size does not necessarily mean that it "depends" on the main article for notability. It has already proved its notability by the existence of multiple reliable sources which discuss the English adaptation, which are present in the English adaptations article - just not in a reception section. Just because the sources are not presented in a reception section DOES NOT mean that the English adaptations article is unnotable. Pointing out that the anime manga manual of style is a biased document which should be ignored in this case does not mean that this is "turning into an uncivil finger pointing war". The writing of the manual of style in general downplays the topic of how the English adaptations were received, and your proposed reorganisation is simply fitting a square peg into a round hole - for example, where would the information on the Saban series go? I agree that articles can fail NPOV even if they have reliable sources, but the English adaptations article is not a povfork - it is a spinout, and was created to discuss the English adaptations in more depth because the length and amount of sources on the topic meant that it could not comfortably fit within the Sailor Moon article. --Malkinann (talk) 08:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not even considering MOS-AM and will not need to prove my point. And merely discussing the existence of the change is one thing, impact is what helps separate/reception/legacy is usually what helps articles become independent. This is why there are some franchise articles that don't merit their own individual manga or anime article but still merit a list of episodes and list of chapters.

Here's the thing...every reason you have said here does not counter against POVFORK. Not one. Now I hope with that, you put things into a different perspective.

And this is where the starting/finish line of the endless cycle is at which I'm sure we passed for the 50th time.

You continuously mention subjective things such as feeling the need to go into further detail. This is a POVFORK.....and it proves it just by the second paragraph which I quoted:

POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or otherpage. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus,another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view.

You try to counter POVFORK with notability.Lucia Black (talk) 09:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe your idea of a "proper" reorganisation stems from the MOS-AM, which is not useful here. I have already told you that the reliable sources discuss the impact/reception/legacy of the English adaptations, they don't merely discuss the existence of it. For you to continue to insist that the reliable sources merely prove the existence of the English adaptations is disingenuous and unhelpful. " POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or otherpage. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus,another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view." does not apply here because there was no disagreement at the time the article was split. I still do not understand how you can think this article is a POVFORK. --Malkinann (talk) 09:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The organization I proposed was for the sake of nuetrality, distribution info of manga and anime belong in those articles. Localization in the main article where most of the media is covered. And you miss the point of the quote as it doesn't matter if it was done with in agreement or disagreement, it was still the course of action taken. And despite you claiming the sources provide reception/legacy/impact the article barely provides any. Most of it from what I see are petitions. But the point being that this article is a big big POV that was split from the main article. The articles that revolve around english info to be notable yet it splits how english media was produced. So in a way its production info, ut it doesn't stop there it also has release information.

I believe you don't know what povfork is...and as uncivil as you may think it sounds. Covering our understanding of npov is the only way we can spot the twisted turn within the reasoning. How is this not a povfork and what would it look like if it were one?Lucia Black (talk) 10:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

What are the advantages of your proposed reorganisation? Where will the Saban pilot information be? "POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or otherpage. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus,another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view." does not apply here because there was no disagreement at the time the article was split - it doesn't appear to apply retrospectively. The article was created as a spinout, not in response to a dispute, as the archive I linked above makes clear. I don't believe the sources in the article mostly discuss fan petitions - might I respectfully suggest that you reread the sources found at Sailor Moon (English adaptations)#References? The article is not a POVFORK as the reliable sources discuss the English adaptations' importance, and it is a daughter article of the topic of the "Editing of anime..." article. The idea that "distribution info" (as you simplify it) of manga and anime "belongs" in those articles is an idea from the MOS-AM, and I believe this idea does not serve this notable topic - I don't see how your idea comes from NPOV. NPOV is about "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". That the English adaptations of Sailor Moon are important is a significant view that has been published by reliable sources. My position is that the structure you are proposing is POV because it ignores the sources and obscures the adaptations as a notable topic. --Malkinann (talk) 10:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The pilot info can and should be added to a production/development section per the FA example in School Rumble which has the English production info in the last paragraph.∞陣内Jinnai 23:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The failed pilot has nothing to do with the production of the rest of Sailor Moon. I don't feel this is an appropriate merge. --Malkinann (talk) 00:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

It can be placed in a subsection called "Music Video Concept" within the proposed "localization" section. Distribution section isn't necesarry for a section since distribution info would go in the media sections (in which get too long, they get spinned out into list of x chapters/episodes) . Overalll removal of unverified info would work too.

the article is a POVFORK because the split was based on POV. It compiled both distribution, localization and copyright status separately of the main article in the gaze of it being one big topic however its not. Its POV. It mirrors the main article only focused into one POV. As I quoted before only you focused on how it comes to be, not what pov fork actually is.Lucia Black (talk) 01:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The Saban Moon pilot is not a music video at all - perhaps re-reading through the sources which discuss it might clear your mind up on what it is? I have asked you to specify the material you have problems with - it may be verifiable, and the editing policy says that is a good alternative to deletion. The article is not a POVFORK because the article is based on reliable sources discussing its importance. It is summarised in the main article, the English adaptations article does not "mirror it only focused into one POV". Your use of the quote appeared to imply that the current dispute existed at the time of the article's creation - which is not the case. Furthermore, you attempted to use this fallacy to say "therefore POVFORK". The article is not a POVFORK and has never been one - it is a valid SPINOUT which meets the GNGs and should not be merged - especially as there is no clear advantages from the merge, and the clear disadvantage that it has the effect of obscuring the English adaptation of Sailor Moon as a notable topic. --Malkinann (talk) 03:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

then its a spin off concept or Pilot Concept anyways it seems to be in the wrong place. What the article doesn't do compared to the main article is its importance as a whole singular topic. Instead the article relevance is expressed in small areas such as petitions and not much of any individual impact of the entire topic. Having sources and saying it hmeets GNG does not counter against povfork.Lucia Black (talk) 04:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The importance of the topic is addressed in the reliable sources. The article is a spinout, not a povfork. --Malkinann (talk) 11:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

But not as a whole topic.Lucia Black (talk) 16:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep the article.--I'm a Graduate! (talk) 18:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)Chris

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

Eyes needed

We need some eyes and attention from people familiar with contemporary literature on race at Mongoloid race, Negroid race, Caucasian race and Nordic race. They are all entrenched in a pre-1950es understanding of the concept of race and contain little if any references to contemporary literature or debates.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I looked at Nordic race, and think that the solution there is to ensure it sticks to the topic, i.e. the obsolete concept, and doesn't suggest that it has any currency now. So the haplotype material has to go. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The bit about "thoroughly discredited by biologists and anthropologists, however" is troubling.Elinruby (talk) 00:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Mongoloid race is even worse, any help would be appreciated.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Taliban

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

---

An editor on the Taliban article insists it is not neutral to write that the Pakistan Inter-Services Intelligence have given aid to the Taliban. This is widely reported as fact, and the two sources I added to the article are from the academic press. He is insistent on it being an American intel agency only POV and I assume he means this is not mainstream thinking due to this. So is this not neutral? The Last Angry Man (talk) 09:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The issues with the current version are as follows:

1. The article tone in general implies that Pakistan is an ally of Taliban,
2. It is stated at certain instances that Pakistan's military supports Taliban while Pakistan denies it and no refutation has been added. (The above editor is reinstating the content without adding the refutation not following WP:NPOV and is instead asking me to balance it which is his responsibility as per WP:VOLUNTEER. Note that I've cleared the WP:BURDEN on me by giving relevant reliable citations.)
3. Inter Services Intelligence (Pakistan's intelligence agency) is included in the infobox as an ally of Taliban which in no case is suitable (even if the body does end up containing so along with Pakistan's refutation) because it is a clear POV case.

As of now I've given the editor these citations against his POV: [29] [30] [31] [32]. Although he agreed about these being reliable refutations but he insists that these are 'press releases' of Pakistan and not the mainstream thinking in response to which I've given him a mainstream citation [33] to prove my point. Further more the citation he added (reliable or not) itself states that it is involving certain prejudice/stereotyping to analyze Pakistan's role [34]. In addition there is a whole dedicated article on the ~10 year war of Pakistan with Taliban & their allies War in North-West Pakistan which proves the above editor's POV wrong. You might also note that the editor himself is using WP:WEASELs like 'widely accepted fact' to push his POV and is not following WP:HEAR as well inspite my repeated clarifications. A detailed discussion should be reviewed at Talk:Taliban#Content_removed_.26_POV_tag.3F.

I'll like to point out whether or not he is right on this matter, the subject is still a controversy (as per citation contradictions) and the article should be written in a neutral way in anycase and the infobox inclusion as per that is completely unjustifiable. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Thi i from your first source the BBC "Pakistan supported the Afghan Taliban before the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States. It was one of only three countries to have diplomatic relations with the Islamist group." So again, now that they deny aiding the Taliban this suddenly means the mainstream view that they have is now contentious? Just because the ISI deny having ties to the Taliban does not make it contentious, any intel agency would deny ties to such group. The Last Angry Man (talk) 11:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The dispute is not whether they had previous ties to them or not. (Even United States had previous ties to Taliban during the coldwar but now they are at war with them. The case is the same here too). Anyway, we should stick to the topic (which is the current relation) and not present our own assumptions rather let the citations do the talking. Your current argument is baseless. Lets wait for a neutral editor to comment otherwise it wont go any better than the talk page discussion. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Yes, but the problem is that all your citations are just press releases from the government which say "not us" I on the other hand have have supplied high quality sources which say the ISI continue to aid the Taliban, here is another Terrorism financing and state responses: a comparative perspective Stanford University Press pp94-96 The Last Angry Man (talk) 11:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I have given you a citation from the mainstream (other than a press release) as well. And I've listed your remarks in reply to my citations in my comment as well as linked the talk page discussion which already covers what we are discussing right now. I guess we've both made are cases clear. So lets wait for neutral input and continue the discussion on basis of that. Otherwise we'll just repeat the same talk page discussion here which will flood the topic discouraging neutral input. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The Last Angry Man is absolutely right. Here some more sources to back that up:

• Human Rights Watch: "Pakistani aircraft assisted with troop rotations of Taliban forces during combat operations in late 2000 and ... senior members of Pakistan's intelligence agency and army were involved in planning military operations."[35]
• New York Times: "Two years ago, Jalaluddin Haqqani [leader of most devastating Taliban faction "Haqqani network"] ... was called a "Pakistani asset" by a senior official of the Inter-Services Intelligence, the nation's powerful spy agency, as a way of explaining why the Pakistani Army did not move against him." [36]
• International Business Times/BBC: "Commanders of the Taliban told the BBC that they and thousands of other members of their groups were trained and armed by Pakistan’s military intelligence and security service." [37]
• Taliban commander Mullah Qaseem: “Pakistan plays a significant role. First they support us by providing a place to hide which is really important. Secondly they provide us with weapons."[38]
• Taliban commander "Mullah Azizullah, said these [training] camps are run by the ISI or are closely linked to it. "They are all the ISI’s men,” he said. “They are the ones who run the training. First they train us about [sic] bombs; then they give us practical guidance. Their generals are everywhere. They are present during the training.""[39]
• Pakistani Chief of Army Staff, Ashfaq Kayani himself: "Admiral Mullen knows well which countries are in contact with the Haqqanis. Singling out Pakistan as the chief protagonist is neither fair nor productive."[40]

JCAla (talk) 13:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll like to start by pointing out non neutrality of the above editor since he even removed the valid POV tag from the article (which was left there by both parties) while the discussion was still on going. [41]

• Coming to the topic, the points you've given about Pakistan assisting Taliban before the war on terror are completely invalid because the topic of discussion is whether or not Pakistan's military is currently an ally to Taliban (so those should be disregarded - refer to my 2nd comment in this thread).
• The points you have given about Taliban leaders commenting on the issue, I seriously doubt the reliability of terrorists deciding the issue related to the encyclopedia (those should be considered as non reliable sources - because even though the publisher 'might' be reliable, the source they credit is not).
• About the Army chief's comment; have you even read it your self or are you intentionally quoting it out of context? Editors are free to review this citation where he means that Pakistan is not the only country in contact with Taliban/Haqani/etc pointing out that US also is in 'contact' with them and this certainly does not implicate an alliance.

Yes, the Taliban militants were trained by Pakistani officials for the soviet invasion etc, but they were being aided by US too, and now they are on war with them? Do I smell double standards? And did you see the article I quoted about Pakistan's own ~10 year war with with Taliban and their allies? And that so many dedicated article including War in North-West Pakistan, War on Terror & Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan mention, and properly detail along with sources, US and Pakistan fighting against Taliban and their allies? And did you notice that US (other than blaming Pakistan for these relations) also (still) calls Pakistan their ally[42] [43] [44] rather than Talibans'? The addition of Pakistan as an ally for Taliban (which should rather be added on the opposing side) is completely inconsistent with all the well sourced details of the given articles and makes wikipedia reflect inconsistent point of views (other than being non neutral) and is unencyclopedic. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I understand, this discussion is about the current support. I was just pointing out that as late as 2000 and even 2001 (before 9/11) Pakistan's military is recorded as being an active participant in the War in Afghanistan

(1996-2001), mastermind behind the Taliban military campaigns. That is just for the record for people to understand the depth of the involvement of Pakistan with the Taliban. It wasn't just arms and cash transfer (what is normally understood under the term "support").

Now, for today, I gave reliable sources which quoted a "senior official of the ISI", two mid-level Taliban commanders and Pak. Army Chief Kayani (whose statement is rather revealing considering that the Pakistan government is in official denial). This was only in addition to all the other reliable and academic Western sources The Last Angry Man already provided.

Look, you do not need to lecture me about the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, I am pretty familiar with the issue. If you look carefully, you can see, that I am one of the three editors who contributed most to the TTP article. So, glad, you think it is well-balanced. Now, that you have read the article, you must have noticed that there is indeed a huge difference between the TTP (Pakistani Taliban) the Pakistani army is fighting against and the Afghan Taliban (the Pakistani army is supporting). You seem to have gotten confused by the common name, although I think, you are pretty much aware of the difference. As Gilles Dorronsoro, a scholar of South Asia at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace said: "The fact that they have the same name causes all kinds of confusion."[45] As the Pakistani Army began offensives against the TTP (Pakistani Taliban), many unfamiliar with the region thought incorrectly that the assault was against the Afghan Taliban of Mullah Omar which was not the case.[46] Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Omar repeatedly asked the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan to stop attacks inside Pakistan. Afghan Taliban commander Haqqani also tried to make the TTP stop their attacks against the Pakistani state. An Afghan Taliban spokesman told The New York Times: "We don’t like to be involved with them, as we have rejected all affiliation with Pakistani Taliban fighters ... We have sympathy for them as Muslims, but beside that, there is nothing else between us."

We both know that Pakistan is playing a double game with the Taliban and NATO.

"And which side is Pakistan on? “That’s a foolish question,” says Anatol Lieven, a professor in the Department of War Studies at King’s College London. “Pakistan is on Pakistan’s side, just as America is on America’s.”

But in this double game, Pakistan sustains the Taliban. And it makes sure that Afghan Taliban leaders who seek greater independence from Pakistan get arrested (see Mullah Baradar) and are released only when they are back in line again, that shows the amount of control the ISI has over the Afghan Taliban.

JCAla (talk) 18:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Pointing out that you clarified yourself that "Pakistan is on the Pakistani side" you should have sided with adding Pakistan to a third column instead of adding it as a Taliban ally in the first place. With that being said, it still does not matter till what ever time Pakistan was in support of Taliban since that is not the topic and your statement was there to make assumptions as you put it in the context. I am very clear about the identities of Afghan and Pakistani Taliban. May be you missed to read that I said they were eachother's allies in all the mentioned articles (which you now say have been contributed by you - so it is as per your words, I can safely say). After that, it doesn't matter who Pakistan is supporting since the official status by both Pakistan and USA is alliance with each other (of which I have given references). So you have here both parties recognizing each other as ally hence completely removing the possibility of putting ISI in the infobox as an ally of Afghan Taliban (that too along with the Pakistani Taliban which they are fighting I see). After all that, I didn't object to mentioning that USA blames Pakistan of keeping contacts with Taliban while Pakistan denies (I guess you missed to read the talk page discussion since I already mentioned this there). No more references are needed to support my view. As I said to the other editor involved, lets wait for neutral input since we've all made our cases clear. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

How is JCala input not neutral? He has not commented on the talk page and did not edit the article over this issue until it was brought here. The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you missed this [47]. Also, does his reply not tell you that... --lTopGunl (talk) 22:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Most of what you write is irrelevant to the issue at hand. Also, you can't use unsourced things in wikipedia as a source for other wikipedia articles. Some things in the articles are disputed, but I don't want to open another discussion about that here. The following is the central issue:

Question: Does Pakistan give substantial support to the Afghan Taliban? Answer: Yes.

Question: Does Pakistan seriously move against the Afghan Taliban (Mullah Omar, Haqqani network or even the Hezb-e Islami Gulbuddin) in order to defeat them? Answer: No.

This qualifies Pakistan as being listed as an "ally" (for lack of a better term) of the Taliban. It is as simple as that. And if the ISI thinks it is justified to do what it does, why is it, that it is always in denial? Why not honestly state your case? Is it ashamed of its own policy? There is no reason to hide from a morally justified cause, is there?!

Pakistan is on Pakistan's side, so far we did agree. So what is Pakistan's side? This war and the underlying conflict did not start in 2001, not even in 1996, it started a very long time ago. Pakistan has always had a very clear policy concerning Afghanistan and that policy did not change just because NATO entered the scene in late 2001. Since 1994, the Taliban play an integral element in Pakistan's strategy and until this very day ISI perceives there is no viable alternative.

Besides, the Taliban article deals with the Taliban in a general manner, not just the current phase. Pakistan, not only today, but also in the past, has been an ally - even mastermind - of the Taliban. That alone, qualifies it to be mentioned as an ally.

The fact, that Pakistan denies any support to the Taliban, really holds no weight considering history. Even while thousands of Pakistani forces were fighting inside Afghanistan, even while the Pakistani military was planning the Taliban military campaigns from 1995-2001, Pakistan (Musharraf's temper is well-known) was outraged at any suggestion it would provide support to the Taliban. Just to recall history 1996-2001:

"The Pakistan government has repeatedly denied that it provides any military support to the Taliban ..." Human Rights Watch 2001

"When asked 'why Pakistan supports the Taliban', an [Pakistani] official replied, 'We don’t support but inter-act with the Taliban'." George Washington University 2001

All the while Pakistan was doing the following:

"Of all the foreign powers involved in efforts to sustain and manipulate the ongoing fighting [in Afghanistan], Pakistan is distinguished both by the sweep of its objectives and the scale of its efforts, which include soliciting funding for the Taliban, bankrolling Taliban operations, providing diplomatic support as the Taliban's virtual emissaries abroad, arranging training for Taliban fighters, recruiting skilled and unskilled manpower to serve in Taliban armies, planning and directing offensives, providing and facilitating shipments of ammunition and fuel, and ... directly providing combat support. ... as many as thirty trucks a day were crossing the Pakistan border; ... some of these convoys were carrying artillery shells, tank rounds, and rocket-propelled grenades. ... Pakistani landmines have been found in Afghanistan; they include both antipersonnel and antivehicle mines. Pakistan's army and intelligence services, principally the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI), contribute to making the Taliban a highly effective military force. ... senior Pakistani military and intelligence officers help plan and execute major military operations. ... Pakistani aircraft assisted with troop rotations of Taliban forces during combat operations ... The extent of this support has attracted widespread international criticism. In November 2000 the U.N. secretary-general implicitly accused Pakistan of providing such support. ... The démarche listed features of the [2000] assault on Taloqan that suggested the Taliban had received outside assistance in planning and carrying out the attack. These features were uncharacteristic of the Taliban's known capabilities, including the length of the preparatory artillery fire ... On several occasions between 1995 and 1999, the Taliban's military skills improved abruptly on the eve of particularly pivotal battles, and in one case, declined just as abruptly after a credible threat of intervention was made by an outside power. During its offensives in 1995 against Herat and in 1996 against Kabul, for example, the Taliban suffered heavy losses after mounting attacks against veteran government forces [of Ahmad Shah Massoud]. ... the rout was such that some analysts predicted that the Taliban phenomenon had run its course. ... Initial defeats were followed by a period of quiet; then Taliban troops mounted new attacks, displaying capabilities that had been conspicuously lacking before. ... maneuvers that were more characteristic of a professional army-specifically, of professional officers and noncommissioned officers trained in the practice of mobile warfare-than of Afghan mujahidin. ... in August 1998, the Taliban forces that were advancing eastward from the city against [anti-Taliban] resistance [forces] ... suddenly faltered and lost their unusual combat proficiency. At the time, the disappearance of Iranian officials had provoked a major crisis with Iran and a substantial Iranian military force (ultimately close to 250,000 men) was massing on the Afghan/Iranian border. The Iranian government explicitly blamed Pakistan for the incident (Pakistan had given assurances for the diplomats' safety) and threatened military intervention if the diplomats were not produced. The [following] sudden decline in Taliban military effectiveness, ... was caused by the withdrawal of Pakistani military advisers as part of an effort by Pakistan to prevent the crisis [with Iran] from getting out of control." Human Rights Watch 2001

Now for today.

• "The Haqqani network [Taliban] ... acts as a veritable arm of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Agency." - U.S. Admiral Mike Mullen [48]

(Mullen was said to be close to the Pakistani army's chief of staff, Gen Ashfaq Kayani. Indeed, Adm Mullen is thought to have made more visits to Pakistan than any other senior US official or chief of staff in recent times.)

• "In Afghanistan we saw an insurgency that was not only getting passive support from the Pakistani army and the Pakistani intelligence service, the ISI, but getting active support." - Bruce Riedel, Brookings Institution

• "Two years ago, Jalaluddin Haqqani [leader of most devastating Taliban faction "Haqqani network"] ... was called a "Pakistani asset" by a senior official of the Inter-Services Intelligence, the nation's powerful spy agency, as a way of explaining why the Pakistani Army did not move against him." New York Times 2008

• "Commanders of the Taliban told the BBC that they and thousands of other members of their groups were trained and armed by Pakistan’s military intelligence and security service." International Business Times 2011

• "Taliban sources say Pakistan uses catch-and-release tactics to keep insurgent leaders in line. All told, the ISI has picked up some 300 Taliban commanders and officials, the sources say. Before being freed, the detainees are subjected to indoctrination sessions to remind them that they owe their freedom and their absolute loyalty to Pakistan, no matter what. As one example, the sources mention Abdul Qayum Zakir, who spent five years at Guantánamo and is now the group’s top military commander. They say the Pakistanis detained him and about a dozen other Taliban commanders and shadow governors earlier this year, soon after having picked up the insurgency’s No. 2, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, only to set them free several days later after making sure their priorities meshed with Pakistan’s." Newsweek 2010

The Last Angry Man has provided further academic sources (including from the Stanford Press which I don't think I need to repeat).

In case anyone wonders why Pakistan should support the Taliban. The following could provide some clues:

1. Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts

2. Dispute over territory

"Dubbing Durand line as a line of hatred Afghan President Hamid Karzai has said he does not accept this line as it has raised a wall between the two brothers [Afghanistan's Pashtuns and Pakistan's Pashtuns]." [49]

"Afghanistan and Balochistan should form a legal team to challenge the illegal occupation of Afghan territories and Balochistan by Pakistan in the International Court of Justice. Once the Durand Line Agreement is declared illegal, it will result in the return of Pakistan-occupied territories back to Afghanistan. Also, Balochistan will be declared a country that was forcibly invaded through use of force by the Pakistanis ... After Pakistan vacates territories belonging to Afghanistan and Balochistan, a new boarder should be demarked amicably to determine Baloch dominated areas to become the new Balochistan, and Pashtun dominated areas to be merged into Afghanistan. ... “Pakistan is a completely superfluous and artificially created spot on the world map that has become a breeding ground for extremism, and trouble that would be best done away with.”" [50]

Pakistan needs the Taliban as an "Islamic" counterforce to Pashtun nationalist ambitions which would effectively cut Pakistan in half. The Taliban's interpretation of and focus on Islam (rather than nationalism) is meant to be a binding force between Pakistan and Afghanistan. The non-Pashtun ethnicities of Afghanistan are perceived to be too close to India. That is why Pakistan insists on Pashtun's ruling Afghanistan, but these Pashtuns need to be the Taliban not nationalists following i. e. the way of Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan.

3. There are certain dreams surrounding Islamic prophecies, and black banners from Khorasan. JCAla (talk) 20:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

First of all, we don't post whole news citings to the thread, that's just flooding (You should replace those with just the links of their origin). We can all go and read from the links you give. And there's no use of using this notice board if the involved editors are the only one posting long replies (which would discourage neutral input). Coming to the topic, you have just repeated what you said in your previous post. But as I said, all you have written here either is not related to the topic at hand and rather stuff that some one would post to a forum or citings on which you further base your assumptions on. There are some issues with all what you said:

• You say (and agree) Pakistan is on Pakistani side which calls for a third column for Pakistan to be listed in as per your own words since they are playing a 'double game' not being a partner (ally) to either US or Taliban (which I did not endorse, but pointed out).
• Discussion of past relations with Taliban is not the issue here which you are repeatedly bringing up.
• What I wrote was not irrelevant, I did not use the wiki articles as 'citations' (since I already gave the citations along with them). I used them to show consensus from those articles about the alliances. Another point here is that if one wikipedia article shows Pakistan as Talibans' ally and another shows them on opposing side, that would be an unacceptable inconsistency.
• Most of your citations are pointing out the contacts of Pakistan with Haqani/Taliban etc, which US itself also has for intelligence purposes and not support purposes (as the Pakistani Army chief pointed out) and rest of the citations are simply saying that Pakistan either has been supporting Taliban in the past or assume that, since Pakistan has links with them, they are allies.
• Even if what you say is completely believed for sake of argument, Pakistan still would not be listed as an ally of Taliban. The reason being, whatever relations Pakistan has with Taliban or US, Pakistan and US call each other allies on the war on terror.[51] [52] [53] We follow the official status per WP:MOS.

So your case here is completely inconsistent and being based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Also, I think I've made my side pretty clear and so have you two. Repeating the same would be of no use and we should wait for neutral input (if at all some one reads the already lengthy thread). --lTopGunl (talk) 10:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• "Pakistan's side" includes the interest in continuing support to the Afghan Taliban, which makes them an "ally" for lack of a better term.
• Discussions of past relations put the current official Pakistani denial into a perspective.
• You are again confusing the TTP with the Afghan Taliban.
• The citations explicitly point out a support role not a contact role.
• Well, the official position of the man who was United States Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff until October 2011, Mike Mullen, is that "the Haqqani network [Taliban's most destructive element] ... acts as a veritable arm of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Agency."[54]

But, ok, let's wait for other people to provide their opinion. JCAla (talk) 10:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Can we get a response here??????? --lTopGunl (talk) 06:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Having looked at the sources above it is quite clear that the ISI have and still continue to support the Taliban. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, that is not the issue of discussion, the issue is the official status which is accepted by both USA and Pakistan as being allies. Where as the editors above are adding ISI as an ally to Taliban in the infobox. The secondary issue is that ISI's alleged support is not being attributed to the sources and Pakistan's refutation is not being neutrally added to it. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I would respectfully disagree with you, it is the issue being discussed. Did the ISI aid and abet the Taliban? Yes they did, and yes they continue to do so. The ISI are from the sources presented allied to the Taliban. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The fact that both countries call each other allies is itself enough to put ISI on the opponent side of Taliban, now whether it's secretly supporting Taliban or not is an issue to be discussed in the body of the article. Again, yes, the issue is being discussed by the editor, but I've told him as well (you should review the talk page discussion and my edits that got reverted) that the inclusion of this is not my dispute here as far as it's neutrally conveyed on both the allegation and refutation side. The infobox is. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with both The Last Angry Man and Darkness Shines. And as I mentioned before, the United States Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff until October 2011, Mike Mullen, officially called the Haqqani network (Taliban's most destructive element) the "veritable arm of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Agency".[55] That renders irrelevant your, TopGun, argumentation concerning "official" positions. JCAla (talk) 16:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Your point is invalid by this reference, since Pakistan and USA still consider each other as allies after this statement (and rather before and during this accusation the alliance was not broken). Your reference is time stamped "22 September 2011". I'll give you newer still calling it an alliance: [56] [57] [58], and one old: [59]. The WP:BURDEN is still on you. Give a citation in which either Pakistan, USA or even a third party says that Pakistan-US alliance has been broken. Other wise putting Pakistan on the Taliban side is your POV and WP:OR. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

First of all, your "sources" are not "newer". Second, do you even read your own sources? Besides that in your sources the term "alliance" is not being used by any officials, the following is written in your sources:

• "Last month, senior American officials accused Pakistan's spy agency of assisting the Haqqani network in attacks on Western targets in Afghanistan, including a strike on the US embassy in Kabul. They were the most serious allegations yet of Pakistani duplicity in the 10-year war in Afghanistan and sent already strained ties between Islamabad and Washington plunging further."[60]

• And from the CFR link, which is from 2010 not 2011: "Strategic dialogue meetings between senior Pakistani and U.S. officials concluded Friday with plans to cooperate on a range of issues including agriculture, electricity, and health. The meetings came amid growing tensions in the U.S.-Pakistan relationship. ... And the Obama administration is frustrated with what it sees as Pakistan's unwillingness to go after the Haqqani network and the Afghan Taliban--the terrorist groups considered most dangerous to the U.S. war effort in Afghanistan. ... To gain Pakistan's cooperation against militant groups it continues to support, some experts call for a stronger stand. The Cable, a Foreign Policy blog, reports that U.S. officials are "taking a markedly tougher tone with the Pakistanis than before.""[61]

Now, there seems to be a confusion on your part what the term "allies" means. JCAla (talk) 20:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

If you missed to check the time stamps. They are new. For your info (since your mind is set on finding what you like and not what is being referred):

• [62] "The latest strikes come as Marc Grossman, the US special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, arrived in the Pakistani capital of Islamabad to hold talks with Pakistani leaders to strengthen the two countries' fragile alliance."
• "An unhappy alliance."
• "The Strained U.S.-Pakistan Alliance."
• "Zardari emphasises restraint to avoid straining Pak-US alliance."

You can find more if you look. Stop repeatedly stating that US (and whoever else) alleges Pakistan of 'continuing to support militants', I have read that once. What you've failed to prove is that there is no alliance between Pak and US instead you claim the opposite. I've given you citations for my claim. You are misleading. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

All your quotes, except maybe the Zardari one (which doesn't really matter given all the Pakistani official denial), are NOT, and I am repeating this, are NOT from officials, but terms used by some Western journalists in the past and one Pakistani journalist in the present. The most recent official position of the US government, the Indian government, the government of Iran, the Russian government, the European governments is: Pakistan keeps supporting the Afghan Taliban. Afghan Taliban commanders have admitted this. Thus, Pakistan can be listed as an ally of the Taliban on the wikipedia article.

Maybe you fail to understand one thing. We are talking about the infobox on the Afghan Taliban article. The US and Pakistan may work together on some issues concerning Pakistan itself i. e. economy, health and supporting elements in the Pakistani army to keep control of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal in order to keep some sort of stability. Here the common interest is relative stability in Pakistan considering the nuclear arsenal.

When it comes to Afghanistan, however, Pakistan and the US followed the same policy up until early 2001, then the US started to change sides, with the Bush administration finalizing a new American approach to the War in Afghanistan (1996-2001) in August 2001, just before 9/9 and 9/11. Since then, Pakistan is certainly no ally of the US (and people have provided you with very reliable sources for this including this being the current official position of the US and many other countries) when it comes to the Afghan Taliban. NATO did not start a war in 2001, it entered into one in which Pakistan and the Afghan Taliban already formed a firm alliance. And even today, Pakistan perceives there to be no alternative for its support to the Afghan Taliban. And today, Pakistan is supporting the Afghan Taliban to kill Americans in Afghanistan. The reasons for this support have been mentioned above. This makes Pakistan an ally of the Afghan Taliban (when it comes to the Afghan Taliban). JCAla (talk) 09:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

To start with you got the statement of one official atleast (and the neutral journalists). Now you state that Zardari's stand doesn't matter given whatsoever is your WP:OR, Whatever his position in politics is, his statements are on the account of the office he holds. Here is another denial and calling US an ally by the Pakistani foreign minister as well [63], We have more than enough citations for US officially and otherwise calling Pakistan its ally. I do know we are talking about the infobox issue first, and I'm the one who has clarified it repeatedly. And that is the issue, infobox contains official status. And you are wrong in interpreting that. Allegations and strained relationship doesn't mean that an alliance is broken. USA has not conveyed to Pakistan that the alliance is no more, and the burden of that is on you. You have failed to give a proof of that. PS. learn to indent your replies its hard to spot who you are replying in the discussion other wise. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Btw, this doesn't seem to be making much progress, we should list it in an RFC. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Look, you are restating your POV again and again, while this discussion doesn't even make sense. First, wikipedia is about facts, it's not about mirroring government positions or in some cases propaganda. Second, the term "alliance" is certainly not being applied to the issue of the Afghan Taliban. It has been established by the academia, the statements of major government and military officials from different countries in the world, by statements of Taliban commanders and a few ISI officials themselves, that Pakistan supports the Afghan Taliban versus NATO and the government of Afghanistan. Thus, Pakistan is an ally of the Afghan Taliban. Three editors have agreed (one, you, is opposed). Unless someone else wants to join this discussion, this issue has been solved by majority vote. JCAla (talk) 09:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

One, read WP:VOTE. Wikipedia is not voting or majoritarianism. You make your case by discussion. And the third editor specifically listed his argument as a "comment" and not a "support" for your case. I've given you enough citations from both parties. This is not my POV, rather the official status of the alliance. Two, you just did the same, making your claims repeatedly right now. We should probably go to a higher form of resolution like RFC citing this and the talk page discussion. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

It was a comment supporting the inclusion of the ISI as an ally of the Taliban. Please do not misrepresent what I have written. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit the bolded text to that then. A comment is usually used for a neutral input. Also, I've replied to that as well. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

It's important to represent the situation fairly here. If the Pakistani government has denied the claim, then it's their word against another's. Per WP:WEIGHT, you need to represent all claims fairly, so having Pakistan there without caveat is showing only one side of the story. It's also important to note that you're showing them not just as being involved with each other, but as allies. One link provided above shows that the ISI does not consider the Taliban an ally, so does the Taliban consider its relations with the ISI as an alliance? This is the kind of information I would expect to see in the sources attached to such statements. At the moment, in the infobox, the sources given are self-published and neither mentions an alliance. The references given in the lead are from more reliable sources, but still jump around the subject. So the primary concern I'm seeing is a sourcing one. Unless the sources provided state outright that this is a military alliance in conjunction with the war in Afghanistan, then labelling it as such is original research. So at the moment, I would suggest removing Pakistan from the infobox and, given the controversial nature of the subject, strictly sticking to the sources when it comes to the body of the article. Nightw 07:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Nightw, I'd like to know if you are familiar with the topic? Then, maybe you missed some of the reliable links given above. The Afghan Taliban are often referred to as an "asset" of Pakistan.

• New York Times: "Two years ago, Jalaluddin Haqqani [leader of most devastating Taliban faction "Haqqani network"] ... was called a "Pakistani asset" by a senior official of the Inter-Services Intelligence, the nation's powerful spy agency, as a way of explaining why the Pakistani Army did not move against him." [64]

• International Business Times: "Commanders of the Taliban told the BBC that they and thousands of other members of their groups were trained and armed by Pakistan’s military intelligence and security service." [65]

• BBC: "Taliban commander Mullah Qaseem: 'Pakistan plays a significant role. First they support us by providing a place to hide which is really important. Secondly they provide us with weapons.'"[66]

• BBC: "Taliban commander Mullah Azizullah, said these [training] camps are run by the ISI or are closely linked to it. 'They are all the ISI’s men,' he said. 'They are the ones who run the training. First they train us about [sic] bombs; then they give us practical guidance. Their generals are everywhere. They are present during the training.'"[67]

• BBC: "... documentary series Secret Pakistan has spoken to a number of middle-ranking - and still active - Taliban commanders who provide detailed evidence of how the Pakistan ISI has rebuilt, trained and supported the Taliban throughout its war on the US in Afghanistan."[68]

• BBC: "Evidence of Pakistan's support for the Taliban is also plain to see at the border where insurgents are allowed to cross at will, or even helped to evade US patrols."[69]

• BBC: One Haqqani network commander "wanted peace talks. He said it was vital Pakistan intelligence knew nothing of the meeting. He said not to disclose it because Pakistan does not want peace with Afghanistan and even now they are training new Taliban units. He was also scared that the Pakistanis will arrest him because he lives in Pakistan and he said it would be easy for them to arrest him."[70]

JCAla (talk) 09:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I've commented purely on the sources in the article, as that is what the reader sees and I'm assuming it's where the dispute lies. The links above look interesting, but they don't address the issue. An article describing Pakistan–Taliban relations might be a better place to put these to use. But to sum up all those sources under one extraordinary label that isn't used by any of them is obviously pushing into the territory of original research, or synthesis. The allegations of cooperation between these two has been denied by one side (I'm not sure about the other), so therefore it becomes necessary to attribute the allegations within the text and supplement that with any competing claims. By not doing so, you are editorialising or picking a side, which is not what we do—rather, we explain the sides, fairly and without bias. A simple example of impartial writing would be "Several journalists and government officials allege that the Pakistani army provides support for the Taliban," providing examples in references, "...a claim the Pakistan government has denied." I'm not trying to disagree with what you're saying, but I am pointing out some obvious policy violations here. Nightw 12:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I have to disagree with you. The links above address the issue perfectly. One of the definitions of the term "ally" is the following: "One in helpful association with another."[71] The MacMilland Dictionary's definition for "ally" is: "Someone who is ready to help you, especially against someone else who is causing problems for you."[72] Under these definitions Pakistan qualifies as an ally of the Afghan Taliban. The above reliable sources clearly outline a "helpful association". That is neither POV nor bias nor original research. It is what sources considered reliable by wikipedia policy say. Also, you can push WP:WEIGHT only so far. Offical policy statements do not hold as much weight as multiple witness testimonies (even by Taliban commanders themselves), and further evidence for Pakistan's support to the Taliban cited in all the sources provided above. Consider, even Pakistani officials have been cited by reliable sources such as the New York Times as - unofficially - confirming Pakistani's "helpful association" with the Afghan Taliban. You also don't put tags into holocaust articles just because there are people, including state actors in Iran, who deny the holocaust. WP:WEIGHT also depends on what evidence which side has to support their claims. JCAla (talk) 13:59, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

JCAla, what you have just shown is a textbook example of synthesis. You have brought multiple sources together to reach a single conclusion, when in reality none of the sources shown present such a conclusion by themselves. You appear to want your sources to say something that they don't. We can't interpret evidence either. Again, you seem to be overlooking the label you're applying—descriptions of "support", "helpful association", etcetera (whatever the quantity), does not equal the terminology that you've chosen to use. When contentious, value-laden labels ... are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. From what you've shown me, "ally" is not used at all by reliable sources, so it should be removed; softer labels appear more widely, so these should be applied with attribution as I said before. As it states quite clearly in WP:WEIGHT, viewpoints are subject to notability. Iran's policy on the holocaust is no more notable than Jewish policy on the Assyrian genocide; Pakistan's viewpoint on its own relationship with another government, however, is obviously notable. You cannot present a situation impartially unless you attribute claims and allow all significant counterclaims. Nightw 13:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I think Nightw has given an adequate explanation of WP:WEIGHT & WP:NPOV. Simple allegations don't belong in infobox. Even when in body, refutations have to be there when available. How can you present a neutral POV when you are writing a whole section in the article about Pakistan's so called 'support' to Taliban and at the end of the section you just refute with a single sentence that Pakistan denies it? And in addition to that, with both USA and Pakistan on an official status of alliance, which now is surely at its last stage (and I'm starting to rethink about my argument of putting Pakistan on the alliance side of USA, so is the government of Pakistan), you can simply not add it as an ally to the opposite side. You are pressing hard for WP:TRUTH here. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Three editors have laid out rather clearly and backed this up with reliable sources that Pakistan is in a "helpful association" with the Afghan Taliban. JCAla (talk) 09:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

That is why I've gone to the next dispute resolution level. 3-2 doesn't seem to be much of difference anyway along with the fact that it's the points you make that matters. An RFC will get wider public attention and neutral views. The discussion is expected to take time. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

comment, Nightw is absolutely right. this is a clear example of wp:synth.-- mustihussain  18:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

How is it synth to say the ISI are allied to the Taliban when all sources say this? The Last Angry Man (talk) 19:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

If the sources do come to that conclusion independently of one another, then it's not synthesis. But the sources given in the article, and even the sources provided by JCAla directly above, do not. Using a label that has been denied by at least one party and isn't used by any of the sources provided, is original research. Using adjectives that are widely used is fine, as long as you provide attribution within the text. Nightw 03:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't share your insistence on the particular usage of the term "alliance" since a "helpful association" has clearly been described by all the different sources above. But, here we go, the term "alliance" has been used extensively in the past to describe the relationship between the Afghan Taliban and Pakistan.

• PBS: "The Taliban-Pakistan Alliance"

The Taliban were also called the following by regional experts like Amin Saikal:

• "The Taliban. Pakistan’s Geopolitical Instrument"

Presently, you can also find this term being applied. An academic book review recently published by the Institute of Peace & Conflict Studies (IPCS) has the title:

• "An unholy alliance: Pakistan and the Taliban"

There are also articles:

• "The ISI-Taliban Alliance behind attacks on NATO supply trucks in Pakistan"

And academic studies:

• "Re-Emerging Alliance Between Taliban and Pakistani Military"

So, this is really not original research. JCAla (talk) 09:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

You need to know the difference between allegations and facts. And for a matter controversial as this, you have to be even more careful. You could attribute sources and add the allegations in the body, but infobox can not contain which is based on WP:TRUTH and WP:SYNTH. Even with that, the body of the article is heavily tilted to your POV, even more so, after your last edits and addition to it. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• JCAla, you haven't understood. I'm not trying to discredit the claim that these sources make. I'm specificly responding to the application of the label alliance. If the accused denies that label then it is contentious. Our policies discourage the use of contentious labels, unless they are widely used by reliable sources. That doesn't appear to be the case, or hasn't been demonstrated. Listing it in an infobox under this label would not be appropriate even if it were used widely, as it doesn't allow in-text attribution. Within the body of the article, as TopGun states, you should not be using sources like those you've just posted to make statements of fact. Our policy demands that you attribute such allegations within the text, and you should certainly avoid using self-published sources. Adding "[author] has claimed" or "according to [author]" to any contentious claim is imperative to achieving a neutral point of view, which is I can only hope what you all want for this article.
• I'm assuming you came to this noticeboard looking to resolve alleged issues of bias within the article. Again, I'm not trying to push an alternative theory to what your sources claim, I'm simply explaining to you the way these claims should be presented in order to jive with our guidelines. If a claim is notable and due, and comes from a reliable source, there is nothing wrong with adding it as long as you attribute it within the text. Nightw 13:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I understand but disagree with your interpretation of wikipedia policy, Nightw. We have 3 editors who argue in favor and 3 editors who argue against naming the ISI an ally of the Taliban. Let's see if there are other people who want to provide their opinion. JCAla (talk) 14:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

How do you interpret WP:SYNTH? --lTopGunl (talk) 14:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• Question. The Pakistani government may deny the links, but does the ISI deny the link? All the sources say the ISI are allied with the Taliban, have they actually denied this fact? Darkness Shines (talk) 01:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

ISI is represented by Inter Services Public Relations (which represents all military branches of Pakistan Armed Forces) and Government of Pakistan (which has jurisdiction over it). They have denied it and that is good enough. Though ISI might (have) respond(ed) separately as well, you can not claim that they have to since we already have the answers from the competent authority. So yes, they have denied it. --lTopGunl (talk) 05:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Just my two cents here: @Darkness Shines: The ISI is an intelligence agency, not a press club that goes and makes media conferences to confirm or deny its links with the Taliban. As TopGun pointed out, it's viewpoints are represented by the ISPR, which is a media wing of Pakistan's military, as well as the Government of Pakistan. Both, from what I gather, have denied their links to Taliban, Haqqani network/whatever groups. Mar4d (talk) 06:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I have not been a part of this discussion so I won't give any remarks on as to how this dispute should be settled. However, I have noticed that some of JCAla's comments and contribs [73] are of contentious nature and do, nevertheless, imply a certain WP:POV. I would support a neutral party to look into this issue. Mar4d (talk) 06:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I've certainly no horse in this race, and I've tried above to direct JCAla towards policies which quite clearly conflict with the contributions in question here, but xe's plainly disagreed with no elaboration. I've asked for another noticeboard frequenter to comment. If nothing comes of that, I'd encourage the OP to request admin closure. Nightw 06:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Dear Mar4d, don't pretend to be what you are not. Accusing me of making contentious contributions while you have a history of being involved in disputes in which you have clearly taken one side and acted out of POV, is annoying. You have frequently been called a "POV warrior" by other editors, not me. So, please, stop this theater. Thank you. JCAla (talk) 10:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Nightw, I thought you were someone providing a neutral input. But I have increasingly doubts about it when you suggest a discussion to be closed when there is a 3-3 situation (3 editors against, 3 editors for). No one here has provided more sources than me, accusing me on not elaborating, is ridiculous. I will tell you my position one more last time:

The ISI is widely described by reliable sources as

• supporting, aiding, backing the Taliban [74][75][76][77]
• arming the Taliban[78][79][80]
• training the Taliban[81][82][83]
• providing safe haven to the Taliban.[84][85][86][87]

• The US Joint Chief of Staff, Mike Mullen, called the Haqqani network in an official hearing the "veritable arm of Pakistan's ISI" and stated, "With ISI support, Haqqani operatives planned and conducted that truck bomb attack, as well as the assault on our embassy".[88][89]
• We also have Top-Senator John McCain speaking of the ISI's links with the Haqqani network and the Taliban.[90]
• We have Senator Mark Kirk's memo: "The ISI continues to view the Haqqani network as its most reliable regional proxy."[91]
• A report by the renowned London School of Economics also came to the conclusion "that Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI) has an "official policy" of support for the Taliban."[92]
• The Institute for the Study of War states: "Elements within the Pakistani security establishment continue to view the Haqqani network as a useful ally and proxy force to represent their interests in Afghanistan."[93]
• The New York Times and Time Magazine: "In Washington, a New York Times report that Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency is directly assisting militant groups fighting against U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan has barely raised an eyebrow. Veteran Pakistan watchers here have known — or suspected — as much for several years." [94]
• Taliban mid-level commanders themselves say they are being trained and armed by the ISI.[95][96]
• We even have a senior ISI official confirming to the New York Times that the Haqqani network is viewed by them as a "Pakistani asset".[97]
• Then we have other regional powers such as India, Iran and Russia saying the same. See i. e. [98][99].
• We have reports by very reliable sources speaking about "hard evidence": "The United States has had hard evidence of the Inter-Service Intelligence's double game for some time. For example, the George W. Bush administration reportedly intercepted communications between the ISI and Haqqani operatives who perpetrated the 2006 bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul. But in this and several other cases, the United States chose to look the other way ... the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the United States had "credible evidence" that the September 10 truck bombing of a U.S. military base in Wardak province and the September 13 terrorist attack on the U.S. embassy and NATO headquarters in Kabul were carried out by the Haqqani network with the ISI's active collusion."[100]

• Acadmic studies by sources considered reliable on wikipedia independently of one another call the Taliban an "ally" of the ISI.

Institute for the Study of War: "useful ally and proxy force"

Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies: "An unholy alliance: Pakistan and the Taliban"

Henry Jackson Society: "Re-Emerging Alliance Between Taliban and Pakistani Military"

All of these very reliable WP:SOURCES, verifiable WP:VERIFY and secondary WP:SECONDARY sources are stating the same independently from one another. Most describe the relation between the ISI and Taliban as something going beyond an "alliance". They use the term "proxy", "asset" or "geopolitical instrument". But there is no such category in the infobox. That is why I gave also sources which explicitly use the term needed for the infobox. I cited three recent academic sources[101][102][103], which independently from one another refer to the ISI and Taliban as allies. So WP:SYN is not the case. I cannot "imply" something which is clearly mentioned in the sources.

All that you brought up against all these very reliable sources is the "official denial of Pakistan" (although the New York Times cited unofficial acknowledgement of a "senior ISI official"). The official denial has always been part of Pakistan's policy as proven, again, by very reliable sources. From 1996-2001 thousands of Pakistani nationals, on the order of Pakistani President Musharraf, were fighting alongside the Taliban and Bin Laden in Afghanistan. Pakistani generals were running the Taliban military operations. At the very same time Musharraf strongly denied any support to the Taliban. My two Pakistani wikipedia colleagues, TopGun and Mar4d, themselves are very much aware of all these facts, but they do not want them to be shown on wikipedia for their own reasons I could only speculate on, which I won't do since we assume WP:GOODFAITH here on wikipedia. Very reliable sources prove a strong military alliance between the Taliban and Pakistan for the very time Pakistan was in strong denial.

• Human Rights Watch: Pakistan "directly providing combat support"
• PBS: "The Taliban-Pakistan Alliance"
• George Washington University "Pakistan running Taliban operations"

Considering all these sources it is clearly you who gives WP:UNDUE weight to a minority position which has been proven to be a deception in the past. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views. JCAla (talk) 10:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: JCAla, you should assume good faith (as per your own advise in the end) for Mar4d as well and even more so for Nightw. They just entered the discussion without even "siding" with any of the editors. Although Nightw has given arguments about content but that doesn't mean that every one on wikipedia is running a conspiracy against you. That is completely disruptive. You should assume good faith even if you have had disputes with editors on other articles. Even if you don't, simple allegations against an editor don't prove anything and instead you would uselessly become a party to the same. I've made my position clear in so many words, called an RFC on talk page, transcluded this discussion there and properly replied to you here so I won't comment on the topic for now. I agree with Nightw to call in an administrator to close the useless discussion and take action. This fits on you very accurately WP:FILIBUSTERS. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: TopGun, do you not have something substantial to add to the discussion. An editor was asking me for an elaboration of my earlier answer and I did so. As I said, it is demanded to assume good faith. You should do this too and stop throwing around all these nonsense allegations. It is getting annoying. JCAla (talk) 11:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I've added enough, thankyou. Your every reply is a flood rather than elaboration, anyway that is not for the admins to decide on. Actually this whole discussion is getting really annoying exactly per WP:FILIBUSTERS. I'm not throwing any allegations, I'm just calling a spade a spade which you can confirm here. I don't have anything else to say. This discussion should be speedily closed. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

This discussin cannot be closed since it is 3 vs. 3. There is no consensus. It is funny how just some days ago you were insisting on continuing this discussion for a long period of time[104][105] (even placing a "not resolved" tag in the discussion) since the situation was 3 vs. 1 against you. JCAla (talk) 11:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS is not voting. I'm still insisting on resolving the issue but not by continuing discussion with you anymore (as if enough discussion - rather more than enough - has already not taken place) because there's nothing to say and time here is being wasted which all the good faith editors can use on other articles. Infact you should remember I'm the one who tagged an RFC, which takes the debate to the lengthiest level, before judging me on that. But after every one has made their case clear and RFC is not getting any comments, a forced closure would be the best option. You can keep counting your votes in the meanwhile. I'll wait for admin intervention or neutral editors' comments, till then I'm not replying to a reply to this so you can have the last word. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

JCAla, do not count me in these votes you keep announcing. This is not a vote, and I have not voted. I have presented to you the problems with your edits in regards to policy, which is what we do on this noticeboard. You appear to be unwilling to listen and are simply plastering the page with rants. You have now accused me of bias because you assume I disagree with the idea your sources are presenting. I have requested admin closure of this thread at AN. Nightw 14:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Dear Nightw, above you wrote "but xe's plainly disagreed with no elaboration". Now that I elaborated you write "plastering the page with rants". You seem to avoid addressing the arguments I made explaining to you the problems of your opinion regarding wikipedia policies. Never mind. I hope an administrator will be able to advice us where to solve this issue, since here it is obviously going nowhere. JCAla (talk) 17:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Outside point of view I've read this entire thing and I don't see why we are having this discussion. It is 1) Not verifiable that the Taliban and Pakistan are allies. None of the sources provided have used the word "Alliance", "Ally", or "Allies". Using the definition of the word "Ally" and finding sources that tailor to the definition is WP:SYNTH. It is 2) Verifiable that the Pakistan ISI has provided resources and training to the Taliban in the past and possibly presently. This should be described in the body of the article, not in the infobox, in a neutral way that attributes the assertions/claims to their source. This would bring the article in like with WP:V and WP:NPOV. Neither the lead nor info box should contain anything other than neutral facts that give a summary of the article.--v/r - TP 18:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Exactly what I pointed out, but since I was reverted/opposed by 3 editors, this had to happen. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

This is factually incorrect, TP. These reliable sources have used the term "alliance" and "ally" for the current relationship between Pakistan and the Taliban:

• Institute for the Study of War: "useful ally and proxy force"
• Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies: "An unholy alliance: Pakistan and the Taliban"
• Henry Jackson Society: "Re-Emerging Alliance Between Taliban and Pakistani Military"

JCAla (talk) 18:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I would disagree. I would say, especially given your sources, my statements are factually accurate. Your first source says, and I quote, "Elements within the Pakistani security establishment". That's not the Government in any official capacity. As far as source #2, you've represented that out of context. The source describes relations between Pakistan and the Taliban before US pressure in 2001 to severe ties. Source #3 suggests there is a "Re-Emerging Alliance" which appears to be a WP:CRYSTALBALL. So as I said, there is not a source that says "Pakistan is an ally of the Taliban" and any assertion fails WP:V. You need to find a source that literally says "Pakistan and the Taliban have hashed out a deal to become allies." Find that, and we can put it in the infobox. Anything else is WP:SYNTH. And ideally, the majority of current sources should support that there is an "alliance". It should be a mainstream viewpoint. A couple of sources that contradict the majority of sources is not enough to sway an entire article toward an "alliance" with Pakistan.

It would be giving WP:UNDUE weight toward a minority viewpoint. You can certainly discuss reemerging ties within the body of the article, but you cannot go into the infobox and assert as fact something that is held in the minority.--v/r - TP 18:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec) JCAla, please read the comments that have been directed to you. The label "ally" and its variants is contentious, so you must use in-text attribution. You cannot do this in an infobox, where you shouldn't be adding contentious items to begin with. In addition, you appear to be looking for sources that agree with your POV. A handful of online links to sources you probably haven't read does not demonstrate widespread use. Please also familiarise yourself with WP:RS. The first and last of those don't say what you want them to, and the other (which I can't access) is a self-published source from a less-than-impartial author. Nightw 19:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

TP, I have to disagree. Source #1 refers to the ISI not the Pakistani government. The infobox states ISI. Source #2 is not only about pre-2001, you got that wrong. It states: "The book also analyses the resurgence of the Taliban masterminded by Pakistan's internal and geo strategic compulsions and their growing influence in the south of Afghanistan." And source #3 analyses in depth the "military alliance" if you read all of it. I also have a question as a majority of reliable sources - the mainstream sources - refer to the Taliban as "proxy", "asset", "instrument" and "supported", "armed" and "trained" by Pakistan. What do we then make of this? Do we just ignore it, because the specific term "alliance" was not used? JCAla (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, yes we do. We ignore it because to "infer" or "assume" or "make of" anything other than what is written is WP:SYNTH. Response to Source #1) Exactly. Response to Source #2) I quote "The subsequent fall out with Pakistan in the face of persistent US pressure, post September 11, 2001". Fall out...big emphasis on that please.--v/r - TP 19:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

...and on the fact that it isn't a reliable source. Nightw 19:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

@TP, for this to not go in circles and FYI, me and Mar4d have replied to this in the comments above, especially to the assertion that "ISI is different from government of Pakistan" (which has jurisdiction over it) or that "ISI didn't deny involvement" and "rather the government and the military did". --lTopGunl (talk) 19:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Source #2: What does resurgence masterminded by Pakistan mean to you? You are very convinced that what you say is absolute truth, right, nothing else would explain your and Nightw's attitude ... big emphasis on attitude, please. This discussion is based on personal opinions, don't forget that. And if some other editors were involved in this discussion, it could go exactly the other way (as it did some days ago), don't forget that either. JCAla (talk) 19:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

And that right there is why I asked for an AN interjection. You clearly have no concept of how this project works. There appears to be competency issues here. Nightw 19:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, right. This is obviously going nowhere. Nightw, you had your own share of conflicts with wiki policy in the past, so please stop acting as some kind of "know-all" judge here. Your behaviour is ridiculous. Go, remove the ISI from the infobox. We will soon have plenty of reliable sources to make the infobox correspond more to reality. Until then, congrats, TopGun. JCAla (talk) 20:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not based on personal opinion. It's based on WP:POLICY. Specifically, WP:V and WP:NPOV. But let's just hypothetically agree for a moment that source #2 is legit and says everything you want it to say. The Pakistan and Taliban are in a full alliance, have been for years, share drinks at the pub on the weekends. What do you intend to do with it? You have but one (or a few if we hypothesize on the other two) that contradict many many others that say that the Pakistan government, the ISI and the Pakistan military are enemies of the Taliban. You cannot express a minority viewpoint as a majority one. That is WP:UNDUE weight. The most you can do is express in the body of the article these things that you've pointed out which is exactly what everyone has suggested that you do.--v/r - TP 19:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Can I ask you a question, TP? Are you truly a member of the US armed forces? I could understand your point about the term "alliance" not being explicitly used. But how, the heck, do you come to the conclusion after the uncountable sources provided above, that the ISI is an enemy of the Afghan Taliban? JCAla (talk) 20:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I am and I fully 100% agree with you that I personally think the Pakistani intelligence service is in league with the Taliban. That doesn't change anything here. On Wikipedia we don't write what we believe to be the truth. On Wikipedia, we write what the sources say. Do you get it now?--v/r - TP 20:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I get everything. The majority of sources says the ISI is supporting, arming and training the Afghan Taliban (to kill American soldiers and Afghans). Show me an equal amount of reliable sources which say the ISI is fighting the Afghan Taliban. And don't mistake the TTP for the Afghan Taliban. Also, don't be naive about wikipedia and what you just supported. JCAla (talk) 20:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you do. You've consistently shown that you lack understanding of WP:V where it says "threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" and WP:NPOV where it says "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views..." (emphasis mine). On Wikipedia, you are welcome to have you point of view. Ours obviously are in line on a personal level. But you cannot come here to express your opinion of The Truth. It is one of the five pillars of this encyclopedia. This is not where you can come to express your ideas or what you see between the lines of other sources. If you are not willing to contribute to the encyclopedia in this way, you're in the wrong spot. If you lack the ability to compartmentalize your opinions then you'll continue to have trouble contributing.--v/r - TP 20:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

You don't understand. This is not about my point of view. This is about factual accuracy. I provided many, many reliable sources regarding this issue. The majority of reliable sources - not me - states that the ISI supports the Afghan Taliban. You have not shown me one single source for you claim that the majority of sources says the ISI is battling the Afghan Taliban. You can't, because it is not what most sources say. So, you are assuming things which you have provided no sources for and which you just claim to be true. Although, your claims contradict academic consensus. Additionally, you don't understand what you just supported because you are being naive about it. JCAla (talk) 20:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I have yet again to remind you that the sources you've provided either make no mention of ally, allies, or alliance and/or are taken completely out of context. Further, you have not proved a mainstream viewpoint that there is an alliance. The burden of evidence is on you to prove that something exists. It is not on me to prove it doesn't. If you cannot understand Wikipedia policy, you are going to continue to hit these roadblocks.--v/r - TP 20:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The sources I provided speak of "support", "arming" and "training". In my view, and in the view of two other editors this makes the ISI an ally (as per common definition of that term) of the Afghan Taliban. You and three other editors however maintained that there needs to be the explicit term "alliance" used in the sources. I provided three sources which use this term. I have not taken them out of context and provided you with citations. You said this was not the mainstream view. And you were making allegations that something (ISI fighting the Afghan Taliban) is the mainstream view, which is not. It is actually not close to anything, neither verifiability, truth, nothing. That is why I challenged you to provide sources for your claims which you did not. Now, instead of proving your claims you again resort to unnecessary lecturing. JCAla (talk) 20:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

"The sources I provided speak of "support", "arming" and "training". In my view, and in the view of two other editors this makes the ISI an ally (as per common definition of that term) of the Afghan Taliban." violates WP:SYNTH. Once you understand that, it will make the rest easier for you and everyone.--v/r - TP 21:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Sources. Deepak Tripathi () Breeding Ground: Afghanistan and the Origins of Islamist Terrorism Potomac ISBN 1597975303 "EVOLUTION OF THE TALIBAN-ISI ALLIANCE" Amin Saikal (2006) Modern Afghanistan: A History of Struggle and Survival I.B.Tauris ISBN 1845113160 "the Taliban-al-Qaeda-ISI alliance." (2002) Australian journal of international affairs Volume 56 "the dangers of the Taliban-Al Qaeda-ISI alliance" Darkness Shines (talk) 22:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

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

I've tagged Talk:Taliban for RFC and transcluded this section there. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Nationality Misconception

There is a misconception on wikipedia regarding the nationality of certain notable Irish figures. The term Anglo-Irish is being bandied instead of Irish as a nationality. Many of the figures involved are Irish, but come from the Anglo-Irish social class, it is not a nationality, and there is a lot of inconsistency regarding its use, an example is Jonathan Swift an Irish man but for some reason is disregarded by a minute section of editors who refuse to acknowledge that he is Irish and Anglo-Irish (but only in the respect that he comes from that social class in the article), and then other articles like Oscar Wilde who is Irish but of Anglo-Irish culture, he is renowned internationally as Irish (not Anglo-Irish because it is a class not a nationality) I don't understand it, a tiny segment of editors are trying to ignore the fact are coming up with all this pseudo-social/historical claptrap to make it difficult for observers for whatever reason, I am being accused of breaching Wikipedia:POV, which IMO I am not, please comment. Sheodred (talk) 20:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

are we talking about planters? And are we talking about Ireland or Northern Ireland, and in what period? Some context would help. I probably am not the person to decide this as I have only a smidgen of knowledge but my family history as told to me makes a distinction between Irish and planters. But also, you are saying "nationality". Are we making a distinction from ethnicity? To me, nationality is citizenship.Elinruby (talk) 03:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

No.."planters" are completely different, and for the record the majority of people in Ireland, north and south,and of heritage all over the world, of whatever background, make no such distinctions. Thanks for your input though. Sheodred (talk) 09:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

A quick click around does seem to show there is in fact a large difference; sorry to increase the noise level. I'll let your questionable assertion about majorities go -- I don't really know about, care about, or want to research opinions on that topic.

I'm mildly interested in this topic though, enough to keep an eye on it, and would like to repeat my suggestion that you provide some context and a more focused question. Your post makes it clear that you think this is a class and given the history of Ireland, perhaps you are right. But where is the discussion you refer to taking place? In the Oscar Wilde and Jonathan Swift articles? Elinruby (talk) 02:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure no problem, the main discussion is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland#Anglo_Irish, but there is also a small one on the talk pages for CS Lewis in the second last section. Sheodred (talk) 12:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Ernest Shackleton is one other example of Anglo-Irish being used as a substitute for his Irish nationality, I would like to request the input of an uninvolved admin. Sheodred (talk) 15:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

A couple more (possibly) fruitful questions. I see there is discussion on the talk page of an RfC. Is there a post there about this as well or was it decided to come here instead? Same question about the MOS. I am sure this question does arise a lot about people born in Ireland before independence, so perhaps there *should* be one policy. Good luck on that though.

From what I see on the talk page there seems to be no dispute of fact about Shackleton, merely about the correct appellation, because Ireland was not a country when he was born there, his family was English and privileged, and he called himself British, and furthermore opposed Home Rule. Have I got all that right?

Opinion: I think taking out the infobox was a good move, as determining correct Nationality will always be a problem for this man. Describing him as an Anglo-Irish explorer in the lead conveys the duality without getting into the matter of whether it's a social class. If I were invested in this article I would accept this wording in a sentence but resist Anglo-Irish as nationality. Irish-born British citizen also seems acceptable. I don't think Irish conveys his upbringing, or British his birth. If I still don't get it, well sorry ;) I'm at least trying to summarize the issue. hth Elinruby (talk) 05:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Berlin Conference (1884)

Recent edits by a user here and at Henry Morton Stanley have sought to minimize critical views of colonialism, adding content extolling European intervention, per article talk page [106]. None of this is sourced, and additional attention from those knowledgeable in history will be appreciated. 99.12.242.97 (talk) 15:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I looked at the Berlin Conference article. If the chunk of text at the end of the Discussion page is what we are talking about, no, it is nowhere close to neutral. It sounds like it was copied verbatim from some 19-century missionary tract. Is that the question? It appears to have been removed from the article, to which I say good job. Witch kingdoms, forsooth. Elinruby (talk) 03:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Stanley article: someone seems to feel it's ok to flog the natives: "To stay alive he immediately set about showing his power by taking stern measures, including flogging deserters. Indeed, the customs of enforcing their authority amongst the common people by both Arab slavers and local Chieftains was considered barbarous by contemporary Western standards." Um? Some of the other material is even more shocking and hopefully VERY VERY well sourced, for instance the little girl who gets bought and eaten. In fact...yeah, I am going to look at that source, actually.... Elinruby (talk) 04:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

actually -- it does seem well-sourced indeed. As a matter of fact. However, the above statement is not, not as best I can tell and definitely has a POV. The Stanley article seems to need a careful look. Saying that he shot at Africans, or claimed to shoot at Africans, or may have only claimed to shoot Africans because it sold newspapers and gave him a reputation, any of that would require careful sourcing. If sources disagree, or he is seen in Africa much as Native Americans see Buffalo Bill Kit Carson^{my mistake sorryElinruby (talk) 05:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)}, but this one book says he was misunderstood, then the way to go as I understand it is to say that this author says x, and this other author says y. This recent biography on the other hand says z. HTH. Elinruby (talk) 04:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Hugo Chavez

I would like to immediately revert the Hugo Chavez article to this version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez&oldid=400342217

• At Talk:Hugo_Chávez#Bart_Jones_reviews several users accused some editors of making the current revision biased by adding content that relies too heavily on partisan sources and by not adding other viewpoints. They say that the content needs to be placed in daughter articles. They believe that a group of pro-Chavez POV editors are forcing everyone else to allow a POV article.
• Jimbo Wales posted, believing that the direction of the article has gone too far: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez&diff=463323779&oldid=463314960

The debates have not been resolved, and I have a feeling that the above revision is at least closer to NPOV than the current revision. So the above revision should be restored, and that should become the basis of the future article.

• Barack Obama needs to be used as a model for Chavez
• Action has not been taken for several months, and I believe that the Wikipedia community needs to solve this now.

WhisperToMe (talk)

• Also a Wikipedian said: "the problem is how the other talk page watchers enable him and let him do the POVing so they can't be sanctioned"
• it's time to treat them like meatpuppets
• WhisperToMe (talk) 20:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I have edited on highly contentious articles (Anarchism, Libertarianism, Mass Killing under Communist regimes, Holodomor). I value high quality sourcing and appropriate weighting policy very highly.

• Jimbo says is a crap argument; I don't find Jimbo's edits to be particularly admirable or worthy, and his policy interventions tend to be in the form of inappropriate BOLDs.
• However, the points Jimbo makes are apt:
  • hagiography is not good. Even when we write about saints, we either use critical theology or critical history—we don't simply accept haigiographies.
  • admitted systematic exclusion of sources that disagree with the personal views of an editor—this is quite simply appalling behaviour
  • admitted systematic inclusion of sources that agrree with the personal views of an editor—this is quite simply appalling behaviour
• The user who has admitted these, and whose behaviour has aptly been described as hagiographic, needs to withdraw from the article voluntarily for a period of time (3 months minimum, from my experience of other contentious articles); and if they do not, they ought to be sanctioned so as to prevent them editing the article under IDHT, V, WEIGHT, NPOV. Given that the problem is a conduct problem; users displaying the same behaviour also need to withdraw voluntarily, and meat-puppeting ought to result in the same kind of sanctioning.
• WhisperToMe's suggestion of using Barack Obama as a model is an excellent one. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Restoring a problematic article with a previous version that also had problems does not seem to be the way forward. If there is stuff in the article that should not be there, then remove it, but do not replace it with other material that also does not belong. TFD (talk) 05:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)