Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

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

Additional notes:
Search this noticeboard & archives

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

Gospel of Matthew: 50 CE

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

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


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

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


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

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

Compromise proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

be changed to

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

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

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

Alternative to the alternative

The problem with Ret.Prof's proposal:

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

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

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

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

Response to PICO

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

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

It was not appropriate for @StAnselm:, as an involved editor, to hat a request for dispute resolution. This is apparently something that has been discussed previously, but not at this noticeboard. I'll note that an attempt at dispute resolution closed unsuccessfully with a recommendation to look for clarification at other noticeboards[1]. Some of the diffs above discuss the possibility of an RfC, but I don't see that it actually happened. Whatever relevant discussion has taken place, it should be linked here for the benefit of the uninvolved. Consensus can change, and local consensus cannot override project-wide policy like NPOV. If it is shown that prior discussion did address all policy-based concerns and that this is a tendentious filing, appropriate consequences can be considered at that point. Editors will kindly avoid premature unilateral threats of punishment. Rhoark (talk) 04:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Withdrawing request for clarification re the 50 CE date

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

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

Observations About Two Editors and a Call for an RFC

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

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


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

1) The many weakness of Ret.Prof

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

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

2)The Focus: Matthew 50 CE

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

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

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

Ukraine conflict

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

The main issue is the removal of well sourced material.

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

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

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

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

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

Bloomberg article says:

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

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

I am not a big fan of Putin / his authoritarian rule or Soviet / Russian imperialism (see some of my past edits: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]), but neither am I suffering from Russophobia.

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

I completely agree with User:Herzen: "It is impossible to avoid the impression that some editors of Ukraine related articles are not here to build an encyclopedia, but to avoid any mention in articles of anything that puts Ukraine in a bad light, and to insert anything into them that puts the rebels or Russia in a bad light. Editors are not even trying to maintain any appearance of being interested in trying to maintain NPOV." [18]

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

Thanks for your great efforts in gathering up this huge mass of evidence. I agree on Volunteer Marek, obviously, though unfortunately there are about three other editors at the Ukraine-related articles that have a very similar perspective and are equally resistant to compromise, discussion and NPOV. He/she is the most ill-mannered, though. Hopefully we can eventually create balanced Ukraine-related articles that reflect all RS-based perspectives on the conflict/crisis. It's embarrassing to leave out key facts like the Crimean opinion polls and the alleged role of the US and Victoria Nuland in what transpired, just because that does not fit a preferred POV narrative.Haberstr (talk) 12:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
This is more forum-shopping by tendentious editors. Ignore it. RGloucester 13:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
What RGloucester said. There was an extensive discussion about the proposed changes here [19]. These were overwhelmingly rejected by consensus. Tobby72 and Haberstr then moved onto another, but related article, and tried to cram these same (or very similar) changes, which had already been rejected into that one (2014 Ukrainian Revolution). When they were reverted there as well they started running around forum shopping.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
What RGloucester and Volunteer Marek said +1. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

At this point, there is ample evidence that Russia is both providing material support to the rebels as well as engaging its own regular troops. [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]. Reliable sources report on Russian objections, but take the assumption that the overall conflict is driven by Russia as the ground truth. [26] [27] [28] [29]. Given Russian admissions of false denials and false flag operations [30], along with the well-known unreliability of Russian-controlled media [31], there is at this point no justification for any ongoing complicity of Wikipedia with Russia's maskirovka campagin. Any passage not specifically pertaining to conflicts between points of view should dispense with any qualifiers like "disputed" or "according to some". That Russia is involved with, controlling, and responsible for the conflict in Ukraine should be assumed and asserted.

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

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

What materials, exactly? For example:

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

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

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

Removed, Restored, Removed – Kremlin propaganda?

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

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

Restored, Added, Removed, Removed – Kremlin propaganda?

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

Removed, Removed – Kremlin propaganda?

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

Added, Removed, Removed – Kremlin propaganda?

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

Removed, Removed – Kremlin propaganda?

Relevant images - Removed – Kremlin propaganda?

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

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

Volunteer Marek continues his rampage: diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff. What can be done to prevent such behaviour? -- Tobby72 (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Tobby72, you seem to have forgotten that this is not the ANI. While you're about it, please desist from personal attacks. He is not a rampage, but is following consensus. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

DPR – POV tag re-removed

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

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

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

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

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

Please see the discussion at

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

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

It should also be noted that Tobby72 has been on this POV-tag pushing bender for awhile. They were even brought to AN/I for it [32] [33], but the request was closed as stale because Tobby72 stopped editing Wikipedia when the AN/I report was made. The closure of the AN/I request stated: "Tobby72 hasn't edited in 2 days, so this might be closed as stale. We'll just have to see if he resumes the pushing of that POV tag." and "It's been about 3 days, so closing as stale. If reported user returns, a new report filing is advised".

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

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

1) We should take inspiration from Northern Cyprus#Human rights and law or Kosovo#Society. -- Tobby72 (talk) 21:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Kosovo is an established, stable partially recognised state. As you are most certainly aware, discussions on the DPR's talk page constantly revolve around trying to work out what their constitution actually is, as well as the fact that whatever territory they currently physically control is under martial law. We don't even have RS for any semblance of a functioning infrastructure (aside from martial law). There is nothing in the way of transparency as to what their theoretical 'Constitution' is, with conflicting evidence as to what the constitutional rights of the LGBT_community are.
Your comparison and desire to follow the structure of Wikipedia's articles on Northern Cyprus or Kosovo falls short on every level. The DPR is an entirely theoretical "state", therefore why - and more to the point, how - should/could it be treated as if it were something it isn't? Your attempts to resurrect this discussion at NPOVN are WP:TEDIOUS. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

James Martin (priest)

Repeated unsourced POV-pushing since 20th March on a BLP article, labelling a priest as "Leftist" in the lead. See article history: [34]. Even if such simplifying labels would be encyclopedic, they would need reliable sourcing from an uninvolved, neutral source. Mr. Martin already asked for assistance about this issue on the help desk in the past, but the removed phrase was repeatedly re-inserted. Could another editor please look into the situation? I have notified the 2 involved accounts Bo Smithers (talk · contribs) and Big Bo Smithers (talk · contribs) about this thread. GermanJoe (talk) 16:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Desires of the article subject are largely irrelevant, but you're in the right that such a label would require a quality source (and consensus). Rhoark (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
The user re-added the controversial label. I have reverted the edit and posted a lvl4 warning on Big Bo Smithers (talk · contribs) talkpage. GermanJoe (talk) 18:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Need someone to help here please, another re-add [35]. GermanJoe (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Changing the precedent on race specifications in shooting articles

Hello everyone,

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

The following are instances wherein the precedent is present:

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

The following are instances wherein this precedent is not present:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Responses (race and shooting)

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

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

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

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

Responses II (race and shooting)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Walter Scott question, restated

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

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

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

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

Mandruss  08:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

@Mattscards: Actually, your assumption is incorrect: "Los Angeles Riots of 1992, major outbreak of violence, looting, and arson in Los Angeles that began on April 29, 1992, in response to the acquittal of four white Los Angeles policemen on all but one charge (on which the jury was deadlocked) connected with the severe beating of an African American motorist in March 1991." [36] --NeilN talk to me 18:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the Britannica reference. I'm surprised that they do this, too, since that sort of style seems too much like an editorial or sensationalist news report to me, and not like an encyclopedia. Then again, the structure of their articles is different, so it may be reasonable to specify the races of those involved for them. Is this a pattern on Brittanica, or is that a singular instance wherein they opened their article with specifications of the races of those involved? If you could find any other instances like this on Brittanica, it may help by adding context from another encyclopedia. No need, of course. I'll try to look myself. Thus far, I've found two instances in Britannica which detail the case of Trayvon Martin. One mentions neither race, whereas the second only mentions Martin's race. One, on Michael Brown, follows the same pattern as the one you cited. ―Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 12:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

perhaps, but I think Nøkkenbuer said it best:

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

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

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

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

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

Pre-RfC (Walter Scott)

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Nationalist POV

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

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

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

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

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

First of all you violated one of the guidelines for using this noticeboard. Notice it says at the top, Before you post to this page, you should already have tried to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page. Include a link here to that discussion. If you brought this up on the talk page of those articles I would have been happy to discuss the content. (and no, posting a complaint without bothering to wait for a response and filing this report within just under twenty five minutes of leaving a notice on the talk page does not show that you "tried to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page". Since you didn't bother waiting for a response.
Now that you didn't bother to do that and already filed a complaint here, if you have a problem with the content, find other sources that provide another POV on the Chams and add them to the article alongside the content I added. I will stand by my edits- I used reliable sources, and the content I added is paraphrased material from the sources with no embellishments or exaggerations. On the contrary, the original sources as they are in the articles, are far harsher in allegedly making Vietnam "look bad and evil". Take it up with National Geographic and the academic journal I used. And nobody is stopping you from adding "bad and evil" content on countries other than Vietnam. Go ahead and find sources on Vietnam's neighboring countries if you are so worried about POV, or find your own sources on minorities in Vietnam as I said. By your logic, we should delete all information about every single other genocide that occurred on planet earth because they make some nation look bad, even if reliably sourced. And I was not "warned" by any authority figure or admin, the person who "warned" me, was an edit warrior and a sockpuppet master who was banned multiple times with a history of pushing Mongolian nationalist POV. You know how many respected editors filed complaints about him at ANI, edit warring and sockpuppet investigations? [37] [38] [39] [40].Rajmaan (talk) 23:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
That user part was something I did not know previously. It's just that this had appeared in many pages so I though it would be better to discuss here rather than saying the same thing on many talk pages. I also realized that you mostly added them and I was surprised that apart from that editor you mentioned above, no one commented. Even if the Vietnamese government has a poor human rights record without a doubt, I am not saying that we should delete all information about every single other genocide, (I might had misunderstood others) but to state that one occurs requires a lot of evidence to back up that claim. One particular concern is the statement on Vietnam on Southeast Asia under the section "Indianized Kingdoms" and the article on 1471 invasion of Champa since in those sentences, they mention genocide but I looked at the references and they did not mention this word at all. I will move this discussion to those pages of concern. Ssbbplayer (talk) 02:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
If the content is being copy pasted on multiple pages which maybe tangentially related to the subject, this might be a case of WP:CITESPAM. That being said, the best thing I can say here is see WP:SUMMARIZE & WP:WEIGHT. If the content is given significantly more weight than it is related to the subject, discuss it civilly, and get a consensus of active editors. This is one of many places that can help with dispute resolution, but if there is not active dispute, than perhaps, an editor might have skipped a step. Please assume good faith of all editors.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Are these article titles neutral?

Do the article titles

And, to a lesser extent,

show a NPOV?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Perhaps he used the primary definition of Jihad as found on Merriam-Webster: "1. a holy war waged on behalf of Islam as a religious duty..." ScrapIronIV (talk) 19:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
@Guy Macon:, ScrapIronIV, Well, I was using it the way that I've predominantly seen it used in the media as well as what I was taught going as far back as elementary school. My apologies if my usage is out-of-date or out-of-touch with its WP article, but the same point could be made using "struggle"...
The commonality is "jihad", what purpose is using this word accomplishing? Are these titles POV editing or miscommunication or something else? I don't know, but I'm trying to encourage open minded communication. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
The problem with replacing "jihad" with "struggle" is that "jihad" holds multiple meanings and connotations which are important to the articles. Moreover, "struggle" can be misleading, since "Rape struggle" could easily be misinterpreted as meaning "struggling during rape". This applies to all those article titles. I think "jihad" should be retained both because its use is important to the articles, and because the articles primarily discuss the jihadist activities of Islamists (including activities by Muslims which satisfy the definition and practice of "jihad"). In other words, these articles appear to exclusively (or almost exclusively) deal with conduct by Muslims, usually Islamists, who conduct such activities as a part of Islamist jihad; thus, I believe "jihad" should be retained. When I first reviewed this issue, I hadn't even considered "jihad" to be the problem. I was more concerned about the terms "love" and "rape", which itself may be POV. ―Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 20:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't think he was advocating replacing Jihad with struggle or holy war. He was making a point (and it was a good point) getting us to think about whether the titles would be NPOV even without a word that is associated with Islam. --Guy Macon (talk)
Then I probably misunderstood his point. My bad. I agree with his point, then, though I stand by my argument—namely, that we shouldn't be avoiding Islamic terms simply because they're Islamic, especially when the article's contents are primarily or exclusively related to Islam. But I guess that's kind of a banal point, isn't it? Sorry about that. ―Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 04:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
"Struggle" verges into WP:WEASELWORD. "Holy War", even if it were purely synonymous with jihad (which it isn't, has no RS using it in such fashion, i.e., "holy war rape", etc. Meanwhile, the specific phrase "rape jihad" has acquired enough cachet to become an organizational tag item at various sites: [41],[42], etc. Pax 06:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continued discussion (arbitrary break)

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

Fold into Clandestine_HUMINT_asset_recruiting ? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Not convinced on that one. "Love jihad" has much more independent/secondary attestation than "rape jihad" and is not principally a state intelligence activity like HUMINT recruiting. Rhoark (talk) 15:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
alright, it was just a quick peek anyway NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:13, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Rape jihad is a term that is part of the jargon of islamophobia. If significant secondary sources explained how "anti-islamists" used this term, the article would be justified. However it would start by saying something like, "Rape jihad is a term used by sources generally described as islamophobic", and the article would be about who uses the term, where and why. Instead the article treats it as a generally accepted concept, which is why the article is biased. TFD (talk) 16:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. The question should not be "are these article titles neutral?" That's really to miss the point. After all The Protocols of the Elders of Zion are not really protocols written by the "elders of Zion", but the article is still quite properly called that. We also have Allah as Moon-god, even though he isn't; and Muhammad in the Bible even though he isn't. The title simply describes the concept. We could certainly have articles discussing these concepts, if they are notable ebnough, but that would require sources talking about the idea of "rape jihad" or "sexual jihad" or whatever. That's certainly not what the Rape jihad article does, though the Love Jihad one clearly describes the fact that it is discussing a disputed concept/catch phrase. Others, such as Offensive jihad are rather more uncertain cases. Paul B (talk) 18:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is literally described in the first sentence of the article as "an antisemitic hoax purporting to describe a Jewish plan for global domination". It's named that because the book's title is The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. We name the titles of articles about a book the name of that book title. Nothing strange there. As for Muhammad in the Bible, I don't see the problem here. The article describes the alleged prophesies of Muhammad in the Bible. Allah as Moon-god documents the notable criticism and opinion of some who purport that Allah is actually a moon god. I feel like you aren't considering the context of the article's contents in relation to their titles. What other succinct, accurate, and neutral article titles could be used? Yes, you could misinterpret the article title as conveying something if you're completely ignorant of its contents; but anyone who actually went to the article would understand why it's called that. Or do you think God as the Devil, Jesus in Scientology, and Surah of Wilaya and Nurayn are all likewise POV? I think the point being made here is that the article titles are POV because of the content of the articles, and because of the controversial words used in the title. Since these terms are not adequately verified as used by reliable secondary sources, and because it combines two very controversial terms which may convey something POV, there may be issues about these article titles. ―Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 20:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The "Protocols" has in fact been published under numerous different titles. We call the article "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" because that's the WP:COMMONNAME in English. I really don't know what point you are trying to make here. I am not challenging the titles of the articles I gave as examples. I gave them as examples to point out that article names do not have to reflect "truth" or be innoffensive. You can't legitimately object to "rape jihad" as a title if there is is significant discussion of the supposed phenomenon in sources under that name. That is quite clearly established with Love jihad, I think. It is far far less clear in the case of 'rape jihad'. While I see nothing especially wrong in a discussing a distinction between "offensive" and "defensive" forms of jihad, IMO those particular articles do not fully establish that the distinction is sufficiently established to merit separate articles. We have to look at these on a case by case basis. Paul B (talk) 12:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Nevermind, I see where I was mistaken. I thought you were arguing that the article titles are problematic because they are conveying something, like the "Elders of Zion" having those "protocols", or Allah being a moon god. I realize now that we are both in agreement. I apologize for the misunderstanding. You can chock that up to my up-for-24-hours poor reading comprehension last night. We have no disagreement, and what we did have was contrived from misunderstanding on my part. Thanks for dealing with my mistake so courteously. I agree with your assessment. ―Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 19:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, isn't it also biased to assert that this term is Islamophobic and thus those who consider it real are Islamophobes? What evidence do you have that this is an Islamophobic term? The article may be biased or POV, but switching it to the opposite POV still makes it POV. I do not deny that there are serious problems with these articles, which may include their titles, but I am hesitant to label them as Islamophobic. Critical, even critical to the point of POV, is not necessarily hatred or discrimination or any sort of -phobia. ―Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 20:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
No. The term is obviously islamophobic to an informed unbiased observer. It associates a particularly emotive term with strong negative connotations with a term that has varied and complex meanings, but is strongly associated with Islam, suggesting that "rape" is an intrinsic feature of Islam, and is intimately linked to it. There may be people who don't consciously understand this propaganda trick, and there may be people who believe that the association is factually correct and thus neutral. The first group invalidates your argument that everybody who considers this term is an islamophobe, and the second group consist of islamophobes who don't admit that they are indeed islamophobic, but neither helps the the status of the term. For similar (though weaker) examples, consider American imperialism or Jewish greed. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I reject the implicit insinuation within the term "Islamophobia" that fear of something "strongly associated with Islam" (e.g., Sharia Law) is irrational (and thus a phobia rather than a legitimate concern). That's a "propaganda trick" orders of magnitude more severe than anything the title of this article could possibly imply. Pax 11:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Islamophobia is just the term that has become established to refer to hatred of Islam/Muslims. The etymology is irrelevant. 'Homophobia' does not really imply an irrational fear of homosexuals either. It's used for people with virulently anti-homosexual views. Anti-Semitism, for example, has a completely different etymology but an equivalent meaning. We just use words that have neen establshed in language. It's not a conspiracy or 'propaganda' to do so. The question for the article 'rape jihad' is whether that label is well established in the way that 'love jihad' clearly is. And the article should be about how and in what contexts the phrase is used. Paul B (talk) 12:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Stephan Schulz, I don't think that "[t]he term is obviously islamophobic to an informed unbiased observer". Maybe I'm just not informed, or maybe I'm just biased, but I would only consider the term (presumably "Rape Jihad"?) to be inaccurate and perhaps POV unless proven otherwise. I completely agree with you that the term "associates a particularly emotive term with strong negative connotations with a term that has varied and complex meanings, but is strongly associated with Islam", which is why I oppose it at this time, but I disagree that the conclusion of this is that it suggests "that 'rape' is an intrinsic feature of Islam, and is intimately linked to it". Assuming this term is inaccurate (which I believe it probably is), I believe that it is at worst a biased and misrepresenting title which attempts to disparage Islamic jihad and condemn so-called "rape jihad". (Although "rape jihad" is wrong, in my opinion, it is not our duty as Wikipedia to assess it as wrong, only to document information about it.) Unless there is significant documentation that "Rape Jihad" is used as a legitimate and accurate term to describe certain conduct, we should consider retitling or removing the article altogether. I don't believe it implies that "rape jihad" is "an intrinsic feature of Islam", though, anymore than do the actions of Islamists and fundamentalist Islamic extremists represents "an intrinsic feature of Islam".
I don't think an article about the so-called "jihad" practices of some Muslims (who are probably Islamists) is necessarily implicit commentary of Islamic jihad as a whole, or criticism of the very foundation of Islam as a religion, anymore than is "American imperialism" commentary of what it is to be an American or "Jewish greed" of what it is to be Jewish. Such terms are representative of behaviors or conduct—real or perceived—of a certain type of Muslim, or American, or Jew. I don't believe this "rape jihad" term is intended to describe the entire demographic of Muslims, however, anymore than "American imperialism" is intended to be a descriptor of all Americans or "Jewish greed" a descriptor of the economic attitude of Jews. Then again, I don't use such terms, so perhaps those who do mean them to describe the entire demographic. Perhaps those peopleare Islamophobic, or anti-American, or antisemitic, but it's not our job to determine whether these individuals are, nor do I think it meaningfully contributes to the discussion.
What matters here is whether the article titles accurately describe and reflect that which it titles in a neutral and encyclopedic manner; and whether the content which is titled as it is notable or worthwhile enough to actually include in Wikipedia as an article. Isn't that what this discussion is about? Whether the article titles are biased or POV? Whether the term is Islamophobic is only meaningful when documenting how the term is used, but I don't think it's important to note when determining the article's title. If it were, then—and apologies for bringing these terms up, but it's to illustrate a point—shouldn't we be bringing "Nigger" up for NPOV for being racist, or "Faggot" for being homophobic? I think the use/mention distinction is important to note here. In any case, I don't think we should be judging the views of others here. What's important is whether the article titles are NPOV. Are they? Why or why not? I'm not an Islamophobe, but I'm not going to jump to the conclusion that others who believe this article is neutral, or its title, is Islamophobic. If anything, wouldn't that be POV? But I reiterate: I may be uninformed and I may myself be biased (though I don't know what I am biased for or against). I admit that I may be misunderstanding this whole issue, so if I am, please do let me know.
I really hate being the verbose one here, but hopefully my thoughts don't fall on deaf ears (or blind eyes?). I think we're getting off-track here, and should be focusing on determining whether the article titles are NPOV. As Guy Macon noted, the reliable sources which assert that these terms are common names are dubious at best. In my opinion, unless we can find more credible sources, the topic of discussion at this point should be what to replace the article titles with, not whether they are biased. ―Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 19:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
You have the issue the wrong way around. You are trying to argue that we should somehow find the "correct" name for rape jihad. But there is no correct name. "Rape jihad" is not a derogatory term for something that has a proper name, it's a buzz-phrase invented by anti-Islamist (or Islamophobic if you like) commentators to refer to loosely related, and sometimes wholly unrelated, issues. Basically sex crimes committed by Muslim men are all, apparently "rape jihad". Either the article is about the usage of the phrase, or it is about specific real incidents, which already have their own articles, in which case its existence is pointless. Paul B (talk) 12:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, in specific I'm arguing that if the article title is POV or problematic and does not qualify as a common name, then we should be discussing what to replace the title with. I don't know enough about whether the title is actually POV and biased, or if it's actually a common name used by numerous reliable sources. I just have some concerns about the title, the same reasons as Stephan Schulz above—namely, that it combines two controversial and provocative terms to convey something which may or may not be POV or biased. That much is true, but if the RS indicate that this is the appropriate title, then we should keep it. My last paragraph in the lengthy reply above is most relevant in this regard.
If, as you say, this term is used by anti-Islamist (do you mean -Islamist or -Islamic?) or Islamophobic people who loosely identify certain events and phenomena in order to push their agenda, then that changes things significantly. Unless this term is used notably enough to warrant its own article, it should be deleted per WP:Notability. Naturally, if what you say is true, then the article would probably need to be completely rewritten , in which case we're arguing for an entirely new article anyway. ―Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 13:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Do each of these refs mention these terms? I mean if every reference of Offensive Jihad is mentioning this term? Article looks a lot like it might have been borrowed from other articles like Islam and violence. Neutrality disputes should come later, first it has to be sure if these references have supported the term. Delibzr (talk) 15:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Sexual jihad has got a lot of content about the marriages, adultery. Refs like [43][44] has been used, but they don't mention these two words. When you are using self-publised website[45] you have to attribute more, it is not enough right now. Delibzr (talk) 15:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
References of Rape jihad[46][47][48] do not support the term. There is a merge proposal,, I have supported it. Delibzr (talk) 15:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Merge for Defensive jihad was also proposed, I have removed 2 years old merge tag now. Delibzr (talk) 16:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The only relevant issue here is that money changed hands, Doors. They can call it a gift, grant, contract, bequest, bribe, or incentive plan. It still pays for research, and influences the conclusions of that research. The General Counsel for the Post-Finasteride Syndrome Foundation is Rosemary McGeady, a tort attorney for the law firm Levinson Axelrod. Surprise, surprise, Levinson Axelrod has a practice in pharmaceutical torte suits and is advertising its availablity to provide legal services to people suing Merck for alleged injuries caused by Finasteride.
But your argument is that the investigators in this study received cash from an organization that has a major law firm specializing in pharmaceutical personal injury suits represented in its senior management, but this is not relevant? Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 23:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
You are grasping at straws here. The general counsel is the mother of a man who suffered from post finasteride syndrome after taking a 5-alpha-reductase inhibitor. It apparently is true she works as a lawyer in tort law but what you have shown does not indicate they are involved in anything with respect to Propecia. That link you sent is not a direct advertisement for a propecia clients but rather an automatic search query taken from a database of firms who are qualified to handle certain types of cases. I may be incorrect on this matter, but if you search their proprietary website (and not this second rate database) they have nothing to do with Propecia cases. You are digging yourself deeper by showing making one deceptive argument after another. Doors22 (talk) 00:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
For you to equate a research gift to a "bribe" or "incentive plan" is ridiculous but alas not out of character. A small research gift with no strings attached from a non-profit has zero bearing on the outcome of the study. It is very different from the industry model where researchers and institutions are dependent on pharma corporations for both ongoing and future financing. 02:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
So up to this point its myself, Jytdog, and Rhoak on one side of this issue, and you on the other Doors. But you are still unhappy and are making this very personal, as you have the last several times there has been a disagreement on the subject of finasteride. I'd urge you to reconsider your course of action and strike your comments above. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 03:52, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't take this subject personally but I appreciate that you are asserting another statement which you simply cannot back up. Both you and Jytdog have been involved in this article for a long time for reasons you have not disclosed and for this reason you cannot really comprise an objective consensus. I do appreciate Rhoak's feedback as he is neutral although I wish more input was provided. I accept his viewpoint on including the PSFS and will also follow his suggestion to elaborate on the findings of the meta-study to contextualize the other sources that are used in the article. You have been a very problematic editor across countless articles and although I am not a full-time wikipedia editor like yourself, I will take action against you when I find the time in the appropriate venue. Zad68 offered some suggestions which were appreciated. 13:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doors22 (talkcontribs)
Any expansion of the discussion of the findings of this paper would be undue weight, as it gives the impression that no other evaluation of the adequacy of the evaluation of adverse effects has been performed. In fact the FDA and other regulatory agencies routinely do this as part of their determination of the safety and efficacy of a new drug, and the fact that a handful of authors who recieved a "gift" from the Post finasteride syndrome foundation reached a different conclusion cannot be presented in isolation. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 01:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Note - I have proposed a boomerang at ANI. Posted it there, as I am proposing a topic ban. Jytdog (talk) 03:05, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

G. Edward Griffin

A couple of RfC ongoing at this BLP that need more participation. AtsmeConsult 03:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually one needs closing as obvious, one needs closing as no consensus and the sources discussed need to eb addressed individually, and one needs more input or closing per WP:SNOW based on the first. Guy (Help!) 22:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Nagorno Karabagh using correct political terms f.e Armenian Dram

Dear Wikipedia users, i would like to point out that in many Armenian articles or dealing with N/K and Azerbaijan, armenian users always alter the following names to suit their point of view on events. For example we can see such cases in Henrikh Mkhitaryan article where in his personal life they mention Artsakh Republic instead of commonly used and politically correct term of de facto independent Nagorno Karabagh which is de jure part of Azerbaijan, In general many articles use different terms which do not present the neutral point of view and already accepted political terms which are argued by both [1] in here and by Thomas De Vaal. I believe altering the terms suits interest and makes the articles biased towards Armenian point of view since most of the moderators have clear sympathy with Armenian cause, i put forward using the correct political terms to suit both parties since Armenians want to claim its independent while Azerbaijani side is clearly stating the obvious and internationally accepted term of occupied territories, in my opinion to suit both parties all N/K related articles and any mention of N/K should include the following politically accepted and commonly used term "De facto independent and de jure part of Azerbaijan Republic". From my side several attempts to correct the articles have always been reverted even though i clearly stated the reasons and also described the issue in Talk page however no issue has been ever answered and i was suspended once for this! Please i would like to know the other point of view Agulani (talk) 08:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


Double standard at Deaths in 20xx

There's a controversy at Talk:Deaths in 2015 that may interest some watchers here. In a nutshell, those called "Sir" or "Dame" are having their listings piped from the article name to include their title. Those with military, political, religious or medical titles are not. It's a longstanding practice, but seems unfair to hold one select group in higher esteem.

Had an RFC, opinions were split and it seems we've defaulted back to the way it was. Your input may help get a decisive answer, whichever one it is. Weigh in here or there, I guess. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:37, April 22, 2015 (UTC)

KEEP it as it is. It is a significant cultural difference. An honor bestowed, as opposed to a position attained. There is no equivalent in the US, but highly revered in the UK. It is inherently "unequal" in that sense - but I respect their right to have it. ScrapIronIV (talk) 13:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

More input needed

Further input is needed at Talk:Siege of Kobanî#RfC: Icons used in prose, any and all appreciated. Mlpearc (open channel) 03:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Institute of Engineering and Science IPS Academy

Repeated promotional fluff additions and external link spam. Currently cleaned up again (no immediate action needed), but I would appreciate an additional editor keeping an eye on this article. I am not sure, why so many schools and universities confuse Wikipedia with their own web host, but have left some standard infos on the involved IPs' talkpages. GermanJoe (talk) 13:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:United States#Trends in local vs global inequality

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:United States#Trends in local vs global inequality. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)