Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

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

Additional notes:
Search this noticeboard & archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63

Abd-ru-shin[edit]

This is about [1]: should it be stated like fact or should it be attributed as "there are authors who contend that..."? As the reliable sources make clear, Abd-ru-shin himself claimed to be the Messiah in a book (In the Light of Truth a.k.a. the Grail Message) and later hid this claim from the public, in the subsequent editions of that book.

At [2] Abd-ru-shin complained that the newspapers called him the Messiah of the Tyrol and the Prophet of Vomperberg. Why would newspapers do that? Because they had read the Conclusion from the Grail Message! Later was the Conclusion removed from it. But not because he thought he no longer was the Messiah. What could his adepts do, then? Stoutly deny it and secretly recognize it. The genie is out of the bottle: once print-published means that it became a public secret.

Jiddu Krishnamurti has publicly denied that he is the Messiah, but there is no such denial from Abd-ru-shin. I have mentioned six reliable sources which basically confirm my claim. The WP:SPA editor who has watered down the verifiable information provided no reliable source in support of his/her view, i.e. that such fact would be debatable. As far as I can see on EBSCO and JSTOR, there is no academic source which denies that Abd-ru-shin claimed that he was the Messiah. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:11, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Why his adepts would deny that he claimed that? It has to do with WP:SPOILER:

From the Grail Castle the first knight of the Grail, Parsifal Imanuel, came as Jesus Christ, the Son of God, to Gross Matter to point the way to the spiritual heights. Unfortunately, he was killed and his teaching distorted by the church. At the end of the ages, the Grail Knight Parsifal Imanuel, as the predicted Son of Man, Abd-ru-shin, came again to reveal the Truth and bring the last judgment and the Millennium. Recognizing Bernhardt as this Son of Man is the most important challenge of the complicated and complex Grail Message. As he put it, “therefore, be on your guard, so that you may recognize Him as soon as His time is come, for that will also be your time!”52

— Vojtisek (2006)

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:46, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

EPILOGUE

Abdruschin has now completed His Message to mankind. In him has arisen


IMANUEL,


the Envoy of God, the Son of Man, whose coming to judge and to save those who have not cut themselves adrift from salvation, was foretold by Jesus the Son of God in corroboration of the prophecies of the prophets of old. He carries the insignias of His high Office: the living Cross of the Truth radiating from Him and the Divine Dove above Him, the same in-signias as were borne by the Son of God.


Awaken, oh man! For your spirit is asleep!
— Abdruschin, In the Light of Truth. GRAIL MESSAGE. GREAT EDITION 1931

From the horse's mouth. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:36, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Hamas and EU litigation, length of section in Lede[edit]

There's currently a disagreement on the Hamas page over how much detail to go into with regard to the ongoing legal process around Hamas' terrorist designation by the EU. The discussion is wrapped around ideas of how to make the section as neutral as possible.

There are currently two versions being considered:

Version A: "Hamas, its military wing, together with several charities it runs, has been designated as a terrorist organization by Israel (1989), the United States (1996), Canada (2002), the European Union (2001/2003), Japan (2006) Egypt (2015), and was outlawed in Jordan (1999).[49] It is not regarded as a terrorist organization by Iran, Russia, Norway, Switzerland, Turkey, China, and Brazil. Hamas appealed the EU blacklisting in 2008, and the European court found the earlier determination flawed. (2014). The European Council appealed the decision,.[50] and in 2016 its Advocate General advised that due to procedural errors, it should be dropped from the terror blacklist, unless proper and sufficient legal evidence to warrant its inclusion were forthcoming. It is a point of debate in political and academic circles over whether or not to classify Hamas as a terrorist group.[51]"

Version B: "Hamas, its military wing, together with several charities it runs, has been designated as a terrorist organization by Israel (1989), the United States (1996), Canada (2002), the European Union (2001/2003), Japan (2006) Egypt (2015), and was outlawed in Jordan (1999).[49] It is not regarded as a terrorist organization by Iran, Russia, Norway, Switzerland, Turkey, China, and Brazil. The EU's designation is currently awaiting a final court decision after the judgement was successfully appealed by Hamas on procedural grounds.[50] It is a point of debate in political and academic circles over whether or not to classify Hamas as a terrorist group.[51]"


I thought the issue had been resolved in the previous discussion, as out of the four who opined, there appeared to be a consensus for shortening it. These were the four opinions:

To me, this seems like a clear consensus in favor of providing a brief summary in the lede and going into detail in the body paragraphs. In version A, 44% of the paragraph is comprised of details of a legal appeal process, which is unrelated to the rest of the paragraph (describing which countries do or do not label Hamas as a terrorist group). To me, this is Undue. Any feedback would be appreciated. Drsmoo (talk) 05:04, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

We had a stable lead para, till Drsmoo started to object:

Hamas, its military wing, together with several charities it runs, has been designated by several governments as a terrorist organization. Others regard this designation as problematic. Israel outlawed Hamas in 1989, followed by the United States in 1996 and Canada in 2002. The European Union defined the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades as a terrorist organization in 2001, and put Hamas in its list of terrorist organizations in 2003 but such a designation was successfully challenged by Hamas in the courts in 2014 on technical grounds. The judgment was appealed. In 2016 an EU legal advisor recommended that Hamas be removed from the list due to procedural errors. The final decision is not thought likely to effect individual government lists.[49][50] An Egyptian court ruled Hamas was a terrorist organization in 2015. Japan froze Hamas assets according to its legislation on terrorist entities in 2006. Australia and the United Kingdom have designated the military wing of Hamas as a terrorist organization. The organization is also banned in Jordan. It is not regarded as a terrorist organization by Iran, Russia, Norway, Switzerland, Turkey, China, and Brazil (185 words, 1164 characters.)

Drsmoo after a long talk page stand off brought it to the NPOV board and a a long discussion ensued involving external input from User:Masem, User:Hijiri88; User:Darouet and User:The Four Deuces. Drsmoo's interpretation of that open ended argument is a caricature. The input was far more nuanced than he allows, but I doubt anyone has the patience to read the thread.
As a result of the varied input I boiled the above text down to the following:

(B) Hamas, its military wing, together with several charities it runs, has been designated as a terrorist organization by Israel (1989), the United States (1996), Canada (2002), the European Union (2001/2003), Japan (2006) Egypt (2015), and was outlawed in Jordan (1999). It is not regarded as a terrorist organization by Iran, Russia, Norway, Switzerland, Turkey, China, and Brazil. Hamas appealed the EU blacklisting in 2008, and the European court found the earlier determination flawed. (2014). The European Council appealed the decision, and in 2016 its Advocate General advised that due to procedural errors, it should be dropped from the terror blacklist, unless proper and sufficient legal evidence to warrant its inclusion were forthcoming. It is a point of debate in political and academic circles over whether or not to classify Hamas as a terrorist group. 118 words, 785 char7acters

Darouet commented:'Nishidani, whatever Drsmoo's issue, I think your proposal is fine, but I think you should shorten it/I regard the summary sentences proposed by Masem, Drsmoo and Nishidani as all more or less equivalent.
Drsmoo insisted there was too much detail about the EU and Hamas. Convinced he had a mandate from User:Masem, he excised most of the above and edited in

Hamas, its military wing, together with several charities it runs, has been designated as a terrorist organization by Israel, the United States, Canada, the European Union, and Japan and was outlawed in Jordan.[49] The EU decision is currently under appeal.[50] It is not regarded as a terrorist organization by Iran, Russia, Norway, Switzerland, Turkey, China, and Brazil. It is a point of debate in political and academic circles over whether or not to classify Hamas as a terrorist group. 82 words, 495 characters.

While doing this he also removed several sources in the lead discussing this, rather than putting them down into the relevant section this para summarizes. I.e. a lot of work just disappears w2ith his editing. He hasn't done any actual constructive article building.
Result. When (A) with its 79 words re the EU was challenged by Drsmoo, I provided (B) which pared those words down to 55. Drsmoo refused any yielding of ground. Worse, he boiled down the 55 words (the compromise) to a mere 7, a 90% reduction of the original text for which there is no mandate in that discussion.

I.e. (C) The EU decision is currently under appeal

This is totally misleading, indeed meaningless when not false. (a) The EU decision is not currently under appeal. (b)Hamas appealed it in 2008 and (c) won a judgement in its favour in 2014 which (d) the EU appealed, and appears to have lost (2016). In fact nothing is currently under appeal. All we know is that the EU's special counsel has said the grounds for appealing the European Court's judgement in favour of Hamas are not valid. In essence, Drsmoo has failed to read the sources, distorted them, in what looks like POV pushing. He has refused any reasonable compromise, and, in his (C) version essentially erased any comprehensible statement about the legal clash between Hamas, the EU, and the EU court proceedings. The POV consists in boiling down a nuanced para on the various positions regarding Hamas's classification into a list that says (a) the major Western are unanimous it is terrorist (b) the usual alignment of anti- and non-Western countries disagree. Hamas is unhappy with the EU.
That is not NPOV. Whatever we think about it, Hamas's legal battle on this key issue is very important, and can't be buried under a big-power naming game, as if outside views of Hamas are more important than its own actions in seeking legal redress for being branded (nothing but a) terrorist (organization ).Nishidani (talk) 13:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Currently the appeal is still open (and thus, still 'under appeal' until it is closed with a final decision.) However the opinion posted in September heavily indicates Hamas will indeed be removed as per the 2014 judgement (a failure of the appeal). But the appeal will not be finished until a judgement is posted or an order (in this case likely just a judgement to uphold the previous order). Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:36, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Drsmoo wrote:'The EU decision is currently under appeal,' which is false, since it says Hamas is still appealing the 2003 EU decision. It won a verdict in its favour for a procedural flaw: all the 2003 evidence, which formed the basis for the EU classification, was clipped from the internet without any input from the intelligence or political specialists in any EU country. I.e. it was not based on any institutional verification or legal process. Drsmoo confused the Hamas appeal (upheld in 2014) with the EU appeal against the EU court verdict, opened in 2014 in the wake of that judgement. The late 2014 EU appeal was judged as flawed by the EU's own special legal counsel this year. So, while technically, that appeal is 'open', it can't, according to the EU's own legal authorities, proceed in the terms originally given. It too is flawed. It would have to be reformulated, I think she implied, in her full judgment, which effectively means:'you fucked up, guys'. Work out something else. They can't therefore proceed with the 2014 appeal in the original terms. Whatever, Drsmoo's simplification totally confused the issue, and that is why extreme excisionism is dangerous. Readers should be given a minimal right to know what happened between 2003 and 2016 in terms of this decision, which will influence 28 nations' approach to Hamas.Nishidani (talk) 14:15, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry to say but Nishidani's post is literally just factually incorrect, there was no "long talk page stand off", there were 5 posts made within half an hour, and I opened the NPOV discussion after 3 minutes. [3] Nishidani just literally made that up. And this discussion is about the specific section dealing with the EU designation, not the rest of the lede which has already been settled. The EU decision is currently under appeal, that's the wording used in the court as well, and is factually correct. With that said, in the interest of consensus, I reworded it to "The EU designation is currently awaiting a final court decision after the judgement was successfully appealed by Hamas on procedural grounds." However, Nishidani immediately reverted this as well. Which makes it curious why he's focusing on the semantics of "under appeal" when that doesn't appear to be the issue. With regard to the text above, there was a clear consensus for reducing the amount of detail in the lede about this one minor point. For some reason, Nishidani decided that consensus no longer mattered since he had already "compromised" and thus the discussion must be over even though there were still points of contention. I waited roughly a month for him (the only editor disagreeing with shortening the section) to respond before making the edit, which Nishidani then immediately reverted. As an aside nothing was "excised", I have no objection to Nishidani moving the info to the body, where it should have been to begin with. The lede is not supposed to contain unique information, and is supposed to provide a brief, high-level summary. Another curious observation is that while making the edit, Nishidani merged the paragraph with the paragraph above it, which doesn't share any content, effectively limiting the visibility of the whole section. I initially thought this was a mistake, but then he did it again so it appears to have been deliberate. Drsmoo (talk) 15:40, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Oh for Chrissake! I can't keep in my memory all the bullshit expended for a month on just a few words in one article.
Let's cut to the chase: You wrote:
'The EU decision is currently under appeal.'
Your edit here gives us this text

Hamas, its military wing, together with several charities it runs, has been designated as a terrorist organization by Israel, the United States, Canada, the European Union, and Japan and was outlawed in Jordan.[49] The EU decision is currently under appeal.[50]

Which EU decision does this refer to? Come on, man, clarify, for once. Nishidani (talk) 16:39, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
That's not what we're talking about, why didn't you post my most recent edit, which you instantly reverted? Version B ("The EU's designation is currently awaiting a final court decision after the judgement was successfully appealed by Hamas on procedural grounds.") is what I edited, Version A is what you reverted it to. I had already changed it in the interest of consensus. It's about substance, not semantics, there is a consensus to reduce or remove that section and you have just disruptively refused to accept it. You're also not addressing why you merged the two paragraphs. Drsmoo (talk) 17:12, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
You are referring to this second edit.[The EU decision is currently awaiting a final court decision after the judgement was successfully appealed by Hamas on procedural grounds.]
Hamas did not make an appeal on procedural grounds. Drsmoo confused earlier Hamas, the EU and the EU court, and here he confused Hamas and the EU court. It was the EU court that dismissed the case on procedural grounds, and Hamas did not make its case against the procedures used to draw up the blacklist.

Whilst Hamas and the LTTE did not challenge the Council measures by which they were initially listed, they have contested their maintenance on the list, as a result of a series of Council measures, before the General Court.</blockquote>

This whole farce persists because, as in both the edits above, you keep emending the text without studying the relevant documentation. These issues are elementary: one reads, cosnstrues, and then paraphrases closely. If an editor can't manage that, then dialogue with someone you disagree with, can't help but being a nightmare. Nishidani (talk) 19:57, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
I feel like you two are spinning your wheels, and honestly, it seems pretty difficult to concisely describe the EU situation without prejudicing text in some small way. What about, "An EU court found the EU's earlier designation flawed, but its decision has been appealed by the European Council." ? That would leave a third clause implied but unstated - that the designation is being litigated. I'm sure Masem has other things to do but maybe they'd agree to step in as a third opinion and help you both resolve this on the article talk page. You might also consider SMcCandlish who I think tends to be neutral on these nationalism questions. -Darouet (talk) 17:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Alternatively, just leave out of the EU designation issue from the lede because it is rather complex to explain neutrally in a few short words, and better to leave the fuller explanation to the body. This keeps the neutrality of the lede (you're still listing countries with active statements about the nature of Hamas and whether they are or are not a terrorist organization) without trying to thread the needle this discussion is proving to be. --MASEM (t) 18:04, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Masem. That would mean that simply because one editor, who has not contributed to the construction of the article, dropped in and protested about 185 words, which were then whittled down to 115, then 85, then 7, gets to have everything removed. Surely, that's just chucking the baby out with the bathwater? I can't see why this issue seems intractable. Getting it right is simply a matter of drafting, and balancing Israel's talking points (which dominate 80s of the article) with Hamas's POV, which is not much in evidence. Nishidani (talk) 20:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Aside from the fact that this discussion right now is contributing to the construction of the article, and aside from the fact that that's irrelevant in any case, the Hamas article is in my top 10 most contributed in Wikipedia. Why would you just falsely claim I haven't contributed? Drsmoo (talk) 20:55, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Have you guys reread the whole paragraph recently. We have nugatory things one of which has no development whatsoever in the body of the text.Gilad Shalit's kidnapping is highlighted: a huge thing for Israelis, certainly but something that eaves Palestinians indifferent since several thousand are held in detention by methods Palestinians call in Arabic 'kidnapping'. They regard Shalit's kidnapping as tit-for-tat for the use of administrative detention by Israel. Again 'tunnels' is an Israeli talking point, so it is highlighted in the lead, no balance (tunnels were originally dug to get round Israel's economic blockade, so severe at one point not even tampons, or nutmeg, or cinnamon, or potato chips could be imported. What so hard about understanding a simple sentence:
Hamas successfully appealed the EU blacklisting when the European court judged the earlier determination flawed. The European Council appealed this 2014 verdict. In 2016 the Advocate General advised that due to procedural errors, it should be dropped from the terror blacklist, unless proper and sufficient legal evidence to warrant its inclusion were forthcoming.
The bolded part is not in many news sources, but it's in the actual source. Newspapers reported this as a Hamas victory, which it wasn't. The text is more nuanced that copycat hacks allow. I have twice shown that Drsmoo screwed up his paraphrasing. Is there anyone who can show the above is neither correct in all details or concise? Nishidani (talk) 20:11, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:NOTSOAPBOX Your personal political opinions are irrelevant to this discussion and have no place on Wikipedia. http://www.euronews.com/2014/12/17/european-court-orders-removal-of-hamas-from-eu-terror-list-on-procedural-grounds Nothing you just wrote is inconsistent with "The EU designation is currently awaiting a final court decision after the judgement was successfully appealed by Hamas on procedural grounds." though if you have an alternative one-sentence summary please share it, as once again consensus is established for eliminating or shortening that section. I am fine with both Darouet and Masem's suggestions. Drsmoo (talk) 20:39, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Those are not soapbox opinions. I checked 20 articles against the court documents, and most were just repeating a simplistic meme, that got Hamas off the hook, whereas the Advocate General's words are nuanced. To repeat, editing competently meaning understanding the subject, not hairsplitting. I've been writing 2 articles a day over the last month, and just coping with this silly nonsense has wasted my time enough. Everybody knows that Nishidani is the only editor in the I/P area with a POV, all the others, mostly reverters, are here purely for 'encyclopedic purposes'.Nishidani (talk) 20:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
For the third time, Drsmoo. Please try and focus on content. Now you cite refers to 2014, as if it were the last word, as per Darouet's proposal. In Sept 2016 An advocate general at the European Court of Justice, whose advice is usually followed by judges, recommended that they reject an appeal by the Council of EU member states against the lower General Court's decisions in late 2014 to remove both movements from the sanctions list due to flawed procedures
In other words, we can say the EU appealed (keeping the article updated to 2014) but absolutely must keep mum on the provisory result of the appeal in 2016. This is selective highlighting and repression of evidence per the desired POv outcome. Both 2014 and 2014 translate simply: The EU court ruled it was procedurally flawed. The EU appealed, and in 2016, its advocate general recommended the EU appeal be rejected. What wrong with adding those updated 9 words? Why this insistence that we must not mention that simple datum re the appeal process two months ago? Yeah, WP:RECENTISM., etc. any policy excuse for not being laconically comprehensive and up to date Nishidani (talk) 21:29, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that is how Ledes work, they summarize details, that's why there are both lede and body paragraphs. As for your soapboxing, personal attacks, ignoring consensus, refusal to assume good faith, and outright fabrications, I've had enough. Drsmoo (talk) 21:57, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
If you believed that you would have removed Shalit from the lead. It has no place except as a line or two in the main text, since there is no expansion there, and no expansion is necessary. You attack me. Well, yeah. I do get pissed off, because I work my fucking butt off creating articles, rewriting them, everyday for 10 years, and find, if it's the I/P area, lazy editors just picking, naggling, hairsplitting and kibitzing on minutiae in order to screw the other POV. You say Hamas is one of the 10 articles you've devoted most of your time to. Well here's the record of what you do.
22 edits in 7 years, all save one consisting in reverting out material.
This is my record: 117 edits in under 2 years, rewriting mostly the first three sections, adding dozens of academic sources, and meeting now basic wikipedia criteria for article construction. Most of the sourcing down to note 160 is mine. This has an absurd amount of fucking useless trash sourcing. Al-Qaeda was a major threat and a globally murderous terrorist group: it is covered on wiki in 369 notes in a neat cogent oand orderly exposition. We have so much reduplication and POV yelling on this article that this tiny enclave power that has no impact on the world, gets 550 notes. It's a disgrace and will remain so as long as editors who don't do anything serious on Wikipedia keep nagging and splitting hairs to bog down any concentrated effort to improve the article.Nishidani (talk) 22:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
The only person making attacks here is you. This discussion is about the EU phrasing in the lede. If you'd like to have another discussion, feel free to start one. Drsmoo (talk) 22:41, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
This is about NPOV in the lead. I am asking editors why they find mention of the EU problematical, when it is a serious issue, whereas they don't look over the lead and note that Gilad Shalit is given a sentence that does not synthesize anything in the body of the text? There are several POV issues with the lead, and the one that gets people's knickers in a twist concerns a putative excess amount of information (a sentence) about the legality of an important terrorist designation. MNishidani (talk) 22:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

@Masem: I think simply removing the EU designation "issue", but keeping the EU designation, is problematic because the issue reflects well-known EU ambivalence towards the IP conflict more generally. -Darouet (talk) 22:30, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm happy to go with your proposal. Drsmoo (talk) 22:37, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Darouet, I meant that mention of the EU status either way (the past assignment, and the current legal issues) should be removed, so the lede shouldn't mentioned EU in this manner at all. It's far too complicated (as demonstrated by the arguments above) to simplify among all other aspects of Hamas. Again, my original point way back was that all that should be stated for the lede is something like "Hamas is considered a terrorist organization by several countries, while others do not. Whether to classify Hamas as a terrorist organization or not is a point of contention among political analysts and academics." That gets in and out in the most neutral and balanced way possible, and leaves you plenty of room in the body to go into all the nuances, such as EU's current stance, that require more room and sourcing to present accurately and neutrally. --MASEM (t) 23:01, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
I fail to follow. There is no complication whatsoever in any of the one/two line formulations which manage to cover the EU court case succinctly without margins for confusing the reader. No editor here has yet, to my recall, ever noted where the various one-two liner summaries I have offered are inaccurate. Give me concrete grounds for showing the inadequacy of any one or two line summation above, and I'll better understand your point, which, at the moment, is, for me, a vague and repeated opinion.Nishidani (talk) 15:08, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

In 2008 Hamas challenged the blacklisting. When the European Court of Justice found in its favour (2014), the EU appealed the decision. In 2016, an advisory opinion confirmed the court’s judgement. A final ECJ verdict is due by the end of 2016. (46 words)

Does that not cover all angles, while being succinct and neutral?Nishidani (talk) 17:20, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
I should add that I find this NPOV issue completely bizarre because this little snippet on legality is being challenged while a paragraph and a half preceding it, running to 168 words, outlines almost verbatim the official Israeli government POV on Hamas, without one word balancing the account.

In 2006, Hamas used an underground cross-border tunnel to capture the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, holding him captive until 2011, when he was released in exchange for 1,027 Palestinian prisoners.[45] Since then, Hamas has continued building a network of internal and cross-border tunnels,[46] which are used to store and deploy weapons, shield militants, and facilitate cross-border attacks. Destroying the tunnels was a primary objective of Israeli forces in the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict . . .The military wing of Hamas has launched attacks against Israeli civilians and soldiers, often justifying them as retaliatory, in particular for assassinations of the upper echelon of their leadership.[24] Tactics have included suicide bombings, and since 2001, rocket attacks.[25][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32] Hamas's rocket arsenal, though mainly consisting of short-range homemade Qassam rockets,[33] also includes long-range weapons that have reached major Israeli cities including Tel Aviv and Haifa.[34][35] The attacks on civilians have been condemned as war crimes and crimes against humanity by human rights groups such as Human Rights Watch

To any experienced eye that is an impeccable summation of the official Israeli description of Hamas, and I have not touched it. It is due, but, lacking the counter POV, in violation of our obligation for descriptive neutrality. I would be easy to write up a mirror reply from the Hamas supporter or anti-Zionist Jewish American perspective (I am neither) which would invert the equation: Israel had waged 3 wars on Hamas, in which 60-70% of casualties have been civilians, and conducted numerous targeted assassinations of Hamas leaders and militants; has statistically initiated more attacks on Gaza than its adversaries; has imposed a stringent economic blockade on the population protested by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the UN etc as a violation of the Geneva conventions; dropped 20,000 tons of bombs on infrastructure in the Gaza Strip as opposed to the 40 tons of explosive launched against Israel via mortars and rockets, 99% of which landed in the southern desert, in 2014, etc.etc.etc. I have ignored tampering with the lead there because I prefer writing the article. But as it stands, the above paragraph and a half are without any POV counterpoint, which should influence one's judgement on what the lead is doing.Nishidani (talk) 17:20, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Ignoring the coatrack, no your suggestion is not ok because using that would still cause the one idea to be over a third of the whole paragraph (36%). It is a minor detail, and the paragraph should just simply state which countries do and do not consider Hamas a terrorist organization, with possibly a brief note about ongoing litigation in the EU. I'm fine with both Darouet and Masem's proposals. I've just made the edit going with Darouet's proposal. There is a clear consensus to shorten it, now over two noticeboards. Drsmoo (talk) 23:44, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
For the lede, the only key point that should be there is that Hamas is treated as a terrorist organization in some countries, and other countries do not treat them as such, and we can provide a brief list for both (excluding the EU since its status is under legal dispute); and that whether to call Hamas a terrorist organization or not is a point of political and academic debate. That's it for the lede. As soon as you mention the EU's ongoing situation, you have to spend a lot of excess time to try to delinainate what exactly is happening there, something not suitable for the lede given that we have several other examples of countries - both sides - that we can list. Explain the EU situation in the body, and once it is firmly resolved, maybe consider adding the EU to the appropriate list to the lede (as it is a significant country) but not until then. --MASEM (t) 16:25, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm fine with that suggestion as well. Perhaps you could make the edit then, since you know what you have in mind? Drsmoo (talk) 22:36, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

@Nishidani: to be brief, I don't think anything was wrong with your proposal, but I don't think anything is wrong with Masem's either. And if you're frustrated with Drsmoo because you worked hard to get text you hoped they'd agree to, at the same time Drsmoo isn't totally crazy here: Hamas' status really is complicated. Both of you appreciate that. And the fact that Drsmoo is willing to compromise - accepting Masem's solution - means something. Sometimes good writing means "killing your babies" (deleting text that took a long time to draft) - it's hard but in this case probably for the best. -Darouet (talk) 00:23, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

  • First, I would say "don't bury the lede". This should come first, to introduce this material: "It is a point of debate in political and academic circles over whether or not to classify Hamas as a terrorist group." After that, I tend to favor the first version, in spirit, as being more informative. The second leaves too many questions open (who is appealing what to whom?), though the first exactly as written may be a bit too detailed. It shouldn't be that hard to formulate a compromise. That said, it may not be clear to incoming people what devils are supposedly in the details. Neither version seems clearly prejudicial to me; one is just overly detailed and the other under-detailed.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  20:36, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
    • I agree here with SMcCandlish, the more detailed first one is preferable, for now. If and/or when the status changes in the future, and gets reported on and commented upon in reliable, independent sources, we can revisit and modify the article main text and then the intro, accordingly. Sagecandor (talk) 01:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Political positions of Donald Trump (Trumpism)[edit]

Consensus is to keep the language in the article, but move it to the Political philosophy section. pbp 04:08, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

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

The lead of "Political positions of Donald Trump" says, "Politicians and pundits alike have referred to Trump's populism, anti-free trade and anti-immigrant stances as Trumpism." [Gerald F. Seib (August 8, 2016). "Separating Donald Trump From Trumpism". Wall Street Journal.]["Mitt Romney: Vote for Ted Cruz over 'Trumpism'" BBC News. March 18, 2016.]

In the first source, "Trumpism" is sourced to Mitt Romney, while the second is an op-ed. Neither are acceptable sources for facts, and therefore also pose a BLP issue.

Also, no explanation is provided how accepted the term is, whether there is an agreed definition or whether the term is derogatory or neutral.

Does it belong in the lead?

TFD (talk) 03:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Yes it does, and speedy close this as forum-shopping by TFD: I do not understand why having the term "Trumpism" in an article about Donald Trump's political positions is the least bit controversial. People use the term "Trumpism" to refer to Donald Trump's political positions, making him one of many politicians whose political positions have been referred to as [THEIR NAME]+ism. TFD's claim that this is some sort of a BLP violation is way off base; as is his claim that there is not sufficient sources. For starters, what constitutes Trumpism is opinion, not fact, so "acceptable sources for facts" isn't particularly germane. WP:NEWSORG makes it clear that it is acceptable to use opinion sources to say the authors of opinion pieces said something. Authors of opinion pieces have said that Trump's populism, anti-immigration and anti-free trade stances constitute "Trumpism". Politicians have said the same thing. TFD might have a case for removal if the text read, "This, that and the other thing ARE Trumpism". But it doesn't say that. It says, "People say this, that and the other thing constitute Trumpism".
Let me address the "No explanation is provided how accepted the term is, whether there is an agreed definition or whether the term is derogatory or neutral." That's not the kind of detail you get into in the lead of an article. That's a discussion for the body of the article. I'd argue it's not even necessary because of the general innocuousness and ubiquity of [Political Figure]ism words.
I might also add that TFD has portrayed a very skewed view of what's going on at Talk:Political positions of Donald Trump. He's failed to mention that me AND a third editor both disagree with him, meaning that, at the present time, consensus is against him. He's also failed to mention that the two of us have dug up over a dozen sources that use the word "Trumpism" to describe Trump's political stances, some of which he's admitted to not bothering to read, but still deems unacceptable. He's also taken to drawing ridiculous analogies there. It's pretty clear that TFD just doesn't like the term "Trumpism" and is using any and all excuses he can to get rid of it. pbp 05:07, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Despite your accusations of forum-shopping, this is the only notice board I have posted this issue to and request that you strike out. (See WP:FORUMSHOP:"Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages....") Indeed, you and two other editors disagree with me, which is why I posted the question here. You can be of assistance by explaining what policy and guidelines justify your edit. It is not that I do not like the term Trumpism, it is just that articles are not here to promote neologisms. TFD (talk) 07:57, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Above, I point out that WP:NEWSORG justifies mentioning opinions in the manner the quote does. "Multiple noticeboards and talk pages": This is a noticeboard; Talk:Political positions of Donald Trump is a talk page; combined you have raised the issue in multiple places and therefore are forum-shopping. Request to strike out denied. pbp 11:09, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Certainly NEWSORG allows opinions can be mentioned, but they need to be mentioned as opinions. In this case, we could say, "In his weekly column in the Wall Street Journal, Gerald F. Seib referred to Trump's political positions as "Trumpism."" But then per weight you need to explain why that is important. We do not for example talk about Clintonism in the Clinton articles, or Obamaism, or Bushism in their articles. TFD (talk) 17:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Setting aside that that's a reverse WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, Clintonism and Bushism have articles themselves, indicating that there is sufficient source material for them to be mentioned somewhere. Also, why mention only Sieb and the WSJ when there are so many other people who mention Trumpism in so many other place? pbp 19:20, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I have to agree that the term "Trumpism" is used, but not widely used. Because it is used, it is appropriate to give the term a passing mention In the article ( perhaps with in text attribution)... but I agree that the term is not used widely enough to be mentioned in the lead. Blueboar (talk) 12:27, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Agree with Blueboar that some mention in the article body is merited, but not in the lead. A large part of the assemblage of Trump's positions are a part of right-wing populism and nationalism that can be found in many countries and places in history: "Trumpism" is not required to capture them, and the term isn't so widely used that it deserves prominence.
Also, the purpose of this board is to solicit feedback beyond the talk page. It is expected that any issue will be brought here only if disagreement is not resolved on the talk page first. TFD is therefore 100% correct when they ask you to strike the spurious "forumshopping" allegation, Purplebackpack89, and it's only fair for you to do so, while continuing to engage with them constructively, and presenting your views here too. -Darouet (talk) 17:49, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
@Darouet:: The thing is though that it kind of already had been resolved on the talk page; just not in TFD's favor. He was unwilling to accept what other editors had said and brought this here. He's seeking to have you override what's going on at the talk page. pbp 19:20, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
TFD is a reasonable editor and in good standing. There is nothing that prevents an editor who believes that talk page consensus may be unreasonable, in some particular case, from approaching the community for wider input from a greater number of hopefully uninvolved people. It often occurs that, for whatever reason, editors most involved in editing a topic might benefit from outside views. -Darouet (talk) 20:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
@Blueboar: @Darouet: If this doesn't belong in the lead, where in the article would you put it? pbp 19:27, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
I think a perfect section is "Political philosophy - as described by others." -Darouet (talk) 20:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
That would work for me as well. Blueboar (talk) 20:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
One of the problems with presenting opinions without any secondary sources is that we lack adequate information about the degree of their acceptance. My original research finds the term is used by Trump's opponents. But the term has received so little usage, that news reports have ignored it and Trump supporters have not responded. Trump has been called a racist, fascist, misogynist, etc., but we should not call him that in his article. And when we say he has been called that, we make clear that those are descriptions used by his opponents. And we need to be consistent in following policies in all articles, so that a reader cannot tell whether whether the articles were written by supporters or opponents. TFD (talk) 21:49, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
I think it's a stretch to ascribe a derogatory connotation to "Trumpism". Calling Trump himself a Trumpist isn't derogatory, it's self-evident. Calling somebody else a Trumpist is only derogatory if you consider the tenets of Trumpism to be bad. To equate the term "Trumpism" with much more negatively-charged words is ridiculous and wholly unproven by TFD. I also think it's a stretch to say it is solely used by his "opponents"; even if you define opponents exceedingly broadly to include all detractors rather than just people who ran against him. And even if it is (which I doubt), there's no requirement that anything said primarily by detractors be expunged by the article. Finally, I consider the idea that it's "received so little usage" to be off, and, as you previously admitted elsewhere to not having read all the sources Mhhossein and I provided, I suggest you read them all before making further claims on sourcing. pbp 22:07, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
In time, "Trumpism" may become a recognized political position, similar to Marxism or Leninism being similarly named after the leader that was known for it (and I don't meant to imply any connection between them and Trump's position by those examples, they just serve as good named examples). However, right now, right off a hot election where the bulk of the media, generally left-leaning, found the candidate they didn't support winning the election, calling out the term is very much a neologism and politically-loaded. I agree that with only two sources readily backing the term, placing it in the lede is a NPOV problem, but it does have room to be mentioned in the article (in the 2nd sub-seciton on how others describe Trump's policies), and a redirect is also reasonable. --MASEM (t) 22:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
@Masem: There are a lot more than two sources that mention Trumpism. Please see Talk:Political positions of Donald Trump#Sources that use the term Trumpism pbp 23:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Okay, so there's a fair number of sources, but I will still assert that WP:NEO clearly applies, and that more importantly, we have to recognize the political atmosphere this word is being coined in that it is definitely a word with negative connotation ( eg a situation of sorts like Campaign for "santorum" neologism). In a few years, we may actually recognize the term as a neutral means to describe Trump's policy position, but definitely not right now. --MASEM (t) 23:10, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Although pbp says there are lots of sources, they are all op-eds, and there are no secondary sources commenting on the use of the term. And of course I cannot "prove" the term is derogatory, because I don't have any secondary sources which would be required to say anything about the term. But the oldest source appears to be from Mitt Romney: "Today, there is a contest between Trumpism and Republicanism. Through the calculated statements of its leader, Trumpism has become associated with racism, misogyny, bigotry, xenophobia, vulgarity and, most recently, threats and violence. I am repulsed by each and every one of these." That use is clearly derogatory and it is disingenuous to pretend otherwise. TFD (talk) 04:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


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

Deletion of reference on laws of nature and fine-tuning from journal submitted by Jim Johnson[edit]

Background from talk page:Different laws of nature are not considered when discussing fine tuning because “they are what they are”. Only the Mathematical Hypothesis proposed by Max Tegmark, entertains different laws of nature. However, they must be considered when thinking about reality and space. My article, published in the Journal of philosophy and Cosmology, defines a conceptual model that separates space from initial conditions and the big bang. It provides a definition of the laws of nature and discusses the ramifications for different laws. The eighteen-page article has ten Scientific American references and nine books by noted physicist. My previous article on the constants of nature, published by Physics International, is a Wikipedia reference. Topics in Wikipedia that relate to the laws of nature are: Multiverse, Mathematical Universe Hypothesis, Fine-tuned Universe, Physical Laws, and Laws of science. Assuming the Wikipedia reviewers agree; I plan to edit references into the first three topics. I have been corresponding with Isambard Kingdom who deleted the update and reference. He has not provided any specifics for the deletion other than the source is not "on par" with Tegmark or Greene sources (sources I reference multiple times). I hope someone who is familiar with fine-tuning and physics/cosmology will agree that the conceptual model and the analysis has value and should be a reference. Jim Johnson 22:22, 16 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimjohnson2222 (talkcontribs)

Jim, your papers were published in obscure journals, and have not yet been cited by anybody. That your papers cite famous works by famous scientists (popular press) does not necessarily make your papers worth citing at Wikipedia, and you are not an established authority on the subject on which you write (in those papers). Among the sources cited in Multiverse and Dimensionless physical constant are papers written by some of the world's most famous and respected scientists. To cite your papers in those Wikipedia articles would amount to putting them on the same tier as the works of those famous scientists. That would simply be inappropriate. I encourage you to make broader contributions to Wikipedia, and expend less energy trying to promote your own (non-expert) ideas. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but you don't seem to be listening. Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:50, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
  1. Isambard, you are using one arbitrary criteria, all Wikipedia contributors must be famous, and a wrong assumption about my knowledge of the subject. This is not a satisfactory response. I am moving this to Formal Mediation.Jim Johnson 00:05, 18 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimjohnson2222 (talkcontribs)
Problem Jim, is that Isembard is right. When considering the reliability of a source, we ask whether the publisher has a reputation for fact checking or accuracy. Your article was published in "Physics International", an obscure journal with no reputation, which is itself carried by Science Publications, a predatory open-access publisher. If they led you to believe they are a quality publisher, you've been had, and they are laughing all the way to the bank. So since reliability of the publication and publisher is non-existent, we can instead consider the author, and then the question is "who is this author and why should anyone care what he thinks?". Somehow I don't think that analysis would lead us to include anything you write about physics. Long story short: Anyone can claim to be an expert, and then publish in a crap journal. That doesn't mean Wikipedia will include it. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:19, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Someguy1221, I understand your response and my only defense is the contents of the articles. Is there someone you can request to independently assess, an editor who understands cosmology? I asked Mfb to respond but have not heard back but expect a response. I worked years to be able to publish the two articles referenced and believe they contribute value to the respective subjects. As I stated to Isambard, Martin Harwit helped me primarily with the constants article. As far as Physics International, it is a peer review journal and my article was published with no fees. Articles in Journal of Philosophy and Cosmology are reviewed by the review committee and there is no charge. I hope you agree contents is what is relevant to Wikipedia. Jim Johnson 15:15, 21 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimjohnson2222 (talkcontribs)

  • This is quite straightforward. When these papers are discussed in reliable, independent sources, providing appropriate expert commentary on their validity and relevance, then suggest edits on the relevant Talk pages (do not edit directly per WP:COI). Until we have reliable independent sources, forget it. Guy (Help!) 19:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  1. Guy, what is the criteria for External Articles? Could my article go there? 2602:304:B10B:A640:40A9:7E78:F78E:8DA2 (talk) 22:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
What part of "forget it" was difficult to understand? Guy (Help!) 09:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Agree with comment by JzG, above. Excellent recommendation for what to do next. Stick to what the reliable, independent sources say. As far as External Articles, I wonder if the user means External Links? Sagecandor (talk) 01:36, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Related discussion at RSN[edit]

Since the discussion involves issues of NPOV, I believe it's appropriate to leave a note here:

Thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman:Since archived to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_216#Sources_at_Artur_Phleps_article. Sagecandor (talk) 01:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Benefits of global warming section[edit]

I'm concerned about the subjective wording of this section because it specifically argues that certain effects of global warming "would be good." Would it be possible to describe the purportedly "beneficial" effects of global warming in less subjective terms? Jarble (talk) 20:12, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I've made an initial edit to try and improve things but more work could certainly be done here. -Darouet (talk) 02:48, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
How do the sources describe them? Someguy1221 (talk) 02:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
@Jarble, Darouet, and Someguy1221:I agree with Someguy1221, could we start here with an analysis of what the sources say? Maybe that would be a better way to go along instead of debating ourselves in our own views? Sagecandor (talk) 01:34, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
@Darouet, Someguy1221, and Sagecandor: I'd like to analyze them, but some incomplete citations in the article need to be clarified first. Jarble (talk) 03:43, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Warp drive article is not impartial... it's a star trek fanboy page[edit]

The whole article is nothing but a massive advert for star trek. Only a few lines in and is all about star trek. There were some other title added at some point by other users and yesterday i added another title. Since then all the titles have been removed and a bunch of users are reverting and controlling the whole page by systematically making claims about what goes and what doesn't go hand in hand with the article while maintaining star trek as the pivoting point of the whole article. Warp drive was mentioned ages before star trek was even a sketch let alone popular television. There needs to be impartiality. Right now the warp drive article is a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Choice777 (talkcontribs) 09:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

The Star Trek bias on the Warp drive article was discussed a while ago on the talk page - comments made there are still valid now. I'll repeat my final comment here, as it seems relevant, even though they were directed primarily at another editor at the time: "Look - you don't like the subject of the article, fine - suggest it gets renamed to "Warp Drive (Star Trek)" and then write another article on just the generic concept of the warp drive - with appropriate sources and references, of course. I also reckon that the Star Trek Warp drive is the primary topic, given its level of popularity and perception with the general public. I think you would be hard pressed to justify having this article called "Warp Drive (Star Trek)" and then a stub entitled "Warp Drive" - but hey - go for it. Be Bold." Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
@Choice777 and Chaheel Riens:I agree with Chaeel Riens here, that seems to be an acceptable and fair proposal. Sagecandor (talk) 01:33, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

German Luftwaffe pilot "rabidly anti-Nazi"?[edit]

I would appreciate more eyes on this discussion: Der Stern von Afrika: Anti-Nazi? The thread is: "Rabidly anti-Nazi". Thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion specific to Marseille's relationship with Nazism moved to: Talk:Hans-Joachim_Marseille#Marseille_and_Nazism, including a discussion of the statement on Marseille by the Military History Research Office (Germany) (MGFA). K.e.coffman (talk) 21:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
@K.e.coffman:Maybe we could get here some links to recent changes made to the article in terms of potentially problematic edits? Sagecandor (talk) 01:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
@Sagecandor: For example, there's an on-going debate whether the "overly detailed" and "unreliable sources" tags should be present in the article: "deleted tags; no justification. Please stop asserting your point of view on this article", even though another editor has agreed on the Talk page that the article is overly detailed and there's plenty of justification provided on the Talk page: Talk:Hans-Joachim_Marseille#Unreliable_sources_tag and Talk:Hans-Joachim_Marseille#Overly_detailed_article.
I'd also venture to say that the article could stand to have NPOV tag added due to its hagiographic (IMO) tone. If I add it, I'm sure it's going to be removed due to my "POV". I would appreciate others having a look and adding the tag(s) if applicable. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:04, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

American Physical Society[edit]

This article has an editor attempting to interject statements regarding radical feminists taking over blah blah blah, with sketchy sourcing and general belligerence. I'm at 3RR and frankly am uninterested in continuing the discussion because I'm apparently Hiding The Truth (tm), so I pass it over to you folks as perhaps the best option for handling things. I've also alerted the Physics wikiproject. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:08, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@Tony Fox:Could we get some links here to changes that were made and which edits are objectionable backed up by sources perhaps stating the opposite, or something like that? Sagecandor (talk) 01:31, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Byron Mallott[edit]

For approximately the past two years, a number of editors have edited numerous articles and other pages to the effect of contending that Byron Mallott is serving as lieutenant governor of Alaska as a Democrat (page links). This has extended to the point of these editors engaging in slow-motion edit warring with myself over this point and largely not bothering to offer a sufficient rationale for their actions. I have offered a rationale for my actions, this being but one example, which I'll detail below. Most of these problems have occurred at Alaska and Template:Current Alaska statewide political officials, but there are plenty of other places on the encyclopedia where this misinformation is being spread.

The few times anyone has actually communicated with me, they've tended to offer explanations which don't hold water. In the first instance, right after Bill Walker and Mallott were sworn in, Count Awesome left a message on my talk page (see here) about the following edits to Alaska: adding Walker and Mallott after they were sworn in, my reversion of Mallott being referred to as a Democrat and Count Awesome's reversion of that edit. As you can see from the talk page thread, Count Awesome explained to me what a "unity ticket" is (as if I didn't know or something) and offered a link to another Wikipedia article as a reference. Of course, we've heard the explanation countless times that a Wikipedia article can't suffice as a reliable source. Here's what other sources have to say about the matter. The Alaska Dispatch News began their story on the formation of the "unity ticket", dated September 1, 2014, with the following paragraph: "The Alaska Democratic Party broke with long tradition Monday when its central committee voted 89-2 to not field a gubernatorial ticket and instead put its weight behind the independent campaign of Bill Walker and Byron Mallott". On the Alaska Division of Elections website, you can find several references to Mallott's general election campaign, all of which refer to him as "Non-Affiliated" (which has been their pet term for "independent" for about the past decade or so) and not as a Democrat. Here is the supplemental election pamphlet for 2014 gubernatorial and lieutenant gubernatorial candidates, which features Mallott on page 11 and refers to him as "Non-Affiliated". Here's a sample ballot (sample ballot index page here), which again refers to Mallott as "Non-Affiliated". The official results again shows "NA" in reference to Walker and Mallott.

In the other communication to me regarding this (see here), Mpen320 left an unsigned message on my talk page, confusingly worded, but offers the same link to the ADN story I mentioned above. Mpen320's rationale appears to cherry-pick the statement that Mallott remained registered to vote as a Democrat, all the while ignoring the reference to the Walker/Mallott "independent campaign" and ignoring the fact that the ADP only sought for Walker to change his voter registration in order for the party to offer their support to the ticket, not Mallott (as mentioned in his official biography, there's also the fact that Mallott is registered to vote in Yakutat despite actually living in Juneau for many years, but those sort of shenanigans are halfway common in Alaska). Mpen320 also provided a link to a page on the ADP's website. I never bothered to look at it before because it's hardly anything neutral. The ADN archive search appears to no longer offer preview links for individual articles. However, if one searches for Mallott's name from October 2013, you can see that the party's central committee declared Mallott their nominee by fiat three days after he launched his candidacy, without bothering to wait for the primary election and what voters may have had to say. Even though that particular "source" sorely lacks neutrality or any specific mention of Mallott or his party affiliation, it does offer more clues. One is a link to the Office of the Governor's homepage, which very prominently contains the statement "In December of 2014 Governor Walker and Lt. Governor Byron Mallott were sworn in as the first non-partisan administration in Alaska’s history". Right next to it is a link to the Office of the Lieutenant Governor's homepage, which prominently contains a simliar statement: "Governor Bill Walker and Lt. Governor Byron Mallott took office in December of 2014 as the first non-partisan administration in Alaska history". Mallott's official biography also contains pretty much the same statement.

The bottom line of all this is that both Walker and Mallott were on the ballot as independents and were elected as independents in 2014 and trying to claim otherwise flies in the face of NPOV. All I've asked for since they've taken office is for someone to provide a reliable, neutral source stating that Mallott is recognized as holding the office as a Democrat. To this day, no one has provided that source. Meanwhile, these same editors regularly alter the encyclopedia, continuing to attempt to pawn this off as fact regardless of the above evidence. There's also no "consistency" when in the case of other politicians, we give more weight to what happens on election night than we do to when they're actually sworn in, whereas here we're appearing to pay no attention to what actually happened in the election and giving more weight to who knows what else. This notice was prompted by the latest example of this courtesy of Therequiembellishere, as seen here. As is normally the case with this editor, this was done with no rationale offered whatsoever in the edit summary and with complete indifference to the rationale I offered in my prior edit summary on that page. There's also the matter of a frivolous party designation added to the attorney general's entry, as the holder of that office has never been identified by any particular party label in the course of their official duties, but that's a whole other matter. This same editor added the same information to this template in the form of a hidden comment in this edit before they even took office! The closest that any of these editors have come in validating these edits have been in the vague media references to Mallott as a Democrat and equally as vague references to the concept of a fusion ticket. If you care to look through Title 15 of the Alaska Statutes, which is the state's election law, you will see that the law specifically prohibits a write-in ticket for governor and lieutenant governor from having separate affiliations, but it doesn't prohibit that in the case of a ticket who made it onto the ballot via a nominating petition, as was the case here. Considering that, how come the Division of Elections links above don't refer to Mallott as a Democrat if the law allowed for such? In reality, it's because Mallott replaced a candidate (Craig Fleener) who got onto the ballot with Walker via a nominating petition as a nonpartisan ticket after the deadline for submitting signatures had passed, but before the deadline to substitute members of nominated tickets on the general election ballot had passed. That, combined with the first sentence of this last paragraph, is the key to this and key to dispelling the validity of these edits. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 10:26, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

@RadioKAOS:This is a big wall of text, any way maybe we could get a smaller executive summary here, perhaps? Sagecandor (talk) 01:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Undue weight Dispute[edit]

Talk:People's_Mujahedin_of_Iran#NLA_Infobox Two editors disagree about an infobox created for a section of the article and whether that violates Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight. The discussion about the NLA infobox hasn't been resolved. Wikipedia:Third opinion did not help either. Carpe765 (talk) 21:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@Carpe765:Could we get some links to changes made by edits to the article to show a brief summary of what went on recently in terms of activity and/or disruption? Sagecandor (talk) 01:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


Concerns about potential influx of Russian propaganda users[edit]

Concerns about influx of Russian propaganda accounts at article: Fake news website.

Background reading:

Examples of recent questionable edits:

  1. Removal of source saying propaganda was "a threat to democracy itself".
  2. Changed previous wording from "democratic values" to: ---> "Western institutions"
  3. Possibly playing against each other to foment chaos = one account cite tags everything in the lead, another removes citations from the lead.

More eyes would be helpful here.

Thank you! Sagecandor (talk) 23:27, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

You just covertly implied User:SashiRolls and User:Crossswords are "Russian propagandists" without pinging them as required when you open a discussion about someone. Simply pointing out their edits without mentioning them by name is not a work around. Given you've only been here a month and your twelfth lifetime edit was to leave a 3RR notice on someone's page, it seems more likely you're the nefarious influence who needs to be checked. LavaBaron (talk) 00:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Didn't mean to imply that. Do mean to imply more eyes on the page would be helpful. As would more eyes on the particular edits cited, above. Sagecandor (talk) 00:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
You obviously did imply it. Did you have another account before this one and are you now, or have you ever been, an American propagandist? LavaBaron (talk) 00:46, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know about these accusations LavaBaron. For the record, no, I'm not a "Russian propaganda user", just someone having their reputation smeared by a newbie who seems to know their way around Wikipedia very well after only three weeks of (admittedly constant) connection. SashiRolls (talk) 07:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
You're certainly welcome. Do not hesitate to let me know if you find yourself subject to any more of these outrageous personal attacks and McCarthyist scaremongering and need assistance. Prochnost! LavaBaron (talk) 07:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)