![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 55 | ← | Archive 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 | Archive 61 | Archive 62 | → | Archive 65 |
Omar Mateen, the killer responsible for the murders at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando was employed by G4S Secure Solutions. I agree that his employment there probably belongs in the article. One editor has been putting in extensive amounts of information about Mateen, from even before he worked for G4S, and things not really related to the company itself. An example of that would be this diff [1]. I edited a more streamlined version that talked about mostly about things the company was involved in and then put a hatnote to see the bio on Mateen. And example of my version would be this diff: [2]. I haven't posted the complete text here because one version is quite long. In the end, it's my position that the article about the company should be mainly about the company and that most of this material, about Mateen's conduct etc belongs in his bio. Another editor even suggested adding a mention about Mateen showing up as an extra in a movie??? Any opinions? Niteshift36 ( talk) 19:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
03:26, 1 July 2016 Niteshift36 (talk | contribs) . . (13,782 bytes) (-710) . . (Reverted to revision 727668335 by
13:43, 1 July 2016 Niteshift36 (talk | contribs) . . (15,455 bytes) (-1,737) . . (→Omar Mateen: stream lined to the high points. Extensive quotes can be found in the source)
18:26, 1 July 2016 Niteshift36 (talk | contribs) . . (15,457 bytes) (-2,398) . . (Reverted to revision 727847560 by XavierItzm (talk): There's nothing inappropriate about the edits. (TW))
20:14, 1 July 2016 Niteshift36 (talk | contribs) . . (15,738 bytes) (-2,194) . . (→Omar Mateen: Gilroy isn't notable and should be left out. It adds nothing to this and is best left to the source itself.) Activist ( talk) 23:39, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Please have a look at
User:J. Johnson 's edits in the article and consult the talk page, his wording and edit summaries.
User:J. Johnson is abusive. His comments are far from polite and he is off limits with the content. Have
this diff as a reference for his removing of sourced material and consult the talk page for POV pushing by muting sources without real justification. There is also
this comment by
User:Sitush that points exactly at what is being done there.--
Hlektron77 (
talk) 07:23, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Eidetic memory#WP:RfC: Should the article be strict in stating that photographic memory and eidetic memory are not the same thing?. A WP:Permalink is here. One issue is a Slate source vs. what some reliable book sources state. And the other is what to relay based on what all these sources say. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 19:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I've put a lot of work into Psychology of eating meat, and have ambitions to make it a GA. Editors have expressed concerns that it expresses an anti-meat POV; I can see their side, and especially since I happen to be vegan I want to be vigilant about NPOV. The article currently uses a lot of "pseudo-secondary" material cribbed from primary research papers' reviews of previous work; I was planning to go back and rewrite the article according to information in real review papers, hoping that would solve the problem.
Fortunately, several objectively good sources have recently been published. The following are the academic review articles or scholarly (not popular) books discussing psychological research on meat eating, from the past 5 years, published by mainstream academic journals or presses, that I could find:
Sources
|
---|
|
So, what's the problem? The first four sources make statements which seem to endorse the idea that there can be moral problems with eating meat. One quote each:
Quotes showing anti-meat perspectives
|
---|
|
My concern is that incorporating such sources could make the article "a cherry-picked nightmare of vegan-chauvinism opinions", or open it to that criticism in a GA review. But excluding MEDRS-compliant sources on the basis of their author's position seems contrary to WP:BIASED. Is there a good answer here? Of course I'm planning to WP:WFTE as much as is appropriate, but I'm not sure that will be enough. FourViolas ( talk) 02:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Research into meat consumption has risen in recent times, particularly in terms of cognitive dissonance investigation, from Ong et al (context discussing "moral concern for [meat] animals"). But, sorry for being unclear, I was hoping for advice specifically on how to treat the apparently-biased sources as I begin a general rewrite. FourViolas ( talk) 03:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I am not sure what to think of some videos being placed all over by the Simpleshow foundation. I am very concerned with OR and neutral POV with some of these clips. These clips have not been vented by anyone from what I can see. Not sure the child like format is what we are looking for aswell.....looking for more input here. !!! -- Moxy ( talk) 18:08, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
We need eyes on the page for the Huey P. Newton Gun Club. It's full of weasel words, red links, and reads like it was ripped from the group's website. I mean, look at this:
"The club was formed as a response to police terrorism, which garnered national attention in August 2014 for its "open carry patrols""
142.105.159.60 ( talk) 13:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Editors are suppressing reliable sources and editing based on their own unsourced opinions on the Assault rifle page, even summarily removing the POV tag against instructions. Editors are pushing an apocryphal "virgin birth" alternate-history of the assault rifle saying that the assault rifle was created from whole cloth in world war 2 germany. Editors are also making a zealously defending several other assertions that are bizarre and proven false, furthering this narrative, making it more and more convoluted. Editors are defending statements that the 7.92 kurz cartridge is revolutionary, and the first "intermediate cartridge". This is false. Editors are defending the statement that the StG-44 is the first rifle with an over the barrel gas system. This is false. Editors are defending statements that the assault rifle was first developed in germany in world war 2, this is subject to debate, and editors are suppressing edits the belie this narrative. TeeTylerToe ( talk) 14:25, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
A discussion that is a direct result of Talk:Kosher tax (antisemitic canard)#RfC: Does the title, hatnote, and lead of this article adhere to the neutral point of view policy? is taking place at Talk:Kosher tax (antisemitic canard)#Requested move 16 June 2016. Input was requested for that the RfC, and is also welcome at the requested move. Thank you, — Godsy( TALK CONT) 18:18, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
There's a dispute on Template:Sunni Islam. I believe WP:UNDUE mainly a "prominence of placement" issue as Traditionalist Theology or Athari is being presented along side the orthodox Sunni theologies ( Ash'ari and Maturidi). [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]
Traditionalist theology is followed by a minority who support the extreme right by rejecting reason as opposed to the Mutazila extreme leftist rationalists. Mainstream Sunnis have accepted the middle path by synthesizing reason/traditionalist views by producing Ash'ari/maturidi.
Traditionalist theology should be moved to the other bracket as not to come across as mainstream. [8] Traditionalist position is basically to oppose reason held by by Ash'ari/Maturidi therefore it can be termed anti school-school, that is just another reason why it may not even belong in the theology section but probably under movement. However Eperoton seems to imply that it doesn't matter in the discussion [9] Would like outside editor opinion on the matter. Misdemenor ( talk) 00:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
In this edit, [13] User:Denniss claims "false advertizing[sic] is a fact", but none of the sources in the article show anything other than an ongoing lawsuit. Google [ Nvidia GTX 970 Graphics Chip Litigation ] for details. It looks like the case is ongoing, with the latest filing two days ago. [14] We should not use Wikipedia's voice to accuse Nvidia of false advertising when no court has returned a verdict on the issue.
Normally I would try to discuss this with the editor in question before posting here, but his edit history shows many many reverts and no substantive discussion about any of them other than an occasional word or two on his talk page, and often not even that, so I don't see any point in trying. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 22:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
A strange article with large chunks of unsourced, essay-style, overly-positive content. This material was recently restored by the long term contributor; I reverted but would appreciate some eyes on the article. The discussion of the revert can be found at Talk:Frank S. Welsh.
Yes, I was reverted. The editor also removed the cleanup tags. K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
The Death of Osama Bin Laden article contains a " legality" section reviewing positions on the legality of the killing under U.S. and international law. I recently added the views of Benjamin B. Ferencz, and this addition was removed by Glrx.
Ferencz was chief prosecutor of the Einsatzgruppen trial in the Nuremberg trials, advocated for the creation of the International Criminal Court and recently received the Harvard Law School medal of freedom. His comments on the legality of Bin Laden's killing were reported by the BBC ( [20]), The Guardian ( [21]), The Week Magazine ( [22]), CBC News and UK's Channel 4. He also published a short letter in The New York Times ( [23]). Ferencz is a notable jurist, his views were reported by high quality media, and similar views are held by other scholars (e.g. Philippe Sands, Professor of Laws and Director of the Centre on International Courts and Tribunals at UCL).
Glrx argues that Ferencz's position violates WP:DUE since the Nuremberg trials were "years ago," his view is held by an "extremely small minority," and Ferencz's legal position is "not concrete." Glrx further argues that Ferencz's position is "speculative" and lastly states, "You need better sources if you want to imply that Obama, Clinton, Holder, Brennan, Panetta, McRaven or seals are guilty of murder."
I believe this position is highly tendentious: the section titled "Legality" is meant to document views on the legality of Bin Laden's killing, and Ferencz's is one such notable view. I'd like further input because I believe editing with the purpose of defending a list of people from theoretical prosecution would require an inherently prejudiced, rather than neutral review of the killing's legality. - Darouet ( talk) 22:10, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
There are multiple NPOV complaints about the article on Heath W. Lowry. One editor thinks the article is too critical of Lowry, another thinks the article gives too much credit to Lowry's research and opinions. I think this version of the article is fairly neutral.
Specifically, a dispute has arisen over this edit. The editor claims that these changes will improve the neutrality of the article, which gives too much credit to Lowry's claims and research as it is now. However, the information is factual and well-referenced, and it does not overly represent Lowry's work as the academic consensus on the subject. In fact, the criticism section is fairly detailed and well-documented, so it's not as if an average reader will miss the fact that Lowry's conclusions have been contested. Lowry is also already categorized as an Armenian genocide denier.
Additionally, I think the editor's recent editing history suggests WP:POVPUSH. These edits include mass deletion of information on biographical pages within the Armenian genocide denier Category with the same copy-pasted explanation "too much weight placed on revisionism not taken seriously". -- Iamozy ( talk) 18:57, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
I am neither Turkish nor Armenian and have never edited on this subject, but looking at this contested edit, I agree with Iamozy and Resnjari's concern. My favorite WP:LAW of Wikipedia is Raul's razor: "An article is neutral if, after reading it, you cannot tell where the author's sympathies lie." While it may have some virtues, the edit in question advances its sympathies powerfully and unnecessarily.
Take for instance the opinions of historians Michael M. Gunter and Alan Fisher. The previous version quoted both directly as they questioned the notion that Lowry worked for the Turkish government. The previous version concludes, "However, [Lowry] continues to believe that the loss of Armenian life during WWI fails to fit the definition of "genocide," and that his conclusions are supported by his research." As readers we have been informed of Lowry's opinion and of some scholarly opinions defending him. Fine.
Lasort101's edit removes all this entirely and simply writes, "Lowry admitted in an interview that the letter to the Ambassador was a mistake. However, he continues to deny the genocide."
I think the Armenian genocide is real and should be called this. However, the text as edited teaches me less about Lowry's views, about conceptions of his work, and is written from an explicitly partisan framework (e.g. rather than quote Lowry stating that Armenian deaths fail to meet the definition of genocide, instead state in Wikipedia's voice that he is a genocide denier). It also presumes that as a reader, I'm too stupid to learn of scholarly discussion on the topic and should be spoonfed one particular point of view. The fact that anyone would think this is necessary seriously calls into question the intellectual rigor of their position.
Nationalist, partisan editing weakens both the encyclopedia and the editing environment, by forcing editors into ideological camps instead of encouraging them to neutrally describe the often contradictory and complicated views of various reliable sources. - Darouet ( talk) 13:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
It is wrongly assumed that scholars who are specialized in a field have a notability independent from the institutions they are affiliated with. Basically here, the criticisms are specific to his affiliations (Turkey funded departments or chairs) in the same manner as the criticisms of the said majority view are not particularly directed against a scholar but rather the institutions (or positions) they represent. Just checking the material from several articles and talkpages, this confirms it. Examples include Taner Akçam or Vahakn Dadrian and their affiliations with the Zoryan Institute (Armenian studies). We should therefor be careful for that matter when quoting scholars independently from their affiliations, because by doing such we might mislead the reader.
I do agree with Darouet, but I have to clarify on what is full disclosure. It is relevant to include Michael M. Gunter, but the reader ought to know somehow that he has an admitted bias in his book (on the subject) which was meant to present the Turkish position regarding the Armenian claims of genocide during World War I and the continuing debate over this issue (Source: Armenian History and the Question of Genocide, by Michael M. Gunter. New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2011. p. ix). Guenter Lewy shall remain in this article as agreeing with Heath Lowry, but his declaration of bias (which ought to be mentioned) was already reveled in the 70s with his terming of the war crime industry (America in Vietnam. New York-Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1978.), along with the fact that his treatment (besides his answers after the accusations) of all other war crimes (besides the Holocaust), all ended up without the G-word; and that he was considered in an article as one of the few remaining adherents of the uniqueness (of the Holocaust) [24] It is understandable that some scholars might consider the tragedy of their own people as Unique (ethnocentric bias), I am not judging him, just mentioning that we can not just throw names without full disclosure of their affiliation, as if scholars have a notability outside of their institutions, affiliations, etc.
See what is the solution Darouet? Uses of terms such as deniers, canards paint a picture, they introduce unnecessary bias, the whole picture is sufficient to immunize articles from bias. Yaḥyā ( talk) 18:33, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Could we have some more eyes on this article? For the past week I've been attempting to monitor this page to keep it within wiki standards. Most recently a section titled " Racist emails" was added. I haven't looked too closely at these additions yet (from what I can tell it appears to be sourced), but I'd appreciate the extra help. FallingGravity ( talk) 08:04, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Many articles on German military men of the World War II era contain verbatim quotations from German Armed Forces High Command's communiques, the Wehrmachtbericht. It's based on the (inherently unreliable) war-time Nazi propaganda, and I believe does not belong in the articles on this basis alone. But I'm not sure what Wikipedia policy may be applicable. Could someone more knowledgeable clarify?
This appears to be either WP:NPOV or extensive quoting from a WP:Primary source. Or perhaps this is WP:NOR? Please see example 1 or example 2. Please also see discussion and more examples at Wehrmachtbericht transcript, take 2, on the Field Marshal Rommel's talk page. Thank you. K.e.coffman ( talk) 21:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
@ K.e.coffman: You make a very good observation ïn the talk page about Rommel: "Articles on Allied military units and individuals don't include the text of mentions in dispatches or communiques, and rightly so." As I see it, these are the possibilities for quoting the Wehrmachtbericht in the future:
I do not think it is best to delete the existing quotations. Content would be lost which had to be gleaned from a German source and then translated. (There are alternatives, like moving the quotations to Wikisource.) Roches ( talk) 18:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Date | Original German Wehrmachtbericht wording | Direct English translation |
---|---|---|
Saturday, 22 June 1940 | In den Kämpfen der letzten Tage haben sich durch unerschrockenen Einsatz in kühnen Einzeltaten besonders hervorgetan: der Oberst und Kommandeur einer Schützenbrigade Neumann-Silkow, der Oberleutnant und Chef einer Reiterschwadron Freiherr von Boeselager, der Leutnant Michael in einem Reiterregiment und der Leutnant Meder in einer Panzerjägerabteilung.] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup ( help) [1] | In the fighting in recent days, in fearless action in bold individual acts have particularly excelled: the colonel and commander of a rifle brigade Neumann-Silkow, the lieutenant and chief of a cavalry squadron Freiherr von Boeselager, the Lieutenant Michael in a cavalry regiment and the Lieutenant Meder in an anti-tank battalion. |
1 September 1944 (Addendum) | In den schweren Abwehrkämpfen zwischen Bug und Narew hat sich die 3. Kavallerie-Brigade durch unermüdlichen Angriffsschwung und Härte ausgezeichnet. An ihrer Spitze fand der bereits Anfang 1942 mit dem Eichenlaub zum Ritterkreuz ausgezeichnete 28jährige Brigadekommandeur Oberstleutnant Georg Freiherr von Boeselager den Heldentod. Sein im gleichen Frontabschnitt kämpfender Bruder, Ritterkreuzträger Major Freiherr von Boeslager, hat sich erneut durch höchste Tapferkeit hervorgetan] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup ( help) [2] | In heavy defensive fighting between the Bug and Narew has the 3rd Cavalry Brigade particularly excelled by showing relentless momentum and hardness. In the lead, already in 1942 decorated with the Oak Leaves to the Knight's Cross, the 28-year-old brigade commander, Lieutenant Colonel Georg Freiherr von Boeselager found a heroic death. His in the same sector of the front fighting brother, Knight's Cross bearer Major Freiherr von Boeselager, again excelled with highest bravery. |
Date | Original German Wehrmachtbericht wording | Direct English translation |
---|---|---|
5 July 1944 | Südlich Minsk kämpfen sich unsere Verbände weiter zurück. Nordwestlich der Stadt wurden heftige Angriffe der Bolschewisten abgewiesen. Hier schoß eine Panzerkampfgruppe unter Führung des Generalleutnants von Saucken in beweglicher Kampfführung in der Zeit vom 27. Juni bis 3. Juli 232 feindliche Panzer ab.] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup ( help) [3] | In retreat, our units keep fighting back south of Minsk. Northwest of the city the violent attacks of the Bolsheviks were repulsed. Here an armoured battle group, under the leadership of Lieutenant General von Saucken, destroyed in mobile warfare in the period from 27 June to 3 July 232 enemy tanks. |
9 May 1945 | Dem Oberbefehlshaber, General der Panzertruppe von Saucken, wurden als Anerkennung für die vorbildliche Haltung seiner Soldaten die Brillanten zum Eichenlaub mit Schwertern zum Ritterkreuz des Eisernen Kreuzes verliehen.] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup ( help) [4] | The commander-in-chief, General of Panzer Troops von Saucken was awarded the Diamonds to the Oak Leaves with Swords to the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross in recognition of the exemplary attitude of his soldiers. |
Date | Original German Wehrmachtbericht wording | Direct English translation |
---|---|---|
Thursday, 10 April 1940 | Die militärischen Maßnahmen zum Schutz der Neutralität von Dänemark und Norwegen wurden am 9. April von starken Einheiten des Heeres, der Kriegsmarine und die Luftwaffe unter dem Oberbefehl des Generals der Infanterie von Falkenhorst, von Seestreitkräften unter dem Befehl des Generaladmirals Saalwächter und des Admirals Carls und von zahlreichen Verbänden der Luftwaffe unter Führung des Generalleutnants Geißler in engster Zusammenarbeit durchgeführt.] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup ( help) [5] | The military measures for the protection of the neutrality dubious – discuss of Denmark were carried out on 9 April from strong units in close cooperation of the Heer, the Kriegsmarine and the Luftwaffe under the high command of General of the Infantry von Falkenhorst, of naval forces under the command of Generaladmiral Saalwächter and Admiral Rolf Carls and from numerous Luftwaffe units under the leadership of Generalleutnant Geißler (sic). |
Date | Original German Wehrmachtbericht wording | Direct English translation |
---|---|---|
Friday, 31 October 1941 | Von deutschen und rumänischen Truppen scharf verfolgt, ist der Feind auf der Krim in voller Flucht. Damit haben die langen und schweren Durchbruchskämpfe ihre Krönung gefunden, mit denen die Infanteriedivisionen der Armee des Generals der Infanterie von Manstein im Verein mit dem Fliegerkorps des Generalleutnants Pflugbeil die schmale Landengen bezwungen haben, die zur Halbinsel führen.] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup ( help) [6] | Sharply pursued by German and Romanian troops, the enemy in the Crimea is in full retreat. With this, the long and heavy breakthrough battles have found their coronation. The infantry divisions of the army of General of Infantry von Manstein in conjunction with the Air Corps of Lieutenant General Pflugbeil have concurred the narrow isthmus leading to the peninsula. |
Saturday, 30 May 1942 | Die Luftwaffenverbände des Generalobersten Löhr und des Generals der Flieger Pflugbeil unterstützten in schonungslosem Einsatz die Kämpfe des Heeres in der Abwehr wie im Angriff und schlugen die feindliche Luftwaffe aus dem Felde.] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup ( help) [7] | The Luftwaffe forces under the leadership of Generoberst Löhr and General der Flieger Pflugbeil supported in ruthless commitment the defensive as well as offensive combat of the Army and forced the enemy air force from the battle area. |
Date | Original German Wehrmachtbericht wording | Direct English translation |
---|---|---|
18 August 1944 | Soldaten aller Wehrmachtteile, unter ihrem Kommandanten Oberst von Aulock, haben hier dem Ansturm stärkster feindliche Kräfte in fast dreiwöchigem heldenhaftem Ringen standgehalten und dem Gegner hohe blutige Verluste fügt.] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup ( help) [8] | Soldiers of all Wehrmacht branches under their commander Oberst von Aulock, have resisted here strong enemy forces in nearly three weeks' heroic struggle and have inflicted high, bloody casualties on the enemy. |
References
Ping @ David Tornheim and Zero0000: -- wanted to clarify that the transcripts are not used as a source; they are reproduced within the articles as shown above. K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Comment - without comments or interpretations by neutral secondary sources, how do we know what (if anything) in the quotations from or claims in Wehrmachtbericht has truth to it? And if those comments or interpretations exist, why do we need the Wehrmachtbericht quotations and claims at all? I have seen a similar problem in relation to articles on decorated Azerbaijani soldiers - all the source material regarding their decoration is heavily propagandized, yet such articles cannot be deleted because there are Wikipedia rules that say a soldier receiving a military decoration at a certain level has an automatic level of notability that justifies an article (even if there is no content to put in the article because there are no suitable sources). I think this rule should be changed and that unless neutral secondary sources have commented on the award or on the military activities of the subject there should be no such automatic acceptance of notability. Tiptoethrutheminefield ( talk) 15:54, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
An editor recently added an NPOV hat note to the article
Antisemitic canard for unclear reasons. Several editors have tried to clarify
on the talkpage, but the another editor added the hat note without clarifying explaining despite the consensus thus far that there is not an NPOV issue. The best I can tell,
Godsy feels it's not neutral to claim in WP's voice that the topics addressed in this article are canards (hoaxes/myths). I'm not sure if that's an accurate interpretation of Godsy's issue with the article and we have no idea how Twinsday, the editor who added the hat note, feels. I wanted to get more input here before removing the hat note. Thoughts?
—PermStrump
(talk) 02:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
This has little to do with whatever or not sources are reliable. It just doesn't seem right to start the lede by stating those are false and go on with a list of things (it's more of a thesis than an encyclopedic article). The neutral stance would be to at least mention that those are generally viewed as false by scholars. There are also controversial titles like (but not limited to) Accusation of anti-Christian bias or Dual loyalty: ethno-centric bias are common among any groups and Jews aren't immune to that. Yaḥyā ( talk) 13:10, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
This has little to do with whatever or not sources are reliable." WP:NPOV only has to do with what reliable sources say. —PermStrump (talk) 18:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, Modern catholicism does imply some form of anti-Islam and vis versa... (this supports my point) also, there is no such thing as solely false claims. Those are claims which are considered as false by majority of scholars (that's different). MrX do you really need citations for the statement above? All self-identification with a particular ethnic group requires a form of ethnic-centricism.
To Only in death, be it historical or not, it is one thing to claim it false and another to stat it has been revisited in most published literature as false! I think we are diverting from the initial question here. The real issue is that we don't get to decide what is true or what is false. Yaḥyā ( talk) 18:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
MrX, I think I was clear that I do believe the POV tag goes there and the last time I have checked, there is none. The issue can not be resoled unless there is consensus. And would you please specify what is the original research in question?
Someguy, I have some difficulty following you. I do agree with your central argument (You are correct, we don't get to decide what is true or false.). But lets quote the lede again: An antisemitic canard is a false story inciting antisemitism. I am merely quoting the lede to make my point. Just right there it fails the basics... according to whom (source attribution) the arbitrary selection provided as canards are false? This has nothing to do with my opinions being injected in the article. Yaḥyā ( talk) 20:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Someguy, again, that's tautological! On top of that we're engaged in a circular discussion. Like I have clarified, my criticism has absolutely nothing to do with the subject itself. It is not my opinion (because nowhere have I stated I believed this, you assumed)that the falsehood of the canards is not a fact. Neither that it is my opinion that is being excluded from the article. I didn't even read the article past the lede and the sections titles. And any comments I have raised have to do with both, not anything else. Yaḥyā ( talk) 20:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Come on someguy, these are straw man arguments. Why am I under the impression that a false dichotomy is being created here? My comment on ethnocentricism was an answer to some specific titles of subcategories, your conclusions (mostly implied) from them are non-sequitur when considering under which context they were made. I clarified with the following which you have excluded from your selections: All self-identification with a particular ethnic group requires a form of ethnic-centricism. The point being made there is that those titles can certainly not be just tagged as false. Besides, minority or fringe theories technically should not be described as false, this goes against editorial policy (which requires some form of source attribution). If the overwhelming majority of scholars endorse a position, this should be reported as such and sources should be provided. Going from there to claim false is logically fallacious ( Argument from authority). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yahya Talatin ( talk • contribs) 22:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply Darouet. The calculated age of Earth is like an institutional solipsism (relying entirely on unstable constructs as its foundations)... claiming it as fact without attribution is therefor a logical fallacy. I would point out that scholarship is leaning towards a constructivist model of [even hard] science (with all its epistemological implications). It was maybe a mistake from my part to target one article for something which seems so widespread on Wikipedia. I will find a more appropriate medium to defend my point. Yaḥyā ( talk) 15:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please see Conlan Press, where Rosscoe99 recently expanded the page greatly to something that I'd consider heavily non-neutral (bordering on an attack page, really). I reverted them but was reverted again. Could we have some more eyes on it and discussion on the talk page? ~ Rob13 Talk 04:18, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We have been over it many times in the Talk page and getting nowhere, so I am seeking other opinions. At present Electronic_harassment is written in the majority view which is to say: "The experience of TIs are hallucinations and the explanations arise from delusional disorders or psychosis." (TIs being people who believe they are subject to covert targeting.) This assumes the psychiatric opinion as fact. However, there has been a significant Washington Post article on TIs, Mind Games, which, it seems to me, says that there may be something really happening to these people, that they may not be deluded. I would like to see the EH article incorporate what I see as the opinion of the Washington Post, which for starters would not have written such an article if they thought that TIs were entirely delusional, they would have written an article on a disturbing mass delusion. There are many points made in that article, and the two other similar articles cited, that support the view that, whilst the article should state the psychiatric opinion it should only state it as an opinion, not as a fact. I will go through the points from those three articles one at a time if that is necessary. Jed Stuart ( talk) 03:39, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Girard's description of himself is matter-of-fact, until he explains what's in the bag: documents he believes prove that the government is attempting to control his mind. He carries that black, weathered bag everywhere he goes. 'Every time I go out, I'm prepared to come home and find everything is stolen,' he says.
The bag aside, Girard appears intelligent and coherent. At a table in front of Dunkin' Donuts inside the train station, Girard opens the bag and pulls out a thick stack of documents, carefully labeled and sorted with yellow sticky notes bearing neat block print. The documents are an authentic-looking mix of news stories, articles culled from military journals and even some declassified national security documents that do seem to show that the U.S. government has attempted to develop weapons that send voices into people's heads.
'It's undeniable that the technology exists,' Girard says, 'but if you go to the police and say, 'I'm hearing voices,' they're going to lock you up for psychiatric evaluation.'"
The Washington Post obviously is of the opinion that Girard might not be crazy and is giving him the space to say that he thinks the government is doing something to him. This surely is saying that the WP is of the opinion that it is an open question not definite evidence of delusions? My first attempt to post the above led to it disappearing on clicking "Save Page" Jed Stuart ( talk) 04:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Writing an encyclopedia is hard. To do anywhere near a decent job, you have to know a great deal of information about an incredibly wide variety of subjects. Writing so much text is difficult, but doing all the background research seems impossible.
On the other hand, everyone has a bunch of obscure things that, for one reason or another, they’ve come to know well. So they share them, clicking the edit link and adding a paragraph or two to Wikipedia. At the same time, a small number of people have become particularly involved in Wikipedia itself, learning its policies and special syntax, and spending their time tweaking the contributions of everybody else.
Other encyclopedias work similarly, just on a much smaller scale: a large group of people write articles on topics they know well, while a small staff formats them into a single work. This second group is clearly very important — it’s thanks to them encyclopedias have a consistent look and tone — but it’s a severe exaggeration to say that they wrote the encyclopedia. One imagines the people running Britannica worry more about their contributors than their formatters.
Pseudoscientific theories are presented by proponents as science, but characteristically fail to adhere to scientific standards and methods. Conversely, by its very nature, scientific consensus is the majority viewpoint of scientists towards a topic. Thus, when talking about pseudoscientific topics, we should not describe these two opposing viewpoints as being equal to each other.
.Increasingly there are indications that the uses of wireless technologies have been developed to target an individual’s biological body, with specific focus upon the neuronal functioning of the brain. In this paper I examine how some of these uses have had detrimental effects, and what this implies for both present and upcoming developments for particular wireless/sensor technologies. I consider whether this is not shifting dangerously towards a psycho–civilised society, where greater emphasis is placed upon social control and pre–emptive strategies. [..] Examples of unplanned attacks on the body’s data–processing capability are well–documented’. He (referring to Military strategist Timothy Thomas) references a Russian military article on the same subject which declared that “‘humanity stands on the brink of a psychotronic war’ with the mind and body as the focus”. [..] The “data” the body receives from external sources — such as electromagnetic, vortex, or acoustic energy waves — or creates through its own electrical or chemical stimuli can be manipulated or changed just as the data (information) in any hardware system can be altered. [..] Documented and declassified evidence shows that what may have begun as a program in standardized propaganda and psychological warfare has now developed into research on wireless information targeting and ‘psychocivilized’ control practices. To this effect the term ‘psycho–terrorism’ was coined by Anisimov of the Moscow Anti–Psychotronic Center and Anisimov admits to testing such devices as are said to ‘take away a part of the information which is stored in a man’s brain. [..] Although neurotechnologies are likely to be put to therapeutic and medical uses, such as for improving emotional stability and mental clarity, they also open opportunities for intrusive strategies of control and manipulation. [..] Part of this paper has been focused on the dangers of an increasingly wireless world. These dangers may include the potential for invasive technologies, based upon transmitted/received signals and wavelengths, to shift social order towards a psycho–civilized society. By psycho–civilised I mean a society that manages and controls social behaviour predominantly through non–obvious methods of psychological manipulations, yet at a level far beyond that of the ‘normalised’ social manipulations of propaganda and social institutions. What I refer to are the technologised methods of psychological interference and privacy intrusions in the manner of creating a docile and constrained society. [..] What are the moral and ethical implications of using wireless scanning surveillance technologies for evaluating pre–emptive behaviour based on thoughts and intentions alone? Is this not a dangerous path towards psycho–terrorising the social public? As Thomas (1998) reminds us, the mind has no firewall, and is thus vulnerable to viruses, Trojan horses, and spam. It is also vulnerable to hackers, cyber–terrorists, and state surveillance. Whilst this may sound a little too far out, they are reasonable questions to ask if technologies are racing ahead of us in order to better get into our heads. [..] This may herald the coming of a ‘wonderful wireless world’, yet it may also signal unforeseen dangers in protection, privacy, and security of the human biological body within these new relationships.
Pretty obvious. Have a good day all, especially Jed though. Note: I'm open to debate majority and minority viewpoints as well as about their weight. But remember you can't write an article on tobacco or alcoholic beverages without giving them hystorical perspective and touching upon production and the harmful health effects. Some things are just too obvious that maybe can slip out of our minds, but they shouldn't. Also, you don't give the same weight to the chance of Political repression via emerging technologies (not pseudoscience) and the chance of being abducted by aliens. 87.6.112.110 ( talk) 09:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)the inquiry into ethics necessarily follows into politics
I have challenged the editors block at Talk:Electronic Harassment to come here and state their case for violating NPOV as described. It seems to me they have only come here to cast aspersions on my behaviour rather than address the issue. I asked them again and here is my statement and their reply:
"So are any of you going to put up a case for stating the psychiatric/psychology opinion as fact? So far it has been: I am inexperienced, I am pushing a Fringe theory, an SPA, etc. None of you has yet stated that you think the NPOV policy "Avoid stating opinions as facts." should not apply when the opinion is of a well established mainstream institution and the other opinion is just a minority alternative view. You have continually thrown up the NPOV policy article as if it justifies your position, but you fail to say why you think that is so at the NPOV noticeboard. It is not about me, it is about stating the psychiatric opinion as fact. If you don't clearly make your case soon I will attempt to make the change. Jed Stuart ( talk) 05:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, you did indeed try again, in classic sea lion fashion. And, once again, you failed miserably, because your argument contradicts the policy ( WP:NPOV) you selectively quoted. The relevant section of WP:NPOV is WP:PSCI, which clearly says:
I hope this helps but I know that it won't. Please drop the stick. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 06:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
To 149.254.224.221: False equivalency. The fact that other flat things exist is not evidence for a flat earth that violates the laws of physics. Likewise the fact that directed-energy weapons exist is is not evidence for a mind control device that violates the laws of physics. Every directed-energy weapon works by emitting some form of electromagnetic radiation, be it microwaves, infrared lasers, or X-Rays. Electromagnetic radiation is easily detected. Likewise, all of the non-energy weapons use the some sort of matter, whether it be air vibrating (acoustic weapons) germs, gas, or the kinetic energy of a bullet or bomb. NO UNDECTABLE MIND CONTROL TECHNOLOGY EXISTS. If a mind control technology did exist, I or any other competent engineer would be able to detect and measure the output of the alleged weapon, just as we can with any other weapon.
To Jed Stuart: Go away. The next time you post your theory that the professional opinions of mental-health professionals are no more valid that the untrained opinions of the delusional people they treat, I will bring this to WP:ANI and ask for a topic ban. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 00:04, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
WP:Neutral Point of View is a matter of WP:Verifiability and WP:No Original Research, especially on medical claims. So it's not clear, how the article can be so supportive of the psychiatric opinion. If I read all the sources and put them in context according to content policies and guidelines and then read the article I find it embarrassing. There is no space to state the claimants of electronic harassment are delusional as a fact, not to mention tagging the article as related to pseudoscience.. it's a conspiracy theory and there's no point in fast-fowarding to debunk it. 149.254.234.126 ( talk) 12:46, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I have re-opened this discussion. I don't accept 'its boring' is a valid reason for closure coming from someone who has not been a participant. If its boring then don't read it. It is a serious discussion about what some of us believe to be a serious policy violation potentially having serious impacts on the lives of TIs. It is not here for Begoon's entertainment. Jed Stuart ( talk) 05:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC) I have re-opened a second time. That closure was also done by someone on the other side of this dispute. That is not acceptable in my view. I would accept a truly uninvolved editor closing it if given good enough reason. This is just abuse of process/sabotage. @ Johnuniq:. Jed Stuart ( talk) 03:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes I am not a wikipedian & I probably do this wrong.
There are 2 articles on wiki on a subject that is VERY much disputed. in /info/en/?search=Adolf_Hitler_and_vegetarianism it is being disputed WITH references that Hitler was actually a vegetarian ..
But on /info/en/?search=List_of_vegetarians he is in the table bluntly saying that he was. Though one who CHOOSES to eat meat is actually NOT one. I am not sdaying he should be deleted totally from that page; but Hitler should be on the Disputed List.
It cannot be that 1 page has references saying he ate animals & another page saying he was a vegetarian: vegetarians do NOT eat dead animals - I'm sure we can all agree on that ..
Referring to what I wrote there:
on the wiki page /info/en/?search=Adolf_Hitler_and_vegetarianism it is disputed that he was a vegetarian, WITH sources - so HOW can it be that another wiki page does NOT recognise the sources that are recognised there!? It makes no sense & thus you make no sense above. 2 wiki pages on the same subject say something different. YOU have an agenda on this subject & thus by wiki-law you should not even be editing this page, right? You cannot deny that Hitler's vegetarianism is being disputerd WIDEly: thus he can NOT be on the vegetarians list of UNdisputed ones! I am not talking about a little broth that his cook slipped into his meals. When Hitler CHOSE his liver dumplings & fried pigeons to eat, and when he CHOSE to have his last meal WITH meat, NOONE slipped it onto his plate withOUT him knowing! Whe you CHOOSE to eat an animal corpse you choose to NOT be vegetarian: that is nothing UNintentional. So, either THIS wiki page in unreliable; OR the other page is .. So, the only thing I am stating is that Hitler should be on the Disputed list. His vegetarianism is being DISPUTED by one of your own pages! -With MORE than 1 reference on that page! Moreover, when yr docters tell you to eat vegetarian for your healthg (& you then don't) you are NOT a vegetarian ..
If you look at the EditHistory it is clearly obvious that this Betty Logan has an agenda: to KEEP Hitler being mentioned as a vegetarian; but he/she accuses OTHERS of having an opposite agenda - by her edits in the past over this subject several Wikipedians have even stopped being active on wiki because of it. Agenda!
I am not a wikipedian; but if you take your board / platform seriously - then this subject should be clear: Hitler's 'vegetarianism' IS disputed. On your own pages. Referenced. Noone can deny that. Oh yeah well Betty Logan can .. ridiculous! 83.232.236.169 ( talk) 08:13, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
So IF you REALLY want him anywhere on that page, he should be listed as a DISPUTED vegetarian ..
Period 83.232.236.169 ( talk) 11:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
"According to Ilse Hess, in 1937 Hitler ceased eating all meat except for liver dumplings,[12] an account that Dr. Kalechofsky found "consistent with other descriptions of Hitler's diet, which always included some form of meat, whether ham, sausages or liver dumplings."[18] Frau Hess's comments are also backed up by several biographies about Hitler, with Fritz Redlich noting that Hitler "avoided any kind of meat, with the exception of an Austrian dish he loved, Leberknödl (liver dumpling)".[19] Thomas Fuchs concurred, observing that a "typical day's consumption included eggs prepared in any number of ways, spaghetti, baked potatoes with cottage cheese, oatmeal, stewed fruits and vegetable puddings. Meat was not completely excluded. Hitler continued to eat a favourite dish, Leberkloesse (liver dumplings)." [20]"
I don't seem to recall offhand when this article was started, and I think it used to be Christianity and Freemasonry. Here's the problem: it is sourced, but it's skewed, not only in the title, but it basically says in the lede "not every Christian denomination objects to Freemasonry", but the article itself is basically saying "but we're going to ignore what we said and only go into extreme detail about the ones that do and why" because that's all that the article is actually about in the end. There's no way this is NPOV, and it's no longer a subset article as it used to be. As far as I'm concerned, it is both skirting the rules, and wholly negative, while admitting that it is not an accurate representation of the situation. It's been tagged for almost ten years, and I think it is high time that it was reviewed and dealt with one way or the other, but I don't think it's ever been compliant, and the title change simply made it worse. MSJapan ( talk) 18:18, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
At Walmart, a user responded to JLD at Walmart's request to remove negative information about some of Walmart's policies, in this edit. Chaheel Riens believes that the discussion of the effects of the company's policies which I included is excessively detailed for an article about the company. I disagree, and believe that it is necessary to briefly discuss the effects of the controversial policies as they appear in media sources. I am interested to get outside opinions. -- Sammy1339 ( talk) 18:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
"...the birds will be alotted between 1 and 1.5 square feet each, a stressful arrangement which causes cannibalism. Hens raised in such systems have much higher overall mortality rates than those raised in battery cages.The shift also introduces new environmental and worker health problems."which was actually in reference to the new method, but the tone is much more accusatory and decisive than the way it's covered in the sources. If it were to be included, IMO it needs a tone check and in-text attribution instead of using WP's voice since it's contentious. —PermStrump (talk) 00:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Concerning the page David Packouz (tied with the War Dogs movie). There have been some recent edits to Mr Packouz's page that are extremely disturbing, and the page is becoming very self-promotional. The page for this individual is also poorly written, as general. The sources also do not claim what they say they do - for instance, see source [1], which does not mention "entrepreneur" nor "inventor". Source [9] does not mention music technology. The entire article reads like an advertisement. Please read through the page which is not very long and discuss as to the best course of action. Specifically the first parageaph and the Beat Buddy section. I have also posted in Reliable source noticeboard, as the page is not reliable at all. Thank you kindly. -- Asenathson ( talk) 16:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
At Pegida, Dr.K. and Gun Powder Ma have insisted on keeping language removed by Volunteer Marek implying, in Wikipedia's voice, that Pegida wants to:
Their explanations are that 1) the supporting BBC source justifies the language and "does not include all muslims," and 2) that we don't qualify the grievances of Black Lives Matter, and so shouldn't qualify those of Pegida.
This language is an illegitimate endorsement of Pegida's views through Wikipedia's voice, and the arguments in favor are utter hogwash. The BBC source does not state that some muslims "refuse to integrate," and explicitly describes "Islamic extremism" in terms of Pegida's views, not those of the BBC.
I've made a post at Talk:Pegida and would appreciate outside scrutiny here and there. - Darouet ( talk) 19:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Their explanations are that 1) the supporting BBC source justifies the language and "does not include all muslims," and 2) that we don't qualify the grievances of Black Lives Matter, and so shouldn't qualify those of Pegida.
"It is against "anti-women political ideology that emphasises violence" but "not against integrated Muslims living here".". It is clear therefore that Pegida does not view all Muslims as refusing to integrate. But the edit you restored says that "...particularly for Muslims whom it views as refusing to integrate." Can you see the difference in the meaning between the two sentences? Perhaps a better sentence could be: ""particularly for those Muslims whom it views as refusing to integrate." or something equivalent. Dr. K. 22:51, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
A more serious npov issue is the unqualified use of the label "far-right political movement" in the article's lede. Such political labels are culture specific and are entirely pov in nature. As a source that is used in the article states "By the standards of the European right, however, Pegida’s proposals for dealing with such problems hardly seem radical. ... “In Idaho this would be mainstream,” says Gerald Praschl, the political editor of the most popular weekly tabloid in the former East Germany. “But here it is considered right wing.”" Tiptoethrutheminefield ( talk) 03:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
While the issues are being discussed on the Donald Trump talk page, I want to make note of it here as several editors have tried to remove the POV tag without consensus. Gouncbeatduke ( talk) 01:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
References
This is not the first time Trump has been forced to disavow or distance himself from anti-Semitic or white supremacist connections... Leaders of his own party were publicly appalled. Trump eventually tweeted an official disavowal and blamed a faulty earpiece for his initial response. But anti-Semitic and white nationalist rhetoric has continued to dog the candidate. Trump has been accused of knowingly whipping up racist sentiment among his supporters. He denies it but declines to explain how anti-Semitic memes keeping making their way into his own tweets.
WP:UNDUE says to include POVs (and, by extension, facts) "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."
When a notable shooting occurs, it makes sense (to me, at least) to mention it in related articles, such as in the history of the place where the shooting occurred, and, of course, the article on the firearm used. Often, these notorious crimes are what make a firearm notable outside the closed world of firearms enthusiasts. They may be the only time that a gun is discussed in mainstream media or academic sources. However some editors insist that even major shootings cannot be mentioned in the articles about the guns used. For example, this text, for the SIG MCX article. It is supported by 14 citations to reliable sources that specifically talk about its use in the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting. Yet it gets deleted. [38]
Arguments against it on the talk page label it as "trivia", while not objecting to minute and unsourced specifications of the gun and its variants that are in the article. Another argument says that WP:DUE and WP:BALASPS actually prohibit any mention of the shooting. I think that a notable crime like this isn't trivial, that it's more important to the history and notability of the gun than any other details in the article, and that WP:DUE says that material like this should be included. FWIW, the editors who oppose it have refused to participate in dispute resolution or mediation. Am I wrong? Felsic2 ( talk) 20:07, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Long established consensus is that this is not to be included in firearm articles", referring to WP:WikiProject Firearms. The latter Felsic2 rejects as being only an essay, although it represents a project-level consensus hammered out over several years. It appears he has also been forum-shopping on this issue.
"it appears that none of your sources have any basis for making such a statement other than they heard it from the police"- This is an absurd argument. They "heard" information about this crime from the police. Yes. ("Heard it" as though they got it from some gossip blog rather than one of the most logical sources of such information). We write our articles based on secondary sources because their job is to talk to witnesses, talk to authorities, do some research, carry out due diligence, and bring it together, explain it accurately, explain the context, continue to develop the story as new information emerges, etc. That's what we want. Washington Post, et al. are reliable sources because they have a reputation for that sort of thing. That they aren't eyewitnesses is part of the point, not a reason to say "yeah well what do they know, really, if they weren't there?" It's about verifiability in reliable sources, not Truth. Multiple reliable sources did their own reporting and wrote stories about this gun in connection with the crime -- not stories about the crime that mention the gun, but stories about the gun. Given that those sources look to amount to due WP:WEIGHT, it should be included in some capacity. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:55, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
mere repetition of a claim, with multiple independent sources writing about the gun itself. Second,
"But how many of those sources have actually seen the particular weapon used? How many of them can state, on their own knowledge, that some weapon shown to them (assuming they have actually seen the alleged weapon) is the one actually used? The only people that can say that would be those who actually saw it."This is not a reasonable requirement to place on sources, and it's not compatible with our requirements for reliable sourcing. In fact, we prefer secondary sources to primary sources. We rely on reputable journalists at reputable organizations like the Washington Post to gather and check facts, and we summarize those reports. Third,
"Its weight is determined by the authority (and reliability?) of the police"No, it's not. If the police mention some detail, and nobody reports on it, then there's no weight to it. If there are conflicting sources, perhaps there's a more in-depth conversation to be had about the reliability of various sources, in part based on how they describe their own sources, but that something comes from the police doesn't give it any more WP:WEIGHT. Remember, it's about WP:V, not [T]ruth. Fourth, weight is not just about perspectives on an issue; it's also about aspects of a subject (determining which to include, or not to). Fifth, coming to a noticeboard is what you do when you want more attention to something going on on a talk page, to bring in uninvolved eyes. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:29, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
"You really need to consider on exactly what basis anyone can state"- No. We're not on a quest for capital-T Truth. We base articles on what reliable sources say about a subject and defer questions like "yeah but how do we REALLY know?" to those sources. A number of mainstream, reliable sources, engaged in separate journalistic enterprises, have covered this, giving it sufficient weight to include in some way. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:55, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
an author's own thinking [... containing] an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence," etc. To simply echo first statement A, then statement B, is not any kind of analysis, and adds nothing. The nature of a secondary source is to add some kind of informational content, such as resolving questions. And while they might question, say, the plausibility of some statement, ultimately they have no basis for saying anything about what gun was used unless they were there, or cite someone who was there. That all these "sources" are "separate journalistic enterprises" is irrelevant, as what they are reporting comes from a single original source. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 20:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
"To simply echo first statement A, then statement B..."This is a rather obvious straw man. These sources are not "simply echoing", despite your repeated claims that they are. That would be an appropriate argument if these all simply said "police say it was an MCX" without adding anything. These are stories which go in depth to talk about the weapon, about what e.g. "AR-like" and other jargon mean, etc. What I think you might be trying to do, however (at the risk of setting up a straw man of my own), is to say, again, that unless the secondary sources see the gun for themselves, then they are somehow "simply echoing". That, of course, would be bogus, as I've said in multiple comments in this thread. Regarding WikiProject Firearms, a WikiProject does not trump other policies and guidelines. If someone wanted to propose a change to the, say, the guidelines for when to include this or that in an article about a gun, that would be the appropriate place. In this case, it's a specific content dispute. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
To be honest, looking at the above and the page itself. This looks more like a content dispute than a NPOV issue. It appears article consensus is not to add it. So perhaps the poster of this line would be best of following
WP:GETOVERIT
Arnoutf (
talk) 11:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Even my adding a link to the shooting in a see also section was reverted. What is an uncensored way of including the shooting into the text of the article? TeeTylerToe ( talk) 11:29, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree with some of the comments that material like this doesn't belong in the rifle's article. We had a recent case that was similar with regards to the Ford Pinto and lawsuit about airbags. The group consensus was that because there wasn't something unique about the Pinto with respect to not having airbags, mention in the airbag articles didn't justify weight for mentioning the lawsuit in the Pinto article. I think something similar applies here. Had the shooter had Bushmaster, or other brand AR rifle vs the Sig model used how would it have made things different? The mention of the rifle in the various news articles was focused on the fact that it was an assault weapon/modern sporting rifle/etc. It's mentioned not because it is someone uniquely different than an AR pattern rifle, but because there is a general public debate about "assault weapons". In an article about the shooting it is reasonable to mention the gun because coverage of the shooting mentioned the brand of the gun. In an article on mass shootings it would also be reasonable to mention the gun. That doesn't mean the reciprocal is true. Given how this sort of information can be seen as coatracking and certainly would be seen as political by some I think it is best to leave it out of the rifle specific article and instead leave it for articles that are more focused on the politics associated with that general class of gun. I don't think enough weight has been shown to overturn talk page consensus. I also think exclusion is in line with WP:Firearms guidelines. Springee ( talk) 18:29, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
@ Darouet: @ Rhododendrites: @ J. Johnson: @ TeeTylerToe: @ Arnoutf: @ Dmcq: @ Masem: @ The Four Deuces: @ VQuakr: @ Springee: Pinging everyone who has commented here. Apologies if that's impolite. Please see Talk:SIG MCX# RFC: Is the Orlando shooting relevant? and comment there if you have an opinion. Felsic2 ( talk) 01:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
This article is... problematic. It's more of a platform to present Sanger's views than a proper biography, and seems to actively attempt to minimise the failure of any project Sanger was involved with. There are some extreme problems - his claims about child pornography are somewhat dangerous to be throwing around without evidence or proof; lesser examples include his attack on Wikileaks, or the attacks on Wikipedia in the Citizendium section and elsewhere.
It also has major issues with being horribly dated: Lots of meaningless details like "On September 22, 2010, Sanger [...] said, at the time, that he would continue to support the project." or the section Larry Sanger#Philosophy which contains entire paragraph-long quotes meanderingly setting out thoughts on the nature of educational material on the internet - which are now between six and nine years old, and thus hideously dated; the internet being one of the most rapidly-changing environments of the modern day.
In short, I think we need a lot more eyes on this. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 01:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Experienced NPOV eyes would be useful in one section of 2016 Louisiana floods, where eds are trying to figure out how to present acts of Obama/Trump/Clinton .... NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 03:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 55 | ← | Archive 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 | Archive 61 | Archive 62 | → | Archive 65 |
Omar Mateen, the killer responsible for the murders at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando was employed by G4S Secure Solutions. I agree that his employment there probably belongs in the article. One editor has been putting in extensive amounts of information about Mateen, from even before he worked for G4S, and things not really related to the company itself. An example of that would be this diff [1]. I edited a more streamlined version that talked about mostly about things the company was involved in and then put a hatnote to see the bio on Mateen. And example of my version would be this diff: [2]. I haven't posted the complete text here because one version is quite long. In the end, it's my position that the article about the company should be mainly about the company and that most of this material, about Mateen's conduct etc belongs in his bio. Another editor even suggested adding a mention about Mateen showing up as an extra in a movie??? Any opinions? Niteshift36 ( talk) 19:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
03:26, 1 July 2016 Niteshift36 (talk | contribs) . . (13,782 bytes) (-710) . . (Reverted to revision 727668335 by
13:43, 1 July 2016 Niteshift36 (talk | contribs) . . (15,455 bytes) (-1,737) . . (→Omar Mateen: stream lined to the high points. Extensive quotes can be found in the source)
18:26, 1 July 2016 Niteshift36 (talk | contribs) . . (15,457 bytes) (-2,398) . . (Reverted to revision 727847560 by XavierItzm (talk): There's nothing inappropriate about the edits. (TW))
20:14, 1 July 2016 Niteshift36 (talk | contribs) . . (15,738 bytes) (-2,194) . . (→Omar Mateen: Gilroy isn't notable and should be left out. It adds nothing to this and is best left to the source itself.) Activist ( talk) 23:39, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Please have a look at
User:J. Johnson 's edits in the article and consult the talk page, his wording and edit summaries.
User:J. Johnson is abusive. His comments are far from polite and he is off limits with the content. Have
this diff as a reference for his removing of sourced material and consult the talk page for POV pushing by muting sources without real justification. There is also
this comment by
User:Sitush that points exactly at what is being done there.--
Hlektron77 (
talk) 07:23, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Eidetic memory#WP:RfC: Should the article be strict in stating that photographic memory and eidetic memory are not the same thing?. A WP:Permalink is here. One issue is a Slate source vs. what some reliable book sources state. And the other is what to relay based on what all these sources say. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 19:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I've put a lot of work into Psychology of eating meat, and have ambitions to make it a GA. Editors have expressed concerns that it expresses an anti-meat POV; I can see their side, and especially since I happen to be vegan I want to be vigilant about NPOV. The article currently uses a lot of "pseudo-secondary" material cribbed from primary research papers' reviews of previous work; I was planning to go back and rewrite the article according to information in real review papers, hoping that would solve the problem.
Fortunately, several objectively good sources have recently been published. The following are the academic review articles or scholarly (not popular) books discussing psychological research on meat eating, from the past 5 years, published by mainstream academic journals or presses, that I could find:
Sources
|
---|
|
So, what's the problem? The first four sources make statements which seem to endorse the idea that there can be moral problems with eating meat. One quote each:
Quotes showing anti-meat perspectives
|
---|
|
My concern is that incorporating such sources could make the article "a cherry-picked nightmare of vegan-chauvinism opinions", or open it to that criticism in a GA review. But excluding MEDRS-compliant sources on the basis of their author's position seems contrary to WP:BIASED. Is there a good answer here? Of course I'm planning to WP:WFTE as much as is appropriate, but I'm not sure that will be enough. FourViolas ( talk) 02:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Research into meat consumption has risen in recent times, particularly in terms of cognitive dissonance investigation, from Ong et al (context discussing "moral concern for [meat] animals"). But, sorry for being unclear, I was hoping for advice specifically on how to treat the apparently-biased sources as I begin a general rewrite. FourViolas ( talk) 03:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I am not sure what to think of some videos being placed all over by the Simpleshow foundation. I am very concerned with OR and neutral POV with some of these clips. These clips have not been vented by anyone from what I can see. Not sure the child like format is what we are looking for aswell.....looking for more input here. !!! -- Moxy ( talk) 18:08, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
We need eyes on the page for the Huey P. Newton Gun Club. It's full of weasel words, red links, and reads like it was ripped from the group's website. I mean, look at this:
"The club was formed as a response to police terrorism, which garnered national attention in August 2014 for its "open carry patrols""
142.105.159.60 ( talk) 13:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Editors are suppressing reliable sources and editing based on their own unsourced opinions on the Assault rifle page, even summarily removing the POV tag against instructions. Editors are pushing an apocryphal "virgin birth" alternate-history of the assault rifle saying that the assault rifle was created from whole cloth in world war 2 germany. Editors are also making a zealously defending several other assertions that are bizarre and proven false, furthering this narrative, making it more and more convoluted. Editors are defending statements that the 7.92 kurz cartridge is revolutionary, and the first "intermediate cartridge". This is false. Editors are defending the statement that the StG-44 is the first rifle with an over the barrel gas system. This is false. Editors are defending statements that the assault rifle was first developed in germany in world war 2, this is subject to debate, and editors are suppressing edits the belie this narrative. TeeTylerToe ( talk) 14:25, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
A discussion that is a direct result of Talk:Kosher tax (antisemitic canard)#RfC: Does the title, hatnote, and lead of this article adhere to the neutral point of view policy? is taking place at Talk:Kosher tax (antisemitic canard)#Requested move 16 June 2016. Input was requested for that the RfC, and is also welcome at the requested move. Thank you, — Godsy( TALK CONT) 18:18, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
There's a dispute on Template:Sunni Islam. I believe WP:UNDUE mainly a "prominence of placement" issue as Traditionalist Theology or Athari is being presented along side the orthodox Sunni theologies ( Ash'ari and Maturidi). [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]
Traditionalist theology is followed by a minority who support the extreme right by rejecting reason as opposed to the Mutazila extreme leftist rationalists. Mainstream Sunnis have accepted the middle path by synthesizing reason/traditionalist views by producing Ash'ari/maturidi.
Traditionalist theology should be moved to the other bracket as not to come across as mainstream. [8] Traditionalist position is basically to oppose reason held by by Ash'ari/Maturidi therefore it can be termed anti school-school, that is just another reason why it may not even belong in the theology section but probably under movement. However Eperoton seems to imply that it doesn't matter in the discussion [9] Would like outside editor opinion on the matter. Misdemenor ( talk) 00:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
In this edit, [13] User:Denniss claims "false advertizing[sic] is a fact", but none of the sources in the article show anything other than an ongoing lawsuit. Google [ Nvidia GTX 970 Graphics Chip Litigation ] for details. It looks like the case is ongoing, with the latest filing two days ago. [14] We should not use Wikipedia's voice to accuse Nvidia of false advertising when no court has returned a verdict on the issue.
Normally I would try to discuss this with the editor in question before posting here, but his edit history shows many many reverts and no substantive discussion about any of them other than an occasional word or two on his talk page, and often not even that, so I don't see any point in trying. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 22:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
A strange article with large chunks of unsourced, essay-style, overly-positive content. This material was recently restored by the long term contributor; I reverted but would appreciate some eyes on the article. The discussion of the revert can be found at Talk:Frank S. Welsh.
Yes, I was reverted. The editor also removed the cleanup tags. K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
The Death of Osama Bin Laden article contains a " legality" section reviewing positions on the legality of the killing under U.S. and international law. I recently added the views of Benjamin B. Ferencz, and this addition was removed by Glrx.
Ferencz was chief prosecutor of the Einsatzgruppen trial in the Nuremberg trials, advocated for the creation of the International Criminal Court and recently received the Harvard Law School medal of freedom. His comments on the legality of Bin Laden's killing were reported by the BBC ( [20]), The Guardian ( [21]), The Week Magazine ( [22]), CBC News and UK's Channel 4. He also published a short letter in The New York Times ( [23]). Ferencz is a notable jurist, his views were reported by high quality media, and similar views are held by other scholars (e.g. Philippe Sands, Professor of Laws and Director of the Centre on International Courts and Tribunals at UCL).
Glrx argues that Ferencz's position violates WP:DUE since the Nuremberg trials were "years ago," his view is held by an "extremely small minority," and Ferencz's legal position is "not concrete." Glrx further argues that Ferencz's position is "speculative" and lastly states, "You need better sources if you want to imply that Obama, Clinton, Holder, Brennan, Panetta, McRaven or seals are guilty of murder."
I believe this position is highly tendentious: the section titled "Legality" is meant to document views on the legality of Bin Laden's killing, and Ferencz's is one such notable view. I'd like further input because I believe editing with the purpose of defending a list of people from theoretical prosecution would require an inherently prejudiced, rather than neutral review of the killing's legality. - Darouet ( talk) 22:10, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
There are multiple NPOV complaints about the article on Heath W. Lowry. One editor thinks the article is too critical of Lowry, another thinks the article gives too much credit to Lowry's research and opinions. I think this version of the article is fairly neutral.
Specifically, a dispute has arisen over this edit. The editor claims that these changes will improve the neutrality of the article, which gives too much credit to Lowry's claims and research as it is now. However, the information is factual and well-referenced, and it does not overly represent Lowry's work as the academic consensus on the subject. In fact, the criticism section is fairly detailed and well-documented, so it's not as if an average reader will miss the fact that Lowry's conclusions have been contested. Lowry is also already categorized as an Armenian genocide denier.
Additionally, I think the editor's recent editing history suggests WP:POVPUSH. These edits include mass deletion of information on biographical pages within the Armenian genocide denier Category with the same copy-pasted explanation "too much weight placed on revisionism not taken seriously". -- Iamozy ( talk) 18:57, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
I am neither Turkish nor Armenian and have never edited on this subject, but looking at this contested edit, I agree with Iamozy and Resnjari's concern. My favorite WP:LAW of Wikipedia is Raul's razor: "An article is neutral if, after reading it, you cannot tell where the author's sympathies lie." While it may have some virtues, the edit in question advances its sympathies powerfully and unnecessarily.
Take for instance the opinions of historians Michael M. Gunter and Alan Fisher. The previous version quoted both directly as they questioned the notion that Lowry worked for the Turkish government. The previous version concludes, "However, [Lowry] continues to believe that the loss of Armenian life during WWI fails to fit the definition of "genocide," and that his conclusions are supported by his research." As readers we have been informed of Lowry's opinion and of some scholarly opinions defending him. Fine.
Lasort101's edit removes all this entirely and simply writes, "Lowry admitted in an interview that the letter to the Ambassador was a mistake. However, he continues to deny the genocide."
I think the Armenian genocide is real and should be called this. However, the text as edited teaches me less about Lowry's views, about conceptions of his work, and is written from an explicitly partisan framework (e.g. rather than quote Lowry stating that Armenian deaths fail to meet the definition of genocide, instead state in Wikipedia's voice that he is a genocide denier). It also presumes that as a reader, I'm too stupid to learn of scholarly discussion on the topic and should be spoonfed one particular point of view. The fact that anyone would think this is necessary seriously calls into question the intellectual rigor of their position.
Nationalist, partisan editing weakens both the encyclopedia and the editing environment, by forcing editors into ideological camps instead of encouraging them to neutrally describe the often contradictory and complicated views of various reliable sources. - Darouet ( talk) 13:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
It is wrongly assumed that scholars who are specialized in a field have a notability independent from the institutions they are affiliated with. Basically here, the criticisms are specific to his affiliations (Turkey funded departments or chairs) in the same manner as the criticisms of the said majority view are not particularly directed against a scholar but rather the institutions (or positions) they represent. Just checking the material from several articles and talkpages, this confirms it. Examples include Taner Akçam or Vahakn Dadrian and their affiliations with the Zoryan Institute (Armenian studies). We should therefor be careful for that matter when quoting scholars independently from their affiliations, because by doing such we might mislead the reader.
I do agree with Darouet, but I have to clarify on what is full disclosure. It is relevant to include Michael M. Gunter, but the reader ought to know somehow that he has an admitted bias in his book (on the subject) which was meant to present the Turkish position regarding the Armenian claims of genocide during World War I and the continuing debate over this issue (Source: Armenian History and the Question of Genocide, by Michael M. Gunter. New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2011. p. ix). Guenter Lewy shall remain in this article as agreeing with Heath Lowry, but his declaration of bias (which ought to be mentioned) was already reveled in the 70s with his terming of the war crime industry (America in Vietnam. New York-Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1978.), along with the fact that his treatment (besides his answers after the accusations) of all other war crimes (besides the Holocaust), all ended up without the G-word; and that he was considered in an article as one of the few remaining adherents of the uniqueness (of the Holocaust) [24] It is understandable that some scholars might consider the tragedy of their own people as Unique (ethnocentric bias), I am not judging him, just mentioning that we can not just throw names without full disclosure of their affiliation, as if scholars have a notability outside of their institutions, affiliations, etc.
See what is the solution Darouet? Uses of terms such as deniers, canards paint a picture, they introduce unnecessary bias, the whole picture is sufficient to immunize articles from bias. Yaḥyā ( talk) 18:33, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Could we have some more eyes on this article? For the past week I've been attempting to monitor this page to keep it within wiki standards. Most recently a section titled " Racist emails" was added. I haven't looked too closely at these additions yet (from what I can tell it appears to be sourced), but I'd appreciate the extra help. FallingGravity ( talk) 08:04, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Many articles on German military men of the World War II era contain verbatim quotations from German Armed Forces High Command's communiques, the Wehrmachtbericht. It's based on the (inherently unreliable) war-time Nazi propaganda, and I believe does not belong in the articles on this basis alone. But I'm not sure what Wikipedia policy may be applicable. Could someone more knowledgeable clarify?
This appears to be either WP:NPOV or extensive quoting from a WP:Primary source. Or perhaps this is WP:NOR? Please see example 1 or example 2. Please also see discussion and more examples at Wehrmachtbericht transcript, take 2, on the Field Marshal Rommel's talk page. Thank you. K.e.coffman ( talk) 21:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
@ K.e.coffman: You make a very good observation ïn the talk page about Rommel: "Articles on Allied military units and individuals don't include the text of mentions in dispatches or communiques, and rightly so." As I see it, these are the possibilities for quoting the Wehrmachtbericht in the future:
I do not think it is best to delete the existing quotations. Content would be lost which had to be gleaned from a German source and then translated. (There are alternatives, like moving the quotations to Wikisource.) Roches ( talk) 18:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Date | Original German Wehrmachtbericht wording | Direct English translation |
---|---|---|
Saturday, 22 June 1940 | In den Kämpfen der letzten Tage haben sich durch unerschrockenen Einsatz in kühnen Einzeltaten besonders hervorgetan: der Oberst und Kommandeur einer Schützenbrigade Neumann-Silkow, der Oberleutnant und Chef einer Reiterschwadron Freiherr von Boeselager, der Leutnant Michael in einem Reiterregiment und der Leutnant Meder in einer Panzerjägerabteilung.] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup ( help) [1] | In the fighting in recent days, in fearless action in bold individual acts have particularly excelled: the colonel and commander of a rifle brigade Neumann-Silkow, the lieutenant and chief of a cavalry squadron Freiherr von Boeselager, the Lieutenant Michael in a cavalry regiment and the Lieutenant Meder in an anti-tank battalion. |
1 September 1944 (Addendum) | In den schweren Abwehrkämpfen zwischen Bug und Narew hat sich die 3. Kavallerie-Brigade durch unermüdlichen Angriffsschwung und Härte ausgezeichnet. An ihrer Spitze fand der bereits Anfang 1942 mit dem Eichenlaub zum Ritterkreuz ausgezeichnete 28jährige Brigadekommandeur Oberstleutnant Georg Freiherr von Boeselager den Heldentod. Sein im gleichen Frontabschnitt kämpfender Bruder, Ritterkreuzträger Major Freiherr von Boeslager, hat sich erneut durch höchste Tapferkeit hervorgetan] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup ( help) [2] | In heavy defensive fighting between the Bug and Narew has the 3rd Cavalry Brigade particularly excelled by showing relentless momentum and hardness. In the lead, already in 1942 decorated with the Oak Leaves to the Knight's Cross, the 28-year-old brigade commander, Lieutenant Colonel Georg Freiherr von Boeselager found a heroic death. His in the same sector of the front fighting brother, Knight's Cross bearer Major Freiherr von Boeselager, again excelled with highest bravery. |
Date | Original German Wehrmachtbericht wording | Direct English translation |
---|---|---|
5 July 1944 | Südlich Minsk kämpfen sich unsere Verbände weiter zurück. Nordwestlich der Stadt wurden heftige Angriffe der Bolschewisten abgewiesen. Hier schoß eine Panzerkampfgruppe unter Führung des Generalleutnants von Saucken in beweglicher Kampfführung in der Zeit vom 27. Juni bis 3. Juli 232 feindliche Panzer ab.] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup ( help) [3] | In retreat, our units keep fighting back south of Minsk. Northwest of the city the violent attacks of the Bolsheviks were repulsed. Here an armoured battle group, under the leadership of Lieutenant General von Saucken, destroyed in mobile warfare in the period from 27 June to 3 July 232 enemy tanks. |
9 May 1945 | Dem Oberbefehlshaber, General der Panzertruppe von Saucken, wurden als Anerkennung für die vorbildliche Haltung seiner Soldaten die Brillanten zum Eichenlaub mit Schwertern zum Ritterkreuz des Eisernen Kreuzes verliehen.] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup ( help) [4] | The commander-in-chief, General of Panzer Troops von Saucken was awarded the Diamonds to the Oak Leaves with Swords to the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross in recognition of the exemplary attitude of his soldiers. |
Date | Original German Wehrmachtbericht wording | Direct English translation |
---|---|---|
Thursday, 10 April 1940 | Die militärischen Maßnahmen zum Schutz der Neutralität von Dänemark und Norwegen wurden am 9. April von starken Einheiten des Heeres, der Kriegsmarine und die Luftwaffe unter dem Oberbefehl des Generals der Infanterie von Falkenhorst, von Seestreitkräften unter dem Befehl des Generaladmirals Saalwächter und des Admirals Carls und von zahlreichen Verbänden der Luftwaffe unter Führung des Generalleutnants Geißler in engster Zusammenarbeit durchgeführt.] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup ( help) [5] | The military measures for the protection of the neutrality dubious – discuss of Denmark were carried out on 9 April from strong units in close cooperation of the Heer, the Kriegsmarine and the Luftwaffe under the high command of General of the Infantry von Falkenhorst, of naval forces under the command of Generaladmiral Saalwächter and Admiral Rolf Carls and from numerous Luftwaffe units under the leadership of Generalleutnant Geißler (sic). |
Date | Original German Wehrmachtbericht wording | Direct English translation |
---|---|---|
Friday, 31 October 1941 | Von deutschen und rumänischen Truppen scharf verfolgt, ist der Feind auf der Krim in voller Flucht. Damit haben die langen und schweren Durchbruchskämpfe ihre Krönung gefunden, mit denen die Infanteriedivisionen der Armee des Generals der Infanterie von Manstein im Verein mit dem Fliegerkorps des Generalleutnants Pflugbeil die schmale Landengen bezwungen haben, die zur Halbinsel führen.] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup ( help) [6] | Sharply pursued by German and Romanian troops, the enemy in the Crimea is in full retreat. With this, the long and heavy breakthrough battles have found their coronation. The infantry divisions of the army of General of Infantry von Manstein in conjunction with the Air Corps of Lieutenant General Pflugbeil have concurred the narrow isthmus leading to the peninsula. |
Saturday, 30 May 1942 | Die Luftwaffenverbände des Generalobersten Löhr und des Generals der Flieger Pflugbeil unterstützten in schonungslosem Einsatz die Kämpfe des Heeres in der Abwehr wie im Angriff und schlugen die feindliche Luftwaffe aus dem Felde.] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup ( help) [7] | The Luftwaffe forces under the leadership of Generoberst Löhr and General der Flieger Pflugbeil supported in ruthless commitment the defensive as well as offensive combat of the Army and forced the enemy air force from the battle area. |
Date | Original German Wehrmachtbericht wording | Direct English translation |
---|---|---|
18 August 1944 | Soldaten aller Wehrmachtteile, unter ihrem Kommandanten Oberst von Aulock, haben hier dem Ansturm stärkster feindliche Kräfte in fast dreiwöchigem heldenhaftem Ringen standgehalten und dem Gegner hohe blutige Verluste fügt.] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup ( help) [8] | Soldiers of all Wehrmacht branches under their commander Oberst von Aulock, have resisted here strong enemy forces in nearly three weeks' heroic struggle and have inflicted high, bloody casualties on the enemy. |
References
Ping @ David Tornheim and Zero0000: -- wanted to clarify that the transcripts are not used as a source; they are reproduced within the articles as shown above. K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Comment - without comments or interpretations by neutral secondary sources, how do we know what (if anything) in the quotations from or claims in Wehrmachtbericht has truth to it? And if those comments or interpretations exist, why do we need the Wehrmachtbericht quotations and claims at all? I have seen a similar problem in relation to articles on decorated Azerbaijani soldiers - all the source material regarding their decoration is heavily propagandized, yet such articles cannot be deleted because there are Wikipedia rules that say a soldier receiving a military decoration at a certain level has an automatic level of notability that justifies an article (even if there is no content to put in the article because there are no suitable sources). I think this rule should be changed and that unless neutral secondary sources have commented on the award or on the military activities of the subject there should be no such automatic acceptance of notability. Tiptoethrutheminefield ( talk) 15:54, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
An editor recently added an NPOV hat note to the article
Antisemitic canard for unclear reasons. Several editors have tried to clarify
on the talkpage, but the another editor added the hat note without clarifying explaining despite the consensus thus far that there is not an NPOV issue. The best I can tell,
Godsy feels it's not neutral to claim in WP's voice that the topics addressed in this article are canards (hoaxes/myths). I'm not sure if that's an accurate interpretation of Godsy's issue with the article and we have no idea how Twinsday, the editor who added the hat note, feels. I wanted to get more input here before removing the hat note. Thoughts?
—PermStrump
(talk) 02:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
This has little to do with whatever or not sources are reliable. It just doesn't seem right to start the lede by stating those are false and go on with a list of things (it's more of a thesis than an encyclopedic article). The neutral stance would be to at least mention that those are generally viewed as false by scholars. There are also controversial titles like (but not limited to) Accusation of anti-Christian bias or Dual loyalty: ethno-centric bias are common among any groups and Jews aren't immune to that. Yaḥyā ( talk) 13:10, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
This has little to do with whatever or not sources are reliable." WP:NPOV only has to do with what reliable sources say. —PermStrump (talk) 18:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, Modern catholicism does imply some form of anti-Islam and vis versa... (this supports my point) also, there is no such thing as solely false claims. Those are claims which are considered as false by majority of scholars (that's different). MrX do you really need citations for the statement above? All self-identification with a particular ethnic group requires a form of ethnic-centricism.
To Only in death, be it historical or not, it is one thing to claim it false and another to stat it has been revisited in most published literature as false! I think we are diverting from the initial question here. The real issue is that we don't get to decide what is true or what is false. Yaḥyā ( talk) 18:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
MrX, I think I was clear that I do believe the POV tag goes there and the last time I have checked, there is none. The issue can not be resoled unless there is consensus. And would you please specify what is the original research in question?
Someguy, I have some difficulty following you. I do agree with your central argument (You are correct, we don't get to decide what is true or false.). But lets quote the lede again: An antisemitic canard is a false story inciting antisemitism. I am merely quoting the lede to make my point. Just right there it fails the basics... according to whom (source attribution) the arbitrary selection provided as canards are false? This has nothing to do with my opinions being injected in the article. Yaḥyā ( talk) 20:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Someguy, again, that's tautological! On top of that we're engaged in a circular discussion. Like I have clarified, my criticism has absolutely nothing to do with the subject itself. It is not my opinion (because nowhere have I stated I believed this, you assumed)that the falsehood of the canards is not a fact. Neither that it is my opinion that is being excluded from the article. I didn't even read the article past the lede and the sections titles. And any comments I have raised have to do with both, not anything else. Yaḥyā ( talk) 20:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Come on someguy, these are straw man arguments. Why am I under the impression that a false dichotomy is being created here? My comment on ethnocentricism was an answer to some specific titles of subcategories, your conclusions (mostly implied) from them are non-sequitur when considering under which context they were made. I clarified with the following which you have excluded from your selections: All self-identification with a particular ethnic group requires a form of ethnic-centricism. The point being made there is that those titles can certainly not be just tagged as false. Besides, minority or fringe theories technically should not be described as false, this goes against editorial policy (which requires some form of source attribution). If the overwhelming majority of scholars endorse a position, this should be reported as such and sources should be provided. Going from there to claim false is logically fallacious ( Argument from authority). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yahya Talatin ( talk • contribs) 22:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply Darouet. The calculated age of Earth is like an institutional solipsism (relying entirely on unstable constructs as its foundations)... claiming it as fact without attribution is therefor a logical fallacy. I would point out that scholarship is leaning towards a constructivist model of [even hard] science (with all its epistemological implications). It was maybe a mistake from my part to target one article for something which seems so widespread on Wikipedia. I will find a more appropriate medium to defend my point. Yaḥyā ( talk) 15:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please see Conlan Press, where Rosscoe99 recently expanded the page greatly to something that I'd consider heavily non-neutral (bordering on an attack page, really). I reverted them but was reverted again. Could we have some more eyes on it and discussion on the talk page? ~ Rob13 Talk 04:18, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We have been over it many times in the Talk page and getting nowhere, so I am seeking other opinions. At present Electronic_harassment is written in the majority view which is to say: "The experience of TIs are hallucinations and the explanations arise from delusional disorders or psychosis." (TIs being people who believe they are subject to covert targeting.) This assumes the psychiatric opinion as fact. However, there has been a significant Washington Post article on TIs, Mind Games, which, it seems to me, says that there may be something really happening to these people, that they may not be deluded. I would like to see the EH article incorporate what I see as the opinion of the Washington Post, which for starters would not have written such an article if they thought that TIs were entirely delusional, they would have written an article on a disturbing mass delusion. There are many points made in that article, and the two other similar articles cited, that support the view that, whilst the article should state the psychiatric opinion it should only state it as an opinion, not as a fact. I will go through the points from those three articles one at a time if that is necessary. Jed Stuart ( talk) 03:39, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Girard's description of himself is matter-of-fact, until he explains what's in the bag: documents he believes prove that the government is attempting to control his mind. He carries that black, weathered bag everywhere he goes. 'Every time I go out, I'm prepared to come home and find everything is stolen,' he says.
The bag aside, Girard appears intelligent and coherent. At a table in front of Dunkin' Donuts inside the train station, Girard opens the bag and pulls out a thick stack of documents, carefully labeled and sorted with yellow sticky notes bearing neat block print. The documents are an authentic-looking mix of news stories, articles culled from military journals and even some declassified national security documents that do seem to show that the U.S. government has attempted to develop weapons that send voices into people's heads.
'It's undeniable that the technology exists,' Girard says, 'but if you go to the police and say, 'I'm hearing voices,' they're going to lock you up for psychiatric evaluation.'"
The Washington Post obviously is of the opinion that Girard might not be crazy and is giving him the space to say that he thinks the government is doing something to him. This surely is saying that the WP is of the opinion that it is an open question not definite evidence of delusions? My first attempt to post the above led to it disappearing on clicking "Save Page" Jed Stuart ( talk) 04:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Writing an encyclopedia is hard. To do anywhere near a decent job, you have to know a great deal of information about an incredibly wide variety of subjects. Writing so much text is difficult, but doing all the background research seems impossible.
On the other hand, everyone has a bunch of obscure things that, for one reason or another, they’ve come to know well. So they share them, clicking the edit link and adding a paragraph or two to Wikipedia. At the same time, a small number of people have become particularly involved in Wikipedia itself, learning its policies and special syntax, and spending their time tweaking the contributions of everybody else.
Other encyclopedias work similarly, just on a much smaller scale: a large group of people write articles on topics they know well, while a small staff formats them into a single work. This second group is clearly very important — it’s thanks to them encyclopedias have a consistent look and tone — but it’s a severe exaggeration to say that they wrote the encyclopedia. One imagines the people running Britannica worry more about their contributors than their formatters.
Pseudoscientific theories are presented by proponents as science, but characteristically fail to adhere to scientific standards and methods. Conversely, by its very nature, scientific consensus is the majority viewpoint of scientists towards a topic. Thus, when talking about pseudoscientific topics, we should not describe these two opposing viewpoints as being equal to each other.
.Increasingly there are indications that the uses of wireless technologies have been developed to target an individual’s biological body, with specific focus upon the neuronal functioning of the brain. In this paper I examine how some of these uses have had detrimental effects, and what this implies for both present and upcoming developments for particular wireless/sensor technologies. I consider whether this is not shifting dangerously towards a psycho–civilised society, where greater emphasis is placed upon social control and pre–emptive strategies. [..] Examples of unplanned attacks on the body’s data–processing capability are well–documented’. He (referring to Military strategist Timothy Thomas) references a Russian military article on the same subject which declared that “‘humanity stands on the brink of a psychotronic war’ with the mind and body as the focus”. [..] The “data” the body receives from external sources — such as electromagnetic, vortex, or acoustic energy waves — or creates through its own electrical or chemical stimuli can be manipulated or changed just as the data (information) in any hardware system can be altered. [..] Documented and declassified evidence shows that what may have begun as a program in standardized propaganda and psychological warfare has now developed into research on wireless information targeting and ‘psychocivilized’ control practices. To this effect the term ‘psycho–terrorism’ was coined by Anisimov of the Moscow Anti–Psychotronic Center and Anisimov admits to testing such devices as are said to ‘take away a part of the information which is stored in a man’s brain. [..] Although neurotechnologies are likely to be put to therapeutic and medical uses, such as for improving emotional stability and mental clarity, they also open opportunities for intrusive strategies of control and manipulation. [..] Part of this paper has been focused on the dangers of an increasingly wireless world. These dangers may include the potential for invasive technologies, based upon transmitted/received signals and wavelengths, to shift social order towards a psycho–civilized society. By psycho–civilised I mean a society that manages and controls social behaviour predominantly through non–obvious methods of psychological manipulations, yet at a level far beyond that of the ‘normalised’ social manipulations of propaganda and social institutions. What I refer to are the technologised methods of psychological interference and privacy intrusions in the manner of creating a docile and constrained society. [..] What are the moral and ethical implications of using wireless scanning surveillance technologies for evaluating pre–emptive behaviour based on thoughts and intentions alone? Is this not a dangerous path towards psycho–terrorising the social public? As Thomas (1998) reminds us, the mind has no firewall, and is thus vulnerable to viruses, Trojan horses, and spam. It is also vulnerable to hackers, cyber–terrorists, and state surveillance. Whilst this may sound a little too far out, they are reasonable questions to ask if technologies are racing ahead of us in order to better get into our heads. [..] This may herald the coming of a ‘wonderful wireless world’, yet it may also signal unforeseen dangers in protection, privacy, and security of the human biological body within these new relationships.
Pretty obvious. Have a good day all, especially Jed though. Note: I'm open to debate majority and minority viewpoints as well as about their weight. But remember you can't write an article on tobacco or alcoholic beverages without giving them hystorical perspective and touching upon production and the harmful health effects. Some things are just too obvious that maybe can slip out of our minds, but they shouldn't. Also, you don't give the same weight to the chance of Political repression via emerging technologies (not pseudoscience) and the chance of being abducted by aliens. 87.6.112.110 ( talk) 09:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)the inquiry into ethics necessarily follows into politics
I have challenged the editors block at Talk:Electronic Harassment to come here and state their case for violating NPOV as described. It seems to me they have only come here to cast aspersions on my behaviour rather than address the issue. I asked them again and here is my statement and their reply:
"So are any of you going to put up a case for stating the psychiatric/psychology opinion as fact? So far it has been: I am inexperienced, I am pushing a Fringe theory, an SPA, etc. None of you has yet stated that you think the NPOV policy "Avoid stating opinions as facts." should not apply when the opinion is of a well established mainstream institution and the other opinion is just a minority alternative view. You have continually thrown up the NPOV policy article as if it justifies your position, but you fail to say why you think that is so at the NPOV noticeboard. It is not about me, it is about stating the psychiatric opinion as fact. If you don't clearly make your case soon I will attempt to make the change. Jed Stuart ( talk) 05:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, you did indeed try again, in classic sea lion fashion. And, once again, you failed miserably, because your argument contradicts the policy ( WP:NPOV) you selectively quoted. The relevant section of WP:NPOV is WP:PSCI, which clearly says:
I hope this helps but I know that it won't. Please drop the stick. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 06:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
To 149.254.224.221: False equivalency. The fact that other flat things exist is not evidence for a flat earth that violates the laws of physics. Likewise the fact that directed-energy weapons exist is is not evidence for a mind control device that violates the laws of physics. Every directed-energy weapon works by emitting some form of electromagnetic radiation, be it microwaves, infrared lasers, or X-Rays. Electromagnetic radiation is easily detected. Likewise, all of the non-energy weapons use the some sort of matter, whether it be air vibrating (acoustic weapons) germs, gas, or the kinetic energy of a bullet or bomb. NO UNDECTABLE MIND CONTROL TECHNOLOGY EXISTS. If a mind control technology did exist, I or any other competent engineer would be able to detect and measure the output of the alleged weapon, just as we can with any other weapon.
To Jed Stuart: Go away. The next time you post your theory that the professional opinions of mental-health professionals are no more valid that the untrained opinions of the delusional people they treat, I will bring this to WP:ANI and ask for a topic ban. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 00:04, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
WP:Neutral Point of View is a matter of WP:Verifiability and WP:No Original Research, especially on medical claims. So it's not clear, how the article can be so supportive of the psychiatric opinion. If I read all the sources and put them in context according to content policies and guidelines and then read the article I find it embarrassing. There is no space to state the claimants of electronic harassment are delusional as a fact, not to mention tagging the article as related to pseudoscience.. it's a conspiracy theory and there's no point in fast-fowarding to debunk it. 149.254.234.126 ( talk) 12:46, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I have re-opened this discussion. I don't accept 'its boring' is a valid reason for closure coming from someone who has not been a participant. If its boring then don't read it. It is a serious discussion about what some of us believe to be a serious policy violation potentially having serious impacts on the lives of TIs. It is not here for Begoon's entertainment. Jed Stuart ( talk) 05:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC) I have re-opened a second time. That closure was also done by someone on the other side of this dispute. That is not acceptable in my view. I would accept a truly uninvolved editor closing it if given good enough reason. This is just abuse of process/sabotage. @ Johnuniq:. Jed Stuart ( talk) 03:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes I am not a wikipedian & I probably do this wrong.
There are 2 articles on wiki on a subject that is VERY much disputed. in /info/en/?search=Adolf_Hitler_and_vegetarianism it is being disputed WITH references that Hitler was actually a vegetarian ..
But on /info/en/?search=List_of_vegetarians he is in the table bluntly saying that he was. Though one who CHOOSES to eat meat is actually NOT one. I am not sdaying he should be deleted totally from that page; but Hitler should be on the Disputed List.
It cannot be that 1 page has references saying he ate animals & another page saying he was a vegetarian: vegetarians do NOT eat dead animals - I'm sure we can all agree on that ..
Referring to what I wrote there:
on the wiki page /info/en/?search=Adolf_Hitler_and_vegetarianism it is disputed that he was a vegetarian, WITH sources - so HOW can it be that another wiki page does NOT recognise the sources that are recognised there!? It makes no sense & thus you make no sense above. 2 wiki pages on the same subject say something different. YOU have an agenda on this subject & thus by wiki-law you should not even be editing this page, right? You cannot deny that Hitler's vegetarianism is being disputerd WIDEly: thus he can NOT be on the vegetarians list of UNdisputed ones! I am not talking about a little broth that his cook slipped into his meals. When Hitler CHOSE his liver dumplings & fried pigeons to eat, and when he CHOSE to have his last meal WITH meat, NOONE slipped it onto his plate withOUT him knowing! Whe you CHOOSE to eat an animal corpse you choose to NOT be vegetarian: that is nothing UNintentional. So, either THIS wiki page in unreliable; OR the other page is .. So, the only thing I am stating is that Hitler should be on the Disputed list. His vegetarianism is being DISPUTED by one of your own pages! -With MORE than 1 reference on that page! Moreover, when yr docters tell you to eat vegetarian for your healthg (& you then don't) you are NOT a vegetarian ..
If you look at the EditHistory it is clearly obvious that this Betty Logan has an agenda: to KEEP Hitler being mentioned as a vegetarian; but he/she accuses OTHERS of having an opposite agenda - by her edits in the past over this subject several Wikipedians have even stopped being active on wiki because of it. Agenda!
I am not a wikipedian; but if you take your board / platform seriously - then this subject should be clear: Hitler's 'vegetarianism' IS disputed. On your own pages. Referenced. Noone can deny that. Oh yeah well Betty Logan can .. ridiculous! 83.232.236.169 ( talk) 08:13, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
So IF you REALLY want him anywhere on that page, he should be listed as a DISPUTED vegetarian ..
Period 83.232.236.169 ( talk) 11:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
"According to Ilse Hess, in 1937 Hitler ceased eating all meat except for liver dumplings,[12] an account that Dr. Kalechofsky found "consistent with other descriptions of Hitler's diet, which always included some form of meat, whether ham, sausages or liver dumplings."[18] Frau Hess's comments are also backed up by several biographies about Hitler, with Fritz Redlich noting that Hitler "avoided any kind of meat, with the exception of an Austrian dish he loved, Leberknödl (liver dumpling)".[19] Thomas Fuchs concurred, observing that a "typical day's consumption included eggs prepared in any number of ways, spaghetti, baked potatoes with cottage cheese, oatmeal, stewed fruits and vegetable puddings. Meat was not completely excluded. Hitler continued to eat a favourite dish, Leberkloesse (liver dumplings)." [20]"
I don't seem to recall offhand when this article was started, and I think it used to be Christianity and Freemasonry. Here's the problem: it is sourced, but it's skewed, not only in the title, but it basically says in the lede "not every Christian denomination objects to Freemasonry", but the article itself is basically saying "but we're going to ignore what we said and only go into extreme detail about the ones that do and why" because that's all that the article is actually about in the end. There's no way this is NPOV, and it's no longer a subset article as it used to be. As far as I'm concerned, it is both skirting the rules, and wholly negative, while admitting that it is not an accurate representation of the situation. It's been tagged for almost ten years, and I think it is high time that it was reviewed and dealt with one way or the other, but I don't think it's ever been compliant, and the title change simply made it worse. MSJapan ( talk) 18:18, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
At Walmart, a user responded to JLD at Walmart's request to remove negative information about some of Walmart's policies, in this edit. Chaheel Riens believes that the discussion of the effects of the company's policies which I included is excessively detailed for an article about the company. I disagree, and believe that it is necessary to briefly discuss the effects of the controversial policies as they appear in media sources. I am interested to get outside opinions. -- Sammy1339 ( talk) 18:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
"...the birds will be alotted between 1 and 1.5 square feet each, a stressful arrangement which causes cannibalism. Hens raised in such systems have much higher overall mortality rates than those raised in battery cages.The shift also introduces new environmental and worker health problems."which was actually in reference to the new method, but the tone is much more accusatory and decisive than the way it's covered in the sources. If it were to be included, IMO it needs a tone check and in-text attribution instead of using WP's voice since it's contentious. —PermStrump (talk) 00:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Concerning the page David Packouz (tied with the War Dogs movie). There have been some recent edits to Mr Packouz's page that are extremely disturbing, and the page is becoming very self-promotional. The page for this individual is also poorly written, as general. The sources also do not claim what they say they do - for instance, see source [1], which does not mention "entrepreneur" nor "inventor". Source [9] does not mention music technology. The entire article reads like an advertisement. Please read through the page which is not very long and discuss as to the best course of action. Specifically the first parageaph and the Beat Buddy section. I have also posted in Reliable source noticeboard, as the page is not reliable at all. Thank you kindly. -- Asenathson ( talk) 16:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
At Pegida, Dr.K. and Gun Powder Ma have insisted on keeping language removed by Volunteer Marek implying, in Wikipedia's voice, that Pegida wants to:
Their explanations are that 1) the supporting BBC source justifies the language and "does not include all muslims," and 2) that we don't qualify the grievances of Black Lives Matter, and so shouldn't qualify those of Pegida.
This language is an illegitimate endorsement of Pegida's views through Wikipedia's voice, and the arguments in favor are utter hogwash. The BBC source does not state that some muslims "refuse to integrate," and explicitly describes "Islamic extremism" in terms of Pegida's views, not those of the BBC.
I've made a post at Talk:Pegida and would appreciate outside scrutiny here and there. - Darouet ( talk) 19:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Their explanations are that 1) the supporting BBC source justifies the language and "does not include all muslims," and 2) that we don't qualify the grievances of Black Lives Matter, and so shouldn't qualify those of Pegida.
"It is against "anti-women political ideology that emphasises violence" but "not against integrated Muslims living here".". It is clear therefore that Pegida does not view all Muslims as refusing to integrate. But the edit you restored says that "...particularly for Muslims whom it views as refusing to integrate." Can you see the difference in the meaning between the two sentences? Perhaps a better sentence could be: ""particularly for those Muslims whom it views as refusing to integrate." or something equivalent. Dr. K. 22:51, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
A more serious npov issue is the unqualified use of the label "far-right political movement" in the article's lede. Such political labels are culture specific and are entirely pov in nature. As a source that is used in the article states "By the standards of the European right, however, Pegida’s proposals for dealing with such problems hardly seem radical. ... “In Idaho this would be mainstream,” says Gerald Praschl, the political editor of the most popular weekly tabloid in the former East Germany. “But here it is considered right wing.”" Tiptoethrutheminefield ( talk) 03:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
While the issues are being discussed on the Donald Trump talk page, I want to make note of it here as several editors have tried to remove the POV tag without consensus. Gouncbeatduke ( talk) 01:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
References
This is not the first time Trump has been forced to disavow or distance himself from anti-Semitic or white supremacist connections... Leaders of his own party were publicly appalled. Trump eventually tweeted an official disavowal and blamed a faulty earpiece for his initial response. But anti-Semitic and white nationalist rhetoric has continued to dog the candidate. Trump has been accused of knowingly whipping up racist sentiment among his supporters. He denies it but declines to explain how anti-Semitic memes keeping making their way into his own tweets.
WP:UNDUE says to include POVs (and, by extension, facts) "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."
When a notable shooting occurs, it makes sense (to me, at least) to mention it in related articles, such as in the history of the place where the shooting occurred, and, of course, the article on the firearm used. Often, these notorious crimes are what make a firearm notable outside the closed world of firearms enthusiasts. They may be the only time that a gun is discussed in mainstream media or academic sources. However some editors insist that even major shootings cannot be mentioned in the articles about the guns used. For example, this text, for the SIG MCX article. It is supported by 14 citations to reliable sources that specifically talk about its use in the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting. Yet it gets deleted. [38]
Arguments against it on the talk page label it as "trivia", while not objecting to minute and unsourced specifications of the gun and its variants that are in the article. Another argument says that WP:DUE and WP:BALASPS actually prohibit any mention of the shooting. I think that a notable crime like this isn't trivial, that it's more important to the history and notability of the gun than any other details in the article, and that WP:DUE says that material like this should be included. FWIW, the editors who oppose it have refused to participate in dispute resolution or mediation. Am I wrong? Felsic2 ( talk) 20:07, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Long established consensus is that this is not to be included in firearm articles", referring to WP:WikiProject Firearms. The latter Felsic2 rejects as being only an essay, although it represents a project-level consensus hammered out over several years. It appears he has also been forum-shopping on this issue.
"it appears that none of your sources have any basis for making such a statement other than they heard it from the police"- This is an absurd argument. They "heard" information about this crime from the police. Yes. ("Heard it" as though they got it from some gossip blog rather than one of the most logical sources of such information). We write our articles based on secondary sources because their job is to talk to witnesses, talk to authorities, do some research, carry out due diligence, and bring it together, explain it accurately, explain the context, continue to develop the story as new information emerges, etc. That's what we want. Washington Post, et al. are reliable sources because they have a reputation for that sort of thing. That they aren't eyewitnesses is part of the point, not a reason to say "yeah well what do they know, really, if they weren't there?" It's about verifiability in reliable sources, not Truth. Multiple reliable sources did their own reporting and wrote stories about this gun in connection with the crime -- not stories about the crime that mention the gun, but stories about the gun. Given that those sources look to amount to due WP:WEIGHT, it should be included in some capacity. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:55, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
mere repetition of a claim, with multiple independent sources writing about the gun itself. Second,
"But how many of those sources have actually seen the particular weapon used? How many of them can state, on their own knowledge, that some weapon shown to them (assuming they have actually seen the alleged weapon) is the one actually used? The only people that can say that would be those who actually saw it."This is not a reasonable requirement to place on sources, and it's not compatible with our requirements for reliable sourcing. In fact, we prefer secondary sources to primary sources. We rely on reputable journalists at reputable organizations like the Washington Post to gather and check facts, and we summarize those reports. Third,
"Its weight is determined by the authority (and reliability?) of the police"No, it's not. If the police mention some detail, and nobody reports on it, then there's no weight to it. If there are conflicting sources, perhaps there's a more in-depth conversation to be had about the reliability of various sources, in part based on how they describe their own sources, but that something comes from the police doesn't give it any more WP:WEIGHT. Remember, it's about WP:V, not [T]ruth. Fourth, weight is not just about perspectives on an issue; it's also about aspects of a subject (determining which to include, or not to). Fifth, coming to a noticeboard is what you do when you want more attention to something going on on a talk page, to bring in uninvolved eyes. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:29, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
"You really need to consider on exactly what basis anyone can state"- No. We're not on a quest for capital-T Truth. We base articles on what reliable sources say about a subject and defer questions like "yeah but how do we REALLY know?" to those sources. A number of mainstream, reliable sources, engaged in separate journalistic enterprises, have covered this, giving it sufficient weight to include in some way. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:55, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
an author's own thinking [... containing] an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence," etc. To simply echo first statement A, then statement B, is not any kind of analysis, and adds nothing. The nature of a secondary source is to add some kind of informational content, such as resolving questions. And while they might question, say, the plausibility of some statement, ultimately they have no basis for saying anything about what gun was used unless they were there, or cite someone who was there. That all these "sources" are "separate journalistic enterprises" is irrelevant, as what they are reporting comes from a single original source. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 20:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
"To simply echo first statement A, then statement B..."This is a rather obvious straw man. These sources are not "simply echoing", despite your repeated claims that they are. That would be an appropriate argument if these all simply said "police say it was an MCX" without adding anything. These are stories which go in depth to talk about the weapon, about what e.g. "AR-like" and other jargon mean, etc. What I think you might be trying to do, however (at the risk of setting up a straw man of my own), is to say, again, that unless the secondary sources see the gun for themselves, then they are somehow "simply echoing". That, of course, would be bogus, as I've said in multiple comments in this thread. Regarding WikiProject Firearms, a WikiProject does not trump other policies and guidelines. If someone wanted to propose a change to the, say, the guidelines for when to include this or that in an article about a gun, that would be the appropriate place. In this case, it's a specific content dispute. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
To be honest, looking at the above and the page itself. This looks more like a content dispute than a NPOV issue. It appears article consensus is not to add it. So perhaps the poster of this line would be best of following
WP:GETOVERIT
Arnoutf (
talk) 11:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Even my adding a link to the shooting in a see also section was reverted. What is an uncensored way of including the shooting into the text of the article? TeeTylerToe ( talk) 11:29, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree with some of the comments that material like this doesn't belong in the rifle's article. We had a recent case that was similar with regards to the Ford Pinto and lawsuit about airbags. The group consensus was that because there wasn't something unique about the Pinto with respect to not having airbags, mention in the airbag articles didn't justify weight for mentioning the lawsuit in the Pinto article. I think something similar applies here. Had the shooter had Bushmaster, or other brand AR rifle vs the Sig model used how would it have made things different? The mention of the rifle in the various news articles was focused on the fact that it was an assault weapon/modern sporting rifle/etc. It's mentioned not because it is someone uniquely different than an AR pattern rifle, but because there is a general public debate about "assault weapons". In an article about the shooting it is reasonable to mention the gun because coverage of the shooting mentioned the brand of the gun. In an article on mass shootings it would also be reasonable to mention the gun. That doesn't mean the reciprocal is true. Given how this sort of information can be seen as coatracking and certainly would be seen as political by some I think it is best to leave it out of the rifle specific article and instead leave it for articles that are more focused on the politics associated with that general class of gun. I don't think enough weight has been shown to overturn talk page consensus. I also think exclusion is in line with WP:Firearms guidelines. Springee ( talk) 18:29, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
@ Darouet: @ Rhododendrites: @ J. Johnson: @ TeeTylerToe: @ Arnoutf: @ Dmcq: @ Masem: @ The Four Deuces: @ VQuakr: @ Springee: Pinging everyone who has commented here. Apologies if that's impolite. Please see Talk:SIG MCX# RFC: Is the Orlando shooting relevant? and comment there if you have an opinion. Felsic2 ( talk) 01:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
This article is... problematic. It's more of a platform to present Sanger's views than a proper biography, and seems to actively attempt to minimise the failure of any project Sanger was involved with. There are some extreme problems - his claims about child pornography are somewhat dangerous to be throwing around without evidence or proof; lesser examples include his attack on Wikileaks, or the attacks on Wikipedia in the Citizendium section and elsewhere.
It also has major issues with being horribly dated: Lots of meaningless details like "On September 22, 2010, Sanger [...] said, at the time, that he would continue to support the project." or the section Larry Sanger#Philosophy which contains entire paragraph-long quotes meanderingly setting out thoughts on the nature of educational material on the internet - which are now between six and nine years old, and thus hideously dated; the internet being one of the most rapidly-changing environments of the modern day.
In short, I think we need a lot more eyes on this. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 01:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Experienced NPOV eyes would be useful in one section of 2016 Louisiana floods, where eds are trying to figure out how to present acts of Obama/Trump/Clinton .... NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 03:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)