This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.

(another editor noticed the problem and fixed it himself.)

Could someone please review the statements in the Huntington article under the heading "Who Are We and immigration", especially everything after the first paragraph. In my opinion that looks like a blatant transgression of NPOV, but a second opinion would be great. I also note that the passage is referenced to some schmuck's blog, not a reliable source. Please help me out as to what to do after the assessment has been conducted. Thanks for your help. - The Fwanksta ( talk) 20:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Can the following comments be reviewed by someone not at Acadia University or dealing with its newspaper? "The Editor in chief for 2007 - 2008 is Lucas Timmons. It is illustrated in his editorial of 25 October, 2007, entitled The world's smallest $8,062 violin, that Mr. Timmons is incredibly lacking in journalistic integrity, objectivity, and harbors a general lack of respect towards the largest demographic in his reader base - the students of Acadia University.[1]" It seems the author has a problem with the Editor-in-Chief, but I don't think disagreeing with an opinion piece is basis for calling journalistic integrity into question. 2 March 2008.

Deleted the phrase as clear violation of both WP:NPOV and WP:OR, and am now monitoring the page. Will block if the editor persists in inserting without discussion. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Sarcasticidealist ( talk) 18:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It might be nice if there were some clearer guideline for NPOV for admins to follow like 3RR. We do have warnings like {{subst:uw-npov1|Article}} and so on. Maybe a "3 strikes and you are out" rule? Maybe if someone asks what is NPOV repeatedly (3 times? 4??) over a short period (like a week), hoping to get a different answer and clogging up talk pages with spamming and tendentious argumentation, they could be warned and then sanctioned? Maybe introducing NPOV edits over and over would be sanctioned once warned? This would make it easier to track and easier for admins to address. The problem is, if someone says $%^&, an admin can tell that. If someone reverts 3 times and has been warned, an admin can tell that. If someone is pushing NPOV, no admin wants to be bothered. And involved admins cannot get involved or lose their adminship.-- Filll ( talk) 17:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• I have not followed the debate you are in in detail, and do not know to what editor you are referring to. If someone asks the same question over and over again, you can conclude you have some miscommunication and try to clear that up, or you can decide to ignore the questions. There are no easy solutions to these problems. The community should find its own NPOV balance.  —  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 11:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• I always forget to reply to this when I see it. The problem is that some NPOV violations are very subjective, more even than NPA/civil violations... and 3RR is clear as day 99% of the time that it happens. Lawrence § t/ e 14:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Please review Gillian_McKeith. IMO the article is too critical. Slow, gentle, edits between groups means the article has drifted away from a concise description of her and her work and controversies surrounding her (which certainly are notable) into a jumbled mish-mash of BLP-skirting attacks and hippy nutritionist POV. Most of that just requires gentle tweaks to fix. I'm concerned about the cats that get added, especially the "resume frauds and controversies" which should probably be renamed. Dan Beale-Cocks 19:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps diffs would help?-- Filll ( talk) 19:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Examples are key. Lawrence § t/ e 19:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Then I misunderstand the point of this board. If I'm part of a POV/NPOV problem I'm going to pick diffs that show me in a rosy light and show "MY NEMESIS!!1!" is the worst possible light. Really, I thought this board is useful to show an article and present possible problems in as neutral a way as possible so others can review with "clean minds". So, uh, I guess I failed. Dan Beale-Cocks 22:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. There is a legitimate need for some specifics, so that the rest of us don't need to wade through the article history and try to guess at which changes you are talking about. For example, you could provide a single diff showing the article now in comparison with some time (perhaps several months ago) when you thought the article was OK. -- Orlady ( talk) 23:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I have assumed good faith. I've explained that I've misunderstood the purpose of this board, and why. I marked this as resolved - but I'm happy for people to delete it or whatever. In my view an article either is _now_ NPOV or not. Old discussions about what is or isn't NPOV isn't helpful. And it'll be hahrd to find on the articles that have heavy editing. Dan Beale-Cocks 00:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I think there is some misunderstanding here. You have seen the 3RR noticeboard? People go there, present diffs that show there has been a 3RR problem and that the person who did it was warned. Sometimes others provide other diffs if they disagree. And then, an admin gets a few other admins to suggest yes, someone should act. So one of them does. And that is that.

We should do the same here. So suppose that one of the editors on homeopathy claims to me that homeopathy is not a FRINGE belief, and does not need to be represented in proportion to its prominence, and need not have any negative or critical material in the article, especially the LEAD. And we argue about this and I am told over and over that homeopathy should not be described in a critical light. And I provide links to policy. And they are rejected. And I get frustrated. So I warn the person with an NPOV warning. And they continue. So I come here. I provide diffs to show I presented policy, and warned and it was all thrown in my face. And people can see the situation from a quick glance at the diffs. And decide to act, or not. Maybe a 24 or 48 hour block to get their attention. Maybe a warning. Maybe an escalating block or longer block or whatever. And the person who is coming across the situation for the first time does not need to read 300 KB of talk page and 100 KB of article page. They can see 20 sentences in 2 or 3 diffs. And make a decision. -- Filll ( talk) 00:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. That's the point of what I put in the notice that FT2 tweaked. NPOV issues are deeper than most; you need to present evidence: who? what? when? where? why? Lawrence § t/ e 00:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we should compare this noticeboard to the 3RR noticeboard. A 3RR violation is usually pretty clear cut, you can easily say "He violated the 3RR rule". You cannot do that with NPOV in most cases. Or is this noticeboard supposed to be for cases which are just as clear cut as a simple 3RR violation? -- Conti| ✉ 01:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

There are some very simple cases. And of course there are more complicated cases. Which I think it states above might require an RfC or something. But a lot that I have seen are just simple. However, it is not easy to get anyone to act on them since the powers that be and culture has looked down on NPOV I believe. But my hope is, with this noticeboard and maybe a set of reasonable procedures, we can elevate its status and make it more readily and more easily and more frequently enforced. And then stop a HUGE problem with WP culture.

For example, I have been in MANY conversations where someone says "I want to do X". I and 10 others tell this editor that they cannot do X since it violates NPOV. And they fight and argue about what NPOV is and how they should be allowed to do X. And no one can do a darn thing about it. And we spend hours and hours and sometimes weeks or months on this nonsense. When really, the first day the person who says "I want to do X" and we point out that it is against NPOV, should be blocked immediately if they do not actually understand, and continue to argue against policy. That simple. One, two, three, block. It would change a lot.-- Filll ( talk) 01:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

For a real example, lets consider the MH case that turned into the big long 2 month + Arbcomm proceeding and 2 RfCs etc and wasted an infinite amount of time and lead to at least two admins leaving WP, at least for a few months and maybe longer. It started as an NPOV problem, at least in part. If MH had pushed his NPOV ideas, I would have been able to tell him the policy. He continued to argue. I could have hit him with a warning. And he might have continued to argue. I could have then brought it here with maybe 3 diffs. And the whole thing could have been resolved. No week of fighting. No controversy about his block. Maybe he would have learned his lesson after a short block and be productive today. We would have saved him as a potential editor, the admin who was hauled up on charges as a test case, the arbcomm member who left in embarassment, the ugliness of two RfCs that were pointless, the endless fighting and bickering etc. All might have been resolved quickly by pounding the crap out of MH very quickly and threatening him savagely for violating WP policy. And maybe scaring him into behaving. And that would have been that. And his behavior would have been documented early before things escalated out of hand etc. So...-- Filll ( talk) 02:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see how new rules for this noticeboard would help with all this. If the NPOV violations would be as strong as you imply (I don't know anything about your particular example), a warning would have been the right thing to give anyhow, probably followed by a notice at WP:AN/I if the NPOV violations continued. Admins are willing to do something about egregious NPOV violations, at least that's my experience. Now the right page to go would be this instead, but I don't think setting up a set of rules would be of much help. "Is an editor editing in violation of NPOV?" isn't a question you can answer with a simple "yes" or "no" in most cases. And if it is, you should easily find an admin willing to warn and possibly block, with or without specific rules for this noticeboard. -- Conti| ✉ 02:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a solution for complex and difficult cases. It's suited for quick and simple matters where an independent reviewer can give a quick opinion. A lot of NPOV issues are actually pretty simple - "is this article title neutral" ... "can we call this person a murderer or is killer more appropriate" and so on. The matters you are describing above are subtly different. You're describing a dispute regarding consensus and users who will or won't accept it. It's the 80/20 principle -- 80% of cases can be handled with simple, light, approaches. This board is to get a quick opinion on issues of simple fact and representation, from an NPOV perspective. FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 02:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

FT2: So how do you deal with the 20%. Anthon01 ( talk) 02:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid Anthon01 your situation probably falls in the 80%. Your issues with NPOV are just not that difficult. However, some want to make these issues difficult. But to everyone who has half a clue, or who does not have an agenda, it is simple. And we have described what to do with the 20% several times on this page. Might be a useful exercise for you to actually find it and read it, but I am pretty sure that option is not relevant to your problems.-- Filll ( talk) 03:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Your personal attack on Anthon01 -- contrasting him with "everyone who has half a clue" -- is highly inappropriate. Dlabtot ( talk) 19:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting Dlabtot. You are the one who made that characterization, not me. You would rather not admit he has an agenda, and instead characterize him as a half-wit? Ok that is your choice, not mine. You are the one who made an uncivil slur against a fellow editor. Very nice of you.-- Filll ( talk) 19:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, I have made no characterization of anyone. Dlabtot ( talk) 00:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a very bad approach and it could quickly escalate into something ugly. I ask you to reconsider.-- Filll ( talk) 12:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Claims and counter claims. What are you talking about Filll? I asked Dlabtot and he ask me to ask you since it was your edit. Anthon01 ( talk) 20:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks but no thanks.-- Filll ( talk) 20:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree. I have read the page many many times. I find you comments condescending. Anthon01 ( talk) 04:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

To have my good faith question to FT2 be met with Filll condescending comment is disheartening. Anthon01 ( talk) 05:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Can we complete the arguments on user talk pages and stay on topic here? Shot info ( talk) 04:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

My comment made on the NPOV page, which you have mimicked here, came after a long series of arguments on the NPOV talk page, in which I was not involved in. Frankly, I am frustrated with this behavior. I don't think I deserve it. I am seeking a resolution. [1] Anthon01 ( talk) 04:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Deadly nightshade is used in homeopathic prepartions for acne, boils, and sunburns despite the absence of any scientific evidence for the effectiveness of such a use. ^{1 2}

An argument against inclusion is based on an interpretation of the WP:UNDUE portion of NPOV. This interpretation warrants that a source must be presented which shows not that Deadly Nightshade is prominent to Homeopathy but rather that Homeopathy is prominent to Deadly Nightshade. I have asked for passages from NPOV which justify this rationale and have not seen an answer. Meanwhile, many references have been provided all confirming that Deadly Nightshade is in fact used in the preparation of a homeopathic remedy. This usage has been notable enough to be researched in a few dozen studies published in notable scientific journals, and written about in both homeopathic and non-homeopathic books; most relevant to this discussion is its mention in the Oxford Book of Health Food and its description in Medline. My thought is that if we are indeed looking for "prominence", the mentions in high-quality sources such as these provide such. However, the requirement that those against inclusion are asking to be met in order to satisfy WP:UNDUE is a source which explicitly quantifies just how prominent homeopathy is to Deadly nightshade. (I am unsure if this means that they believe that WEIGHT requires us to present a source which gives an estimate of how many people use such a remedy, or what percentage of a deadly nightshade crop is used for homeopathic preparations, or something else.)

The other point I would like to bring up is that the proposed sentence does not include any kind of minority viewpoint. For it is not a "viewpoint" that Deadly nightshade is used to prepare several kinds of homeopathic remedies. This is absolute fact. No opinion about it. (Just do a Google search for "deadly nightshade homeopathy" - or use its other names "belladonna" and "atropa" and marvel at all of the remedies available for purchase!) The only viewpoint in this sentence is that there is an absence of scientific evidence for the effectiveness of these remedies. This of course is not a minority viewpoint, but rather the scientific viewpoint. In my estimation, a minority viewpoint would be something to the effect of: Homeopaths maintain that such remedies are effective. However, this is not part of the proposed sentence.

So there it is. Neutrally worded from the sources and totally verified. The question which I would like answered is: Does the inclusion of this text at Deadly nightshade in any way violate WP:NPOV? If so, how? Please be specific.

Finally, I am not looking for opinions about the merits of homeopathy from other editors here. Though if it helps, please know that I don't believe in homeopathy. I am not supporting inclusion because I am a "true believer" but rather because I think this would be interesting and relevant information for a reader of this article to have; every bit as interesting and relevant as Deadly nightshade's recreational drug use, other medicinal uses, folklore and mentions in the media/pop culture. All I want to know is if the inclusion of this text violates NPOV in any way and if so, how? Thanks (and I think this board is a fantastic idea and a longtime overdue)! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Can we say there is an absence of any scientific evidence, though? Maybe it needs to be rephrased to limit the context, like there is no research published in mainstream scientific journals to support it (if we can define "mainstream scientific journals"). — Whig ( talk) 04:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

We are just going by the source which explicitly says that there is no experimental evidence to support the use of Belladonna in homeopathic medicine. If we were to add a qualification which said that there is however homeopathy-based evidence which supports it, then we would clearly be marching into WP:UNDUE violation territory. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 04:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should attribute that, and say it exactly the way the book does. — Whig ( talk) 04:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the current wording is rather faithful to the source. Regardless, this is a conversation for the talk page of Deadly nightshade and not for this board. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 04:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed extensively at places like [2], where several compromises were suggested, and the rationale for WP:NOTABILITY in this sort of case was described, and so on. However, maybe someone else will have something to say. This is a pretty new board here so there is not much traffic yet.-- Filll ( talk) 03:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOTABILITY describes the encyclopedic suitability of a topic for a Wikipedia article, but does not directly limit the content of articles. So that rationale for exclusion does not apply. WP:NPOV however may apply. That is why I have posted here. Despite this board's new-ness, I am hoping to get some traffic which includes experts in the application of this policy. At the very least, I would like to see if we get some kind of consensus about it so we know how to apply this policy to this and other articles. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 04:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I think everything that's been said at Talk:Thuja has been said at Talk:Deadly nightshade as well. They're basically the same dispute. By the way, I think that if someone posts about an article at this board, that fact should be noted on the article's talk page. --Akhilleus ( talk) 03:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that much has been said at Thuja as well and perhaps an answer here will apply to both. I have heard your rationale and have done my best to summarize it above. Currently, I disagree that your rationale against inclusion of this sentence (or the one like it at Thuja occidentalis) is supported by WP:NPOV. However, I may be wrong and it may be that your rationale is completely supported. That is why I am posting here; to hear from the community. P.S. I did in fact notify that I posted here (See: [3]) while I was in the midst of crafting the message above. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 04:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I made some comments which help in this regard here. I think that they serve to explain things as well as we need to. ScienceApologist ( talk) 03:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

And I have read and appreciated those comments. In your "Undue Weight Tutorial", you state:

Effectively, it is the prominence of the connected idea with reference to the subject that needs to be established in order to justify the inclusion or exclusion of an idea per the undue weight clause.

So how do we establish prominence? According to your tutorial:

The only way to determine the prominence of a connected idea with respect to the subject is to find reliable sources that assert the prominence of the idea with respect to the subject.

What makes a reliable source? According to your tutorial:

A reliable source in this instance is any mainstream independent source that is about the subject in question.

Well, are not MedlinePlus (a service of the US National Library of Medicine and the National Institute of Health) and The Oxford Book of Health Food (published by Oxford University Press and endorsed by the president of the Royal Society) mainstream independent sources? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 04:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

No encyclopedia only has information in it derived from "double-blind placebo controlled trials." That would be a tad silly. Homeopathic uses of Belladonna are a part of history. Homeopathy developed its greatest popularity in the US and Europe in the 19th century in part because of its outstanding results in treating infectious disease epidemics (RS for this fact can come later). Belladonna was the most common medicine for people with scarlet fever because its toxicology resembles it. When something is a part of history, that is enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. And even without this history...there is an entire book on Belladonna because ear-nose-and-throat physicians in 16 cities in 1906 co-conducted a double-blind placebo controlled "drug proving" of Belladonna (testing what it causes in overdose)(RS will come later...and needless to say, this study was way way way ahead of its time, though it was not a "therapeutic" trial testing its efficacy; it was a toxicology trial testing what symptoms it is known to cause). And even without this history, Belladonna is used worldwide for a specific syndrome of symptoms (fever, inflammation, redness of mucous membranes, dilated pupils, hallucinations, hypersensitivity to light/touch/sound). My point is that I believe that wikipedia should include notable information, not just what some people say results from modern scientific methodologies. An encyclopedia is more than a collection of facts derived from scientific methods (if it was, would LOVE be in it?) DanaUllman ^Talk 06:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Dana, I would love it if your could provide us with those sources - either at this board if they help with this NPOV discussion or at the Deadly nightshade talk page proper. Thanks for your input. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Generally speaking I find the statement at the top of this section to be Original research. Personally I think it is likely to be true. So allow me to suggest that we find renowned scientist(s) to quote or paraphrase within the statement itself. And furthermore if there are other renowned scientist(s) who dispute that statement we should find a way to quote or paraphrase them. Another option would be to simply tag the article or section with an OR tag and leave it for a future Rfc. : Albion moonlight ( talk) 11:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

While I am not sure why you consider the statement to be a violation of WP:OR (It is nearly taken verbatim from the reliable sources), your concern doesn't address my question about NPOV. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

My personal preference has been to suggest that we forge some sort of compromise that the major players on both sides of this issue would sign onto, and we could point to in the future and enforce. My suggestion has been that (1) we have a centralized list of the major notable homeopathic remedies (also suggested by User: ScienceApologist, and which we now have) (2) We agree that to pick some arbitrary number of the "most notable" or most important of these homeopathic remedies which would be potentially have a short statement like that at the top of this section included in their articles (possibly the number would be about 40 or 50 or 60 or so) (3) We try to establish under the WP rules cited above such as WP:UNDUE for each individual article whether the mention of homeopathy is appropriate or not.

After our quota of 40-60 materials has been filled, any new article in which someone wanted to introduce a homeopathy discussion would have to be judged more appropriate than one of those articles already having such a mention, and passing that threshold, replace that article in the list. We could do the same for biographies of people who used homeopathy as well, so that every famous person who is rumored to have used homeopathy or who might have used homeopathy or who might have tried homeopathy does not end up with a paragraph promoting homeopathy in their Wikipedia biography. If we forge this agreement and get a substantial number on both sides interested in homeopathy to sign on, then we will have clear guidelines that all can abide by. Anyone new coming to the discussion will have evidence of a consensus they have to live with, or replace with a similar new consensus.

The advantages of this are that we do document homeopathy appropriately, but we do not go overboard and create a situation where we could potentially have thousands of homeopathy miniarticles included in chemical articles, plant articles, animal articles, mineral articles, biography articles, geography articles, political articles, and so on. For example, just because there are over 100,000 homeopathy doctors in India, should there be a section in the article India stating this? There were 315 registered professional homeopaths in the US in 1992. Should the article on the United States have a section discussing the prevalence of homeopathy in the US? Should there be a similar section in the articles of every country documenting the use of homeopathy in each country? Clearly at some point this is ridiculous and objectionable for a number of reasons. So instead, why don't we come up with some sort of compromise all can live with instead?-- Filll ( talk) 14:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

(inserted later). If there is a sub-section (or article) to the United States article about medicine in the United States with a section about different forms of practice I think it should be included, but not in the main article. MaxPont ( talk) 12:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

While I appreciate the fact that you are trying to form a compromise, this doesn't address my question about WP:NPOV. That said, I don't think that the inclusion of a mere sentence about the homeopathic use of deadly nightshade constitutes a "homeopathy miniarticle", as you seem to suggest. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Look get this straight. You can either try to make peace and have a compromise. Or you can try to push your agenda and probably be defeated, with almost no homeopathic content on WP, period, or at least only content that is about 95% critical. So take your pick. Do you want to have a reasonable compromise, or do you want to have a huge fight which will go on for many years and you will probably lose and will probably will lead to many people being banned? So take your pick. This is ludicrous. I think you should think very carefully before rejecting every entreaty to forge some sort of civil compromise. Remember these subjects are under probation, and the consequences of stonewalling and being difficult on purpose can be severe. So...think carefully. Maybe you want to rethink how you respond to me? I have had my attempts to compromise and extend the branch of peace rejected dozens of times, and people basically spit it back in my face. And at some point, I lose patience. And believe me, you do not want to go there. So let's forge a compromise where everyone can get something. You will NOT turn this encyclopedia into a promotional tract for a FRINGE discredited set of pseudoscience medical quackery without a MASSIVE fight, which will go on for a long long long long time, and without several miracles to occur to help you (like getting Jimbo on your side, or having the New York Times and the Surgeon General of the United States and the Center for Disease Control all promoting homeopathy openly over allopathy).--- Filll ( talk) 19:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

^ This confrontational comment, which in my opinion severely mischaracterizes the ongoing discusssion, is not at all helpful. Dlabtot ( talk) 19:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

(Inserted later) Remember that English is the new Latin and that the English Wikipedia should be global and not US-centric. The opinion of the US Surgeon General is not an absolute norm (though important). MaxPont ( talk) 13:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

As I said before, you have your choice, compromise and an agreement and peaceful editing. Or not. You pick. -- Filll ( talk) 19:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not opposed to compromise, but this is the wrong board to address this on. I am only looking for an answer to my question about NPOV. (P.S. I hardly think the proposed sentence can be construed as promotional for homeopathy, so no need for your "MASSIVE fight".) -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanx Levine2112, I was curious if someone was going to be curious and ask me specifics about some source info to those claims that I made about Belladonna, its early double-blind proving (in 13 cities, not 16 as I previously and accidentally cited) and its applications in the prevention and treatment of scarlet fever. For info about the proving, see Journal of Surgery, Gynecology, and Obstetrics, 1907 [4] See also Ted J. Kaptchuk, Intentional Ignorance: A History of Blind Assessment and Placebo Controls in Medicine Bulletin of the History of Medicine - Volume 72, Number 3, Fall 1998, pp. 389-433. [5] And here's a great reference to an impressive website of objective historical and research information. This site was previously listed at the article on homeopathy, but it was deleted (totally inappropriately). Chalmers I, Toth B. Thomas Graham Balfour's 1854 report of a clinical trial of belladonna given to prevent scarlet fever [6] I hope that this solid info will now be accepted as useful, for it is RS and notable. DanaUllman ^Talk 07:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I personally think that it is arbitrary for us to say that we should agree now to limit the number of homeopathic medicines that we should mention on wikipedia, as though our decision now will have any real impact tomorrow or the next day. But more important, I think that we should insist upon notability. If a medicine can be shown to be commonly used or if a medicine has had some significant research, then, it can and should be a part of this encyclopedia. Each article has to be invididually determined based on its own merits. DanaUllman ^Talk 07:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

For the record I think the comment on Deadly Nightshade should be included. I thought it might be Original research at first, but since that is not the case it should be included as is. This is not a Blp artice that is being discussed. If balance becomes an issue it can be addressed through the dispute process. I am not sure why Dana is suggesting that there should be a limit on the number of homeopathic medicines that we should mention on wikipedia, but I do agree with his stated criteria for including such medicines. : Albion moonlight ( talk) 10:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

For a more recent Double blinded proving of belladonna, see Brien, Lewith and Bryant, Ultramolecular homeopathy has no observable clinical effects. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled proving trial of Belladonna 30C, Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2003 Nov;56(5):562-8 [7]. If the use of belladonna in homoeopathy is included in the article, we should include this RS reference as well. Brunton ( talk) 10:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• I would leave out the "despite" bit and include the first half of the sentence. I do not care whether a similar sentence is in 1000s of articles. Homeopatic use is an interesting trivial aspect of any plant, and mentioning the use is not the same as saying that it works. It does not seem POV in any way to me, provided it is not in too prominent a position. So I suggest to stop arguing, include it everywhere, and relax.  —  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 11:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOT: articles are not collections of trivia or places for promotion of medical treatments, recognised or not. Viewpoints must be significant to the topic of the article if they're to be included in articles. There's nothing wrong with a homeopathy article noting substances that are invoked in preparation of treatments, but good third party independent evidence of significance is needed for each article on a substance where it is claimed that the substance has a homeopathic connection. .. dave souza, talk 13:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Deliberate exclusion of the fact that belladonna is used in the production of homeopathic medicines would be a obvious violation of NPOV. I would not include the mention of acne, boils and sunburn, since those are not indications for use (according to homeopathic practice). Fever, inflammation, and redness of mucous membranes are more appropriate indications (and can be sourced to Homeopathic Materia Media references). Arion 3x3 ( talk) 14:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick note. Albion moonlight mis-read my comment above. I said that there should NOT be a limit to the number of homeopathic medicines listed on wikipedia...just those that are notable, which will be a dynamic list. DanaUllman ^Talk 15:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

IMO, if folklore and recreational drug use of the plant is mentioned I think it is OK to also include homeopathatic usage in a NPOV way. MaxPont ( talk) 17:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

How many plants should have a mention in them on this? And how long should the mention be? Should it be a purely positive mention or a purely negative one or positive with caveats? How many plants? 100 plants? 1000 plants? 2000? 3000? more? Should minerals used in homeopathy have a similar mention? 1000? 2000? 3000? More? Should chemicals? Should animals? What about exotic homeopathic remedies like starlight and lightning storm? Should the articles on lightning and storms have subsections on homeopathic uses? Should the article on the Berlin Wall have a section on homeopathic use? Should all telescope articles have sections on homeopathic use? Should all optical articles have sections on homeopathic use? Should all articles on atoms and molecules have sections on relation to homeopathy? Should all planets and stars whose light might be used in homeopathic remedies have sections on homeopathic use? Should biographies of people that used homeopathy have a mention of homeopathy in their articles? How many? 100? 500? 5000? Should biographies of people that expressed an opinion of homeopathy have a mention of homeopathy in their articles? Again, how many biographies? What about the biographies of associates and friends and relatives of people who used homeopathy? How about people who might have used homeopathy but we do not know? How about places where the plants that are used in homeopathy grow? How about the countries that have passed laws about homeopathy? How about the people that voted on the laws about homeopathy? How about gardening articles; should they have sections on growing plants for homeopathic use? You see, without some sort of boundary, and some sort of guideline, I could envision putting a section in almost any article on Wikipedia on homeopathy. Every single article on Wikipedia could be required to have a subsection on homeopathy. What would you think of that?-- Filll ( talk) 18:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

OK Filll, you have a point (and you are funny at the same time). Why not use normal Policies and Guidelines to determine inclusion. To resolve this controversy I think it is best if the warring factions could try to reach a truce over the main article homeopathy. Hopefully, the pro-homeo camp would then feel less of a need for aggressive POV-pushing wherever they see an opportunity. Show good spirit on the main article and the conflict might resolve. MaxPont ( talk) 21:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

All of those questions might be relevant if this were some grand question about homeopathy on Wikipedia. However, this is a simple question about one sentence in one article. I just cannot fathom why someone would want to turn this into a crusade. Dlabtot ( talk) 22:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The context is that it was proposed that sentences about homeopathic use of substances be kept to the most significant cases, with the suggestion that about 50 would be appropriate, and proponentsists have been insistent that that would be far too restrictive. Sky's the limit. .. dave souza, talk 22:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems pretty easy to understand. Unless you are trying hard not to understand, and engage in WP:TE instead.-- Filll ( talk) 04:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• Shall we go burn some witches?
  There seems to be a POV debate here. The matter that deadly nightshade is used homeopathically seems undisputed, so that's not the POV that is concerned. I suspect the contented POV is: "homeopathy works". And "in order to push it, such a statement could be made in 1000s of articles". Well, I do not see how that helps to push a POV. The fact that something is used as a drug, does not mean it works as a drug. This crusade is not healthy. Suppose I hate males. I could make a case that this encyclopedia is using "him" for more than "her", and demand that this is limited. Nonsense that that would be a POV. Since mentioning a use is no endorsement of that use, there is no POV issue and no UNDUE weight issue. Saying that oil is used to make plastic is not promoting plastic. So quit, and let these sentences in, when they are sourced. If you want to burn witches, you are two centuries late.  —  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 05:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the sentence in question (at the top of this section) is POV, and its tone is not neutral. Try this:

Deadly nightshade is used in homeopathic prepartions for acne, boils, and sunburns, although the effectiveness of these preparations has not been proven. ^{1 2}

-- Una Smith ( talk) 06:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I support Una Smith's slightly rephrased version. Including a statement about how a plant gets used helps place the information in context for the reader, and a single sentence out of six screenfuls is unlikely to be considered undue weight. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 17:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Fully support Una's version. Less harsh, true to the source, unbiased, verifiable... How much more do you want? If there is evidence for using Belladonna therapeutically, please provide it. JFW |  T@lk 20:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't support Una's version. Not only is there no proof of effectiveness, there is also proof of ineffectiveness. And that's ignoring the fact that a homeopathic preparation of belladonna will contain zero belladonna. Dan Beale-Cocks 23:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

My revision of the original text says evidence, not proof; proof of no effect in one study is merely evidence of ineffectiveness more generally. -- Una Smith ( talk) 15:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The link that Una Smith added was to research on conventional doses of Belladonna, not homeopathic doses. Thanx for looking, Una. One thing that many editors who are unfamiliar with homeopathy do not (yet) seem to understand is that only very rarely is a homeopathic medicine known to treat a specific disease (there ARE exceptions, but exceptions are just that, not the rule). The vast majority of the time, a homeopathic medicine is used to treat a SYNDROME of symptoms that it is known to cause. As such, it is perfectly fitting for wikipedia to say that Belladonna is "used to treat" some of the above describe symptoms (we do not need to say that it has or hasn't been "proven" in double-blind placebo controlled trials). We could also say after listing specific symptoms that Belladonna is used to treat these symptoms "because it is also known to cause them in toxic doses" (by saying this, we also clarify this important homeopathic principle). We can and should also mention that it has a history of use in prevention and treatment of scarlet fever epidemics (references cited above). By simply saying that it in the ways I've described above, we maintain that important NPOV. DanaUllman ^Talk 21:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I added no link; the two links were in the original text. Also, both links specifically mention the lack of evidence re efficacy of homeopathic preparations. The NPOV question at hand concerns only homeopathic preparations, not other uses. -- Una Smith ( talk) 22:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Filll, you're obviously a smart guy, and I respect your POV, but for some reason, you frequently bring up this straw man argument. You mentioned (again) the use of the medicine, Berlin wall, as though this was notable or commonly used. It is neither, though it is commonly mentioned by skeptics of homeopathy as an example of how weird homeopathy is. However, this is akin to saying in every article on a drug that conventional medicine uses pregnant horses' urine in Premarin and that it uses explosives such as nitrogylcerin. I do not think that we can or should create a specific list of which substances that are used in homeopathy are worthy of mention on wikipedia. My common above was simply if the information is notable (that is, if its use is common, if it has been formally tested in a scientific fashion, and/or if there is a notable historical reference to its use. You and I (and probably everyone else) agree that we do not need to reference homeopathy in EVERY article for which a homeopathic medicine is made, especially since virtually every plant or mineral or animal could be a homeopathic medicine. My concern about the straw man argument is: have there been people wanting to shoe-horn every substance that is used in homeopathy into wikipedia? (I don't think so...and actually, in THIS discussion, there is a GOOD and solid case for inclusion of reference to Belladonna as also having use as a homeopathic medicine because it is notable (has a long history of usage), has research on it (see the above reference to the double-blind proving of it), and has a history of efficacy in preventing and treating people during scarlet fever epidemics. DanaUllman ^Talk 21:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

If, as you have recently posted elsewhere, "many provings are conducted with the 30th potency", surely it is a little misleading simply to state, as you are now suggesting, that "Belladonna is used to treat these symptoms because it is also known to cause them in toxic doses". You aren't suggesting that a 30C preparation of belladonna is toxic, are you? Brunton ( talk) 21:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Since we agree on most of these issues, what would be wrong with helping me forge a compromise? Suppose we decide to try to make a list of the 50 most notable homeopathic remedies and then made sure their articles included a note of their homeopathic use. And we eventually have maybe 20 or 30 homeopathy articles and subarticles, and maybe another 50 homeopathic biographies. Then we decide that 50 remedies is just too few. Then we can change the compromise as needed as long as there is consensus. But the reason to do this is to try to put some order in the process, and make editors on all sides feel comfortable that their views will not be ignored. If someone in the future decides they want to create another 100 homeopathy articles or put homeopathy sections in other articles, or something else in violation of the compromise, we can use the compromise to reign them in. Also, if some pro-science editor decides we have to get rid of all homeopathy on Wikipedia, and roll back to 5 articles in total, including biographies, then we can point to the compromise and show how this position does not have support and consensus. So help me forge a compromise so people feel comfortable with the situation. It might help to relieve a lot of the tension. It might not work as well, but it is worth a try I think.-- Filll ( talk) 21:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, in case people think a rollback is impossible, let me make sure you know that it has happened before. Dozens of homeopathic articles were deleted, many before Dana Ullman joined Wikipedia. So I think that if we can just try to keep things orderly, the chance of big increases or big decreases can be reduced a bit. There are no guarantees of course. But this can be a way to get the various communities to start working together in a constructive way instead of constantly being at loggerheads.-- Filll ( talk) 21:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to take a moment to thank all of you for your comments here thus far. Even though that this board may not be the proper place to discuss such things, I still do appreciate all of the suggestions for changes to the text, ideas for cross-article compromise, insights into the historical context, etc. However, with regards to my original question, thus far all editors contributing here seem to support that the text does not violate WP:NPOV in anyway. Is this correct? Are there any editors who believe it does violate NPOV and if so, how specifically? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 06:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Una Smith's wording is NPOV in my opinion; I gave my concerns with the original wording earlier. — Whig ( talk) 06:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Several editors have said (many times) at Talk:Deadly nightshade and in this very thread that mentioning homeopathy in the deadly nightshade article gives undue weight to this information. Very few scientific studies deal with the homeopathic use, and general references such as plant encyclopedias rarely mention the homeopathic use; this suggests that in the total picture of the uses of deadly nightshade, the homeopathic use is uncommon, and that in the context of all uses of deadly nightshade, the homeopathic use is trivial.

I haven't read this thread in detail, but it appears that most of the commenters here aren't addressing the issue of undue weight. If this discussion is to have any effect on the article, it would be helpful if people addressed this issue directly. --Akhilleus ( talk) 07:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Filll, The plant Deadly Nightshade should be included if we make a top100 list of homeopathic remedies. Akhilleus, remember that Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia and can include unscientific knowledge (e.g. folklore about the plant, references to the plant in art and novels, and recreational drug use of the plant). 11:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC) (Unsigned comment by MaxPont)

I don't understand what is going on in the discussions that are being continued here. On one hand it seems clear to me that homeopathy should be mentioned in the deadly nightshade article: I am only marginally interested in homeopathy, but when I hear about deadly nightshade I think of tomatoes, eye drops and homeopathy. (Of course this is only "original anecdotal evidence".) For a Google search for "belladonna 6X" I get 70,000 hits. In German it would be "Belladonna D6", which gets 30,000 hits. In comparison, Paracetamol gets 3,6 million hits, i.e. only 36 times as many. I think this indicates that homeopathic use of belladonna is significant to the point where it would be strange not to mention it in the article. (It also shows that the "no molecules left" argument is a red herring here because 6X is a dilution of 1:1 million, which doesn't get at all near the Avogadro constant). On the other hand, I don't see why Levine2112 is unhappy with Filll's proposal, which looks as if it should take care of this and many similar clear cases and would also deal with real borderline cases in a relatively fair and effective way. (Although there would be some limited potential for bias if homeopathy supporters prioritised by relevance of substances to homeopathy rather than relevance of homeopathy to substances.) Is it because it's a kludge? Or is fear of a Trojan horse involved? It looks as if both sides could be more open to the other's arguments here. -- Hans Adler ( talk) 12:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It is a bit strange to me. A group is asking to put a sentence in a belladonna article. I am saying, ok, if this use is significant to belladonna, why not, but while we are at it, let's agree that you can also put it in at most 49 other plant articles where homeopathic uses are a notable feature of the plant, but no more articles without consensus. And my suggestion is being rejected, over and over. I think that is quite telling.-- Filll ( talk) 12:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

In the end a comprise similar to what you are proposing might be what is practical, but the resistance, at least on my part, is that NPOV policy should predominate and not compromise. Why compromise on 50 when NPOV guideline might be closer to 150? Why limit the breadth of wiki coverage when NPOV would include much more than 50. Some, (I think you) have suggested that thousands of homeopathy mini-articles might spring up. I personally have not interest in that, and doubt WP:WEIGHT would support that.

Suggestion prior to compromise: What might be helpful is to look at the top 100 (HOMEOPATHY'S GREATEST HITS) on google to see how many hits they get. The numbers of remedies reaching a minimal threshold for inclusion might be even less then 100. Anthon01 ( talk) 13:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Filll's right that we should be discussing principles here, rather than having to go through this with every plant species. Regarding the comment by --Akhilleus. in terms of UNDUE, "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views" and "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject", so we need third party verification of the significance of the information to the subject of the article, beyond the partisan claims of the minority. Sources have been presented to provide that verification, and their validity is a matter for detailed agreement on the article talk page. If agreement is reached that the significance is such that the view should be included, UNDUE requires us to fairly represent and make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and other sections including #Balance and #Fairness of tone come into play. From the mainstream viewpoint "Deadly nightshade is used in homeopathic prepartions" is problematic as it implies that the drug is present, which is highly improbable. A better phrasing would be "Deadly nightshade is used in preparing homeopathic treatments". The point about absence of scientific support for its effectiveness seems to me to be reasonably well covered by either version. .. dave souza, talk 13:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Dave, I agree with most of what you said, but I think Levine2112 posted here in hopes of getting some outside input on the question of whether homeopathy was significant enough to include in atropa belladonna (as it's now named)--"detailed agreement on the article talk page" is exactly what we haven't been able to get yet. The "100 greatest hits" approach that Anthon01 proposes above sounds fine to me. --Akhilleus ( talk) 17:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I've, uh, participated in the discussion about this general issue at WP:PLANTS, and I watched a good editor (who, like me, does not doubt that homeopathy is pseudoscience) leave Wikipedia rather than continue to battle to be able to include cultural references in plant articles. I would readily agree with "Deadly nightshade is used in preparing homeopathic treatments". I might even support "Deadly nightshade is used by quacks in preparing homeopathic treatments" if it would get this issue off the dime. I have no position on the other arguments here, but plant species can be used for a lot of different things, for good or ill, to effect or to no effect, in real life and in fiction, and it seems wrong to exclude some for what are basically political reasons. -- Curtis Clark ( talk) 14:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I have an issue with the "treatments" part of "homeopathic treatments", which is why I retained "homeopathic preparations" in the revised sentence. -- Una Smith ( talk) 15:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Una Smith. "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views" - Well that Deadly nightshade is used in homeopathic preparation is not a view held by a tiny minority. It is a view which we all here agree on. (That it is an effective treatment for such-and-such is a tiny minority view, but the sentence for inclusion does not say this.) "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject" - One sentence does seem to be the appropriate weight, given the weight the two Deadly nightshade sources give to homeopathy. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Status check

Let's review. The question is Does the inclusion of this text at Deadly nightshade in anyway violate WP:NPOV?

The original text:

Deadly nightshade is used in homeopathic prepartions for acne, boils, and sunburns despite the absence of any scientific evidence for the effectiveness of such a use. ^{1 2}

• POV in both content and tone. -- Una Smith ( talk) 15:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• WP:UNDUE unnecessary mentioning of a fringe belief with no scientific relevance. -- Kim D. Petersen ( talk) 18:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC) (<=> POV)
• This is fine, if it has to be on the page at all Dan Beale-Cocks 19:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• If homeopathy covers the general lack of evidence, "despite the absence..." is bitting a dead horse (I can't believe I wrote that). If it is meant about this specific plant species (implying that homeopathic preparations of other plants are efficacious), it's blatant OR, absent a reference showing the lack of efficacy of preparations of this specific species.-- Curtis Clark ( talk) 20:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• NPOV I am fine with any sentence that can achieve consensus. Remember, this is not a scientific article about the plant but a general article. We can mention folklore, recreational drug use, references from music, art and literatue, etc. 08:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• NPOV - I am confused by Kim D. Petersen's rationale. Does the article only include information with scientific relevance? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The revised text:

Deadly nightshade is used in homeopathic preparations for acne, boils, and sunburns, although the effectiveness of these preparations has not been proven. ^{1 2}

• NPOV. Without question, this plant is widely used in homeopathic remedies; mention of that fact is fair. Re effectiveness or lack thereof, a more critical statement would be fair if accompanied by sources. PubMed has 24 sources matching "belladonna homeopathic". The question of whether a homeopathic preparation can ever be effective is a topic for another article. -- Una Smith ( talk) 15:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• NPOV. Support. Prefer leaving out specific conditions if effectiveness must be attached to them. We should not be discussing effectiveness in the "uses section" of a plant article. Anthon01 ( talk) 18:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• WP:UNDUE unnecessary mentioning of a fringe belief with no scientific relevance. -- Kim D. Petersen ( talk) 18:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC) (<=> POV)
• This is not okay. The effectiveness has not been proven, but also the ineffectiveness of homeopathic preparations _has_ been proven, and the sentence doesn't make that clear. Dan Beale-Cocks 19:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• NPOV. Support. Prefer leaving out for acne, boils, and sunburns, but not a big issue. I believe the material should only be concerned with homeopathic preparations of Deadly nightshade and leave the argument about general ineffectiveness of homeopathic preparations to the homeopathy article. Ward20 ( talk) 20:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• NPOV, although the efficacy of many of the things plants are used for is undocumented in Wikipedia and elsewhere.-- Curtis Clark ( talk) 20:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)*...
• NPOV - I am confused by Kim D. Petersen's rationale. Does the article only include information with scientific relevance? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

---

"although the effectiveness of these preparations has not been proven." is too much and not appropriate to a plant article. We are not discussing the effectiveness, simply the use. I recommend:

Deadly nightshade is used in making homeopathic preparations

• NPOV. Anthon01 ( talk) 17:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• WP:UNDUE unnecessary mentioning of a fringe belief with no scientific relevance. -- Kim D. Petersen ( talk) 18:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC) (<=> POV)
• But there is no trace of the plant in a homeopathic dilution, so it shouldn't be mentioned as a use of the plant. Dan Beale-Cocks 19:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Well the preparation starts with plant material and dilutant. The sentence is accurate. Soil is used in making spinach. No soil is left when it gets to your grocer. Is it wrong to mention the need for soil in growing spinach? Anthon01 ( talk) 20:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The argument of "no trace" is specious. If a homeopath poisons himself with the plant extract in the course of making the original dilution, is it all in his mind? If I spend all my money and am broke, was no money used in the preparation of my bankruptcy?-- Curtis Clark ( talk) 20:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, there are 100,000 Google hits for "belladonna 6X" or "Belladonna D6", i.e. deadly nightshade in a dilution of 1:1 million. That's not the kind of dilution where nothing but the placebo effect is preserved. Just because it's called homeopathy doesn't mean it's ineffective, or even harmless: how about arsenicum D1 (= a dilution of 1:10)? -- Hans Adler ( talk) 20:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• ...

---

If the use is presented in a medicinal use section, its effectiveness is implied. The following formulation would work, or it could be moved to an alternative medicine section:

Deadly nightshade is used in making homeopathic preparations, although the effectiveness of these preparations has not been proven.

• NPOV. dave souza, talk 18:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I disagree with the premise here. The mere fact that it's categorized under "Medicine" does not imply effectiveness. We can all think of "medications" that have only historical value (see most of Category:Medicinal plants, for example) or modern drugs that proved useless. Burying it in "Medicine" only indicates that it's more closely related to "Medicine" than to "Cosmetics" or "Recreational use." WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• WP:UNDUE unnecessary mentioning of a fringe belief with no scientific relevance. -- Kim D. Petersen ( talk) 18:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC) (<=> POV)
• I'll just repeat my earlier comments about homeopathy being disproved, not just "not proved". Dan Beale-Cocks 19:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• By taking it out of the "Medicine" section, doesn't that imply that the treatments left are efficacious? -- Curtis Clark ( talk) 20:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I have made a new section recommending more accuracy (see below) because the list of "conditions" for which Belladonna is used is inaccurate and doesn't represent its most common indications (yeah, it is that bad). Its most common conditions (if we wish to list such, would be fever, colic or abdominal cramping, and sore throat). And calling it a "homeopathic preparation" is simply not accurate either. Belladonna is a "homeopathic medicine" legally and in the public arena. No one refers to it as a "homeopathic preparation." This borders on the silly. DanaUllman ^Talk 22:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Consider these contrasting sentences:

1. Deadly nightshade is used by con-artists to defraud deluded persons suffering from trivial ailments.

2. Deadly nightshade is used by physicians to cure boils.

3. Deadly nightshade is used by medical practioners to treat boils.

4. Deadly nightshade is used by homeopaths for boils.

Sentence 1 is probably true; that is, yes, some con artists sell harmless placebos just to make money. Sentence 2 is presumably false. Sentence 3 implies intended efficacy by licensed caregivers and is doubtful. Sentence 4 can sound like 3 if "homeopath" is taken to imply "medical practioner" and "for" is taken to mean "treat", both of which are reasonable interpretations by otherwise disinterested laymen. For that reason, the sentence used in the text should include qualifications regarding efficacy (as sourced) so as to avoid a false but reasonable interpretation by the reader. I believe our difficulty is just that ambiguity in the term homeopathy, that is, connoting, or denoting, medical treatment; versus connoting, or denoting, fruad. The difficulty with each position is the evidence for the other: quacks do indeed sell snake-oil and some homeopathic processes are flatly disproven; but physicians (real physicians) do sometimes prescribe "homeopathic" remedies. The reason is that homeopathy is not so simple as either its fans or its critics make out and "homeopathy" does not define a definite and consistent body of science. So I seek agreement on this intermediate statement:

Some prepartions labelled as "homeopathic" have no scientific basis for medical use, however, some actually do.

My pending example of this is the trade-marked (I think) "Smoke-Ease" (I found a list of ingredients). The botanical ingredients all look relevant for alleviating the discomforts of quitting nicotine. However, I am told that properly, one of the ingredients is something diluted-to-zero (the earmark homeopathic activity, which has no scientific validity known). My own assumption, to date, is that any diluted-to-zero component would have only a placebo effect (or marketing effect), and the actual medical amelioration would come solely from the botanical ingredients (which includes, for example, an expectorant, that really would help during the few days of nicotine withdrawal marked by cold-like symptoms). Can we agree definitely that yes, some homeopathy is dubious (if not outright bunk) but that no, some homepathy is effective (even if the term "homeopathy" itself can be misleading as it is widely used)? Pete St.John ( talk) 18:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Some points: Your 4 sentences are slightly misleading - i) there is no trace of bella donna in a homeopathic dilution, so the plant isn't actually used, just the name of the plant. ii) the controversy is about preparation with homeopathic dilution - if you can find a remedy that actually uses bella donna in anything greater than a zero concentration then it seems this whole argument is moot - "bella donna is used in this preparation" - otherwise the extra ingredients are a distraction to the topic. Dan Beale-Cocks 19:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

See my two comments above. The "no molecules left" argument is a good one against homeopaths' theory of how homeopathy is supposed to work, but not in this discussion about a plant that has substantial use in the 6X (1:1 million) range. -- Hans Adler ( talk) 20:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

There may not be an effective biological difference between "dilution to zero" and "dilution to insignificance"; e.g. I don't think Belladonna is as potent as ricin, where a microgram exceeds the lethal dose. However, your point is taken, and just that distinction (between how homeopathy is supposed to work, and what happens in practice) is what I want to emphasize. I think distinguishing between effetive remedies labelled as homeopathy and traditional homeopathic mysticism is necessary to fix these articles. In the cases (and I believe they exist) that "homeopathic" remedies are effective medically, then homeopathy pertains in a way it does not in the cases where homeopathic "remedies" are merely suspertitious. Homeopathy, as it is practiced, blows hot and cold. Pete St.John ( talk) 21:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• NPOV I am fine with any sentence that can achieve consensus. Remember, this is not a scientific article about the plant but a general article. We can mention folklore, recreational drug use, references from music, art and literatue, etc. 08:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC) MaxPont ( talk) 20:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Issue

This is basic begging of the question. There are two issues:

1. Homeopathy is fringe, therefore inclusion of homeopathy is subject to the considerations of WP:UNDUE
2. Undue demands that we consider the prominence of the points suggested for inclusion. To this end, unassailable sources asserting the prominence of the fringe idea to the subject of the article are desirable for establishing the threshhold for inclusion.

These two issues are needed in tandem. You cannot just ask the question if inclusion of a particular phrase is in violation of NPOV. You must ask the entire question clearly lest you assert a consensus for a point that is of no relevance. ScienceApologist ( talk) 04:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, that might be the case. However, this noticeboard is explicitly for discsussion of the NPOV issue and according to fundamental Wikipedia principles it is discouraged that a discussions expand in all directons. MaxPont ( talk) 08:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Not really the Issue

SA, your attempt to define the debate in your own terms is a weak form of rhetoric. Your assertions of fact and policy don't become more persuasive through repetition, nor through the use of Bold text or spurious section headers. Dlabtot ( talk) 17:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Wrapping it up

So where do we stand. Can we add the phrase (or some amalgamation suggested above) to the article without violating WP:NPOV? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• As seemingly one of the few experts on homeopathy here, I must tell people that NPOV or POV, this statement is simply wrong (not factually accurate). A more accurate and NPOV statement would be (please note that I have chosen, on purpose, to not mention "efficacy" or "success" in treatment; instead, I chose to use "only the facts, 'mam"): "Homeopathic Belladonna is used to treat a specific syndrome of symptoms that it is known to cause, including a rapid onset of fever, flushed face, reddened mucous membranes, dilated pupils, hypersensitivity to sound/light/touch, and delusional states. Homeopathic Belladonna has a history of usage during scarlet fever epidemics and is used today frequently for select syndromes in infants and children, in particular, and occasionally in adults who exhibit symptoms similar to what it is known to cause." Is this a more middle-ground? Please note my references above to the history of its use in scarlet fever epidemics. DanaUllman ^Talk 22:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

For people who want to understand what I mean by miniarticles, and the need to guard against creeping promotion, see above. Thanks Dana for the example.-- Filll ( talk) 23:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I also think that we are clogging this page with unnecessary effluvia. I do not think the board is meant to be empty space we can jam full of homeopathic discussions. And then we are doing it one by one, instead of addressing all the plants, or all the remedies, in one comprehensive agreement. So we are having a huge discussion about one out of potentially hundreds or thousands of such remedies. This is just silly.-- Filll ( talk) 23:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hang on - this isn't fact: "Homeopathic Belladonna is used to treat a specific syndrome of symptoms - treat implies efficacy. That paragraph is the least acceptable form of wording I've seen so far. Dan Beale-Cocks 23:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Another factual problem here: rather than "Homeopathic Belladonna is used to treat a specific syndrome of symptoms that it is known to cause", wouldn't it be more accurate to say that "Homeopathic Belladonna is used to treat a specific syndrome of symptoms that it is believed by homoeopaths to cause", given that double blinded provings of belladonna at 30C (the potency that Hahnemann said should be used in provings - see The Organon § 128) have found it to have no effect distinguishable from that of a placebo? [8] Brunton ( talk) 00:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Might compare to "Pencillin antibiotic is used to treat many cases of sore throats". That some 90% of sore throats are of viral cause (vs bacterial) and will never settle as a direct action of the antibiotic (vs patient's own immune system finally dealing with the infection) is, IMHO, immaterial here. The important bit is "used to", which although a little ambiguous) can fairly mean "given with the intention of". So yes we now look back on common UK medical practice in the last couple of decades and think the approach had no efficacy (other than as placebo and social reassurance) but there was no doubt that it was being almost routinely prescribed to try and effect a cure. If you want to be pedantic might rephrase as "Homeopathic Belladonna is used to try to treat a specific syndrome of symptoms - but that is convoluted and even I can tell that reads poorly for an encyclopaedia. David Ruben ^Talk 00:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately, that phrase doesn't appear in the Penicillin article. If it did, I would certainly recommend that it be removed. There is, however, a section on misuse of antibiotics in the Antibiotic article which mentions incorrect prescribing of antibiotics in the context of a study of respiratory tract infections, and rather implies that doctors were prescribing antibiotics as a placebo to "patients who they believed expected them". Perhaps something more along these lines would be appropriate in articles relating to homoeopathic use of substances. Brunton ( talk) 08:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, did not mean suggest Penicillin article so used that phrase, I was just trying to illustrate that the phrasing is ambiguous, but in a particular reading can be considered factually correct. Your proposal of approach is sensible, but language needs be so careful so as not to offend what is de facto a significant (albeit minority and rejected-by-the-majority) viewpoint held by many (irrrespective of whether their views are "wrong" or not). Another example might have been "Prisoner X used a plastic spoon to dig through the walls" - that he scraped the implement against the wall we can all agree on, whether it actually marked the wall is clearly a separate (and dubious) issue, so if we wish to emove any room for doubt then a rephrase as "Prisoner X used a plastic spoon to try to dig through the walls", or as in your suggestion "Prisoner X used a plastic spoon believing he could dig through the walls". I think the later, in homeopathy, will cause more argument than the "to try to" version, than is worthwhile for such a margin rephrasing. David Ruben ^Talk 20:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to draw attention to a policy change discussion, concerning to expand/clarify the requirement of "what is due".

• Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view#UNDUE vs DUE

 &#151;  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 11:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

AeronM ( talk · contribs) has undertaken a campaign to push POV in at least two areas on Wikipedia. AeronM is editing articles relating to fluoride (see also water fluoridation and water fluoridation controversy) and "natural horsemanship" (I know nothing about the latter topic). When AeronM's editing is challenged, AeronM responds with accusations of "edit warring" or other abrasive comments. Every editor who has commented on AeronM's edits at the fluoride articles, at least, has disagreed with the edits. AeronM has been warned previously about POV-pushing. Further advice or input is requested. · jersyko talk 01:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not, and have not, been POV pushing on either article, as can be seen in the talk page history. All of my edits are properly sourced and major edits are discussed on the talk page first. This complaint is the result of one editor, who has been warned for attacking me many times in the past here, a warning she subsequently deleted from her user talkpage here, who has solicited the help of another editor here, who she found by following his link from my user talk page, in order to continue to intimidate and harass me. -- AeronM ( talk) 03:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I have borne the brunt of her wrath on the horse articles, this person only seems to have created a user name on wikipedia less than an month ago and seems that now it's not just stuff where she and I have differences. I have noticed similarly-themed attacks on other people. In her defense, to be as fair as I can be, she IS doing better than she was two weeks ago (I will give her kudos for voluntarily merging the web page she created for her own commercial product in the wake of an RfD) and she may yet come around with some mentoring from people who have no connection whatsoever to any of the topics where she is editing - pro or con. Add to the list navicular disease, bitless bridle, natural horsemanship, as well as the flouride articles. Montanabw ^(talk) 03:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Provide us with diffs to show evidence of POV pushing. Do not expect people to research this for you. No one has time to dig through many K of edits.-- Filll ( talk) 04:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

A brief examination of edit summaries at [9] is useful; in particular, referring to disputed chunks of text moved to the talk page as vandalism [10], referring to efforts to remove undue weight as POV [11]. The sources he uses are almost exclusively on fringe/activist websites [12].

In summary, even though there is an article devoted to the minority view of the dangers of fluoridation ( water fluoridation controversy), which is summarized and linked to from Fluoride, he insists on getting more air time on the fluoride article, claming that he is "teaching the controversy" and that it does not violate "undue weight". [13] [14]. -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 06:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Surely, accusations against an editor do not belong here; they belong on RfC. Does the article in question have POV issues? Probably. -- Una Smith ( talk) 06:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

True enough. Having created other user conduct RFCs in the past, however, I know the amount of time and effort needed to start one. I don't have that time right now (see the note at the top of my talk page), but I would be willing to do it in the future if this behavior persists. In any event, my alternative to posting a note here was to do nothing until over a month from now. I chose to post here in an attempt to notify the larger community. · jersyko talk 14:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Provide us with diffs to show evidence of POV pushing. Do not expect people to research this for you. No one has time to dig through many K of edits.-- Filll ( talk) 04:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the whole story, but you could start with this diff making extensive changes in the presentation and interpretation of content in the article Water_fluoridation_controversy, this diff reverting my subsequent removal of a couple of unsourced items that looked to me like POV, these additional changes to the article a little while later, and the concurrent discussion of the article at Talk:Water fluoridation controversy#Edit Warring.

-- Orlady ( talk) 06:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC) For the record, I had no previous interactions with Montanabw, the fluoridation articles, or AeronM until a couple of days ago when I happened upon a fluoride-related article in New Pages Patrol (and I wouldn't know a bitless bridle if it bit me).

It is interesting to note that the first complaint issued here by Jersyko involves not only the page he was working on, but another page he admits he knows nothing about. Why, then, is it included in his complaint, unless it is true that he was solicited by User:montanabw to do so. Montanabw has a history of soliciting help from other eds when going on the attack, as seen here, here and here. And those are only ones that pertain to me!

Montanabw does not respond well to criticism. She usually responds with a snarky, condesending and mean-sprited ad hominem attack on the issuer, as seen here, here and here. Again, that is only a few examples. More are listed in the warning issued by User:Una Smith here.

Lastly, yes, both pages have POV issues, which are being handled on the respective talk pages, per wiki policy. The fighting on the fluoride pages started long before I joined wikipedia. A quick read of the talk page there shows many examples of Jersyko, who has a long history of intimidating other editors who do not share his viewpoint, examples here, here, here, and here, and subsequent RfC here and has also been accused of tag-teaming in the past, as seen here and even managed to have an editor blocked here for disagreeing with him. I am merely the next in line to be attacked for holding an opposing viewpoint. -- AeronM ( talk) 16:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

A cursory view of AeronM's contributions and comments regarding the horsemanship articles enabled me to conclude that AeronM was pushing a POV there as well. AeronM's personal website, which is or was linked from her user page, presents her personal POV on the subject in no uncertain terms.

I invite any users to examine my prior comments on and editing to the fluoridation related articles. These articles attract a lot of conspiracy theorists and zealots. I have engaged in discussion with a lot of them over the two or three years I have been watching the article. Taking a more recent example, one cited by AeronM, User:Libertyinfo was blocked by a completely uninvolved administrator after repeated attempts to (1) push his/her POV in the article and (2) stifle discussion on the talk page with abrasive comments toward other users. I did not request the block, as far as I can remember. In fact, I attempted to engage in discussion with the user and explain the relevant policies, just as I have done with AeronM. I invite the community to draw its own conclusions. · jersyko talk 18:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Third request: Provide us with diffs to show evidence of POV pushing. Do not expect people to research this for you. No one has time to dig through many K of edits. -- Una Smith ( talk) 18:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, accusations against an editor do not belong here; they belong on RfC. This venue is for evaluating articles for NPOV or lack thereof. -- Una Smith ( talk) 18:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Diffs have already been noted above by other editors. Take, for example, this series of edits to water fluoridation controversy, which states, among other things, that fluoride is "one of the most toxic substances on the planet." · jersyko talk 18:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The edits referenced were good faith edits, and all sourced with verifiable refs. That fluoride is one of the most toxic substances on earth is not disputed, only my adding this information to the article is disputed, indicating a strong bias against the information itself. After user:jersyko determined that the source was not to his liking (and therefore not acceptable), I provided additional sources. Again, this all belongs on the flouride controversy talk page. -- AeronM ( talk) 22:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me for going off-topic here, but where have you found peer-reviewed science or a qualified toxicologist to support the view that fluoride is "one of the most toxic substances on earth"? If you sincerely believe that it is even a fraction as toxic as (to name just a few truly toxic substances) methyl mercury, cadmium, or hexavalent chromium, you have been seriously deluded. Unlike these other substances, fluoride is an essential micronutrient for humans (it's a natural constituent of bones and teeth); the issue is that water fluoridation can cause people to get too much of it. I realize that journalists have picked up a conspiracy theory that says that fluoride is highly toxic and that the need for fluoride is a myth created by the military-industrial complex to hide the effects of military releases of it. For the record, I recognize this conspiracy theory, which influences much of the current content of the Water fluoridation controversy article, as one that was originally propounded at this "Magnum-Opus Project" website. -- Orlady ( talk) 23:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Having looked at some of the edits to the fluoridation article, it does appear that it could do with a bit of rewriting and that some of the attempts to push the "fluoride is a terrible plot" POV are not really NPOV. As I understand NPOV, we need to have all sides presented, not just slant it one way or the other.-- Filll ( talk) 21:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the article has POV issues. I also agree that AeronM is trying to contribute "the other side", which would help the article to reach NPOV. Despite three requests, diffs proving jersyko's accusation of POV-pushing by AeronM have not been provided. -- Una Smith ( talk) 22:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding "the other side", I would merely note that WP:UNDUE cautions against presenting "the other side" in too much detail in an article such as this one. The anti-fluoride position is demonstrably a rather small minority, even AeronM has admitted that it is a minority position at a relevant talk page. Thus, I disagree that contributing "the other side" in the article to a degree beyond which it was previously presented (that is, a brief subsection describing the disagreement with an appropriate link) is helping this article attain NPOV. Rather, doing so violates WP:UNDUE, a vital component of NPOV. · jersyko talk 22:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your claim that diffs have not been provided, are the diffs that have been provided somehow eluding your notice? If not, may I ask how, exactly, one can claim in a neutral manner that fluoride is the most toxic substances in the world? · jersyko talk 23:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

jersyko accuses AeronM of POV pushing. As evidence, jersyko has provided a single diff ( this). Per Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, POV pushing is repeated biased edits to a single article or group of articles. -- Una Smith ( talk) 00:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Rifleman82 and Orlady have also provided diffs above. I adopt their opinions as my own and would incorporate those diffs by reference. · jersyko talk 00:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems clear to me now that in the interest of saving myself time and effort, I've chosen the wrong forum to bring up AeronM's POV pushing. This was obviously much more appropriate for a user conduct RFC. Recognizing that, I now plan to begin one in the next month or so assuming the current editing trend persists. My apologies to all for my mistaken use of this noticeboard. · jersyko talk 01:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I've brought it to RFC here; feel free to jump in any time, though I don't think there's much which hasn't been said already. -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 02:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

From Talk:Fluoride#RFC, I see that the RFC is on Fluoride, not on User:AeronM. Try not to confuse the two. -- Una Smith ( talk) 03:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Folks, Una and Aeron are friends here, they tag team in perfect harmony (I think from opposite sides of the globe so none of us can get any sleep!)(grin). And it seems I am viewed as evil because I disagree and defend my views, though last I checked, I haven't gone over to the dark side yet! (LOL) I don't know where Una is coming from on this, she is normally a very good editor, even when I disagree with her, and Una is not prone to pushing fringe theories, but in the last few weeks, these two have teamed up and just made life crazy over in the horse articles, and now I see Aeron has gone onto the flouridation question, which I am glad to stay out of. I take issue with Aeron's usual attacks, taking things I said either on other people's talk pages out of context, putting in diffs that reflect some odd editing that occurred in her early days as an editor, which made it difficult to explain who said what, and so on. I get snarky, sure, I admit it on my talk page. I've been VERY frustrated by the situation, no question. I am not, however, mean-spirited; I have repeatedly said that I don't know Aeron from adam and all I am interested in is content. I do have issues with blatent POV-pushing of inaccurate and distorted information, which is then defended by making personal attacks on me for being the one to try and exercise quality control. As for now, I'm just plum worn out by her antics and glad to pass the torch. But if you need backup, you bet you can leave me a message and call for comment any time. Montanabw ^(talk) 05:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Aeron and I are not friends, at least not yet; Aeron is a newbie here and I am defending her. Reading the essay Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, I think it would be better to take such problems to RFC sooner than later. -- Una Smith ( talk) 15:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Side note to montanabw: First, if you are "glad to stay out of the fluoride issue," then what are you doing here? It seems that this is personal for you. Second, can you find the ten insults in your comment above? The reason I point it out is that I am not sure you realize how you come across and why so many people take offense at what you say. If you are unable to find ten blatant insults to Una and myself in the above text, then I am right, and you are not aware of how abrasive your comments can be. If you can find them, then one must assume the insults were intentional and meant to be taken as such, in which case I would refer you, again, to WP:CIVIL. -- AeronM ( talk) 17:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Given this, I suggest this notice should now be closed. -- Una Smith ( talk) 15:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. But Aeron, I'm here because you mentioned me, of course. Just use my name and I will probably drift over to see what's going on. Just like you do... Montanabw ^(talk) 00:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I did not mention you. You jumped in of your own accord. -- AeronM ( talk) 15:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, aren't you the same "AeronM" who posted this comment several days ago? The text of that comment did not name Montanabw, but it stated that the entire POV issue was "the result of one editor," and identified that editor by providing diffs of a couple of Montanabw's edits. That accusation surely qualifies as "mentioning" Montanabw. -- Orlady ( talk) 15:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Orlady, is there a point to this? montanabw stated that I mentioned her by name in this section, which I did not. My point was that this was a fluoride-related issue, which she was only involved with as a direct result of having asked jersyko for help to gang up on me, as noted above. But this is old news, time to move on, yes? -- AeronM ( talk) 16:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is a point. Your attempt to portray the content issues in fluoride-related articles as part of a personal campaign against you by Montanabw looks like a personal attack on Montanabw. I agree with your current position that the fluoride discussions have nothing to do with Montanabw, but you dragged her name into this discussion in an attempt to deflect attention from the real problems. The point is that this is part of a larger pattern of tendentious editing on your part. I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Tendentious editing and think about its relevance to your role in the various content wars you have been engaging in here. -- Orlady ( talk) 16:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The continuing conversation about who mentioned whom isn't helping solve any problems. I've marked this thread as resolved and will take it to user conduct RFC in due course if inappropriate behavior persists. · jersyko talk 16:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Orlady, just to clarify (again), the original complaint above was brought by user: jersyko at the behest of user:montanbw, who has a history of soliciting other eds to help her in her personal battles (Diffs above). She was warned about this by user:Una Smith. Again, this was not the correct place for this complaint, just as it is not the correct place for you to accuse me of tenditious editing. And yes, thank you, I have read WP:Tendentious editing, and also would point out the these edit wars were started years ago. I joined wiki less than a month ago, so, hard to say they were my fault, I believe, although I am trying to participate in the process of making the articles more NPOV. -- AeronM ( talk) 16:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh lordy, if you think I "solicited other edits" from jersyko, that implies that I am the mastermind of some grand conspiracy, I think jersyko is perfectly capable of independent action. (sighing mightily) I didn't even know this particular noticeboard existed. And wasn't this marked "resolved" several days ago? Montanabw ^(talk) 02:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Mediation/Third Party Resolution is required for the Akrotiri and Dhekelia page.

In the section Dispute with Cyprus, the so-called comments of the President of Cyprus are being made, even though the source doesn`t state `has cast fresh doubt on the continued British presence`, The phrase has been added. This is a POV being expressed here, even though the base is legitimatly and leagally British. Which further means any comments by the President are not of note, excpet to make Greek POV feel better.(even though there is no source to prove he made the exact comments).

This has reached a situation of continued Reverts by a certain use and less so by another, and this has now reached an impass, which needs resolving by a third party. Your help would be greatly appreciated, no matter what the outcome. Thanks Rockybiggs ( talk) 15:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus ( talk · contribs) is in apparent collaboration with Molobo ( talk · contribs). I don't think that it is right for administrators to behave as he has done in the article Morgenthau Plan. Molobos edits are heavily contested in the Morgenthau plan, see the article talk page, and he simply selects to revert back to include all of Molobos edits. And don't even bother to explain himself at talk.-- Stor stark7 ^Talk 01:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I would list this page under BLP/N, but it involves a company. After the short lead, the main thrust of this article was a corporate malfeasance issue. This is severely undue in its weight, and ought to be fixed. If it were a BLP issue, it wouldn't be allowed to stand. The Evil Spartan ( talk) 20:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• I've removed a number of uncited entries from the list. I agree that even in its current state it is still undue weight. The best solution is to add more information about the company's normal operation, not just scandals they were involved in. Also, the article should be moved to Aramark since we generally don't render corporate titles in all caps even if that is promotional practice (see Time (magazine) for an example of this). I tried to move it but couldn't. Someone will have to delete the redirect at Aramark first; I hoped that by first moving the redirect to a different title I could then move ARAMARK over it, but that didn't work. *** Crotalus *** 21:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Prehistoric Balkans.While we have references on Epirotes and Macedonians that say they were ancient Greeks or Proto-Greeks and also included mention of interaction with non-greek tribes diff the article was brought to a state saying that they were hellenised in 4th century bc.My version was sourced on the article page and on the talk page and the other one was not at all.The article written by admin User:Dbachmann and was later reverted history after my addition by removing sourced material ,that was User:3rdAlcove.Despite having provided sources for my point of view the admin Dbachmann ignores them and just says that i am a nationalist and pretends i havent offered anything on the issue talk.Dbachmann is biased against the sources by being biased against me for his own personal beliefs.The article is not neutral and is against the sources. Megistias ( talk) 19:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

What's the policy on people using their talk pages to store (publicise?) personal research as Megistias has done?-- Doug Weller ( talk) 15:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

This is Neutral point of view/Noticeboard . Megistias ( talk) 17:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually an admin linked a page for my many references and told me to link them rather then paste large texts on pages. refs Megistias ( talk) 19:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The article issue had been resolved.The article was rewritten and now refers to actual prehistoric balkans. Megistias ( talk) 10:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The paragraphs about the pipe organ are a tad opinionated: "Richard Hills play this incredible instrument", and "its wonderful sounds"... I think it needs a bit of a rewrite?

It's a decent enough article beside that mild fluffery, and just needs some clean up and general rewriting. Lawrence § t/ e 14:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I admit I'm a little uncomfortable with articles on commerical concerns. This article, to me, is way too favorable, and reads like a promo piece. I pared it down a couple of months ago, to this, but after a decent interval it was reverted to its current form, which is pretty much the way I found it in January. Would someone take a look, confirm that I'm not crazy, and maybe help bring a little order there? Xymmax ( talk) 15:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't really too balanced and in line with NPOV (it did read like a promotional piece) so I've trimmed it down heavily and removed major patches of OR/unsourced information. Lawrence § t/ e 16:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Quick work, and much appreciated. I'll try to keep an eye out to see how it goes. Xymmax ( talk) 16:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I have it watchlisted too and it's been dead. Lawrence § t/ e 14:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I loves me some Pete Miser, but I don't think the existing article has a NPOV at all:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Miser —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.1.145.232 ( talk • contribs) 18:50, 10 March 2008

This does look like a vanity page or something, its only "refs" are his own site and myspace page. I'd be happy to de-POV it but I have zero knowledge of the genre of music he's involved with. Anynobody 06:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Here an image of what an editor claims to be a victim* is included with no other information explaining what makes this victim notable enough to appear in an image on this article. Instead it is supposed to represent the conflict between the US and Iran somehow according to its uploader with Iran playing the part of the "dead"* child. The whole concept seems incredibly POV, including a nameless child in this article is like including images like these in our 9/11 articles: Warning extremely graphic content Photo showing part of a 9/11 victim on street below the WTC or this victim inside the Pentagon, they'd add nothing to it as people are expected to be killed in such an event and showing victims would only serve to engender an emotional bias. That's exactly what this image does on Iran Air Flight 655, showing a nameless child victim without a clear reason is obviously targeting people's feelings...which we are specifically not supposed to do.

Based on that understanding I, and at least five others,** have removed or support removing it from the article. However there is a kink, representing the situation as a lone edit warrior trying to remove an image for which good arguments for its retention are being ignored, one of the image's supporters had the page protected with it still included, essentially locking in the POV image. Since it's a policy we're talking about and not a simple edit I thought it'd be more appropriate to make the request here rather than WP:RFP#Current requests for significant edits to a protected page

(* There are whole cans of worms involving the accuracy, copyright, and other aspects of this image totally unrelated to NPOV concerns. **So you, the reader, know I'm not just making up a number: Editor 1 • Editor 2 • Editor 3 • Editor 4 • Editor 5) Anynobody 06:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Just began reading this one. Complex may be an understatement. Lawrence § t/ e 14:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Just to nip one point of contention for any POV purposes by anyone, I've moved that image of the victim over to Commons. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Vincennes_shot.jpg so that only factors related to GFDL can apply to deletion now, and no other emotional or POV reasoning. Lawrence § t/ e 15:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I hope this is an acceptable place to post my request for help. The anonymous user 66.182.15.218, User talk:66.182.15.218 has been posting many, many edits, all of which look to me like ads for the company ZAP (motor company). I have undone some edits, and the user has reverted me in one instance so far. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Fbagatelleblack ( talk) 18:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You may want to post this situation to the conflict of interest noticeboard as this board seems to be more about articles than editors. Anynobody 01:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Waterboarding is an article with a NPOV conflict, and the editors on this page want some help. The conflict revolves around if wikipedia can say "Waterboarding is a form of torture" or not. All the expert medical sources say that it is a form of torture, all non-american legal sources say it meets the UNCAT definition of torture, all US military sources say it violates GCIII as a form of torture. One right wing politician has said publicly waterboaring is not torture but most american politicians (obama, mccain and clinton etc) say it is. Any outside help would be useful. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 01:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Why not discuss the differing (major) views? Say Waterboarding is a method used as an interrogation technique which is often referred to as torture,(refs saying it is go here) though its status as such is disputed.(refs saying it isn't go here) Anynobody 02:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, the problem with that approach is that there really aren't any good sources that say it isn't torture. There's a huge listing of sources at Talk:Waterboarding, and I haven't bothered to count, but we've got hundreds of expert sources that say that waterboarding is torture, and something like 4 sources that say it's not--and those sources are talk show hosts and off-the-cuff remarks by U.S. Congress members. Just on pure numbers, it's something like a 100/1 ratio. If you consider the quality of the different sources, then you're weighing things like law review articles and statements from Jimmy Carter, former JAGS, UN committees, human rights organizations, etc. against Glenn Beck. --Akhilleus ( talk) 02:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

To add to that many of those source make very ambiguous politically motivated comments "it might not be torture" etc. There are very few sources that actually unequivocally say it isn't. --neonwhite user page talk 20:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That is a bit trickier. The people saying it isn't or is acceptable appear to just be giving their personal opinions whereas those who say it is cite facts like it being incompatible with some of the Geneva Convention as in this BBC article.

If more sources exist which discuss it in terms of how waterboarding is torture as defined by something more authoritative than an individual lawyer or pundit's opinion it could be phrased more like: Waterboarding is a method used as an interrogation technique identified by (treaties/laws/rulings/etc.) as torture, however some individuals have stated the practice is not. Anynobody 06:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

An extra wrinkle and twist is that (if you look at the talk page and the linked RFC on the question) is that editors over the past 6+ months have assembled over 200+ authorities and RS-compliant sources that specifically identity waterboarding, the act, as a form of torture. This ranges from historical records of how the United States prosecuted use of waterboarding in and after World War II, to over 100 legal authorities and scholars, academics, attorneys, politicians, and many of these international in nature. On the other end, we have less than a dozen stated individuals (and no historical footnotes, like legal decisions by the USA circa WW2) that say waterboarding may or may not be torture, and sometimes they even couch it by circumstance. One US official said it may not be torture if the government does it, but would be torture if it were done to him. All the latter dozen sources are also tied either to the US conservative movement, or the present American presidency. This has led to exhaustive and absurdly detailed debate and analysis, with the consensus on the talk page being that since the torture fact is only disputed by one small group of related individuals, of limited geographic interest, that issues like WP:WEIGHT, WP:UNDUE, and WP:FRINGE all bear out as well. The debates to be honest focuses on whether it violates NPOV to promote the views of the modern US government, in place from only 2000-2008, over 400+ years of historical international consensus. Lawrence § t/ e 15:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong I'm not saying we have to give equal credit to the people who don't think it's torture. They are clearly, as defined by WP:NPOV#Undue weight a minority view and should be treated as such. However to ignore their POV, if their views have been published in reliable/ verifiable sources, would actually be POV by omission. In other words make it clear that a vast majority of sources do indeed call it torture while a few, who've evidently never had water go up their nose in a swimming pool, don't. (I wouldn't include the pool part of course.)

Oops forgot to include suggested phrasing:Waterboarding is a method used as an interrogation technique almost universally identified by (treaties/laws/rulings/etc.) as torture, however some individuals have stated the practice is not necessarily torture. Anynobody 03:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Since this is an extreme minority view, it would inappropriate (as per WP:WEIGHT) to include it in the LEAD or give it much room in the article. Same as you do NOT see Apollo Moon landing hoax accusations mentioned in the Apollo Moon Landing article lead ("Six Apollo missions landed on the Moon, however a few people have claimed none did..."), but you do see it mentioned later in the article, so it can be found. Perhaps a line somewhere, and the cites you've found to people who have this personal, unexpert (and doubtless not first-hand!) opinion. The cites might be useful for some future historian or student, trying to figure out who was openly defending the practice, during the GW Bush administration. One day, perhaps somebody will put together a waterboarding-as-non-torture page, say: Waterboarding viewed as unrequested recreation provided by the U.S. government, and it can be used THERE (with a summary as a main article, put in this one). S B H arris 04:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

As Sbharris said in longer form, that's the crux of the "debate". If a couple of people in the US dispute the torture status, is that enough to trump calling it torture outright, in contradiction of 200+ other authorities and 400 years of history? Or is just a classic of minority wingnut views trying to get fake prominence? Lawrence § t/ e 05:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I posted an NPOV notice at Atheism here because I think it is a glaring NPOV violation in a featured article at that! You guys here might help to keep an eye at this article, and check its neutrality. Kleinbell ( talk) 05:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The glaring obvious place for Criticism of atheism is in....the Criticism of atheism article. Ttiotsw ( talk) 06:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Kleinbell can you give an idea of what would make the article more NPOV? (Is info missing, etc.) Anynobody 06:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see my latest post at article's talk page. In summary using wikipolicy language: the article on atheism "should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each," "in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties," i.e. a proportion to the party of those who admire atheism, the party of those who do not admire atheism, the party of those who are critical of atheism. We are talking here of the article on atheism not an article about the criticism of atheism. The latter article has its own "parties." Kleinbell ( talk) 02:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah I see, well to cut right to the heart of it you're both right and wrong in my humble opinion. Getting into specifics about such criticism is inappropriate on the Atheism article itself as Ttiotsw said, but at the same time Criticism of atheism should be linked from the main article as described in summary style using a {{ see also}} which I did under the Atheism, religion and morality section. Kleinbell you may want to briefly summarize the most important aspects of the criticism in this section but again going into detail would be best done in the criticism article. (Just like going into detail about what Atheists see wrong with Christianity on its article rather than Criticism of Christianity.) Anynobody 04:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

"Getting into specifics about such criticism is inappropriate on the Atheism article itself as Ttiotsw said". Please, can you explain this for me? Why inappropriate, please? There has to be very good reasons given what I wrote and NPOV-non-negotiable policy. Kleinbell ( talk) 09:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The coexistence of Atheism and Criticism of atheism is a clear example of a POV fork. From Wikipedia:Content forking : Articles should not be split into multiple articles so each can advocate a different stance on the subject. More details can be found in Wikipedia:Criticism that says : Don't make articles entirely devoted to criticism of a topic that has ... its own Wikipedia article. How long have these two article existed separately? They must be fused back together or, if too long ( WP:SIZE), prominently linked to each other as per WP:SS. Emmanuelm ( talk) 14:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC) (cross-posted at Talk:Atheism)

I disagree. Criticism of Atheism is not a POV-fork of Atheism. It is not the case that one article presents one point of view, and the other the opposite point of view. Atheism is primarily about defining atheism in its various forms and describing its history. It does not present arguments for (or against) atheism at all. (Note: I have also replied to your cross-post at Talk:Atheism, although the content of my reply there differs slightly from this one.) silly rabbit ( talk) 15:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to make a further comment (which has been raised repeatedly at Talk:Atheism), that nearly every religion article has a separate article for criticism. For instance, Christianity versus Criticism of Christianity, Islam versus Criticism of Islam, Buddhism versus Criticism of Buddhism, and so forth. This seems to be the de facto standard. I recommended at Talk:Atheism that User:Emmanuelm should raise the issue at some more central location (I suggested WP:VP (policy)), but I suppose this is just as good. Besides being the de facto standard for religion articles, presumably there has been extensive discussion here and elsewhere at a policy level to justify the forking of criticism out of the main religion articles. Perhaps some of the regulars around here could settle this by indicating precisely how policy applies to this situation. silly rabbit ( talk) 15:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not a content fork. The article atheism is about, surprise, atheism. As a philosophical view, as opposed to something that needs to be rooted out. The fact that some people criticise atheism is just notable enough in the context of this article to mention it occasionally. In other cases the opposing view may be more notable than here ( trinity has a section on nontrinitarianism) or less notable ( monotheism has nothing on criticism of monotheism, polytheism and atheism coming closest to criticism of monotheism; apparently the obvious arguments against monotheisms, such as the disposition of its adherers to wage religious wars, are not sufficiently notable). -- Hans Adler ( talk) 15:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of dragging the discussion offtopic, I would think that Criticism of religion comes closest, although it is not exclusively about monotheism. silly rabbit ( talk) 15:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

One more related comment: Work is currently underway on a template {{ Criticism of religion‎}}. I have contributed to this template, although it was not my idea. See also the category Category:Criticism of religion. silly rabbit ( talk) 17:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) While we must be wary of such "Criticism of..." articles being written as to be a POV fork, the presence of such an article reflecting upon a major world religion is in and of itself not necessarily a POV fork, if only because the subject is notable (e.g., there are academic fields of study in criticisms of most world religions). This may be easier to see if we note that apologetics for (say) atheism might be deserving of an article (although under no circumstances would it be in lieu of the article on "Atheism" proper). Baccyak4H ( Yak!) 16:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Specific problems

Example of tone

The tone shows the article is written from an atheist point of view, e.g. :There is a position claiming that atheists are quick to believe in God in times of crisis, that atheists make deathbed conversions, or that "there are no atheists in foxholes".[30] Some proponents of this view claim that the anthropological benefit of religion is that religious faith enables humans to endure hardships better (c.f. opium of the people).[citation needed] Some atheists emphasize the fact that there have been examples to the contrary, among them examples of literal "atheists in foxholes". -- Comment: claim a word to avoid is used for the theist position. Then are rejoinder from the atheists immediately.

Bibliography and body Lacks some notable sources and opinions:

Dinesh D'Souza of Hoover Institute of Standford University ( a very notable author) - his book and perspectives on atheism:

• His book - NY bestseller;
• God knows why faith is thriving;
• Interview on his book: Atheism is the Opiate of the Morally Corrupt; * Amazon review with per chapter content of book; * What atheism has done for us;
• Atheism

Paul Vitz - Stanford University (1962) and prof emeritus of psychology at New York University. Professor/Senior Scholar at the Institute for Psychological Sciences (IPS) in Arlington, VA.

• Psychology of Atheism —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kleinbell ( talk • contribs) 10:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Tomas Crean - Interview on his book; * Amazon review of atheist who liked the book

John Haught - Landegger Distinguished Professor of Theology at Georgetown University. Founder of Georgetown Center for the Study of Science and Religion

• Why the new Atheism is not serious; * God and New Atheism

Vox Day -

• review of his book;
• Review by an atheist -- this is very good; * other reviews by atheists

Paul Johnson - famous historian

• Ayatollah of Atheism and Darwin’s altars —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kleinbell ( talk • contribs) 10:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Rationale section is sheer apologetics - yes I agree with Emmanuel that the criticism of atheism is a pov fork and has to be fused back in summary form. (I was referring above to the evasiveness of the people who contradict him).

Demographics section is apologetic - only the positive correlations are included.

Morality section - one short criticism phrase and lines upon lines of response!! Kleinbell ( talk) 10:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I have replied at Talk:Atheism to this same post. Why are you cross-posting the same argument a few minutes apart ?. Also what's with the canvassing ? . Between the canvassing, cross-posting and ad hoc starting of new sections in talk it's getting a little hard to keep up. If you have a problem then start an RfC. Ttiotsw ( talk) 16:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Editor Gni is apparently a single purpose account intent on inserting the POV of the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America in a handful of article, including that one. This editor has been edit warring over formulations in the article, belligerently replacing well sourced phrases such as the organization being "pro-Israel" and supporting boycotts with PR phraseology lifted from the CAMERA website. While CAMERA (or any organization) may certainly wish to portray themselves a certain way, for tax purposes or for whatever reason, an encyclopedia describes an organization based on what reliable sources say. Ther article also has a section Accusations of anti-Israel bias made by CAMERA, comprised of a selective list of such accusations against NPR, major media, Steven Spielberg, etc. Gni keeps deleting balance added to this section (specifically, a response from NPR's ombudsman) with the somewhat idiosyncratic (and WP:OWN) claim that "This section isn't for comments about CAMERA."

An outside look at this edit warring would be appreciated. Boodlesthecat ( talk) 20:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

after not being helped in Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests I bring the discusion here:

Islamic Pov pushing in the Inventions in the Islamic world article, selected quotations (often from highly dubious Islamic sources) are used to claim an invention is Islamic, all I want is a small part to say that just because the invention happened in an Islamic controlled state doesn't mean the inventors were devout Muslims. This goes against the pov pushing agenda though Oxyman42 (talk) 16:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment : the article is about "Inventions in the Islamic world" it does not mention the Quran or aspects of the Muslim faith. I only came across the article by looking at Recentchanges, if you think the article if POV then instead of adding another POV source like this (which appears to be straight out of conservapedia) - state what is wrong and where. Instead bias has been introduced (copy pasted in fact - a first person opinion) in the lead section from FrontPage Magazine. Pahari Sahib (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC) reply: surely a way of trying to balance a debate is to include opinions from both sides? There are about 100 quotations from dubious Islamic sites, or quotations carefully selected and taken out of context to support an argument. I added that (single) quotation after several others were deleted by pov pushers such as "many of them (the inventions) had direct implications for Fiqh related issues" this quotation was supplied by a Muslim when it suited the point he was trying to make but deleted it when I added it to the article as it did not support the pov agenda"In English we use the word “Islam” with two distinct meanings, and the distinction is often blurred and lost and gives rise to considerable confusion. In the one sense, Islam is the counterpart of Christianity; that is to say, a religion in the strict sense of the word: a system of belief and worship. In the other sense, Islam is the counterpart of Christendom; that is to say, a civilization shaped and defined by a religion, but containing many elements apart from and even hostile to that religion, yet arising within that civilization."Bernard Lewis in What Went Wrong Any edit which goes against the pov pushing agenda is deleted by someone from WP:ISLAM which is unlike a normal Wikiproject as it is a group of pov pushers intent of pushing their views rather then improving wikipediaOxyman42 (talk) 20:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC) Well I am not a member of WP:ISLAM, but you should at least try and follow WP:MOS and cite it correctly - and not overload the lead section with your POV. Pahari Sahib (talk) 20:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC) There needs to be a wikiproject just to monitor the stuff coming from WP:ISLAM, I did try and cite it correctly, but every time I try and add something here it is reverted by pov pushers from WP:ISLAM. the whole article at present amounts to one big pov push from WP:ISLAM and it is somewhat beyond one person to check 150 odd quotations to see if they are correct Oxyman42 (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC) If you believe there is a 'big pov push' from whatever quarter, I suggest you take it to Wikipedia:AIV. Pahari Sahib (talk) 21:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

No one can possibly follow this. Boodlesthecat ( talk) 16:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

For background please see

• Standardization_of_Office_Open_XML#Complaints_about_the_national_bodies_process
• Talk:Standardization_of_Office_Open_XML#IDABC
• Attributing and substantiating biased statements

I have a question about aplying Attributing and substantiating biased statements to IDABC. IDABC is part of the European Commission, a part of the European Union. As such it is a government site that reports news on some topics. One of them is open source. I do not find their news articles biased. But another editor (WalterGR) is quoting a policy from WP:NPOV, Attributing and substantiating biased statements and is requiring material used from them not just attributed to IDABC, but to IDABC's Open Source News. Is IDBAC considered biased and should material from it be subject to the Attributing and substantiating biased statements to the point of using IDABC's Open Source News? The policy clearly is about biased sources, I dont think IDABC is biased. I believe that a simple linking to the news reference is enough or at most saying according to IDABC. Am I correct in my applying of this policy? Kilz ( talk) 12:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

If I understand you, Kilz, the other editor wants a more precise attribution. That seems fair. Does IDABC have a regulatory or policy setting role? If so, then I think it is imperative to specify that news items are just that, and not something more substantive. Also, if someone claims a statement is biased, then it is wise to proceed as if that is true. -- Una Smith ( talk) 02:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as I have been able to figure out IDABC has no regulatory or policy setting role. It is setup to promote electronic information exchange.

The other editor does not claim that IDABC is biased. In the discussion Talk:Standardization_of_Office_Open_XML#IDABC. I asked if he believed IDABC was biased and he replied he wasnt saying they were biased. I have nothing against saying the articles are from IDABC, but fear the the added descriptions are being used to try and paint IDABC as being biased. Kilz ( talk) 13:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a problem I'm seeing more and more on Wikipedia, and which I am correcting wherever I can, where we have poorly formed lead sentences such as:

" Denzel Hayes Washington, Jr. (born December 28, 1954) is a two-time Academy Award- and Golden Globe-winning American actor and director." ( revision as of 19:38 15 March 2008)

Granted, Washington won and was nominated for those awards, but to put it in the lead sentence in such a way makes the article's lead sentence sound like something more suited for a press kit or a fluff piece than an encyclopedia. I've been correcting this issue wherever I can (moving mentions of awards to later parts of the lead section); this is typically a problem rising from anonymous editors. -- FuriousFreddy ( talk) 13:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I've run across a similar problem with Roman Catholic Church. Some say the sex abuse scandals belong in the LEAD, others say not the LEAD, but just the article. The counter to this is the NPOV argument. Which way should this proceed? -- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

the article for Jonas Brothers has the sentence "Gina is a hotti..." and other random, unnecessary opinions edited to it today, but it is protected.

I say those sex abuse scandals should not be in the article at all. It is a news event, not a fact about th RC Church!!!

---

-- 71.53.11.54 ( talk) 20:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC) Connor

There is no article titled RC Church. We can't help if we have no idea what you're talking about. Someguy1221 ( talk) 23:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

He/she means Roman Catholic Church referncing my post above.-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, well I feel silly. Someguy1221 ( talk) 23:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Plese review the article on Edenic_diet. I don't know anything about the Edenic diet, but the article seems to take a negative, mocking tone toward the subject. Quote: "It incorporates self-reflection, guilt and self-righteousness..." AutumnKent ( talk) 18:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

On Fiador (tack), created 4 days ago, I have been contributing content on a minor item of horse tack that is called throughout the Spanish speaking world a "fiador". A derivative form of this item, and this term for it, is used in the United States in a very narrow context. Two Wikipedia editors familiar with that context are deleting from Fiador (tack) all content not conforming with that context. Their contention seems to be that the English Wikipedia should restrict its scope to "describing the term primarily as it is used in English language-speaking countries" ( diff). I contend that Wikipedia is a worldwide encyclopedia and that it describes things, not terms. -- Una Smith ( talk) 06:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

This editor has provided one citation for the use of the word "fiador" from a website in Argentina to claim use "throughout the Spanish speaking world." The image in this reference does not clearly illustrate the use of the fiador in any way other than described currently in the article. Close inspection shows that the fiador does not attach to the bridle in the image. Furthermore, a dictionary of Argentinian terms turns up this definition: "Fiador: Parte del bozal con argolla que rodea el pescuezo del caballo." "DICCIONARIO DE PALABRAS ARGENTINAS" This translates roughly to 'fiador: part of the bosal with a ring around the neck of the horse.' This 'thing not term' is precisely what is described currently on the Wikipedia page, and is therefore not the narrow definition. Any other use is a derivative of this one.

The 'worldwide' argument is a slippery slope. Our contention is, as stated above, that the English language Wikipedia should concentrate on "describing the term primarily as it is used in English language-speaking countries." (Emphasis added) Other uses of the term relevant to the topic are of course appropriate for inclusion, that is, if there are references to support them. The English language usage should be secondary on Spanish language Wikipedia. The lack of proper references is the main reason the article was modified. This editor has, in what borders on original research borrowed terms from one language to apply in other cultures where the term is not used (See Frentera as used for Hungarian and Australian gear, and try to find a reference from Australia or Hungary that uses the word 'frentera') This 'worldwide' repurposing of a single term for things which have regional names does not serve Wikipedia in a productive way.-- Getwood ( talk) 08:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The entry for Glen Heggstad is written like an advertisement for a person. It certainly suffers from one POV, but should it be flagged for anything else, too? A great example is the paragraph that begins "Glen makes friends easily and often." Tedder ( talk) 05:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that a popular but disputed political position is being adopted as the "true" position and as the first word of description rather than being attributed to those who hold it on an article. I understood the neutral point of view policy to say that is improper - can someone tell me if I misunderstood it or not? I commented on the Talk page here [15]. Thanks, -- Robertert ( talk) 09:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The page for the Canadian cosmetics company Lise Watier at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lise_Watier is not impartial and does not appear to me to conform to Wikipedia's NPOV policy. I will not change it myself but wanted to bring it to the attention of those to whom it is important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.151.151.3 ( talk) 15:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Zenboy29 ( talk) has been editing the the Durban article as well as a few other with non neutral point of view.
This user is adding the same section of text in various articles, (and it is been reverted), 2010 FIFA World Cup, and South Africa (but another user Zindabad 76 did the original set of edits. [16])

I have tried, ( on his talk page), to explain to him what the problems were with the edits but he keeps re-adding his changes.
He has now started accusing me of political censorship. [17]

I know that on the face of it, it looks like an edit conflict, but his references cannot be accessed, (either broken or you have to subscribe), or are simply unrelated to the section of text.
Can an Admin please have a look at it and help us out. Thanks FFMG ( talk) 15:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to bring this up again, but can an admin please review this article. I am reversing the changes and the user does not seem to want to use the talk page. FFMG ( talk) 06:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure if this makes a difference but I removed the section as it has not much to do with Durban FFMG ( talk) 22:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is not neutral at all. Just read it, it's obvious. I'm not going to do anything about it because I've got to go get a bath and cut my toenails, but you guys might want to sort it out or mark it in some way. Cheers. 80.195.89.127 ( talk) 21:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

User:LightSpeed3 has actively campaigned to remove as many references to Tesla Motors as possible in electric vehicle-related articles to which developments at Tesla are clearly relevant.

Example diffs:

[18] [19] [20] [21]

Here is my NPOV warning to him:

[22]

I will leave his last revert on Electric car unaltered until this matter is resolved. Thanks for your help. Fbagatelleblack ( talk) 19:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The article, mainly the milestone section, seems biased against the 360 and the PS3 and favoring towards the wii. For example, if you look there than you will find games of diferent consoles, which is good, except that not one wii game is criticized but every other game is, with the exception of oblivion.

Here is one case: Super mario galaxy:"currently one of the most critically acclaimed titles of the seventh generation, sold more copies in its first week, including over 500,000 in the US, than any other game for the Mario title in the history of the franchise.[122] It is second only to The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time as the overall best-reviewed game of all-time, as listed on Game Rankings.[123]"

that is biased. one web site saying SM Galaxy is the second best game of all time does not make it so. Plus, does it really make it a legacy if it sells more copies in it's first week than other mario games. These two things are weak reasons that only add bias to make it seem greater than it really is.

Whats really annoying is all I could do to alert people, besides this, was to post my complaint on the talk page, PandaSaver ( talk) 03:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)PandaSaver

Are you referring to History of video game consoles (seventh generation)? -- Orlady ( talk) 03:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. 68.38.187.85 ( talk) 17:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)PandaSaver

Yes I am. PandaSaver —Preceding unsigned comment added by PandaSaver ( talk • contribs) 00:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

---

Several editors would like to include brief mention of the alternate theories surrounding the events of 9/11 at the Pentagon. A very short paragraph with two useful links presenting evidence including CCTV footage and numerous eyewitness accounts was put forward. This was edited slightly so that is was even more unbiased. The user Ave Caesar and others keep removing this section. A detailed discussion can be seen on the discussion page for this article. I am convinced that the banning of such a point of view held by a great many people and with evidence to support it is contrary to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View Policy. I would appreciate it if someone could look into this. Thanks. -- MTC1980 ( talk) 05:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Video links should certainly not be used in the context of the article. I rewrote it some, and included a link to the main 9/11 conspiracy theories article, that jumps to the section on the Pentagon. This should certainly be sufficient, as the reader can be taken there if s/he requires more information. Grsz 11 19:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Cox_Communications has had the Nomination for NPOV tag since December '07. It's had significant updates since then. Request an independent review. IPingUPing ( talk) 00:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone constantly changes the name of the composer to it's Ukrainian way. I remind you that Dmitry Bortiansky lived mostly in Saint Petersburg, where he also died, and spoke mostly Russian. Not only that, but when his music was released in the Germanic-language countries, his name was spelled in the Russian way, Dmitri. I dont see any logic to the attempts to change his name into the Ukrainian formulation but pushing nationalistic agenda. I was offered a "concensus", but i didnt seem to see what concensus could come here. Shpakovich ( talk) 12:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I answered you both on the article talk page and on ANI. He was a Ukrainian composer, and that's backed up by the New Grove, which is the gold standard on music biography in the English language. Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 13:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

i have sources that WP:Verifiability WP:No original research. i try to make WP:Neutral point of view. but my arguments are blocked by admin.-- Qwl ( talk) 22:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like some critical eyes to look at indigenous peoples and let me know whether any of you think that this is a case of a POV-pushing. There seems to be very little debate in the academic world about whether indigenous peoples were here before the advent of European colonization. I can't understand why there would only be two sentences dedicated to "Indigenous viewpoints" and a whole complete section on "Non-indigenous viewpoints". Also, the lack of citations throughout this section is very sketchy to me.

I would not like to think that anybody in the Wiki community is racist or biased. However, when you see articles like this, that are so one-sided, it would certainly be easy enough to draw that conclusion.

Any comments can be left on my talk page. Thanks!! Blueelectricstorm ( talk) 01:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I am editing the Marble Slab Creamery article to sound as netral as possible but it keeps getting tag. Can someone please let me know what further changes to need to be made in order to get rid of the "advertisement" tag at the top of the page? Radhaus ( talk) 15:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem I see is that much of the article focuses on how great the company is (which may well be true) and is not referenced to third-party sources. The first part of making it neutral would involve finding reliable sources, which for a recent company would mostly be news articles and reviews. Someguy1221 ( talk) 17:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Would anybody put the 2008 Canadian Commercial Seal Hunt article on watch? The big part of the seal hunt begins in April, and it is a very controversial topic. Bib ( talk) 13:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I am part of a two-man team trying to introduce the benefits of using alternatives to sandblasting like Sodablasting, as its quick to set-up and start working using a food based media.

I was annoyed to find this rather biased 'advert' for Dry Ice Blasting which apparently has no down side to its use, method or application.

I am refering to this specific page and section below:-

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_ice_blasting

"Soda Blasting Main article: Soda blasting Soda Blasting is generally an effective cleaning method. However, Soda Blasting, like all open blasting,* creates a great deal of secondary waste. Often, the time spent blasting is matched, if not doubled by the time it takes to clean up the extra waste soda blasting creates. In fact, the residue and waste left behind by soda blasting can adhere to wood and other substrates being blasted.

There is also evidence that soda blasting can have a negative effect on the PH levels of the soil it comes into contact with after blasting, thereby killing surrounding vegetation. This is not the case with CO2 blasting"

• Not a true comment, Soda blasting:- "great deal of secondary waste", how can this comment be justified, I can understand the relevance to sand or grit as it is collected after use and will not dissolve in water like soda will.

It follows that if there is not a lot of waste to clean up how can it take longer than doing the job in the first place?

I would like to see the evidence of 'soda residue' adhering to substrates that have been blasted

Also, Re 'PH' levels there are not mounds of soda piling up over vegetation after use, what powered dust there is, is simply rinsed away. The amount of soda required for "killing surrounding vegetation" would have to excessive and not have been rinsed away.

Can anyone comment on any disadvantage to dry ice blasting or is it the worlds saviour? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.37.24 ( talk) 14:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You may want to actually read neutral point of view. In short, we don't care how great you think Sodablasting or Dry ice blasting is or how great it might seem to us; we only care what reliable soruces have said about it, and you are not a reliable source for your own endeavors. Someguy1221 ( talk) 17:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm in process of looking over the page. There's only two references and a couple external links. Much of the page could be removed per WP:PROVEIT, and that's basically the approach being taken. Avast ye hearties, prepare to be gutted and keel-hauled! WLU ( talk) 17:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Page was indeed chock-full of unsourced info. Removed comparison to other methods, leaving only one line unsourced about not needing clean-up after the fact. WLU ( talk) 17:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This article has loads of POV problems. First, I suspect that Wikipedias have built-in cultural bias according to the their language. My guess is that a disproportioante number of editors of the English-language Wikipedia are American or sympathetic to its policies. In this article, French concerns about US policy and culture are sweepingly characterized as anti-Americanism. If French editors were equally represented here, would there really be a consensus that French concerns are fairly dismissed as anti-Americanism? Would pro-American commentators be as dominantly represented as they are now? Really trivial (I think) things like a decline in "favorable opinion" polls among the British are given as examples of anti-Americanism. Protest spurred by sexual assaults by US military in Japan is dismissed as anti-Americanism. Even without cultural bias, this article is full of POV just because calling something anti-American is an interpretation of the event or situation. Yet, this article's method is to give examples of what the editors have decided (i.e. interpreted) as anti-Americanism. This article gives an overwhelmingly American view of anti-Americanism.

Another problem is that the editors insist on treating it like a dictionary entry. So, there is no agreement about whether the thing the article is about is prejudice or possibly reasonable opinion, policy or culture, criticism or hostility. Everybody is just arguing their POV about what "anti-Americanism" means..... Life.temp ( talk) 11:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Please will someone review this entry afresh. What exactly is contentious?

Simon Prebble (born February 13, 1942) is an English actor and narrator,

[edit] Early life Born and raised in Croydon, Surrey, he is the son of the novelist, screenwriter and Scottish historian, John Prebble and fashion artist Betty Prebble (both deceased).

[edit] Career In 1960 he attended Guildhall School of Music and Drama, London and began his acting career in one of Britain's first live television soap operas, 'Home Tonight' with David Hemmings. For the next eleven years he worked extensively on radio and television and in provincial repertory theatre including a year with Ian McKellen's Hamlet. In 1973 Prebble joined the newsroom at Capital Radio, the first legal commercial music station in Britain, where he hosted London's Day. He then embarked on a career as a presenter and voice-over announcer, including thirteen years as the promo voice of Thames Television, and from 1984 he was the announcer for the British version of the phenomenally successful game show 'The Price Is Right' with Leslie Crowther. In 1990 Prebble moved to New York where he continued doing voice-over work. As well as recording numerous radio and television commercials, he also hosted and narrated several television documentary series, notably 'Target-Mafia'. He has character-voiced various television cartoon series, such as 'Courage the Cowardly Dog'. His film voice work includes playing Ernest Shackleton in the 2000 documentary 'The Endurance' and the opening and closing voice of the elderly Casanova in Lasse Hallström's 2005 film of the same name. In 1996, he was a lead actor for a year (as the villain Martin Chedwyn) on the American daily soap opera 'As the World Turns'. In the U.S., he also began narrating audio books, and to date has recorded over 325 titles. As one of AudioFile Magazine's 'Golden Voices' and 'Best Voices of the Century', his work has gained him five 'Listen Up' awards, nineteen 'Earphone' awards, and eleven nominations for the 'Audies' (the audiobook 'Oscars'). In 2005, he was named 'Narrator of the Year' by Publishers Weekly. In 2003, at Chiswick House, London, he married Swedish graphic artist, Marie-Janine Hellstrom. In 2007, both he and his wife became US citizens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon prebble ( talk • contribs) 23:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the easy answer here is, are you Simon Prebble? Redrocket ( talk) 23:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

-- 98.220.214.153 ( talk) 23:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Rather than citing Church of the Brethren documents that show that the denomination takes a given stance, most citations in the article appeal to the Bible for verification. This citation of Biblical references implies defense of the ideas assumed to exist wihtin the denomiantion as fair CChristian doctrine rather than proving that the idea or view is actually associated with the Church of the Brethren.

Right; I've removed the references. There is nothing wrong with linking to (preferably an article on) the passage of origin, or an article on a general belief/practice, but such links should ideally be kept internal, and never be masquerading as a reference. Someguy1221 ( talk) 23:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

There was a serious NPOV issue on this article, which I have endeavoured to clear up in this edit. I'd be glad if another editor could check the rewrite and remove the NPOV tag if appropriate. Matt's talk 17:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, I don't really think that Stormfront, a neo-nazi website, is a reliable source for anything baring their own opinions. If one horribly biased source says one thing, and another biased source says another, I don't you've got NPOV by adding both. I would remove the information from both sources and seek out a truly reliable source for information on Sassoon. I'm not sure about the editorial oversight on the Jewish Encyclopedia, but I don't think stormfront has a great reputation for oversight, the main qualification for a reliable source. If you have to warn readers of concerns regarding the source you cite, I don't really see it as doing them any favour. Just reading the words 'some neo-nazis say' on a wikipedia page makes me cringe. If there's no real source corroborating Stormfront that he started the Opium Wars, I would say it is a fringe idea. If there is a corroborating source, then take out Stormfront and use that one. Be careful, as a quick google search looks like it the stormfront website has been mirrored on other websites. Surely a book on the Opium Wars would be a much better choice than Stormfront and the Jewish Encyclopedia. WLU ( talk) 15:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a developing NPOV issue on this article. In the past there have been serious edit wars and it appears to be starting again. I have attempted to re-work the article and propose a way that would reflect the beliefs of prophecy from different belief systems. My initial work was in tidying up Christian POV, though I have suggested that all areas need improving. An editor has started changing the emphasis of the article to be about the experience of prophecy, and is taking a definite POV, namely that of Judaism. As the Wikipedia articles always rates highly in Google searches and the like, this will give a very misleading perception.

In my way of thinking, prophecy is not just restricted to one religion or another, even the wacko who stands on the street corner shouting the end of the world is nigh, has the potential and possibly the right to be included as a prophet. Prophecy is very subjective and certainly has the potential to be interpreted in a number of ways.

What is the way forward in getting this article back to being a general encyclopaedic article about prophecy? Also what is the Wikipedia position about an individual editor taking unilateral decision about the direction of articles. Regards Paulrach ( talk) 15:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

We're looking for outside eyes to determine if the POV tag still belongs on the natalizumab article. Thank you for your help. Antelan ^talk 23:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The POV tag has been removed. Comments are still welcome on Talk:Natalizumab. WLU ( talk) 11:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a mix of spam, and NPOV, and, very soon, 3RR. Karojaro seems determined to impose his own viewpoint, not to mention advertising for the cause he seems to favour. And threatening a reverter with blocking [23] doesn't help. This isn't my area - I just do anti-vandalism. What's the right course of action here? Philip Trueman ( talk) 20:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

So there's a new ID movie coming out called Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, and in the Claims that intelligent design advocates are persecuted section there is this:

The producers allege that atheist beliefs are in part to blame for the persecution, "But they simultaneously want you to believe that their belief in atheism has nothing to do with their persecution of scientists and educators, many of whom see scientific evidence for design or a designer."[6] The trailer shows Ben Stein stating that his intention is to unmask "people out there who want to keep science in a little box where it can't possibly touch God."[3][4]

An article in the Journal of Clinical Investigation (whose authors included Elliott Sober and Ronald L. Numbers) stated that the portrayal of intelligent design proponents as martyrs and victims of discrimination is a common tactic of the intelligent design movement: "The persecuted scientist against the establishment hoax. Another plea often articulated by ID proponents is the idea that there is a community of ID scientists undergoing persecution by the science establishment for their revolutionary scientific ideas."[20]

Now, I haven't looked into the refs much but they're probably good. Ref 20 is from 2006 and doesn't discuss the 2008 film, it's a general ID ref. These type of refs seem common on pages related to ID, and when they're discussed on the talk pages people seem to be of the view that NPOV requires adding these opposing viewpoints. I don't disagree that WEIGHT requires the majority view that ID is bunk on the main ID page, but it seems to me that on this film's page WEIGHT would require that we document people's views on the film and not ID in general. Am I right? wrong? it's complicated? - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) 14:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Well... industry viewpoints shouldn't be added to create an appearance of NPOV, if that's what this is. Genuine NPOV never requires some sort of 1:1 balance, or any kind of defined ratio to counter positive claims or squelch negative views. In this case, as seen here, the usage appears fine to me, however. It's a valid opposing view to the claims and assertations that ID people get persecuted. Lawrence § t/ e 21:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

An editor has commented here that usage of Poles, Jews, Lithuanians, Soviets and so on is non-neutral. I have disagreed; an edit war occured (related to those and other issues) and the article is protected. Comments would be much appreciated here; I have presented there a short rationale why the suggested more specific terms are in fact erroneous.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear all, It is my understanding that Wikipedia services are promoted, among other things, as an educational site – a place whereby one can easily access and obtain information about various issues of interest. It is also my understanding that Wikipedia supposedly prides itself in the integrity and unbiased nature of the articles contained therein. However, much evidence would testify to the contrary. The full, unbiased disclosure truth is what is essential here, and Wikipedia does not come close to providing it in several areas, in particular fields relating to the creation-evolution controversy. I was wondering if someone could please clarify why there are multiple anti-creationist articles, while any attempts at uploading pro-creation articles are deleted? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.46.104 ( talk) 08:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

See WP:RS, Talk:Evolution/FAQ, WP:FRINGE (which mentions creationims specifically) and the talk.origins external site discussing the errors found in creationist claims. Articles should not be 'anti-creationist', but science-based discussions of evolution usually end badly for creationism since it does not make testable claims and has a history of quote mining, sloppy research, failure to respond to critics and criticisms and on occasion outright mendacity. Creationism is presented and covered as the type of topic it is - a religio-political phenomenon that has no real scientific merit. Also note that wikipedia is concerned with verifiability, not truth. There is no creation-evolution controversy in the scientific sense, just a political push by religious groups that has been thoroughly rejected by courts, scientists and schools in the US. There should be no anti- or pro-creation articles, merely a sourced description of what can be found and summarized about the page topic. What articles in specific were of concern? WLU ( talk) 16:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I have reviewed the article cited, and have identified several major logical fallacies, including many out-of-date arguments. Is there a place in which those fallacies may be referenced?

Could someone uninvolved take a look at recent edits to The Economist? Opinion pieces by arguably partisan left-wing sources ( Socialist Party (UK), George Monbiot, JK Galbraith) are being used as reliable sources. I fear there is pov-pushing at work. Thank you, Skomorokh 20:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks fine to me, those are the groups likely to criticise a very pro-free market (naturally) economics mag. The problem is other than the JK Galbraith critique in the Salon.com there is not enough real criticism. Not supprising as this is a politically neutral paper. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 23:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I saw interwiki link added to the backlog category today and it got me poking around that page in other languages. The Germans had a neat little chart with several grades of priorities listed. Their first priority grade had both Wikipedia:Deletion review and Category:NPOV disputes. I tried to imagine what it would be like to really give these disputes the same attention as the articles under deletion review. Then I looked to see how well they really did; the Germans have only 455 articles in this category. I was impressed. Then I thought to add up how many we have I imagined it would be a few thousand. It is 8,100 articles in the monthly subcategories alone. I didn't hit the topical subcats in case of duplication. That is a great deal more than I expected. The tags that correspond to this cat are: {{ 1911POV}}, {{ Coatrack}}, {{ NPOV language}}, {{ Totally-disputed-section}}, {{ Obit}}, {{ POV}}, {{ POV-check}}, {{ POV-intro}}, {{ POV-map}}, {{ POV-section}}, {{ POV-statement}} and {{ POV-title}}. I spend a lot of time with backlogs so I am pretty numb to these big accumulations. How do the people on this board feel about there being over 8,000 articles tagged with various bias issues? Is this category as big a deal as the Germans think it is or is it just another backlog?-- BirgitteSB 00:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The Orphan Works page is not only bad, its seems very biased towards the protection of the orphan works law, which is now under review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RickO5 ( talk • contribs) 05:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I actually know a great deal about this subject so changed it around a bit. You are right that the article was in a bad state. How do you feel about my edits to the article?-- BirgitteSB 16:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I provide official information the only one there is about this article here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tenshinhan#Third_Eye however they insist to keep fan made references in the article here ^ "Biographies Tien" (2001). Retrieved on 2008-03-14. “People often wondered if this three-eyed warrior was even human like Krillin or Yamcha. He is.”-- Saxnot ( talk) 11:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Saxnot

I have tried to change this 3 or 4 times and it keeps getting deleted. Who ever is doing it, is accusing me of not being neutral. I am just referencing other articles where she puts her words in context her self.

The current Wiki article is one sided and takes comments out of context and uses a liberal political pendants vitriolic rant against her and Clinton to end it. WHAT IS FAIR ABOUT THAT?

OBAMA's race speech compared Ferraro to Rev Wright and says she has deep seeded deep-seated racial bias. Clearly Rev Wright and Ferraro are not on the same level regarding comments. Ferraro responded to that. That should be in there.

My complaint is it is one sided, not fair and takes a few comments out of context. Some balance should be given to her own defense or at least put in context.

Clearly reference to Keith Olbermann of MSNBC "Special Comment" and his vitriolic point of veiw about her comments is bias. Who cares what Olbermann says. His "special comments" are personal rants. They are so bias and a rant, they are not acceptable. IF they are OK, than some quote defending her comments are in order, like Bob Johnson?

Olbermann is voted in the top 100 most influential liberals by a international group. He also has only used his "Special Comments" in the past to only bash the Bush administration. Fine, but his taking a full 5 minutes to make a PERSONAL editorial against a DEM (who is normally favorable towards) is NOT appropriate to keep. His treatment of Obama on his "Count Down" show is near fawning and kid gloves. Obama's Bitter comment and Rev Wright issue where in a very supportive, how can we fix this" tone. NO COMMENT MADE BY OLBERMANN regarding Clinton's campaign is fair or appropriate.

ITS Olbermann's OPINION! I DID NOT PUT THIS IN THE Wiki ARTICLE, but just explaining that Olbermanns quotes are NOT appropriate.

How about Randi Rhodes of Air America, fired for attacking Ferraro and Hillary clinton with a profanity tirade. I think the NON neutral aspect of media attacking Clinton and not Obama is relevant. If it is not relevant, than Olbermann's comments should be removed.

I added some references to Ferraro's comments, where she defends herself. They are her own words. Clearly the author of this section is an Obama supporter. I would just like to give reference to ALL her words, not where she says she is being attacked for being white. That is one off handed comment in a long dialog.

Also ref are not working. I keep deleting and putting citation needed.

The quotes and comments basically take two of the worst comments out of context and end it with a commentary by OLBERMANN. If there is going to be a PERSONAL COMMENT attacking her, than there should be quotes defending her, ie, Bob Johnson.

Fine she said Obama is lucky to be black (in the context of the 2008 race). Fine she said I feel like I am being attacked for being white. Right she said it. But how about her claims of Obama using the race card? They have called it about 4 or 5 times, when any one makes mention of getting black votes or that his status as a black man helps him. Is that not true or not relevant?

WHY ARE HER WORDS Controversial? Because Obama and his supporters say so?

I am new at this but how do stop this person from deleting my additions? -OR- there Olbermann's' comments should be removed because they are NOT neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmcjetpilot ( talk • contribs) 17:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• The following is your only recent edit on this subject that I could find, which was added to the article Geraldine Ferraro ( [24]):

Olbermann comments where made on his MSNBC cable show "Count Down" during a segment called "Special Comments", which usually was reserved for criticism of the Bush Administration. [25]. Polls indicated pro media bias against Clinton and more favorable reporting towards Obama. [26] The topic of bias was also the subject of a skit on Saturday Night Live, mocking journalist fawning over Senator Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. and ignoring Hillary Rodham Clinton during a Faux CNN debate. [27] The SNL skit had such an impact, it was discussed by the Clinton campaign and was a topic on political pundit TV, cable and radio shows, as well as the internet.

Note that nothing in these four sentences mentions Ferraro, who is supposed to be the subject of the article. Rather, it has more to do with media bias in favor of Obama and a Saturday Night Live skit that satirized that. Thus, it's understandable that this section would get taken out of the Geraldine Ferraro article. Furthermore, giving Obama's name as Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. tends to be associated with a desire to portray Obama negatively by emphasizing his Arabic-sounding middle name. His name is sufficiently uncommon that he isn't going to be confused with anybody else named Barack Obama in this context. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The "Promotion of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution" Overview section is biased towards an evolutionary perspective.

Title

1. The title "as an alternative to evolution" assumes that evolution is the standard to which all other beliefs are labeled "alternatives".

Overview Section

2. The last sentence of paragraph two is speculative and unnecessary: "Intelligent design ... has been scientifically unproductive and has not produced any research to suppress, having failed to find any way of testing its claims."

3. The third paragraph implicitly defines "science" in only one way(the scientific method), without regard to other possible meanings of the word. In addition, religious beliefs are implicitly presented as contrary to "science" without any evidence, for supposedly "they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own".

4. The third paragraph assumes that all scientists are evolutionists: "The scientific theory of evolution is opposed for religious reasons by proponents of intelligent design and other forms of creationism, but is overwhelmingly accepted by scientists."

5. The third paragraph has a critical review instead of a balanced presentation of the facts: "According to one estimate, "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution."[32] The film portrays this as an end to debate ... In fact, there is vigorous debate on many aspects of evolution, and the scientific status quo is frequently successfully challenged by ideas supported by sound research and evidence."

In short, the Overview section is hardly "neutral". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jweston2 ( talk • contribs)

• Without trying to analyze the entire section you have described, I would say that the entire Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed‎ article is an example of undue emphasis. Consider that this article is approximately 130 kilobytes long, for a movie that has been in release for only one full day. That is twice as long as the two articles about one of the most famous and controversial documentaries of recent years, Fahrenheit 9/11 and Fahrenheit 9/11 controversy, combined. Part of the problem seems to be that some of the Wikipedia article on Expelled appears in part to be oriented toward defending evolution against the film's advocacy of intelligent design. That is not what this article should be for. We have other articles on evolution and intelligent design. This article should focus only on the movie. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

On several occasions I've attempted to work on the Criticisms of capitalism page. Understanding that it's a contentious issue, but with some knowledge to (hopefully) share, I arrived at the page and found it in complete shambles. The original article was incoherent, point-counterpoint-point-counterpoint arguments with shotgun facts/opinions thrown around. I approached the page with good faith and mentioned on the talk page that I was planning to work on the article. Looking at the talk page it looked like a dipsute in early-2007 either scared away or disheartened a number of editors and now there was one editor left ( User:Ultramarine). In any case, I set about to (essentially) rewrite the article, taking special care to cite all of my entries (by the end I had added over 25 references). In order to keep the article non-contentious, my idea was to give historical background, focusing on critics who have been the most influential and working towards the modern day. I didn't have some anti-corporate agenda, or plan to play up some big capitalist conspiracy, I just wanted to provide a coherent description of the subject matter with attention to history and current thought (something an encyclopedia does, right?). So I didn't think it would be a problem... UNTIL I made my first edit. Within the hour, 10 edits were made in quick succession. [28] This continued for a couple of days as I continued editing. Ultramarine's philosophy was to delete/revert first and ask questions later -- not very inviting for someone relatively new to the Wikipedia project. It certainly wore my patience very thin. I took a break from the article for a couple of weeks. When I returned, Ultramarine was still at it, and I had had enough. Ultramarine moved a paragraph to the talk page under the heading "Errors" and continually used insulting taglines such as "npov" [29] and "corrected" [30], as if my edits are neither neutral nor correct. Ultramarine's edits ONLY come as a reaction to mine, insisting that this is necessary to uphold WP:CFORK. In my opinion, his/her editing style is very condescending. Ultramarine makes little attempt to integrate edits into others, but just hammer some sentence in the center of a paragraph, often worded in such a manner that it downplays the rest of the paragraph or implies that any other argument is stupid ( this is a prime example, notice use of "Regardless...")

I would like some outside comment, not only on editor conduct but also on the interpretation of WP:CFORK. Does it necessitate every sentence being followed by a rebuttal? It seems like that would make it unreadable, in my opinion. I also don't believe the spirit of that rule is to make every contentious article an incomprehensible ideological battleground. Rebuttals should not be omitted, I think, but it seems like someone going to a "criticisms of capitalism" page is primarily looking for that type of information, not a jumbled mess of point-counterpoints. There's certainly a way to do this that doesn't make it into a huge mess, or make an editor not want to touch any article with any hint of controversy. I should also note that I'm taking a break from the page, but any comments/suggestions would be helpful. Thanks.

Inserted later: I'm done editing that page for now. I didn't start editing on Wikipedia to engage in some ideological battle or to be made into an idiot. Uwmad ( talk) 07:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a long term problem of WP:TE. While he no longer violates 3 RR (having been blocked five times for 3RR vio already) he games the system, and doesn't give up, until the other editors give up and he gets his way. Very tenatious and ignores consensus. See my 3RR report here for chronic edit warring: [31] Giovanni33 ( talk) 23:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Could anybody check Special:Contributions/Ewenss for contributions to Jeremiah Wright sermon controversy and Trinity United Church of Christ, Chicago? The user insists on making incredibly-POV edits to these articles, and reverts others when trying to correct him. Thanks, Grsz 11 18:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

This [32] is clearly POV, but it looks like the editor has accepted that. The editor seems a bit stubborn, but does seem to eventually compromise. I don't know enough to say whether putting Black Sermonic tradition at the top of the article is POV. [33]

Agree that this is POV: [34] and the current version is still POV pushing. It shouldn't be in the lead, and something more neutral would be:

In early 2008, the church came to national attention as part of news coverage and commentary on the 2008 U.S. presidential election. Some commentators depicted Wright and the church as unpatriotic and racist.[citation]

A good place would be a section regarding the the relationship between Obama and the church. It's too temporal to be in the lead. Life.temp ( talk) 00:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm wondering if editors can weigh in on a recent discussion over whether the overview of this article should state in a header that the film portrays science as atheistic. [35] My feeling is that it clearly can't, as the film doesn't say this and no sources say this about the film. What the sources do say is that the film views the "scientific establishment" as atheistic, and believes that they are imposing atheism onto science. From one critical review: "Expelled’s main theme is that intelligent design is under systematic attack by “Big Science” – the scientific establishment – which refuses to recognize its scientific validity because of a previous commitment to atheism and materialism." [36] As we quote writer/narrator Ben Stein: "There are people out there who want to keep science in a little box where it can't possibly touch a higher power, and it can’t possibly touch God."

I'll let others present the arguments in favor of the current version if they like. In my view this is a very clear case: we may believe their argument is anti-science, and we may be right, but that isn't something we can ourselves incorporate into their argument. Accordingly, it should say either "Portrayal of evolution as atheistic" or "Portrayal of the scientific establishment as atheistic," something equivalent, or remove the header altogether. Any thoughts on this welcome, see the latest discussion here. Mackan79 ( talk) 14:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

What was wrong with the two reliable sources you were given? And the repeated descriptions of how any science that has happened since the Scientific Revolution is atheistic, according to the definition described in the film and that of the filmmakers and the protagonists in the film? This is forum shopping, since you have brought this to noticeboards before and have engaged in tendentious argumentation about this.-- Filll ( talk) 15:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Going to the NPOV noticeboard isn't forum shopping; it was specifically suggested by Killer Chihuahua on AN/I, and is of course the purpose of this noticeboard. If you believe there are sources to support the header, could you please provide these? I have not seen any that are different from what I presented above. Providing the relevant sources would seem the easiest way to show that any discussion of this has been unreasonable. Mackan79 ( talk) 15:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I hold very deep WP:NPOV concerns over the article covering MTV here. An editor recently created a new pov fork page " Criticism of MTV" that lists every "criticism" of the article thats been previously listed in the main MTV article for a long time. As suggested on talk page, an editor argued that it "follows" NPOV because it creates more "balance" here by making one article about MTV (positively) and another article about "criticism" (negative).

However, I sharply disagree with this decision because I feel that it violates NPOV! Additionally, I've tried using WP:CRITICISM and WP:POVFORK to convince editor to integrate, but the editor disagreed. Thus, i am asking for additional help with this issue, since me and the other editor are the only ones involved here. Thank you very much! (By the way, both MTV/Criticism articles are tagged {{NPOV}} due to the aformentioned issues)-- Andrewlp1991 ( talk) 05:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The article is incredibly well-developed and well-sourced. Many other similar pages are on Wikipedia, such as Fox News Channel controversies, CNN controversies, etc. Grsz ^talk 05:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

But the problem is that some parts of the "Criticism of MTV" article can be easily integrated within the chronological history of the main MTV article for a more neutral presentation. Additionally, some parts of the article are tagged "citation needed" (I do believe so last time I checked that) or are based on dubious interpretation of cited sources. And then again, some parts of the criticism article can be easily, neutrally tied into other articles rather than be dumped into one big non-neutral "criticism" article. I again turn to WP:CRITICISM that suggests that criticsm should be integrated w/in a chronological history of a subject if neatly can be done so. If it's just in general or cannot be neatly tied into chronology, it can be placed in a short "criticism" section with a rebuttal I believe.

Some paragraphs in the article even consists of simple basic facts being labelled "'criticism'...without any serious reason to do so"-- Andrewlp1991 ( talk) 17:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

One more concern that I have is that the creation of the "Criticism" article caused the main MTV article to be slanted toward "positive" views and then the criticism article is pretty much the only place to find naysayer's POV's of MTV...a BIG big problem for NPOV. I've just cleaned up the Criticism article to reflect critical views of the network in general (as opposed to a particular program on the channel). My goal here is to reflect both views - supporters/naysayers - of MTV in as fair and a neutral way as Wikipedia allows. -- Andrewlp1991 ( talk) 21:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say, or imply, that the MTV article should be entirely positive, but written from a neutral point of view. Integration of criticism entirely within the article might disrupt the flow, as you yourself, have mentioned earlier in our discussion, and having criticism about issues that aren't (yet) covered within the article would require a separate section, which is already large enough, and thus, a separate article is required, which will also have a rebuttal, again, for a more neutral presentation. I like that you have cleaned up the article, by the way. It's much more readable now. -- Pwnage8 ( talk) 02:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you; I am glad to see that you've agreed that show criticisms belong in the show pages.

I see your point in which integration would "disrupt the flow". However, I don't mean that all criticism is to be "integrated". Of course, as the "Criticism" article already lists, some criticisms can be traced back to specific times ((e.g. MTV not playing black artists' videos was practically exlcusive to the 80s before Michael Jackson's "Thriller" or whatever). And yes, I sure agree that "criticism about issues that aren't (yet) covered within the article would require a separate section"; however, I believe that such criticisms if placed in their own cozy section would be short enough to stand in the main article.

And now I'm reading through the MTV article again, and yes I do notice some controversial aspects sprinkled but not all, for example the infamous Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime controversy (you know, Janet Jackson's nipple) is not noted at all in the main article now that its been forked over to the criticism article, even though MTV itself got in a fair bit of heat over the show [37]. NPOV requires that all significant POV's be shown in a main article about a subject as far as possible. I'd welcome any further feedback over how we can all resolve this. My next step would be to shorten the criticisms in the forked article to meet a Summary Style to be easier integrated in the main mtv article, as it'd been in the past one or two years. -- Andrewlp1991 ( talk) 04:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

This article describe this esoteric product from the point of view of the sellers. In fact this salt is not from the Himalaya Mountains, it does not contain 84 Elements and it has no therapeutic properties. This are all assertion in a fraudulent intent. In Germany (sorry my English is bad) there are official informations of ministries to warn of this cheat. Compare the article in the German Wikipedia [38]. 85.181.60.123 ( talk) 06:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Fully agree that any therapeutic properties would require high quality independent sources, and we shouldn't just blindly repeat the manufacturer's website. PhilKnight ( talk) 13:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The whole section is nothing but an elongated hit job. It is entirely not NPOV and should either be severely amended or removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sluhser589 ( talk • contribs) 06:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see this diff [39]. I'm told my edit is POV (and OR, but that's a different board). Now that it is removed, is the article NPOV but with my 'alleged' it became POV? Thanks. -- Doug Weller ( talk) 16:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The lead of the article makes clear the source of this information is ultimately the Bible, and that's all that needs to be done for compliance with NPOV. You can make clear that claims are merely alleged when dealing with the absolutely rediculous (by measure of support from reliable sources) claims of random cranks, but when you're talking about religious texts, its enough to identify the source. The remotely intelligent reader will interpret that identification according to his beliefs, as we should let him. Someguy1221 ( talk) 17:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

So how does this differ from the Exodus article, which has statements about it's veracity being doubted? Ditto other articles on the Bible.

Because such doubts are confined to the historicity section and backed by reliable sources. These articles should not be treated as historical events, but as religious beliefs. It's the same reason you don't explicate that events did not really occur in an article about a work of fiction. It's enough to identify the ultimate source. Someguy1221 ( talk) 05:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, this is all very helpful in understanding NPOV. But your mention of 'historicity' has crystallized my thoughts about the article. From my perspective, it still looks POV because after it discusses what the Bible says, it goes on about 'locating the crossing', refers to it as 'this incident', and comments on possible scientific causes. All that seems to add up to an assertion that it took place, doesn't it? With no suggestion from either minimalist, archaeological, or skeptical positions that it may never have happened. That's why I put 'alleged' although I can see I was wrong there. But I still don't think the article as it stands, with all the detail about where and how it happened, is NPOV. -- Doug Weller ( talk) 07:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I now hope I have solved the problem in a way that won't offend anyone too much. I've taken some text from The Exodus but also added Dever's comments about naturalistic explanations missing the point of the biblical story (luckily I have both Finkelstein and Dever - I've put in page numbers, I wish the earlier editor had because I can't fine something he says was in the book).-- Doug Weller ( talk) 13:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate some more expertise in a debate between myself as a fairly inexperienced occasional editor, and an administrator, on the relevance of a whether a brief mention of the Church of Scientology as a notable client is appropriate on the Latham & Watkins page. The debate is ongoing at Talk:Latham_&_Watkins#notable_clients_and_transactions but it is worth knowing that it took several attempts by me to engage this administrator in debate, rather than just avoidance via deletion of my comments on the article's talk page and his own talk page.

In brief, I do not believe the administrator is practising NPOV as per the written policy, and that he is further trying to stretch WP:V to breaking point to further his POV.

Note that the debate is not whether the facts are or are not phrased in a NPOV way, nor whether they can be, nor whether the facts as described are true, but whether including (appropriatly briefly) these facts in any way would inherently unbalance the article. My contention is that a significant number of people coming to the page would be interested in this information about the company - certainly as many as would be interested in much of the current information, and that therfore these facts rightly deserve a couple of sentences in the article. Jaymax ( talk) 14:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

On the Hans Reiser article, an anon IP editor changed the article from known for "Murder of Nina Reiser" to "Convicted for the murder of Nina Reiser" here [40], with the edit summary wtf? *murdered* ? are you sure? do you have a body? where's the murder weapon? the court convicted, but unless there's definite proof, he is convicted for, but not proven a murderer. due process, kthx. I reverted the change and explained that the court case was the due process and proof. The change has since been reverted again by the IP, and then by another editor with the summary I'm sorry, but hes just convicted.

I don't want to edit war on a topic that's already gotten a bit heated at times, so I came here. The subject of the article has been found guilty of the crime, but the other editors want it specified he was only known for being "convicted of the murder of Nina Reiser," and not the "murder of Nina Reiser." Making that change seems pretty POV to me, indicating that even though he was convicted he's still not officially a murderer. However, I'll certainly defer to more experienced eyes. Thanks! Redrocket ( talk) 18:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, the conviction garnered much more public interest and coverage than the murder itself, so the convicted version might actually be more accurate as far as "Known for" is concerned. Since the conviction is mentioned (as a conviction) in the lead, I'm not sure it's necessary to mention the murder twice in the infobox. You might consider changing "Known for" to "Software Projects" or some such, and then leaving mention of the murder to the "Spouse" Section, which currently reads "Nina Reiser (Separated, murdered by Hans Reiser^[1])". Don't forget to add the source, matching the mention of the conviction in the lead. That would make one reference to the conviction, and one to the murder itself, sort of splitting the difference. Would that work? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Might I ask that the Reviews section of The Dawkins Delusion? be checked? I have a feeling that there isn't a good balance in the reviewers in terms of their stance and if they themselves are credible. Since I prefer not to rely on my opinion, I wish to know if this is a matter of editing or just personal bias on my part. Thanks for looking into this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miles007 ( talk • contribs) 16:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It should be well known how statistics can be used to mislead. The saying goes, "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics." I have found the perfect example of this on Wikipedia under the article on Three Strikes Laws.

The graph shows the crime rates before and after the three strikes laws were implemented. The problem with it is it's single perspective of comparison (before and after). There has been no attempt to explore other possible causes for the drop in crime rates such as the number of young males, nor comparisons with other states crime rates that did not implement a three strikes law (ex. New York). It simply doesn't measure up to any sort of scientific scrutiny, and any graph or statistical analysis that is even considered for use on Wikipedia ought to be scrutinized in this sense.

You wouldn't have an article on the theory of evolution if it didn't live up to objective support. In fact, if that were the case, it wouldn't be considered a theory by anyone.-- 132.198.252.6 ( talk) 04:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Correlation does not imply causation may help. -- Una Smith ( talk) 07:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, that is useful on the general topic. This graph, in particular, is not a correlation graph, so it can't imply a relation, nevermind causation.-- 132.198.92.22 ( talk) 09:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, time series graphs always contain an implicit relation: a temporal relation. -- Una Smith ( talk) 14:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

True enough-- 132.198.252.6 ( talk) 14:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You're right, it's a rather odd graph. I wouldn't be able to tell whether the way it presents the data is misleading unless I had the actual data and could draw the appropriate graph of actual crime statistics against years and see how they compare, but the fact that it's so strangely drawn (the numbers on the ordinate reflect ratios rather than crimes, which isn't, lets say, a ... straightforward way to present time series of crime data), along with the statement that it was taken from an advocacy website: "The overall purpose of this figure is to provide data to help evaluate the claim of http://www.threestrikes.org/TenYearReport04.pdf that the three strikes law caused a massive decrease in crime as described in the Three strikes law article." does raise a statistician's eyebrow. If the purpose of showing the graph is to give the idea that the three strikes law "caused" a drop in crime, then the the graph is misleading in and of itself, since correlation wouldn't imply causation even if the trend in the graph accurately reflected the trend in the data and even if the drop in crime actually started after the change in the law, which it didn't, even according to this graph. (Rape, larceny, burglary had been dropping steadily since around 1980, and though aggravated assault and robbery had peaked early in the 90s, they had started dropping before the law was passed. Only murder and car theft appear to have started dropping concurrent with or following the passage of the law). The text of the article does point out that the same drop in crime occurred all over the US during the same years, in states without three strikes laws as well as in states with three strikes laws, which rather negates the strong claim made in the website and apparently intended to be suggested by the graph that the three strikes law CAUSED the drop in crime.

Surely an advocacy website isn't considered a reliable independent source... if it is, it's no wonder Wikipedia contains so much misinformation. If not, then I'd approach improving the NPOV of the article by addressing the RS problem with the graph. Good luck Woonpton ( talk) 16:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I did a little checking, and turns out it's even simpler than that: the graph was Wikipedia user-created for the article, as the quote I cited above points out, "to provide data to help evaluate the claim" made by the advocacy website. In other words, original research. I left a note on the talk page. Woonpton ( talk) 14:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

If a graph supports only one claim, then graphs that support other possible claims, due to the authoritative nature of statistics and graphs upon society, should probably be used in tandem.-- 24.128.66.166 ( talk) 17:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

That might be true in some situations but doesn't fit with the situation here. If the graph were taken from a reliable source (following proper copyright procedure of course) then perhaps another graph from another reliable source would be appropriate if there were differing points of view about how to interpret the data. However, in this case the graph was not taken from a source, reliable or otherwise, but was created by a Wikipedia editor for the express purpose of supporting a claim made in the article (a claim not verified by a reliable or independent source, by the way); in other words the graph is original research, pure and simple, and as such doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Any further discussion about that should probably continue on the article talk page. Woonpton ( talk) 18:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Would appreciate further opinions on whether the recently created Dorje Shugden controversy is a POV-fork. I said on the talk page that that was my opinion but an editor has created the new article anyway, probably not understanding what I was saying. In my view there is not enough reliably-sourced material for two articles, but I would appreciate some other views. I found the page from a note posted on the fringe theories noticeboard. Itsmejudith ( talk) 09:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems that (based on the assertions in the article itself, e.g., that "three anti-Shugden Tibetan Buddhist monks, including the Dalai Lama's close friend and confidant . . . were brutally murdered") the controversy is important enough that it deserves its own article. However, the article (on the controversy) is confusing and excessively long. (If the author was attempting a POV fork, they didn't succeed; I can't tell what POV they are taking!) 69.140.152.55 ( talk) 09:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution mentions the noticeboards, but not this one specifically. While this seems at first glance to be an oversight, it strikes me that this noticeboard is already extremely busy, and making it part of the formal dispute resolution policy may cause it to become unmanageable. What do people think? 69.140.152.55 ( talk) 08:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

There was a Request for Comment (RfC) done on the "Race and intelligence" article in March on the question of whether the article was sufficiently neutral; the consensus was that the article was not neutral as shown here: [41]. Some changes to the article have been made since the RfC. I would now like to ask for comments on the question: Does the article now meet WP:NPOV and if not, what specifically should be done to the article for it to meet WP:NPOV? The RfC comments were not always clear on specific actions that should be taken. I am primarily interested in comments from those not involved in editing the article; however, if you are an editor of the article, please identify yourself as such. -- Jagz ( talk) 18:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Today you used the word "asshole" to describe another editor and administrator on the talk page of Race and intelligence, the only page you edit at the moment. Have you thought of editing other WP articles? Mathsci ( talk) 18:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Mathsci is an occasional editor of the article. He is also French also lives in France. -- Jagz ( talk) 00:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Jagz, please do not insert comments ("He is also French") into your previous postings out of sequence. It is quite unhelpful to readers of this page. If I were French, your comment could be taken as either (a) irrelevant or (b) a racist slur. I happen in fact to be British but am resident in France (I posted from Trinity College, Cambridge earlier this year). I also have my Leaping Wolf from Baden-Powell's cub scout association, probably from before you were even a glimmer in your parents' eyes. His grandson was once a colleague of mine. Kindly refactor your uncivil comment. Mathsci ( talk) 10:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Jagz's only other significant contribution to WP has been to an article on the exclusion of homosexuals from the boy scouts. To be fair, he has edited a few other pages. For example he recently posted arcana from Pompeii here [42], wrongly captioned as Priapus (it is in fact a fusion of Mercury and Priapus, the Roman god of plenty). I have also edited articles on mathematics, architecture, European history, French towns, Racine's plays and most recently Bach cantatas. Mathsci ( talk) 23:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Jagz, what does Mathsci being French (if he is) have to do with anything????-- Ramdrake ( talk) 02:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Jagz is just a low-order troll, we would all do best just to ignore him. WP:DNFTT Slrubenstein | Talk 09:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Slrubenstein is himself, need I say more. -- Jagz ( talk) 17:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Kindly post no more snipes at other editors here. Itsmejudith ( talk) 19:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a proposal to move the PRC article to the China. I wanted to know if equating PRC with "China" is a violation of NPOV because it implies the PRC to be the legitimate China. T-1000 ( talk) 16:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The discussion is here: Talk:China/DiscussRM‎ SchmuckyTheCat ( talk)

This is the 21st century, right? This is like saying Queen Elizabeth isn't the legitimate monarch and the monarch is really some Jacobite pretender (which has in fact been argued). Doug Weller ( talk) 17:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a claim going on at WP:fringe which people might want to look in on. Essentially, as I explain in my last post there, people are using the REDFLAG section, and also the FAQ on Pseudoscience to say that when you are dealing with articles which are about exceptional claims, the mainstream scientific view is the viewpoint of Wikipedia, and always carries the greatest WEIGHT in articles. Where the scientific POV cannot be determined through non-partisan sources, it may be derived from logical inference from standard textbooks on the general subject of the article (this is usually thought to be Original Research).

I think this is a good enough view, and if taken literally it is what the FAQ at NPOV says [43]- and the FAQ holds the status of policy. However, if this is what is intended, then the rest of WP policy needs to make it clearer. There are a lot of people who think that the scientific POV is usually notable, but not necessarily dominant in terms of WEIGHT and the POV the article is written from. The FAQ seems to contradict this view, by equating "mainstream" with "mainstream science," saying Pseudoscience is a social phenomenon and therefore significant, but it should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportionate and represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view. This means that non-scientific views are always held in WP to be the minority per WEIGHT. If it were clear that articles on fringe subjects are written from the POV of mainstream science, then things would be much easier. But the FAQ is probably the only place we say that.

See also discussion here.

And please someone archive this page- hard to load. —— Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It's set up to auto archive threads older than 21 days, but the name of the archive page was misspelled (miscapitalized, actually). I tried to fix it. Let's see if it runs during the next day. Raymond Arritt ( talk) 18:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Not dealing with the specific issue, I don';t think a FAQ is the definitive statement of policy, but rather an less-official explanation of it. I base this upon the discussions at various policy talk pages, where the FAQs receive considerably less scrutiny for exactness than the policy itself. DGG ( talk) 02:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned with the Taser article and particularly tthat the Taser controversy article has been used to remove information from the Taser article that is important, but critical of the device. My understanding is that generally "criticism" sections within articles are discouraged as are creating spin-off "criticism" articles and that NPOV encourages the integration of information that might be seen as critical into the main article. For instance, over the past few months a section on Taser deaths has been moved from the first article to the second and information on safety and scientific studies conducted on the Taser that have challenged the claims made by the manufacturer. Can editors look at the two articles and consider whether they should be integrated and also, if the Taser article is too long, if a different criteria for splitting the article can be found - one other than controversial vs non-controversial? Reggie Perrin ( talk) 21:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Reggie Perrin started a related section at Talk:Taser#Criticism. Flatscan ( talk) 01:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I've renamed the section Talk:Taser#RFC:_Criticism. Reggie Perrin ( talk) 01:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The "Advantages" part seems to be somewhat bias and not true, e.g. Exception Handling being an advantage over other languages. How come there's no "Disadvantages" chapter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.252.76.76 ( talk) 02:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a dispute over using the category "anti-Islam sentiment" in Jihad Watch. See Talk:Jihad Watch#Category Anti-Islam sentiment, Talk:Jihad Watch#Reminder and Sources and Talk:Jihad Watch#A few questions. There is an RfC filed ( Talk:Jihad Watch#Category discussion), but input in the discussion from some NPOV savvy people would be very helpful. Vassyana ( talk) 07:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please have a look at this article. The article is vague in places, and a lot of what is written is clearly based on rumours and myths with little or no factual basis/support. The "Journey to Dehli" section is particularly poor, with no citations, and based on hearsay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redwings99 ( talk • contribs) 10:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

We are having a dispute over the question if there is place for a section on child abuse in the homeschooling article. Two entries related to this have been added at the homeschooling talk page 1 2. As we are more or less stuck on being of opinion that the other party is not neutral, I thought it was wise to ask for a third opinion. Species8473 ( talk) 19:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I especially liked the comment by the Arizona authorities that changing the education setting does not change the propensity or otherwise for violence and abuse of children. I think in fact it is reasonable on the basis of the current evidence that Species8473 whilst presenting a very limited amount of evidence is also not presenting by any means a balanced or neutral view of the situation. Were that the case then we would need to insert similar, and perhaps far lengthier, discussions of child-abuse in articles relating to the Catholic Church, Day care, Schools and school systems, Seventh Day Adventist groups, Scouts, Girl Guides, sporting groups, well, anywhere children come into contact with adults. -- Johnday ( talk) 13:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

So, who invited you to come over here and say this? And is there some reason you specifically like the words of Kim Fields so much? Your point on other articles with child-abuse sections seems invalid, as they simply have separate articles. For example Roman Catholic sex abuse cases and Scouting sex abuse cases. Meanwhile I hope other experienced and active wikipedia editors are willing to look at this. Species8473 ( talk) 17:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, in fact I invited myself. Perhaps I should ask what makes you an expert on the field? And who is Kim Fields? And more to the point, what has she got to do with the argument. What is even more galling about your infantile display is that the citations you give for Roman Catholic sex abuse cases and Scouting sex abuse cases do little more than re-enforce my point. Those are separate articles which deal with issues in a way which doesn't cloud the issue. The main article on the Church: Roman Catholic Church doesn't include a specific sub-heading on abuse, sexual or otherwise by male or female religious or by clergy. That is confined to the separate article which you cited. If you wish to create a separate article on child abuse by home schoolers then please do so. Johnday ( talk) 21:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me know when you started it, meanwhile I think the best place is in the article itself. Species8473 ( talk) 22:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Based upon the POV of particular content, User:Memills and several anon accounts have been removing criticism from evolutionary psychology, segregating it into a very small subsection, and forking it out into evolutionary psychology controversy, a violation of NPOV. [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52] A criticism and merge tag have also been added, [53], [54] suggesting that the information be merged into related sections per the NPOV policy. (See also: Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Article_structure) These tags have also been removed by Memills. [55], [56] Reliable sources documenting criticism and controversy (for example, [57], [58]) are abundant and should be accurately represented in not only the lead section, but the entire article as necessary. Viriditas ( talk) 08:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I've just opened a policy RfC over at Talk:Arrow_Air_Flight_1285#Image about whether a Wikipedian's "artist's impression" of an event constitutes NPOV if there are other interpretations of the event. I opted for a general policy RfC over bringing it up here since there are other policy questions that have been raised as well. Input welcome! -- Rlandmann ( talk) 04:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

We got alerted in Wikipedia:OTRS that The Rules is not really written in an encyclopedic NPOV way and indeed, the article strikes me as making a lot of claims on the book's "message" without backing them up with any sources at all. Would be great if someone could look for some reviews etc. and try to attribute the claims there to a few sources. Thanks! -- Mbimmler ( talk) 20:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Several refs added. – Zedla ( talk) 23:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It is a difficult subject but I believe violations of WP:NPOV, and WP:V have been introduced by recent edits as discussed on the talk page, here and here. I am not going to edit war over it and would appreciate some neutral eyes at the article. Some examples; stay-at-home mother is not an appropriate description of Leitao's electron microscopist and immunohistochemist experience in relation to the topic of the article. "Lab technician" is POV and not supported by sources which state biologist among other terms. "Son's toy microscope", and "he did say that several features of the case" is WP:OR. The use of special formatting to call attention to quoted POV material is not NPOV, and using disclaimers and WP:WTA such as claim, to diminish views held by Morgellons proponents does not fairly represent their viewpoints. Adding material that has nothing to do with Morgellons to add weight to the Role of the internet is also not NPOV. Thanks. Ward20 ( talk) 02:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I haven't reviewed the article and the references carefully, but I want to make a few points. Reference 1 describes her as a stay-at-home mother. The description appears to be accurate, as she does not appear to have been working outside the home at the time. The fact that this disorder was discovered by someone who was not at the time working as a medical researcher is relevant to the evaluation of the "discovery". Her past experience should be made clear in the article. I haven't surveyed the references sufficiently to determine whether "lab technician" is an appropriate term, but I note that it would be an appropriate description for many electron microscopists. Operating complicated laboratory equipment is often the function of lab technicians rather than more senior researchers. The first reference seems to imply that she has a bachelor's degree followed by work experience in the medical field. That is consistent with the education of a lab technician. "Reference 1 describes" and "lab technician" are not necessarily mutually exclusive descriptions.

Reference 1 describes the microscope as an $8 Radio Shack microscope. That is by any reasonable definition a toy. It might be more NPOV however to describe it differently, perhaps "her son's Radio Shack microscope". (I presume sources can be found to support the claim that the $8 toy microscope belonged to her son and not someone else in the family).-- Srleffler ( talk) 02:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Reference 1 also describes her as a biologist and a medical researcher in various contexts in the article but not a lab technician. I don't believe there is a source it was her son's. Ward20 ( talk) 03:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Here [59] Leitao describes herself in 2001 as a "housewife", and describes using her son's Mattel microscope to look for bugs (on their dog). Not really a reputable source though. Herd of Swine ( talk) 19:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

recent discussion at the article supported removing her name from the lead. I think that would be highly advisable, regardless of how she is described. It would avoid prejudicing the article one way or another. DGG ( talk) 23:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

wp:npov and wp:v lab technician? Was Leitao a lab technician yes she was. If there is a source she proposed and did and published original research and she had a degree more than undergrad then she is not a lab technician. If she had an undergrad and did the research as her job not for a degree, supervised by some one with a phd who planned the project, she was a lab technician. In research science there are PhDs, they are called "biologists" "researchers" "principal investigaters" etc and then there are PhDs who are "postdocs", etc, there are students who are "graduate students" if they got a BS or "undergrad interns" if not and who else is there, lab managers and lab technicians. A lab technician has a undergrad degree sometimes a masters, they do a group of techniques. When you call some body a lab technician it is not insult or POV it is their job title. A lab technician that calls themself a "Biologist" or a "Immunohistochemist" is padding their resume, just how it is, and especially when they were niot a lab tech for years. The POV editor at Morgellons has interest to say Leitao was a "biologist" or some thing when she says she found fibers. She got her undergrad and she says she worked in a research lab for five years before she had kids and was a stay at home mom or housewife, her words. We don't know what lab or labs, we don't know if it was after she got the degree or part during her undergrad, we don't know wether it was ten years or fifteen years or 20 before 2001 she was last time a lab tech. Alls we know it, she was a stay at home mom in 2001. Ok so some people think stay at home mom is so insulting, that is prejudice and POV too, my opinion, but if you want to take it out, go ahead.

wp:v toy microscope? What else is not verified says Ward accusing me, the microscope belonging to her son. The reliable sources for the article tell us the microscopes brand, mattell, the store Radio shack, the price, I think 7.99 or 8.99. It is a toy microscope. If toy is POV then take it out, but you don't buy research equipment at Radio Shack. Two sources say it is her son's. Ward knows that why argue about it. The microscope is important, it is one way Leitao used to decide she was right and all the doctors were wrong. That is very important! It is also a common thing in DP to use a magnifying glass or microscope to analyze supposed bugs or fibers. All very important. Who cares if it was her sons or her daughters or she bought it for herself, it was a toy microscope and it was important.

Take Leitao out of lead? Morgellons was named by Mary Leitao no one disputes it. Morgellons RF was foundedd by Leitao no one disputes. Leito is director of MRF no one disputes it. MRF is still the leading website on the proposed condition, most people who self-diagnose according to the medical literature come in with information from it's website. Without Leitao Morgellons is still called DP or its something else or no one knows about it so why would you take her from lead? She is in about every news article about Morgellons. It is so wrong to not include her in lead. RetroS1mone talk 01:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the quality of my sources, but this [60] says:

Mary Leitao graduated magna cum laude from the University of Massachusetts with a BS in Biology. She has worked in various capacities for the Harvard School of Public Health, Massachusetts General Hospital and the University of Massachusetts Medical Center.

I bring this up only in the context of the discussion of the word "biologist", as it does not seem like the right word to describe her, based on what RetroS1mone says. It's understandable that a media report could hear she has a BS in biology and then describe her as "biologist", but if that is inaccurate, we ought not propagate it. However, adding "stay-at-home-mom" or "housewife" in the lead seems to introduce a slight element of NPOV, however accurate those terms are. It might be better to have her name unadorned in the lead, and describe her reported background later. Herd of Swine ( talk) 15:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's a more reliable source http://www.ilads.org/morgellons.html:

She graduated Magna Cum Laude from the University of Massachusetts at Boston with a BS in Biology. She has worked at Massachusetts General Hospital and the University of Massachusetts Medical Center as an Electron Microscopist and an Immunohistochemist.

Herd of Swine ( talk) 15:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

This article pretends to a certain neutrality, but then twice cites one journalist's (Kennicot's) negative critique of Mansfield, and offers another criticism from Greenwald in Salon with no other assessment. These sources accuse Mansfield of holding a "dangerous" point of view (based, in part, apparently, on Mansfield's failure to discuss the current war in Iraq) and of holding "a Machiavellian view of the role of the Executive branch" and "advocating pure lawlessness and tyranny." These are extremely strong charges, presented under the guise of authority, but with virtually no discussion, support or balance.

Then there is this: "He is perhaps most notable for his generally conservative stance on political issues in his writings, often in the minority compared to the outlook of his own as well as other top political science departments..."

Conservatives may well represent a minority of the political science profession (support?), but then this is true for any conservative in any poli sci dept. It also implies that Mansfield in particular has been judged and found wanting by the "top political science departments." These departments are not named, the criteria by which they have been determined to be the top departments are unknown, nor are the particular minority opinions of Mansfield cited, nor are the grounds for those departmental disagreements specified. This statement also suggests that Mansfield is not merely a conservative, but that this is his most notable aspect (not, say, his scholarship).

In all, the article needs re-writing. I didn't want to simply remove whole paragraphs, but I think the article ought to be flagged.

The Kennicott article is perhaps over-cited, but quite on-point. Greenwald writes on his blog, although its hosted at Salon, so we shouldn't include it - the quote adds little to the article anyway. The balance of the article isn't as poor as it could be, though mainstream academic reviews of his work are noticeably thin. (Not that they were any less scathing. I'm thinking of Martha, here.) Solid re-writing really needed, but the weightage less problematic now.

Done some cleanup to the lead and what-not as well, including the problem sentence noted above. -- Relata refero ( disp.) 09:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone suggested posting here. Could someone help on Talk:Philosophy with explaining WP:NPOV. I'm not asking for any help on the technical details of the subject, just another helping hand to explain what the policy is. The problem is that some of the sources conflict (not very much). I explained WP:NPOV and what is required in such cases (we present alternatives and so forth - I have put a quotations from policy on the talk page). But I am rather getting at end of tether. Thanks in advance! Peter Damian ( talk) 17:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

American Family Association: OK, this is a drive-by reporting of an article that has been involved in heavy edit warring. And it is no wonder: the entire article reads like a tract against the organization - half the article is a criticisms section, and the other half still reads like an indicment. Additionally, it is chalk full of sources like this one which have an agenda against the organization. It also includes heavy handed statements like "In response to Hurricane Katrina, the AFA Journal published a controversial article which praised the hurricane's destruction", which, while present in the source, are poorly worded (at best) and not backed up by statements on the opposite side. The Evil Spartan ( talk) 06:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is a crank organization which makes crank statements, what do you expect? -- Dragon695 ( talk) 03:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Oddly, I was going for #2 of WP:5. I might point out the article is significantly better right now then it was a week ago. The Evil Spartan ( talk) 05:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there an "opposite side"? Either the organization praised Hurricane Katrina or it did not. One of these propositions is the truth, and can be verified by citing the organization's own literature. There is no "opposite side" from the verifiable truth. -- FOo ( talk) 09:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The article referenced by the critics actually took no stance on the hurricane, it presented two opposite views held by some Christians. The reviewers of that article took one of the two stances from the article and falsely presented it as if it were the AFA's specific and sole opinion on the matter. The Katrina stuff sheds no light on any AFA position, thus it does not belong in the wikipedia article. P.S. If you think I'm an AFA apologist, be aware that personally I think they suck. 'Nuff sed? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello.

A series of discussions has begun on Talk:World War II about whether authors / historians who claim a differing start date for World War II then 1939 represent, at least, a significant minority or not. A list of many of the non-1939 sources are shown below, any feedback would be appreciated. Oberiko ( talk) 10:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Source	Author	Quote
Imperial Japan's World War Two, 1931-1945	Werner Gruhl	The case that Japan's 1931, (or 1937 at the latest) major resumption of imperial expansion was the true beginning of World War II can be made based on several factors. These invasions constituted the first major violations of the Washington Conference Treaties and the Kellog-Briand Pact. While Japan was condemned as an aggressor by the League of Nations and the United States, the West's reaction was restrained, due to post-World War I pacifism and the worldwide depression. The lack of a more forceful reaction likely contributed to Italy's decision to invade Abyssinia in 1935 and Germany's decision to attack Poland in 1939, thus expanding World War II from Asia to Europe and Africa. It is thus argued that 1939 was not the true beginning of World War II
Roscoe Pound and Karl Llewellyn: Searching for an American Jurisprudence	N. E. H. Hull	...World War II would not begin in Europe, like the first, but in Africa and Asia, with Italy's invasion of Ethiopia and Japan's invesiture of China...
The Rise of Modern Japan	Linda K. Menton, Noren W. Lush, Eileen H. Tamura, Chance I. Gusukuma	The global conflict we call World War II was in fact 'many wars, occurring at different levels and in widely separated places'... For Americans, World War II began in 1941 with the explosive Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. But for the Japanese, the war began much earlier-in 1937.
A Companion to the Vietnam War	Marilyn Blatt Young, Robert Buzzanco	Japan invaded China in 1937, effectively beginning World War II in Asia.
American History the Easy Way	William O. Kellogg	What became World War II began in Asia in 1937 when Japan invaded China. Actions taken by Germany and Italy during the 1930s led to war in Europe in 1939. After the bombing of Pearl Harbor in December 1941, the United States declared war on Germany and Japan linking the Asian and European wars in what is known as World War II.
Asia in Western and World History: A Guide for Teaching	Ainslie T. Embree, Carol Gluck	Aggression in Manchuria, 1931, followed by establishment of puppet state and Japan's withdrawal from the League of Nations, signals the beginning of the 'fifteen-year war.' The end of multi-lateral diplomacy as Japan decided to 'go it alone' as territorial imperialist in Asia; instigation of all-out war against China in 1937, with atrocities such as the Rape of Nanking and without victory-1937 as the beginning of World War II in Asia.
The Rape of Nanking: The Forgotten Holocaust of World War II	Iris Chang	Americans think of World War II as beginning on December 7, 1941... Europeans date it from September 1, 1939, and the blitzkrieg assault on Poland... Africans see an even earlier beginning, the invasion of Abyssinia by Mussolini in 1935. Yet Asians must trace the war's beginnings all the way back to Japan's first steps toward the military domination of East Asia — the occupation of Manchuria in 1931.
A World at Total War: Global Conflict and the Politics of Destruction, 1937-1945	Roger Chickering, Stig Förster, Bernd Greiner	In 1937, when World War II started in the Pacific theater, both Japanese mobilization at home and warfare abroad headed in this direction.
Critical Perspectives on World War II	James W. Fiscus	World War II started in Europe in 1939 when Germany invaded Poland. But World War II had been raging in Asia since 1937 when Japan invaded China.
War and Empire in the Twentieth Century	Imanuel Geiss, University of Aberdeen	The second Sino-Japanese war started in 1937, and it was really the beginning of World War II, because in the Far East it later merged with the Second World
Causes and Consequences of the Second World War	Stewart Ross	In contrast, the Second World War was much more complicated. Starting in the Far East in 1937, different conflicts started in different regions at different times. These gradually became absorbed into the global struggle.
The Library of Congress World War II Companion	Margaret E. Wagner, David M. Kennedy, Linda Barrett Osborne, Susan Reyburn	Some historians date the beginning of World War II to the Japanese incursion in Manchuria in 1931; others cite the full-scale Japanese invasion of the Chinese heartland in 1937 as the war's moment of origin. But Japan's military adventurism had as yet only regional implications. Arguably, Japan might have been appeased, and its provocations confined to one corner of Asia, by some recognition of its stake in China -- noxious as that might have been to recognized norms of international behavior, not to mention to the Chinese.But world war came only when Europe, too, plunged into the maelstrom with Germany's invasion of Poland in September 1939. (emphasis mine)
The Dragon's War: Allied Operations and the Fate of China, 1937-1947	Maochun Yu	On 7 July 1937, the Marco Polo Bridge Incident ingnited a full-scale war between China and Japan, which, in the opinion of many, marked the real beginning of World War II in Asia
The Origins of the Second World War	A. J. P. Taylor	Most wars begin raggedly. In the minds of Englishmen 4 August 1914 is unshakably fixed as the date when the first World war began; yet by then France and Germany had been at war for twenty-four hours, Russia and Germany for three days, Serbia and Austria-Hungary for almost a week. The second World war is vaguer still in its opening; the Russians date it from 22 June 1941, the Chinese from November 1937, the Abyssinians [or Ethiopians, as we now would say], I suppose, from October 1935, and the Americans from 7 December 1941. The American date is the most sensible. The war truly became world-wide — much more so than the first World war — only after Pearl Harbor.
The Changing World of Soviet Russia	David J. Dallin	According to Stalin, the first skirmishes of this second World War began in 1937-38.
Embracing defeat: Japan in the wake of World War II	John W. Dower	For Americans, World War II began in December 1941 and ended three years and eight months later. Japan's war, in contrast, began with the conquest of Manchuria in 1931 and expanded to all-out war against China in 1937
China: Its History and Culture	William Scott Morton	The date of the outbreak of World War II varies ... Americans usually reckon it from December 7, 1941, the date of the attack on Pearl Harbor. But for Europeans the war began in 1939, and for the Chinese in 1937.
Research Guide to American Historical Biography	Robert Muccigrosso, Suzanne Niemeyer, Walton Beacham	In foreign policy he led the nation through the dangerous years of turmoil as the Second World War began in Asia in 1937 and in Europe in 1939
The United States in the world arena: an essay in recent history	Walt Whitman Rostow	...On this view, the Second World War began with the Japanese seizure of Manchuria in 1931...
Contemporary China: a reference digest	Trans-Pacific News Service	The second World War started in 1931 when Japan violated the sovereignty and the administrative and territorial integrity of China...
The Columbia Guide to Asian American History	Gary Y. Okihiro	World War II began for most Americans when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor in the Hawaiian Islands. But for many Chinese Americans the war started a decade earlier, when Japan's armies marched into northwestern China in 1931 and into Shanghai the following year.
The long way to freedom	James Thomson Shotwell	... a condition which grew worse instead of better until in September 1931 - the very time Japan started World War II in Manchuria...
Gateway to Asia: Sinkiang, Frontier of the Chinese Far West	Martin Richard Norins, Institute of Pacific Relations	Not until 1931, when Japan began World War II by her invasion of Manchuria, was this remote Sinkiang hinterland at last roughly awakened.
Writers & Company	Eleanor Wachtel	The Chinese call it World War II; they consider that World War II started in China and that the Chinese helped end the war.
The New York Times Guide to Essential Knowledge	The New York Times	Japan occupied Manchuria as a protectorate in 1931-1932 and invaded China in 1937—the start of World War II in Asia. ... With Hitler's invasion of Poland in September, World War II began in Europe. (The Asian phase of World War II had begun two years earlier.)
The War With Japan: The Period of Balance, May 1942-October 1943	H. P. Willmott	Europeans date World War II from 1939 to 1945 and, with North Americans, date the Japanese part of the conflict from December 1941 to August 1945. The Japanese official histories date it from September 1931 and the start of the campaign in Manchuria; and, if such a date for the outbreak of the war would not command much sympathy in Western histories, there might well be more then a passing sympathy with any account that sought to establish July 1937, and the beginning of the China war, as the real start of the Second World War.
The Last European War, September 1939/December 1941	John Lukacs	THE LAST EUROPEAN WAR began in September 1939. It became the Second World War in December 1941.
The Second World War: An Illustrated History	AJP Taylor	If a formal declaration of war marks the starting point, the Second World War began in April 1932 when Mao Tse- tung and Chou Teh declared war against Japan
Japanese Army in World War II: Conquest of the Pacific 1941-42	Gordon L. Rottman, Duncan Anderson	Japan (Nippon) viewed World War II, which it called the Greater East Asia War (Dai Toa Senso Senkum) as a series of interrelated wars. It had occupied parts of North China in 1931, and the war in China (Shina Jihen) began in earnest in 1937, in which Japan continued its creeping expansion. Conflict with the Soviet Union had occurred on the Siberian border in 1938-1939 in Manchuria, Manchuko, where a puppet state had been established by Japan in 1932. ...
Flags of Our Fathers	James Bradley, Ron Powers	America went to war in 1941. The Europeans had been fighting since 1939. But for millions of Asians, World War II had begun a decade before, in 1931.
War in Our Time: A Comprehensive and Analytical History in Pictures and Text	Harry Brinton Henderson, Herman Charles Morris	World War II Began in Manchuria, 1931
Paths to Peace	Victor H. Wallace	It has often been said, and with much truth, that World War II began in 1931, when Japan found the League powers unwilling to resist its aggression in Manchuria.
A History of the Modern World	Robert Roswell Palmer, Joel G. Colton	In a sense the Second World War began as early as 1931 with the Japanese seizure of Manchuria.
A War to be Won: Fighting the Second World War	Williamson Murray, Allan Reed Millett	Just when World War II began is a matter of interpretation. Western Europeans and Americans tend to ignore the Japanese incursion into China and to mark the war's beginning with the German invasion of Poland on 1 September 1939. For Austrians, Czechs, and Slovaks, the war also commenced two years earlier, when the Third Reich used military force to swallow up sovereign nations in Central Europe...
Japanese Economic History, 1930-1960	Janet Hunter, Freda Utley, George Cyril Allen	... If 1937 (when Japan's Second World War began) is taken as the base, ...
Foreign policies of the United States	Hollis W. Barber	It is by no means out of the realm of reason to state that World War II began in Manchuria in 1931.
Main Currents in American History	William Glover Fletcher, United States Army	Then the average American slowly began to understand that the second World War broke out in Asia in 1931 and that the Chinese, who refused to bow to the conqueror, had been fighting, for a decade, not only their own battles but those of the Republic of the West.
Encyclopedia of World War II: A Political, Social, and Military History	Spencer Tucker, Priscilla Mary Roberts	...Japanese official histories of World War II begin in September 1931 with the start of the Manchurian Campaign.
When Men Lost Faith in Reason: Reflections on War and Society in the Twentieth Century	H. P. Willmott	We consider the Second World War in very narrow terms and with precise dates: 1939 and 1945. But Japanese official histories date the Second World War from September 1931 and the conquest of Manchuria. Even if one is inclined to regard July 1937 as a more reasonable starting line, one would not deny that the China Incident was nurtured in Manchuria: ...
The American Military Tradition: From Colonial Times to the Present	John Martin Carroll, Colin F. Baxter	For Europeans the Second World War is given very precise dates: it began in September 1939... For the United States, this conflict also has very precise dates, but the dates are different from those of Europeans. It began in December 1941... When this war began for Japan, and for China, is quite another matter.
The History of World War II - A Wall Chart	John Keegan	World War II has a simple story. It is that of the defeat of Nazi Germany and its allies by their enemies, eventually to be called the United Nations. The unfolding of the war, however, is by no means simple. It comprised several wars, at least one of which was already in progress when Adolf Hitler invaded Poland on September 1,1939, the date usually chosen to mark the war's beginning in the history books. That war was the one between China and Japan, which had opened in 1937 when Japan captured China's coastal cities; as early as 1931, however, Japan had violated Chinese sovereignty by seizing the northern territory of Manchuria. Another of the wars comprising World War II stemmed from Italian aggression in Africa. In 1936 Mussolini annexed Ethiopia and then, after the outbreak of general war in Europe, invaded the British colonial territories on Ethiopia's borders. The first of Britain's victories of the Second World War were the defeat of those invasions, the liberation of Ethiopia and the rout of the Italian army in Libya.
British Strategy and Politics During the Phony War: Before the Balloon Went Up	Martin Kantor, Nick Smart	The German invasion of Poland began on 1 September 1939, and the British government did, along with the French, declare war on Germany two days later. But these events did not makr the start of the Second World War. That conflict began more than two years later in December 1941 when, four days after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, and with Mussolini in tow, Hitler declared war on the United States of America.

I think that is quite enough sources from reliable enough sources that it is worth at least a reference as a minority view. The Land ( talk) 13:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You could try a survey of the literature, but I'd be surprised in '39 was even the majority view. '37 is certainly the familiar value to me, and demonstratably quoted many times above. It's not remotely 'fringe'. Wily D 17:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I saw this discussion elsewhere as well. The sources above seem to me to be notable enough. The current lead of the article, saying that the article broke out earlier in Asia, seems to me to be a reasonable compromise. The traditional date for the starting of the war in Europe seems to be generally not-contested, and can presumably stay the same. John Carter ( talk) 19:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

NONE of the above are global histories of the conflict but are either specialist studies or about other subjects entirely. ALL global histories of the conflict date it 1939-45. For example:

• A World in Flames (1990) by Martin Kitchen
• World War II (1970) by C.L. Sulzberger
• The Times Atlas of the Second World War (1989)
• A World at Arms (1994) by Gerhard L. Weinberg.
• The Second World War John Keegan
• Blood, Tears and Folly: An Objective Look at World War II Len Deighton

In the text of the article a 1937 startpoint is taken as normative and Sept 1939 is not even marked by the smallest sub-heading. This is seriously misleading to the reader. All my attempts in the article to mark out Sept 1939 as significant have been deleted by Oberiko - who has then put warning notices on my page for my temerity in stating the obvious. Hitler's invasion of Poland is buried in the middle of a section, with no indication that this was important as the beginning of Hitler's war and his scheme of world dominatrion.

The text in the article runs as follows:

Japanese forces during the Battle of WuhanIn mid-1937, following the Marco Polo Bridge Incident, Japan began a full invasion of China. The Soviets quickly lent support to China, effectively ending China's prior cooperation with Germany. Starting at Shanghai, the Japanese pushed Chinese forces back, capturing the capital Nanjing in December. In June of 1938 Chinese forces stalled the Japanese advance by flooding the Yellow River. Though this bought time to prepare their defenses at Wuhan, the city was still taken by October.[19] During this time, Japanese and Soviet forces engaged in a minor skirmish at Lake Khasan; in May of 1939, they became involved in a more serious border war.[20]

In Europe, Germany and Italy were becoming bolder. In March 1938, Germany annexed Austria, again provoking little response from other European powers.[21] Encouraged, Hitler began making claims on the Sudetenland; France and Britain conceded these for a promise of no further territorial demands.[22] Germany soon reneged, and in March 1939 fully occupied Czechoslovakia.

Soviet and German officers in PolandAlarmed, and with Hitler making further demands on Danzig, France and Britain guaranteed their support for Polish independence; when Italy conquered Albania in April, the same guarantee was extended to Romania and Greece.[23] The Soviet Union also attempted to ally with France and Britain, but was rebuffed due to western suspicions about Soviet motives and capability.[24] Shortly after the Franco-British pledges to Poland, Germany and Italy formalized their own alliance with the Pact of Steel; following this, in a move that shocked all other major powers, Germany and the Soviet Union concluded a non-aggression pact, including a secret agreement to split Poland and eastern Europe between them.[25]

[THIS IS WHERE I ATTEMPTED TO PUT A SUB-HEADING ADVERTING TO SIGNIFICANCE OF SEPT 1939]

By the start of September 1939, the Soviets had routed Japanese forces and the Germans invaded Poland. France, Britain, and the countries of the Commonwealth declared war on Germany but lent little support other than a small French attack into the Saarland.[26] In mid-September, after signing an armistice with Japan, the Soviets launched their own invasion of Poland.[27] By early October, Poland had been divided between Germany and the Soviet Union. During the battle in Poland, Japan launched its first attack against Changsha, a strategically important Chinese city, but was repulsed by early October.

In a previous edit I attempted to put a sub-heading at September 1939 - the point where ALL global histories of World War Two start but was abused by Oberiko on my Talk Page and told I was being disruptive for pointing out the overwhelming conscensus. Oberiko is the owner of the article and has forced his fringe view on everybody, putting the fringe view as normative and relentlessly deleting anything which suggests that September 1939 was at all important. Colin4C ( talk) 10:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Huh. So, the following aren't global?

• A World at Total War: Global Conflict and the Politics of Destruction, 1937-1945
• Critical Perspectives on World War II
• War and Empire in the Twentieth Century
• Causes and Consequences of the Second World War
• The Library of Congress World War II Companion
• The Origins of the Second World War
• The New York Times Guide to Essential Knowledge
• The Second World War: An Illustrated History

In any case, this isn't really a forum for you to give your personal opinions of this material. If you don't think they are neutral, disprove their neutrality according to WP:NPOV guidelines. Thus far, the consensus is that they at represent at least a significant minority. Oberiko ( talk) 11:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

None of the books you have listed there is a global history of World War Two giving the dates 1937-45. All global histories of World War Two give the dates 1939-45. I grant you there was conflict and war from 1937, but such conflict is not designated in any global history as World War Two. The latter is almost by definition 1939-45 and is often referred to synonymously as the 1939-45 War. In the article you have presented 1937-45 as the normative dates for the conflict, ignoring the vast consensus that gives 1939-45 as the normative view. You even deleted a tiny sub-heading I put in the article adverting to the significance of 1939 - so not only have you promoted the fringe view as normative you have forbidden (as the presumed owner of the article) any mention in the body of the article of the overwhelming concensus giving significance to the 1939 date. That is POV. Colin4C ( talk) 11:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The consensus view of historians on the 1939 date is a common concensus generally:

• "world war ii began in 1937" Google: "world war ii began in 1937" - 6 hits.
• "world war ii began in 1939" Google: "world war ii began in 1939" - 622 hits.

Putting forward 1937 as either a common concensus or a concensus of historians is just plain wrong. According to the wikipedia the 1937 war was the Second Sino-Japanese War. Except that it wasn't even called a war but an "incident". This "incident" does not, by common and historical consensus mark the beginning of World War Two. To describe it as the concensus view is wrong and POV. Colin4C ( talk) 14:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what conversation you've been reading, but no one's arguing that it started in 1937. We're arguing that at least a significant minority believe it began on a date other then 1939. Also, keep in mind your Google results are almost all going to be western sources, which we all agree uses 1939 as the predominant start date. Oberiko ( talk) 22:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Oberiko - I believe that you are being disingenuous. You have consistently defended the prominence of the 1937 date in the first paragraph of the article. 22:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Right, because the section is called War breaks out. Not the "Second World War starts", but the generic term war. We simply put when Japanese entered full-scale warfare against the Chinese (start of the SSJW) and when the European War broke out in the same paragraph. This was agreed on quite some time ago with a fairly large number of editors.

Regardless, this discussion is on the significance of the sources, which I believe has been confirmed. Let's keep the discussion on the World War II article itself on the World War II talk page. Oberiko ( talk) 22:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

No this is the NPOV noticeboard, and you brought the discussion to this page. I contend that you are violating WP:NPOV because you have not demonstrated a prominent adherent that supports you position on thw 1937 date. Jooler ( talk) 23:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You can contend what you like. I brought here my sources for discussion to see if they comprised, at least, a significant minority, which seems to be the consensus; nothing more, nothing less. 23:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

More seriously, this display consists largely of the misunderstanding of a rhetorical figure: to make the point that WWII was the result of a continuous build-up of tension, most of these say, as R. R. Palmer does: In a sense the Second World War began as early as 1931... But only in a sense; Palmer does not deny tbat the war itself began in 1939. Other dates in which it began in a sense are 1921, 1914, 1866... The same thing can be said of any major war; the American Revolution began "in a sense" in 1676, with Bacon's Rebellion.

Much of the rest of this is an opinion, attested for several Asian countries, that the Pacific War is as a whole part of WWII, instead of only in part (several of the historian who are quoted above do hold only a part is included). That is a reaxonable claim for those countries, and should be noted in World War II; but even some of its advocates would not use it in writing a history of the whole war.

Beyond that there are the simply misunderstood and misrepresented: "For Americans, WWII did not begin" until America entered the war. As irrelevant as the equally true (and equally false) For Americans, WWI did not begin until 1917..

It is disingenuous to claim that this is "a minority view"; it is disingenuous to cite some of these as denying that "WWII began in 1939" - rather, they assert something else is also true. It is several whole sheafs of different views (1931, 1937, 1941; he seems to have missed 1936 "in a sense"), mostly misrepresented by our advocate here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the volume and variety of sources, many very credible by any standard holds it to be, at least, a minority view. I think it's also falls under WP:OR for you to be saying that a historian is wrong in their opinion. Other then that, I think you're agreeing with me. No one's claiming that 1939 isn't predominantly used by Western sources (and even they are split between Sep 1 and Sep 3), but that a wide multitude of other dates are, quite credibly, also used. Oberiko ( talk) 00:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Most of these sources would not dispute that the war did begin September 1939, although they think something needs to be added to that. Almost all of them disagree with each other on what does need to be added. The volume and diversity here defeats Oberiko's argument more than it supports it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. It supports that WWII is a complicated affair, and using a single hard fixed point is far from universal. Even Western histories disagree between Sep 1 and Sep 3 1939. And most of the sources would agree that the European War began in '39, but quite clearly disagree that the Second World War did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oberiko ( talk • contribs) 01:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we know you disagree; but does anyone else? (Palmer writes, to be exact The Second World War opened with the assault on Poland. 1965 ed, p. 827.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Since you've been following the discussion, you'll see that several other editors feel the same way, as well as the first commenter's here that these views do represent, at least, a significant minority. Oberiko ( talk) 02:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting discussion. You could even argue that WWII started in 1919 with the Treaty of Versailles:) The standard historiography is that WWII started in 1939 however it's certainly valid to have a section of the article that cites historians who argue that important conflicts that are considered to be part of WWII, such as the Second Sino-Japanese War actually began several years before and, of course, that there are several other conflicts that were important precursors or preludes to WWII such as the Spanish Civil War and the Italian invasion of Abyssinia and of course the Chinese invasion of Manchuria. Certainly there are a number of historians who assert that the Spanish Civil War was really the first conflict of WWII (at least by proxy in the European Theatre) and had the European democracies stopped Franco, Germany would not have been emboldened to act aggressively. Nevertheless, the standard historical consensus is that WWII began in 1939 with the German invasion of Poland and the French and British declaration of war on Germany in response. Reggie Perrin ( talk) 01:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and 1921 is a variant on Versailles, something to do with German disarmament conventions. I propose to insert a note on the historiography as Perrin suggests. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Majority view isn't under debate. What is is if these sources represent a significant minority. It would appear that most would agree. Oberiko ( talk) 01:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Many things appear to Oberiko, including agreement among these sources. But are any of them the case? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I never said that, all I've said is that other dates then 1939 used often enough to warrant inclusion. Oberiko ( talk) 02:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know, A MEDCAB case has been opened by me. You can look over it at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-06-13 World War II

"WWII is a complicated affair, and using a single hard fixed point is far from universal" Indeed. The table listed by Oberiko clearly represent a significant minority including some very well-known authors. Sadly the same arguments keep getting repeated over and over; we aren't making much headway here, on the WW2 page, or in the mediation case. Regards, DMorpheus ( talk) 17:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem being that the well-known ones either do not support this themselves (they say others do), or are (like Palmer) being cited disingenuously. The only exception I see is Taylor, whose view is a small minority, but which is not now represented in our article at all. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this is confusing historical rhetoric with the actual timing of an event. Wikipedia, for example, actually began back n Hellenistic Greece, though it was not called so at the time. The ultimate causes of WWII, if one wishes to stretch things far enough, are probably part of the biological evolution of mankind. Stick to the standard terminology, with a section explaining how otherwise it can be seen. DGG ( talk) 18:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources for those points of view? Oberiko ( talk) 19:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not writing an article here, just illustrating how far afield it is possible to go. And yes, i could find sources that the conflicts leading to wars are intrinsic to humankind--Hobbes will do as a start. DGG ( talk) 08:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)