This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
This article's title is completely pov, but I'm not sure what else we can call it. The Jerusalem Post reference that is cited [1] makes it clear that other archaeologists disagree with Mazar on several grounds. Mazar represents one pov on dating called the high chronology, others suggest different dates. There is also disagreement among archaeologists as to whether there really was a strong centralised state at that time. As I've said, we shouldn't have an article with this title, but I'm not sure what to do - probably merge with another article and make the content npov. Dougweller ( talk) 18:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I would love some input on the discussion page for the colorful discussion at this article's discussion page re the article's Criticism section — it seems to focus on a half dozen or so items sold by the company that received criticism; the section comprises about a third of the entire article, doesn't seem to me to meet NPOV or guidelines for the criticism section. Any insights would be welcome. The discussion, and this section of the article, could use some very sharp minds. Thanks. 842U ( talk) 04:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
A long term dispute on the Falun Gong page is whether some of the following information, based on the sources below, can appear in the article.
An occurrence on Fuyou Street: the communist myth of Falun Gong's original sin National Review, July 20, 2009 by Ethan Gutman
Falun Gong in the United States: An Ethnographic Study By Noah Porter (described as "excellent" by David Ownby)
Zhao Yuezhi, "Falun Gong, Identity, and the Struggle Over Meaning," in Contesting media power: alternative media in a networked world edited by Nick Couldry, James Curran, Rowman & Littlefield, 2003
The reason for the information being excluded, as far as I can tell, is that Ethan Gutmann's article was published in the National Review ("an anti-China U.S. conservative publication" and because Noah Porter, the anthropologist, refers to Falun Gong primary source materials in his thesis). I stated how I don't think those reasons are adequate for excluding the material. I thought the NPOV board would be a good way of getting an outside opinion. The point is to mention two things (at least):
I believe both those points are clear from the material above, and that no real reason has been provided for excluding the material, despite the reams of discussion. Outside editors, please state your views about whether the above points would contravene NPOV by being on the page. (The previous discussions on this are here: [3] [4].)-- Asdfg 12345 02:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
scrap this, actually belongs at the RS noticeboard. the reason given for excluding the source was related to its reliability. -- Asdfg 12345 12:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
The article Monarchism in Canada currently reads like an advocacy of the canadian monarchism and lacks objectivity in both the partiality of the tone and the undue prominence of pro-monarchy content. The main author and contributor does not want to introduce statements which could be interpreted as anti-monarchy, even if they are relevant to the issue being discussed. I think it should instead describe the monarchism movement in the country, its history and talk about the various monarchists groups. Most of the article can be considered a POV fork, together with Republicanism in Canada. Shouldn't the arguments be incorporated, instead, in a more neutral way, in the common Debate on the monarchy in Canada? It is currently mostly a poll war, but I think it could be restructured to include the main arguments of the two parties. -- zorxd ( talk) 19:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Bjmullan inserted in
Gaza War and in
International Law and the Gaza War an opinion of
Sir John Stanley (see
here and
here respectively). Sir Stanley
argues that DIME weapons are illegal and using them violates the international law.
None of the sources cited in
DIME entry imply that it is illegal.
Global security says that it has not been "declared an illegal weapon";
neither Norwegian doctors in Gaza nor HRW military expert imply somehow it is illegal; Colonel Lane, military expert testifying in front of the fact-finding mission in July 2009, was asked about using DIME in Gaza. In
his reply, he never suggested that DIME is illegal; finally,
Goldstone report in para. 49 says that "DIME weapons and weapons armed with heavy metal are not prohibited under international law as it currently stands".
my concern - citing Sir Stanley on this issue violates
WP:UNDUE. --
Sceptic from Ashdod (
talk) 03:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
→The inquiry is not about proportions of legality issues per se in the section; it is not about the impact of the stuff on real people or excuses to use it. The inquiry is about one simple question. Does inclusion of the opinion that DIME is illegal violates the WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE or it does not. My rationale is presented above. I would like to see defenders of keeping the opinion bring arguments based on sources and wiki policies. -- Sceptic from Ashdod ( talk) 19:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
The article suffers from a distinctly pro-catholic bias... coatracked arguments with cherry picked sources. It does not treat the subject from a neutral POV. A bit of help from those with a history or political philosphy background is needed. Blueboar ( talk) 04:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I feel the title of the article John F. Kennedy assassination ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is extremely misleading, because readers (and some editors) are not aware of the "rules" that have been set by the active editors - that material added must not only agree with the government investigations, but it must also not challenge the simplified version of those findings that the editors have agreed upon, or digress into details about conflicting evidence. The average reader likely assumes, due to the title of the article, that this article is a wide-ranging examination of the JFK assassination, when it is actually, primarily, an account of the government's findings about the assassination. Items that don"t fit the litmus test are deleted, sometimes without comment. My referenced lines about the rifle found in the Dallas School Book Depository initially being identified as a 7.65 Mauser were deleted as "conspiracy theory", and then when moved to the "conspiracy theory" section of the article, way down in the article, they were deleted a second time, without comment. I had to get a debate going to find out what was going on. I quote one of the editors.
If you are going to call the article "JFK assassination" it should be a broad and inclusive article. The other editors feel this is unrealistic for the reasons given above. But I feel this results in an "official", simplified story that readers will assume is "the truth" as agreed upon by all serious researchers, which it is not (I have references I can supply if you doubt this). My suggested fix is to rename the article "John F. Kennedy assassination - U.S. government investigation findings". All of the editors participating in the debate oppose this, but the current article, as currently titled, seems clearly NOT NPOV to me, and definitely misleading to the readers, who have no idea about these "behind the scenes" restrictions on content. Ghostofnemo ( talk) 11:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
This person tried to gain consensus for changes to first the content then the title on the relevant page. There was never a "ban" of information that disputed the government investigations, indeed the disputes with the conclusions are mentioned in the lede, and a section briefly discusses them. At least six editors participated in a discussion and all disagreed with his proposal and disagreed with his contention there was a problem with the page. He next took it to Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests where he was a) told this smacks of forum shopping and b) his dispute had been adequately addressed. Three outside editors there all agreed that there was nothing to remedy. All the while I have suggested his material would help improve an existing page, on conspiracy theories related to the Kennedy assassination, and have offered some specific and concrete advice on how best to present the evidence of conspiracy. Canada Jack ( talk) 15:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I could have just engaged in an edit war with you, and reverted your edit without comment, as you did mine, but I thought it might be better to a) first discuss it on the talk page b) when that failed to resolve the issue, I took it to editor assistance c) they suggested discussing it further on the talk page, which I pointed out we had done and that Canada Jack said further discussion was pointless, so then, d) I've raised the issue here. Are you accusing me of misconduct? Ghostofnemo ( talk) 01:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Clinton-approved biography be excluded, restricted to one section, or moved to another article? Ghostofnemo ( talk) 00:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
If consensus is what you are looking for, then my 2 cents worth is in for keeping the title just as it is. If you want to do another article on "Conspiracy Theories Regarding the Kennedy Assassination", I would certainly think that that is notable. Oh, wait... John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories already exists. Leave it alone. Rapier1 ( talk) 00:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
AS an example of the intellectual dishonesty on display here, I chose to, as an example, discuss the claims made on one of those above sources, and showed how the Baltimore Sun article is, quite simply, bullshit when it asserts four people saw Oswald on the ground floor when JFK was shot. SO I posted what the Warren Commission and others actually reported in terms of those four, yet here we have Ghost posting this stuff AGAIN as if it is the unvarnished truth. It's a prime example of the nonsense which would invade the page if his suggestions were adopted, as each and every one of the assertions above is easily answered. It would turn the main assassination page into an endless shouting match. This despite the fact there already IS a page and other places where many of these alternate scenarios are to be found. Canada Jack ( talk) 01:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
The problem with your proposal is 1) wikipedia does not generally include disclaimers and you have repeatedly been told this; 2) the fact there are disputes with the WC etc is clearly noted in the lede; 3) much of the narrative is introduced as " The Warren Commission said..." thus there is little chance a casual reader will be unaware many issues are contentious; 4) there is already a section on the page which discusses the fact there are many alternate theories on the subject; 5) your proposed text implies there is new evidence which has emerged which renders the Warren Commission conclusions incorrect, but this is a POV assertion; 6) there is no competing narrative per se to include. IOW, there is no definitive counter-argument to the narrative which is agreed upon by critics. Which is why those counter-arguments have their own page; 7) a page is already dedicated to counter-arguments, which has several links, including in the lede. Canada Jack ( talk) 03:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
2) Yes, but despite this, the entire narrative is based on that source, which is NOT pointed out. 3) If parts of the narrative say "The WC said" why not describe the entire narrative that way?
This is the endless inanity we've had to put up with the past week. For one, Ghost has admitted HE'S NEVER READ THE REPORT. Yet he feels qualified to do roundly critique it. If he HAD read it, he'd realize that almost all the conspiracy critiques of the report COME FROM THE REPORT'S OWN EVIDENCE. SO it is entirely appropriate to link much of the material on the page to the Report. BECAUSE MOST OF THE CONSPIRACY COMMUNITY DOES SO TO. For example, the material on the sequence of shots, the nature of the wounds, the testimony etc., doesn't come from researchers asking questions decades later, it comes from the evidence gathered by the various official investigative bodies. Which is why it is quite clearly stated "The Warren Commission concluded..." etc. The other problem which Ghost, in his general ignorance on the subject as he seems blissfully unaware of this, the VAST majority of evidence to the assassination was carried out by those several government inquiries.
4) The alternative theory section comes long after the narrative, it is tightly restricted (you removed my material), and points in the narrative are not allowed to be challenged, so controversial statements cannot be challenged Ghost admits there indeed is a section on the page for the alternate scenarios, which links to a page which further explores the claims. It's been patiently explained to him that therefore his claims are moot. He tried to insert a lot of material which properly resides on the conspiracy page the section links too, minitua on aspects of the assassination. It was patiently explained that in the case of the Mauser rifle debate THERE IS ALREADY A PAGE DEDICATED TO THE RIFLE!!!! That's not good enough, it would seem.
5) There is new evidence! The HSCA uncovered some, many "secret" documents have been released, Gerald Ford admitted that he changed the description of the location of the bullet wound in Kennedy's neck!
The fact that the HSCA came to different conclusions is STATED IN THE LEDE. Various different interpretations of the HSCA IS IN THE BODY OF THE ARTICLE. While Ford changed "back" to "neck" as he noted THIS DID NOT ALTER IN ANY WAY THE HSCA'S CONCLUSIONS AS TO THE SHOTS FIRED BY OSWALD, therefore does not rise, in this relatively broad article, to being discussed. It is, I believe, on the autopsy page where these issues are more greatly explored.
6) You can't provide a complete narrative of events because there is not enough information, but we can see that the Warren Commission's attempt to do so was flawed because some historians and researchers have said so. The Warren Commission narrative is listed, along with the HSCA where it differs, and the fact that others don't agree is mentioned as well. The basic problem here, completely unaddressed by Ghost, is there is NO ALTERNATE NARRATIVE WITH ANY BROAD AGREEMENT. It suffices to say others differ, because there are literally HUNDREDS of alternate scenarios put forward by other authors. How the hell do we deal with that on one page? By putting these alternate scenarios on another page. WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE.
Further, virtually EACH AND EVERY point determined by the WC and the HSCA has some alternate scenario somewhere. AS I said earlier, attempting to incorporate these views (even if we could get a "representative" view, which is impossible) would turn the page into a shouting match.
7) The "assassination conspiracy" article is not under discussion here. The fact that it exists, that there are multiple links to it, including in the lede, renders much of your complaints moot, a point repeatedly made by outside editors. Canada Jack ( talk) 15:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
{{
Expert-subject-multiple|American History|John F. Kennedy}}
Ghostofnemo (
talk) 04:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
There is no evidence that these facilities have ever been net electricity generators. Moreover, all sources are industry sources.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.22.240 ( talk • contribs) 04:40, February 24, 2010
Over at “ Austrian School”, one or more editors has tried to have the article declared
However, mainstream theorists since then have shown that their results hold for all monotonic transformations of utility, and so also hold for ordinal preferences.
(underscore mine) citing a webpage as support. In 1959, it was demonstrated (in a peer-reviewed article) that some total-orderings do not correspond to any assignment of quantities (unique or otherwise), and in 1977 "The Austrian theory of the marginal use and of ordinal marginal utility", a peer-reviewed article by J Huston McCulloch in Zeitschrift für Nationalökonomie v37, used this result to demonstrate that the orthodox conjecture that a quantification could be fit to any economically rational ordering were false. The passage in question treated a false conjecture as a theorem, on the strength of a claim from a source that is not peer-reviewed.
When I attempted to remove this bald, false claim, BigK HeX restored it less baldly as
However, Bryan Caplan writes that mainstream theorists since then have shown that their results hold for all monotonic transformations of utility, and so also hold for ordinal preferences.
with the summary assertion
Never provided the requested verification for his claim. Treated as OR until such time as he completes the discussion.
though in fact McCulloch's article had been cited on this matter on the talk page. Caplan's claim as such was already in a “Criticism” section of the article (where McCulloch's article is also noted), so reïteration of the claim is redundant; and the source here is poor. None-the-less, BigK HeX asserts again on my talk page that I haven't provided an appropriate source, and preëmptively threatens to use WP:3RR. — SlamDiego ←T 18:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
And now BigK HeX has removed any reference to the peer-reviewed article by McCulloch. — SlamDiego ←T 19:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Collapsing discussion that is probably outside of the issues of NPOV |
---|
[outdent]
|
It looks as though much of my issue with the contentious topic would be more appropriate elsewhere, but I am of the opinion that the mention of a mainstream view in two different sentences is hardly a problem for neutrality. BigK HeX ( talk) 06:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Not sure if this is an appropriate request to post here, but I have an Rfc on a NPOV issue here. Unfortunately, being an Isreal-Palestine issue, most editors who have weighed in seem to have existing POVs which makes me question thier neutrality. Some fresh input would be most appreciated!
P.S. If this is not an appropriate area for this request, please let me know. I seek to learn!
Thanks NickCT ( talk) 18:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
This article is the recipient of continuous numerous biased personal attacks against Gavin Menzies by Dougweller. Despite many efforts to explain the concept non-POV and neutrality Dougweller, ClovisPt, Nickm57 and several other editors refuse to follow Wikipedia policy on academic neutrality and persist in their personal attacks against Gavin Menzies in an effort to discredit his discoveries.
The above is from 98.71.0.146 ( talk · contribs), who started off as 98.122.100.249 ( talk · contribs), already blocked 3 times this year and who evidently has also been using 68.222.236.154 ( talk · contribs) on other articles, is clearly also 74.243.205.109 ( talk · contribs). Way over 3RR. He's also complained at ANI and AIV. Dougweller ( talk) 06:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm looking for help choosing a neutral and fair category title to embrace mechanical, electronic, and other man-made (manufactured) devices such as the radionics device and the GT200 which are broadly pseudoscientific. Devices like these are:
The suggested test for this category would be whether there is a substantial consensus that the device cannot or would not operate under known scientific principles, or else whether the device is so clearly determined to be non-working and incapable of being made to perform the claimed function that reliable sources have used strong terms such as "fraudulent". It would also include other notable fraudulent devices made and sold in human history.
I think such a category would be useful, but I can't think how to title it appropriately - "fraudulent" and "pseudoscientific" are emotive and (if misused) pejorative terms.
FT2 ( Talk | email) 00:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
well, since your third point seems to limit the category to things that are express chicanery, 'fraudulent devices' might be best. you could go with 'duplicitous devices' instead - less harsh, and has a nice alliteration...
I would like to know the position of the Wikipedia community on whether the terms "propaganda" and "regime" are biased, in particular in reference to the activities of the Chinese Communist Party in its anti-Falun Gong campaign. The relevant section is here [5], and below is a small excerpt:
According to James Tong, Professor of Political Science at the University of California and Chief Editor of the journal Chinese Law and Government, in the wake of the official ban the regime aimed at not only coercive dissolution of the Falun Gong but also reform and rehabilitation of the practitioners. [1] This was accomplished through four program initiatives: a mass campaign of electronic and print propaganda; intensive individualized reeducation; special programmes for true believers that emphasised "internal transformation" rather than "external conformity"; and for the still defiant, punitive and rehabilitative labor reform. [1]
Tong's profile: [6]. The question is whether those terms should either be put inside direct quotes from the source whenever they appear, or should be changed to "Chinese government" and "statements" (instead of propaganda). My view is that the terms are not controversial or improper and can be used without needing to be modified or identified as quotes. They are commonly used terms in discussing the CCP/Falun Gong issue, and in China scholarship generally. If the source cited did not use such terms, however, then they should not be used. I am interested in the opinion of other Wikipedians.-- TheSoundAndTheFury ( talk) 03:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Propaganda seems to me to be a term which can be used as it requires less subjective interpretation. There also isn't another word which conveys the same meaning as propaganda. However, regime seems to be something which shouldn't be used as the word government will suffice in its place. Panyd The muffin is not subtle 16:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
a form of communication aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position. As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense, presents information primarily to influence an audience
NPOV doesn't mean finding "one true representation of reality", so much as representing the significant views and their balance neutrally. If there is a significant view that considers the topic in terms of "propaganda" and "regimes" then those may be appropriate terms to use in representing their viewpoint, with a clear neutral explanation for the reader of their stance and position and information to gain an understanding of how much WP:WEIGHT it carries.
It's when Wikipedia uses those terms to declare XYZ is "propaganda", that we veer into POV. Representing a significant viewpoint faithfully is very different. There will presumably be other significant viewpoints that do not hold this stance, and the article should show the various views, who holds them, and the backgrounds and reasons why they do so. NPOV implies representing the topic as a whole faithfully, including the significant views that exist about it.
In brief they would be POV if we asserted them as "the truth"; they are correct and appropriate words when representing a significant view if they accurately describe and faithfully represent the viewpoint's position. (SImilar to how we wouldn't say "X is a terrorist" but we would say "The United States Government and most other governments consider X a terrorist"). FT2 ( Talk | email) 18:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I consider FT2's response to have nailed the issue. I had the thought in mind, given the line of debate that had gone on earlier, to start asking about how far our "neutralisation" of terminology extends, and whether this is a Wikipedia-wide issue, and how certain terms are determined to be "biased," etc. It certainly raises a number of issues. Whatever the case, with regards to the Chinese Communist Party's use of propaganda and indoctrination, and its being termed a "regime," there is a wealth of literature. Scholars have written about it for decades, and these terms are par for the course. In particular, with regard to the propaganda and indoctrination campaign against the Falun Gong, these words are used most regularly. I will take away from this fruitful discussion that it is important to acknowledge the source in all cases, but that it is not individual editors who decide what is biased and neutral with regard to terminology, but the body of reliable sources writing on the particular topic. -- TheSoundAndTheFury ( talk) 02:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
In the article on Lama (martial art)the author has in many areas expressed a biased view on the differeing white crane schools and their masters. In one particular case the Author describes the outcome of a public fight on January 17th, 1954... "The result was somewhat embarrassing, but it still brought public attention to the style." There is no mention about the reason for the exposition and if memory serves me correctly it was to raise money. the fight was called off after a couple of bouts with no winner declared so there would be a) no deaths and b) no ill feeling between the 2 schools involved.
Chan Hak Fu, one of the 2 figheters is still alive and living in Macau today.
Much of the article is biased and in areas is a blatant attempt to discredit many of the white crane schools and their masters. Insinr8 ( talk) 02:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Insinr8 (
talk •
contribs) 02:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
There have been long running battles in this article between pro and anti-property libertarians which had settled down with compromises over last 6 months to a year. Comparing this February 1 version to this this March 3rd version, one can see a lot of material has been removed by one editor in an attempt to purge the anti-property libertarian views - bringing up all the old settled arguments yet again! (Meanwhile some question edits by anti-property people also have snuck in as well, causing more problems.) Anyway, the pro-gutting editor has an RFC up and comments on these two versions and how to deal with the issue welcome. Talk:Libertarianism#RfC:_Which_form_of_libertarianism.3F CarolMooreDC ( talk) 15:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I feel this article has been hijacked by left-wing critics of Richard Littlejohn who are using dubious sources such as left-wing newspapers, biased blogs and comments from clearly left-wing figures such as Johann Hari and Will Self. I feel there is a lot of POV and biased content in this article. It seems to be people trying to force negative material about Mr Littlejohn rather than a balanced biographical article. I would appreciate a neutral opinion. Christian1985 ( talk) 22:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I believe that the whaling-industry euphemisms "take" and "catch" are non-neutral in the context of illegal whaling (and especially in questionable "research whaling") and thus should not be used in an unqualified voice. These terms falsely imply that the whales are not killed -- disregarding the rare to nonexistent 'non-lethal research.'
In contrast to Japanese whaling, there is the legitimate research of wild animals which are caught, tagged and released for further study. This association is exactly why the terms "take" and "catch" are effective euphemisms by the whaling industry. Especially when our readers are not familiar with the controversies.
PrBeacon (
talk) 20:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Please, this is not the place to continue the dispute either. We're looking for fresh input. As far as the mix that HansAdler is describing, I'd say the intro for Whaling does a decent job though not ideal. I'd still like to qualify the contentious terms when they're used. PrBeacon ( talk) 09:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
And now PrBeacon is edit warring at fishing in an attempt to modify terminology in the lead. That seems inappropriate since there is an ongoing discussion and edit warring is bad. He has opened a report at the edit warring noticeboard against the other editor. [7] I am considering opening an edit warring report but feel that might be considered forum shopping, it could just as easily be done here or at the alert noticeboard due to inappropriate edit summaries and talk page incivility, and have a feeling he might already be digging his own grave. Things have become way to heated to the point that Cetamata is coming across upset like this and PrBeacon is opening multiple reports like this. I've tried to ask everyone to calm down but it doesn't look like it is happening Cptnono ( talk) 10:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:If_I_Can_Dream_(series) ... this article is written like an advertisement for the show. 'The series intends to harness new media equally, if not more so, than traditional broadcast, creating a truly cross media viewing experience.' ... 'Aside from introducing a new paradigm of reality based programming, If I Can Dream also represents a significant leap forward...' ... 'Accompanying the new technology platform is a state-of-the-art website built by a renown interactive design firm.' ... i would guess that the article has been written by the show's publicists. it needs to be flagged and rewritten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.132.112.255 ( talk) 15:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Notes by
Jaakobou (
talk ·
contribs)
Article:
Judaization of the Galilee (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
I'm having issues with 3 editors with a strong political perspective (read: who view Israel in bad light) -- mostly with Nableezy/Tiamut -- and are dominating the page in an article they've created about an Israeli policy. i.e. Judaization of the Galilee.
I request clarification in regards to the background of the Galilee. I've tried removing the old second paragraph as it makes no sense and I worked some chronological order into the first paragraph so that it won't sound like Israel "instead incorporated" the area without basic context. The third paragraph is by a disputed academic (read: criticized as a policital advocant) of no special notability - I've moved it to a 'reasoning' sub-section, which was tagged as POV for having only the perspecitve of this disputed fellow. As I'm unsure yet on how to work out the issue of 'reasoning', I'm leaving it out of the current discussion as it needs to be resolved at a later date once more mainstream perspectives are assembled.
Old | New |
---|---|
==Background==
{{main|1948 Palestine war]] The 1947 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine, which called for the establishment of Jewish state and an Arab state in Palestine, called for the Western Galilee region to be within the proposed Arab state. [3] The region was instead incorporated into Israel, following its Declaration of Independence and the armistice agreements that ended the official hostilities of the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. The Palestinian population, largely decimated by the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, still formed the majority of the population in that region. [4] Israel's independence meant that the priorities of the Zionist movement shifted from securing a safe territorial base for Jewish immigrants (many of whom were refugees of European persecution), to building viable Jewish communities of the newly created sovereign state and 'the ingathering and assimilation of exiles' (mizug galuyot). [5] According to Oren Yiftachel, Judaization is a statewide policy that aims at preventing the return of the 750,000 Palestinian refugees exiled by the 1948 war and at exerting Jewish control over Israeli territory which still included the 13-14% of the Palestinian population who remained there following the war. [5] Judaization has also entailed the transfer of lands expropriated from Arabs to Jews, the physical destruction of Arab villages, towns, and neighbourhoods whose inhabitants fled or were expelled in the 1948 and 1967 wars, restrictions on Arab settlement and development and the parallel development of Jewish urban and industrial centers, changing Arabic place names to Hebrew ones, and the redrawing of municipal boundaries to ensure Jewish dominance. [6] [7] Two main areas targeted by the Judaization strategy are the Negev and the Galilee. [5] |
==Background==
Following the establishment of Israel in may 1948, its Arab neighbours declared what was the first in a series of wars within the Arab-Israeli conflict. The war commenced upon the termination of the British Mandate of Palestine in mid-May 1948 following a previous phase of civil war in 1947–1948. After the Arab rejection of the 1947 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine (UN General Assembly Resolution 181) that would have created an Arab state and a Jewish state side by side, five Arab states invaded the territory of the former British Mandate of Palestine. Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria attacked the state of Israel, leading to fighting mostly on the former territory of the British Mandate and for a short time also on the Sinai Peninsula and southern Lebanon. The war concluded with the 1949 Armistice Agreements, but it did not mark the end of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The Western Galilee, originally proposed by the UN as Arab territory, was incorporated into Israel as a result of the war. The Palestinian population, largely decimated by the war, still formed the majority of the population there. [4] |
I am in full disagreement with Tiamut's argument that:
I tend to see this as WP:CENSOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:SOAP vios (per: tired Zionist propagnda) but it is up to the community to denote their opinions about the text.
With respect, Jaakobou Chalk Talk 16:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
@Okedem, the first paragrph for the background section prior to my adding more to try and appease Jaakobou, was simply,
"According to the 1947 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine, the Western Galilee region was to form part of the proposed Arab state.[4] Incorporated into Israel following its establishment in 1948, the Palestinian population, largely decimated by the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, still formed the majority of the population there.[5]"
It was sourced to David McDowall, and Dan Rabinowitz, both of whom discuss the Judaization of the Galilee and provided this historical background information. As I have said, including background info not included by sources discussing the subject is a bad idea, that leds to WP:SYNTH. Furthermore, as you are aware from previous discussion, the Arab rejection narrative as regrds the partition plan is a contested one. Including it here, without an extended presentation of all POVs on the issue would be POV. Tht issue is covered in the partition plan article itself. It is not the subject of this article, and is mentioned only in passing by RS who do discuss this topic. Per itsmejudith, I agree the background should be kept to a minimum (though I don't agree with deleting it altogether). As such, I will (continegent upon the feedback in this discussion) remove the information I added to please Jaakobou and stick only to what the sources say. Tiamut talk 20:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
@FT2, I appreciate the suggestion. A couple of comments and questions though: 1) Its not a "covert state policy", it was openly adopted and plans to pursue it were often published explicitly using citing the policy of Judization of the Galilee; 2) Should information not mentioned in reliable sources discussing this policy be included in the background section? For example, you write about the Arab armies invading Israel, but that's not covered in any texts discussing Judaization. I would also note that the 1948 Palestine war began long before the intervention of the Arab armies in May 1948. If we mention their invasion, shouldn't we also mention the fighting previous? And then, where do we draw the line as to how far back we go? 3) Is Asaf Romirowsky's critique of Oren Yiftachel in response to his work on Judaization? Or are you just adding a general critique of Yiftachel's work here, and then why would we do that? Shouldn't that just go in Oren Yiftachel's article itself, as its quite unrelated to the subject at hand and comes off as well poisoning? If however, it is directed specifically as response to his writing on the Judization of the Galilee, then I would see it as relevant, and would appreciate ref info, so that I can add it to the article. Tiamut talk 23:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Itsmejudith is right (see her opinion below) - both of these versions are trying to make a political point by introducing facts that are completely irrelevant to the matter at hand. The history of wars, and how Israel got sovereignty over this territory, is not germaine to the Judaization policy. Had Israel purchased the territory, rather than won it in war, would that make the policy better or worse? All of this stuff should be axed.
I also think that Yiftachel's presentation of Judaization has been misrepresented by both Tiamut and Jaakobou. The creation of a Jewish majority in the Galilee is only one of the objectives that he cites for the Judaization program, and not necessarily the main one. Others include the dispersion of the Jewish population of the country, which was and is heavily concentrated in the urban center of Israel, the resettlement of immigrants, and the provision of services to the rural settlements of the Galilee. The destruction of Arab villages is not actually Yiftachel's assertion, but a citation in his book from Benny Morris, and is not central to Yiftachel's arguments.
This is not to say that there is no place in the article for a review of Israel's development policies in the Galilee, which have, indeed, included destruction of abandoned villages, the mass acquisition of Arab-owned land by eminent domain, and the restriction of growth - physical, economic and cultural - of Palestinian villages in the Galilee. But a fair representation of Yiftachel's arguments, and of Israel's policies, should include the positive as well as the negative. -- Ravpapa ( talk) 03:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Both versions have too much background. People can use the wikilinks if they don't know the history of the area. I'd prefer to see no background section at all. So no more reason to argue.... Itsmejudith ( talk) 17:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
If we want to mention the partition plan, and the Western Galilee's designation in it, we have to explain why it didn't happen. Just saying that in the plan it was supposed to be in the Arab state, but "The region was instead incorporated into Israel" strongly implies that Israel disregarded the plan and conquered it. In reality, the Arabs were the ones who rejected the plan and opened war on the Jews of Palestine. Either discuss the issue in full, or leave it out completely - but don't selectively omit the parts you don't like. Now, I do think we can remove some details in Jaakobou's proposal, basically dropping the second paragraph, or incorporating it into the first as one sentence. Tiamut's comment shows total misunderstanding of the way articles are written, and deep ignorance regarding history, specifically of the partition plan. okedem ( talk) 19:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
The quote from Romirowsky is drawn from the article under his name, and cited there. If it turns out that it's about something completely different, then it would not have a place here. But if for example, Yiftachel is mainly known for his views on Israeli policy, including Judaization, etc, so that when Romirowsky says he is one sided he is clearly referring to him in his role as social critic or historian and his views on Israel-Palestine generally, then it's relevant.
To give an analogy in everyday life (don't take this too far) - suppose you will ask a lawyer's advice on ownership of a widget factory. You read in a book that someone prominent says "that lawyer is one sided and doesn't tell stuff like it is when it comes to widgets". Now, they didn't mention specifically "widget factories". Is the concern relevant when considering how much weight to place on the lawyer's opinion? If he meant "generally in his opinion-giving capacity on issues related to widgets" then probably yes.
In this case Yiftachel is prominent as a speaker on Judaization themes. Is it relevant that a second authority writes that he is one sided in I-P matters generally? Probably yes. It is needed so a reader can evaluate Yiftachel and understand that while he takes that stance, other prominent people may strongly criticize him as being unreliable on topics in the I-P field generally. You cannot quote Yiftachel at great length without mentioning other authorities exist who dissagree or hold other views. There are multiple views and proponents of each will have critics. Explaining simply the significant views and who holds them, and their counterviews and how strongly those are held, with cites, might make this a good article, if you let it. The aim is to explain the landscape of the topic, not to resolve "an answer" to the real-world dispute.
Is it neutral to begin the lead "The John Birch Society is a far right... group"? The Routledge companion to fascism and the far right defines the "far right" as "those anti-Communists and anti-socialists who, in the pursuit of their goals, are also either hostile to or indifferent to the values and practices of liberal democracy. However, their view, that the ends justify the means, even if the means include extra-legal violence, terror and dictatorship, often echo those of the far left." (p. 5) [9] However, Chip Berlet in "When alienation turns right" writes, the term is "sometimes used to describe all groups to the right of the electoral system". [10] Most academic literature appears to use the first definition. [11] The Four Deuces ( talk) 17:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
One problem with Routledge is that the title of the book is being used to give the label, Unfortunately, doing so ignores the fact that the same rationale can be used to call them "fascist." TFD has rightly called attention to the fact that assigning labels to any group is almost always a matter of opinion and not of demonstrable fact. We also cite the SPLC for calling JBS a "patriot group" and listing the definition SPLC uses which includes the possibility that a "patriot group" may support " extreme antigovernment doctrines ." [13] states "'The Tea Parties and similar groups that have sprung up in recent months cannot fairly be considered extremist groups, but they are shot through with rich veins of radical ideas, conspiracy theories and racism,' the report says." And "groups like the John Birch Society, which believes President Eisenhower was a communist agent." Problem is that while the notorious Welch letter is well-known, the claim about the specific belief of Ike being a Communist agent being associated with the JBS does not seem to have any RS sources using JBS official statements of any kind. Thus "JBS has been described as "far right" by (named sources)" would be far more proper than making what appears to be a "statement of fact" which is based on opinions. RS opinions remain ... opinions. Collect ( talk) 15:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Reliable sources overwhelmingly describe the Birchers as far right, and this is because of their extreme opposition to any form of collectivism or redistribution, and their systematic tendency to associate any form of collectivism with conspiracies by secret communist sympathizers to subvert the constitution. And I'm being very conservative in my characterization. -- TS 12:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
This article has a fictional account of AEI studies on global warming and the IPCC, and editors are edit-warring to (1) include the fictional account and (2) exclude the refutation of the fictional account. It's a BLP violation, too. THF ( talk) 01:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
What a shitty excuse and idea for a wikipedia article!-- 173.31.191.192 ( talk) 16:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
There is an on going dispute on the British National Party talk page about the use of phrases which some claim are non-NPOV the two phrases which have been reverted back and forth are
Can someone please provide some guidance DharmaDreamer ( talk) 11:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Go to the party's own home page and read its policies. This is an explicitly racist political party. Tasty monster ( TS on one of those new fangled telephone thingies) 18:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
The term "extreme" is not only in violation of the WP:EXTREMIST policy (a Freudo-Marxian dialetic tactic, devised by the Frankfurt School to "blacklist" intellectual opponents, by suggestively illiciting an emotive response) but it is inherently in violation of the WP:NPOV policy, which is central to Wikipedia. We don't "take sides" in the mainspace when it comes to politics, we are not a partisan project. The Four Deuces' hysterical presentation is selective to say the least and a comedic caricature at the most. If we can violate the NPOV policy to call the BNP "extremist", why couldn't we do the same on the article of the Labour Party or any given Government of the United States? Many people across the world consider killing hundreds of thousands of Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan an "extreme" act. We could easily find sources from the Muslim world describing the United States and its main political parties as "war criminals", "fascists" and all manner of bias epithets. - Yorkshirian ( talk) 19:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
There is a dispute at Human Rights Foundation about inserting a reference to a minor source of funding to an event organised by HRF. The reference is to a primary source, and there are questions too about the meaning of the source (see talk page, near bottom of Good Start section). The context for the dispute is the editor inserting it wishing to show that HRF is not a right-wing organisation; initial versions of the text included reference to Norway's government being left. There is a narrow (2:1) consensus against including the reference at HRF; it is already mentioned at the relevant event article ( Oslo Freedom Forum). Comments please. Rd232 talk 19:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
There has been an extreme amount of edit warring over the content and "POV" at The Invention of the Jewish People, in fact the article is now locked down (protected) due to disagreements among editors. I would like to request an uninvolved third party review the article for neutrality. Additionally, in somewhat of an odd request, I feel that whomever takes on the task of the POV-check should a) not be Jewish or Israeli and b) not be Muslim or Arab. I am not personally discounting the ability of such editors to remain non-bias in reviewing articles; however given the extremely controversial nature of the article, I am concerned that if an editor belonging to one of those categories performs the POV-check, his/her suggestions may be rejected by the "other side". -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! 10:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Nsaum75, Personaly I would prefer unbiased admin who can comprehensively review this article and the quality of its edits. I have no problem with any ethnicity or religion -only with POV. Of course, admins are less expected to give heavy weight to their own POV when edit or mediating and so forth-that's one reason to prefer admin. The second is that his/her advices would be usually heared louder. Also, I would strongly prefer someone who is not involved with any Israel-Palestine related articles. Not sure that this boared is the right place-maybe arbitration is a better option-- Gilisa ( talk) 22:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Frederic Raphael's review essentially acknowledges that it is propaganda at the site entitled Invention of the Jewish people dot com. "It may be that this book comes too late to help men arrive at a sane and rational compromise in the Middle East." John Rose (UK politician)'s review (at the same place) says "Shlomo Sand’s book, already a best seller in Israel and France, will accelerate the disintegration of the Zionist enterprise." Tony Greenstein of the Weekly Worker "has reviewed it as “an important book” which hammers another nail into the Zionist coffin." Surely we do not want to give a voice to anti-Jewish propaganda? There were all sorts of reliable sources that said that Joan of Arc was a witch as well. This is a thoroughly debunked concept, and while popular, we do not have to presume its veracity. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion are also highly popular, but we acknowledge that it is a hoax right away, even if we seem to have problems acknowledging that the hoax is antisemitic. We should not be pushing this perspective but letting people know right away that this book is fringy and to be taken with a large grain of salt! Stellarkid ( talk) 16:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Comment Conflating anti-zionism and anti-semitism is not at all helpful. Please desist. Unomi ( talk) 20:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I made a very simple request that people stop conflating Zionism and Jewish people. You then confronted me with arguments and appeals to authority for why they should be. Personally I hope that we can make progress with this, perhaps your problems with NPOV stem from a misconception. I find it troubling that you don't see the inherent problem of insisting on defining a nation purely on racial and sectarian basis, both without legitimacy as I alluded to above. Yes, we are all Africans. We are all brethren from primordial soup. We are all stardust and nothing. Why pick a random moment in time as an imaginary 'starting point' and lend it so much importance? Do you really believe in a literal interpretation of the Judaic tradition? And if you do how can you support Zionism? You may want to watch this. Unomi ( talk) 22:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
If you believe that to be a RS and you further believe that it contains arguments which have not been mentioned at Three_oaths#Zionist_arguments_that_consider_the_Three_Oaths I would suggest that you add them there. Generally speaking, I can tell you that I view the attempts at employing legalistic arguments to the Three Oaths as problematic for a number of reasons, but even if we entertain the thought: Zionism predates ww2 - Persecution of Jews unfortunately does not have as much detail as it should, but this was taken to be penance (from a religious perspective what happens after the start of Zionism should give pause); Compare the number of participants of the Balfour Declaration of 1917, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 to the participation in the torrent of resolutions condemning the actions of Israel, as an example: "Reiterates its determination that any actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the Holy City of Jerusalem are illegal and therefore null and void and have no validity whatsoever, and calls upon Israel to cease all such illegal and unilateral measures..." approved by 160 to 6 with 7 abstentions. It is quite frankly almost inconceivable to me that one can reasonably use a Judaic, religious justification for Zionism, but I welcome your thoughts on this matter. Going back to the discussion of Neturi Karta don't realy represent any present or past main stream views in Judaism, both secualr and religious then I still hold that this is a false statement. This should be abundantly clear to any one reading Jewish_beliefs_and_practices_in_the_reform_movement#Israel_and_Zionism further consider the Judaic tradition prior to the rise of Reform movement in Judaism. That the reform movement engendered alternate interpretations of the Talmud does not change historical fact, and it is truly ironic that some people call orthodox groups like NK names, while denying their own past. Unomi ( talk) 21:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I think I found a WP:Content fork regarding the legality of prostitution. Left prong: Legality of prostitution, right prong: Prostitution (criminology). Both articles are so huge though, I think any merge would be a significant undertaking. AzureFury ( talk | contribs) 22:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
An editor has been going around changing the name of specific types of Israeli settlements, moshav and kibbutz, to simply israeli settlement, calling the changes "More correct and neutral terms in accordance with international community".
Whereas the former terms are a more specific type of the latter, it would seem that they would convey more information to the reader, rather than the blanket term "settlement". However I was curious what other editors thought. -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! 17:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
The article Occupation of the Baltic states has two debates: a) Soviets as liberators or occupiers in 1944? b) Baltic states under soviet rule 1944-1991; occupation or annexation? Please give third party reviews. Peltimikko ( talk) 04:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion about NPOV over at Talk:Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)#2009_Brady_Campaign_State_Scorecard, and the editors there agree that it would be helpful to hear the opinion of third party editors. If someone here would like to drop in at that talk page and give us their opinion, that would be much appreciated. SaltyBoatr ( talk) 17:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd appreciate it if someone could provide some input on the appropriateness of Sam Harris being quoted in this article. Prezbo ( talk) 04:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
The pilot of the vessel was arrested for allegedly illegally boarding a Japanese vessel at sea. Another editor continues to insert that he was hooded as he was taken ashore in Japan for arrest. It is clear that there is something on his head [22] but one video (potentially day before) shows him with a similar colored windbreaker covering his head from the wind. [23] It is unclear if this is a standalone hood. As he was coming ashore, Japanese authorities put up tarps in accordance with Japanese privacy laws. So any hood could be similar to someone doing a perp walk with a newspaper or their hands over their faces. Hooding on the other hand is torture designed for sensory deprivation. A single source has made a mention that he looked like a terrorist with the hood [24] but it is appears to me that we are scandal mongering by asserting it is torture with its wording and the wikilink. Even without the wikilink we are alluding to it being because he is a terrorist and not for privacy. Is this appropriate? The edit in question: [25] Cptnono ( talk) 09:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Looks like this might take a while. The current edit says his wife was shocked by his arrest, but that's not what the reference says. The reference says she was shocked by the IMAGES of his arrest. I'm going to insert this for now, just to make the line in the article accurately reflect the source: "They called him a terrorist, and with his head covered by a black hood it looked like he was." I won't link to the hooding article for now. Ghostofnemo ( talk) 00:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
<- Is his wife a notable commentator on Ady Gil related issues ? If not, what is the policy based reason for including her views ? Perhaps the Japanese police were simply complying with Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks." I'm not sure any of the info is really pertinent, notable or encyclopedic. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Regarding edit-warring, I think we are making progress on improving the content. The link to the hooding article is gone. The remarks about Bethune's wife are gone. It seems like we are moving towards a consensus, but you seem to want to remove this information completely. Ghostofnemo ( talk) 00:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
The line does not state whether or not Bethune was hooded against his will. You want me to speculate? I would guess the Coast Guard did that. My personal suspicion is they were jerking him around, as cops in most countries do to suspects they don't care for. But I don't have a source, so I just stated the fact that his head was covered. It probably was a hooding, but I can't prove that, so I don't say that. I found another video from Australian TV showing Bethune's head covered by the hood, but it's very similar to the AP video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VpAXYNErHk&feature=related Cptnono and I have both stated we have no WP:Conflict of interest regarding this issue. Would the other editors care to address that? Ghostofnemo ( talk) 07:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User talk:Ghostofnemo reported by User:Cptnono since you refuse to delete the edit as suggested. Cptnono ( talk) 09:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Patriot movement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_movement —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.132.35 ( talk) 02:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I would like to mark this article for review on the basis of violation of neutrality. Tom of WikiTalk refused to allow me to edit this article myself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_movement —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.132.35 ( talk) 02:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Dear admins! I'm talking about two issues: 1. The page Tadeusz Kościuszko. 2. The collage at Poles.
The thing is, Tadeusz Kościuszko was at least partly ethnicaly Belarusian, which I referenced in the article about him (he was even baptised in an orthodox church). Now he was also born on the territory which is Belarus, so I entered him into categories like Belarusian nobility. I also deleted him from the collage at Poles, because the article talks about the Poles as an ethnic group, and Tadeusz Kościuszko was not ethnicaly Polish (I wrote it on the discussion board. I mean he was born in Belarus, he was ethnicaly Belarusian, he was born on a territory which was part of Lithuenia then, so he was Polish only by citizenship). Now the user User:Marekchelsea started reverting me on both pages, without writing anything, which is rude. I was warned before signing to Wikipedia that there are few Polish nationalists here that do those stuff, but tell me, can't you admins do anything about it? It's really discusting when referenced information gets deleted, and when someone wants to steal to his ethnicity someone who wasn't of his ethnicity. Free Belarus ( talk) 16:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello, here I have a little debate about the lead of the Diablada article where we have two positions, I won't say which one is mine to avoid polluting the results I'll say editors A and B. The debate is regarding the Spanish influence of this Andean dance, and basically there are two theories:
There are more sources explaining both theories, it's just a sample. But there are two opinions regarding the presentation of both theories:
Editor A's suggestion | Editor B's suggestion |
---|---|
The dance that was created in the Andean Altiplano as a result of the introduction of the Autos Sacramentales. | The dance is a mixture of the Spaniard's theatrical presentations introduced in the region during the colonial times in the form of Autos sacramentales or the Catalonian dance of Ball de diables and Andean rituals... |
Editor A considers that the Ball de diables shouldn't go in the lead because in these two sources say the following: [35]
Danzas folklóricas de la villa de los Santos
|
---|
The derivation of the devil dances or Diabladas constitute a topic of controversy in Ibero-America. Nowadays there are two theses about the emergence of the devil dances. The motive of the criterion divergence is based on the descent of the dance. Most authors affirm that it proceeds from the Autos Sacramentales of the Middle Ages which were represented in the atriums of the churches, where the presence of the speeches and other features identify it as an auto sacramental... |
And [36]:
Khana, Issues 35-38
|
---|
Regardless that in this order most authors agree in its derivation of a peninsular Auto Sacramental I consider that is a little bit risky to consi... ...a devils dance which characters are the same as in our Andean Diablada. Using the documents exhumed by Amadés in relationship to the Ball de diables'.... |
Editor A interpret those sources as an affirmation that the Autos Sacramentales constitute a majoritarian view and therefore the Ball de diables theory should not belong there.
Editor B considers that it's weasel terminology and that the snippet view of those two sources doesn't really allow to see the real intention of the authors, in the first case the author mentions two theories and here he also mentions the Ball de diables below. And the second author, according to editor B, sounds doubtful about that theory and also introduces the Ball de diables.
Editor A considers Editor B's criterion as original research.
Which way should we go? How can it be more neutral? Maybe it could be written differently, avoid saying Autos sacramentales or Ball de diables directly but use a general term like "Spanish traditions", I don't know what you people suggest? Thank you in advance Erebedhel - Talk 06:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
The Criticism of Judaism is missing some important content about war and violence, and so I drafted a new section that described how critics claim that Judaism is sometimes used to justify or motivate violence in modern times. (Note: the Criticism of Judaism article already has a small section on ancient violence but that only addresses ancient violence, whereas the deleted content addresses modern violence). I inserted the new content, but it was quickly deleted. Objections include: (1) the content is not notable; (2) the content give undue weight to the criticisms; (3) not neutral, and (4) the content is a synthesis. Addressing those concerns individually:
I tagged the article with a POV tag here, but that page has only a few editors that participate, so I'm also raising the issue here to get input from disinterested editors. -- Noleander ( talk) 16:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
i just want peace and suffer of killing people and i know israel is responsible for killing people cwho are unarmed and very poor and weak i accept israel but this country must and have to accept human and people who GOD creat theme freedom and money is just a tools the real reach is side of GOD . i hope GOD bless to jewish and every pepole who creat by GOD tanx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aria single ( talk • contribs) 00:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
The section still exists, the three paragraph subsection was out of line with WP:UNDUE, which is why it was removed. -- Avi ( talk) 20:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I am a Conservapedia sysop so cannot edit the mainspace. I have posted NPOV concerns on Talk and have only recieved a response from a red link editor who mischaracterizes and poo-poo's these concerns. Can an experienced Admin or editor review these concerns? Thank you. nobs ( talk) 07:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
The article History of Venezuela, apart for being long, is also full of cases of undue weight, bias and excessive personal views overall.
Here are some quotes:
"Guzmán Blanco probably got bored of ruling Venezuela and he decided to retire to Paris in 1887 at the age of 59. He died there in 1899."
"Delgado Chalbaud was twice a betrayer, but Venezuelan historians tend to speak well of him, analogously as they argue in America that John F. Kennedy would not have allowed the Vietnam war to escalate. But both positions are contrafactual, hence un-provable. What is often said is that Delgado Chalbaud was planning to restore Venezuelan democracy."
"The idea that Vallenilla Lanz and Pérez Jiménez had was to open the doors of the country to as many Europeans as wanted to come, with which they, and many non-pardo Venezuelans, believed that two flies would be killed with one swat: the country’s population would grow, but not with more ignorant pardos: with Europeans who brought with them, however lowly they might have been in their own countries, a higher average education than Venezuelans had. But this backfired for the immigrants were precisely from countries that had given rise to the existence of pardos—a euphemism for bastardy and ridiculous illiteracy." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuyvesant 1976 ( talk • contribs) 19:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I Agree, quoted material is not neutral and should be revised in my opinion. It looks like a narrative. If you want to write a narrative, try talking to a book publisher before just editing Wikipedia, yn?
Chad595 ( talk) 09:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Can some editors take a look at the Africa article at the arguement on the talk page please? I believe there is a quite a severe lack of WP:NPOV on the article. Personal views amongst some of its editors is getting in the way of NPOV. I'm interested to get users unassociated with the article involved. Yattum ( talk) 07:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I am trying to start a debate about defining what news organisations, as a reliable source, are good for and/or not good for. It is not as clearly defined as other similar reliable sources policies and it should be. Please see Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources#News_Organisations_section ~ R. T. G 19:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
The article on Jolina Magdangal needs to abide to to neutral point of view, and has been edited based loosely on fan edits, administrative help needed. Wiki pseud ( talk) 04:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
The Sexism in India article seems to keep having neutral point of view issues, with being the neutral point of view header being removed/changed without consensus or discussion in talk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.143.82 ( talk) 04:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
A new draft of the race and intelligence article is being edited into mainspace, based on discussion in mediation. It should be completed sometime on 4/1/2010. Since this is a highly contested article that has had numerous debates about neutrality and fringe theories, I am announcing this on the relevant noticeboards to get wider feedback on the draft. Interested editors may review and comment on the draft and suggest revisions at the mediation page, so long as they abide by the mediation rules listed here.
Please discuss changes at the mediation page rather than trying to correct issues in the article directly, at least for the time being. The topic is sensitive, and the best hope of achieving a stable article is to begin from this draft and talk through any revisions needed to create better balance and more complete coverage. -- Ludwigs2 18:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I was reading the Wiki on Assassination. While I'm not advocating the practice, I got the impression the article is approaching the issue from one particular side. Rather than challenge the page, I thought it best to seek second opinions. Maybe it's just me. I welcome any other opinions as to whether this page represents a neutral point of view. Zendell ( talk) 22:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
"Quote:"
In 2007, Office director Harry Forbes was sharply criticized by whom? for giving a too favorable rating on the Golden Compass movie, which strongly attacks the Church's teaching and Magisterium. [8]
"End Quote"
Is this a quote from a particular article or person? The way it is worded now states as a fact that The Golden Compass is anti-christian. From what I understand most people, including myself, believe that this statement is of an opinion, rather than fact - and that there are also many who would disagree. If this is a quote, it should be presented as such, with citations. Otherwise, it should be removed.
Also, I would recomend changing "the Golden Compass movie" to "the movie The Golden Compass," as it is a title and should be written and italicised properly.
I'm fairly unbiased on this (got brought in due to a WP:ANI post), but I figured it's a good idea to get some neutral eyes on it. Hutaree is have an ongoing edit war/content dispute where an IP insists that information regarding the leader of the Hutaree being a Ron Paul fanatic (term taken from an interview with his ex-fiancee) is somehow anti-Ron Paul. I don't see it, but I'd like outside opinion. The IP should have been warned and blocked for edit warring before this (myself and one other editor have reverted him four times between us, and he has reinserted five times), but I'd still prefer to do this the right way. — ShadowRanger ( talk| stalk) 14:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
In the Ohalo College a couple of editors on insisting on saying that the college is located in " Golan Heights, Israel". Nearly every country in the world and countless high quality sources explicitly say that the Golan is Syrian territory occupied by Israel, yet we have in this article, and others, a statement that the Golan is in Israel. The argument made in favor of saying it is in Israel is "If the local garbagemen, postmen, and policemen are paid by the Israeli government, it's in Israel". I would like to note that even Israel does not claim the Golan is within its territory. Is it acceptable for Wikipedia to present this extreme minority viewpoint as a fact? nableezy - 20:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
This is a highly offensive article. For example lines like "Mr principal by the time you realize you were wrong in your way of dealing things, the reputation of school will go off".
I've tried to update Legal Action topic with the text above, with a plenty of references, but another editor reverted:
On June 1st, 2007, the indictment in Brazil of the two pilots and four controllers made by the Federal Prosecutors' Office was accepted by the Court of Sinop city, state of Mato Grosso. They were charged under an article of Brazilian Criminal Code that foresees exposing to danger an embarkation or aircraft, one's own or another's, or practicing any act that tend to impede or hinder maritime, fluvial, or air navigation. [11] [12]
According to the charge, the first controller gave wrong instructions to the pilots, not telling them about Embraer's altitude changes. The second controller was responsible for monitoring the area in which the Embraer was flying, about one thousand feet above the altitude it should be. He was accused of not alerting the US pilots about their wrong altitude. Prosecutor said that second controller informed consciously and willfully the controller who took over from him that Embraer was at 36 thousand feet of altitude feet, when actually it was at 37 thousand feet. Therefore, on the wrong way, since the odd altitude is reserved for planes coming to Brasília and not going from Brasília as it was the case. The third controller who replaced second controller, was charged for taking too long to attempt a contact with the Legacy - about ten minutes after starting his shift - even though he was aware that Embraer's transponder wasn't working properly. The last air controller charged was third controller's assistant.
Pilots were charged mainly for their use of transponder and for not following the written flight plan. The prosecution says "For not knowing how to operate some items in the plane, they ended up deactivating by mistake the transponder. To this momentary active ineptitude followed a long omissive negligence."
On September 28, 2007, the judge of the 11th Military, in Brasilia, rejected the indictment by the Military Prosecutors' Office (MPM) against five air traffic controllers, among them the four indicted in Sinop, for involvement in the accident. [13]
On December 8, 2008, the magistrate in Sinop, Mato Grosso, absolved the pilots from accusations of negligence not taking emergency steps for communications loss, ruling that nothing suggested an emergency situation. He also dropped charges against two of the air traffic controllers involved, accepting as normal the fact that they weren’t alarmed by another failure of an ATC system characterized by poor functioning, and by repeated defects. A third controller was partially absolved of accusations of negligence in establishing communications with Embraer, but continues to answer for the accusation of omission in configuring radio frequencies on the control console. Federal criminal charges remain against another controller, and judge has asked that charges be considered against a fifth. All five controllers, who are Air Force sergeants in Brazil’s military-controlled ATC system, continue to face parallel criminal charges in Brazil’s independent military court system. [14] [15] [16]
On February 4, 2009, the Federal Prosecutors' Office appealed the decision of Federal judge of the Court of Sinop, in Mato Grosso, absolving the pilots. The Supreme Court in Brazil ruled that defendants can’t be jailed until all appeals are exhausted, a process that can take more than six years. [17]
On January 11, 2010, the Regional Federal Tribunal (TRF) of the 1st Region, located in Brasilia, decided to cancel the decision of the judge of Sinop in Mato Grosso that determined the absolution of the pilots. However, the appeal judges of the TRF maintained the absolution of two controllers. A third controller continues to answer for incompetence. With the suspension of the absolution, the case returns to the trial court. The pilots' lawyers can still appeal to the Superior Tribunal of Justice to try to revert the decision. [18] [19] [20]
He said: "Supplying references addresses just one requirement, WP:V. But WP requires articles to comply with other policies, such as WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP. The material you added is too one sided, favoring one side in the litigation and thus violating NPOV, and too detailed, violating UNDUE. Because living persons are involved and there are criminal and other negative allegations, this also violates BLP".
He was not able to say which side is favored. Does it violate NPOV? XX
Sdruvss 02:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
PS: I expect that people know "
Wikipedia:Don't revert due to 'no consensus'". XX
Sdruvss 12:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
My answers:
And as bottom line, a fact that Crum375 neglected to mention: I am the main contributor of Voo Gol Transportes Aéreos 1907 (Portuguese). Sdruvss ( talk) 18:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
And now, what matters:
WP:NPOV - If it violated NPOV, one must be able to point what point of view was favored, and then be balanced. The editor that reverted was not able to point which side was favored. He is not being bold.
WP:UNDUE - Only one source, a mainstream newspaper
Folha Online published 138 articles after Justice accepting indictment. Criminalization of aeronautical accidents was an important issue been debated. So, the text doesn't violate UNDUE.
WP:BLP - "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources" (
WP:BLP). The whole text is very well sourced and exactly quoted. Reporting that a group of persons were charged, reporting the main reasons to be charged, and saying that indictment was accepted is not criticism. Saying someone is suited is not criticism. "Criticism is the judgement (using analysis and evaluation) of the merits and faults of the actions or work of another individual" (
Criticism).
Sdruvss (
talk) 03:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
After reviewing the article primarily written by Myk60640, there are several causes for concerns, namely an appearance of a lack of Neutral Point of View. After reviewing the article primarily written by Myk60640, there are several causes for concerns, namely an appearance of a lack of Neutral Point of View.
Myk60640's juxtaposition of Credit Solutions' reported success rate and comments by the NY Attorney General and Better Business Bureau cases seems to be done to imply a falsehood on Credit Solutions' results. However, Myk60640 does not state that the statements by the NY Attorney General have not been found valid in court, nor does the author reveal that all but 6 of said BBB cases have been resolved with the customers. [38] Such omission of fact distorts Credit Solutions active resolution of customer concerns.
While listing the 2007 award from JD Powers and Associates (a well respected organization), Myk60640 does not list the over 20 other awards honored to Credit Solutions, many for customer service [39]. The author also fails to mention Credit Solutions' ISO9001:2008 certification.
Myk60640 fails to report that none of the claims made by any of the Attorneys General have been proven to be valid in court. Such an omission creates a negative implication.
While describing the ABC News Nightline piece on Credit Solutions, Myk60640 fails to mention many claims made in the report turned out to be grossly inaccurate. In fact, one of the main claims, that the customer in question did not receive any settlement offers, was proven to be irrefutably false. Credit Solutions made public a video highlighting the negative impact and false claims of the Nightline piece, complete with evidence. [40]
Myk60640's authorship fails to mention many of the substantial benefits and positive works done by Credit Solutions. Such work includes founding "Credit Solutions Cares" a charitable organization which, through Credit Solutions employees, friends and families, donated over 7,000 hours ad raised over $16,000 in 2009.
A summary of Myk60640's Talk Page reveals multiple examples of using sensational sources and POV postings.
I am writing as a member of the Credit Solutions organizations. While one editor made slight adjustments to the article regarding the BBB cases, the overall issues do not seem to have been resolved. Texasbiker02 ( talk) 16:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Hungary–Slovakia relations ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
An editor has posted a request at WP:EAR#Hungary–Slovakia_relations. POV tags have been placed on the article, but reverted by editors who seem to favour posting accusations about perceived Slovak racism, using un-encyclopaedic language and tone. Some of the referencing appears to be somewhat suspect. –– Jezhotwells ( talk) 19:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
This entry is about
The problem is that these articles list every single rocket and mortar attack, even attacks that cause no casualties and no damage and land in the middle of nowhere. Much of these articles read like the following excerpt:
July 12, 2008
A rocket lands in an open area in Sha'ar Hanegev regional council. Nobody claims responsibility for the attack.[52]
July 13, 2008
Two mortar shells are misfired and they land on the Gaza side of the border security fence in the Nahal Oz region. Nobody claims responsibility for the attack. Israel responds by only closing the Nahal Oz and Sufa crossings.[52]
July 15, 2008
A mortar hit is identified.[52]
July 25, 2008
A rocket misfires and lands in Gaza near the Kissufim crossing.[52]
July 29, 2008
Another rocket is launched from Gaza and mistakenly lands in Gaza.[52]
July 31, 2008
Again, a rocket misfires and lands in Gaza.[52]
Gripping stuff, eh? Most entries in these articles are pointless information that would not be notable enough to appear in a national newspaper, let alone a purported encyclopedia.
I get the impression that the point of these articles is not to list any useful encyclopedic information, but rather to make Israel appear to be the victim in this conflict by creating the impression that the rocket attacks are causing significant damage.
The solution is simple: there needs to be a notability threshold that each entry must meet or else it is removed. A simple, ungamable objective test such as actual human casualties.
The similarly focused but much superior article, List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2001 through 2007 only contains notable events and is an example to be followed. Factomancer ( talk) 13:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Rabinowitzp6
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check |url=
value (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
This article's title is completely pov, but I'm not sure what else we can call it. The Jerusalem Post reference that is cited [1] makes it clear that other archaeologists disagree with Mazar on several grounds. Mazar represents one pov on dating called the high chronology, others suggest different dates. There is also disagreement among archaeologists as to whether there really was a strong centralised state at that time. As I've said, we shouldn't have an article with this title, but I'm not sure what to do - probably merge with another article and make the content npov. Dougweller ( talk) 18:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I would love some input on the discussion page for the colorful discussion at this article's discussion page re the article's Criticism section — it seems to focus on a half dozen or so items sold by the company that received criticism; the section comprises about a third of the entire article, doesn't seem to me to meet NPOV or guidelines for the criticism section. Any insights would be welcome. The discussion, and this section of the article, could use some very sharp minds. Thanks. 842U ( talk) 04:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
A long term dispute on the Falun Gong page is whether some of the following information, based on the sources below, can appear in the article.
An occurrence on Fuyou Street: the communist myth of Falun Gong's original sin National Review, July 20, 2009 by Ethan Gutman
Falun Gong in the United States: An Ethnographic Study By Noah Porter (described as "excellent" by David Ownby)
Zhao Yuezhi, "Falun Gong, Identity, and the Struggle Over Meaning," in Contesting media power: alternative media in a networked world edited by Nick Couldry, James Curran, Rowman & Littlefield, 2003
The reason for the information being excluded, as far as I can tell, is that Ethan Gutmann's article was published in the National Review ("an anti-China U.S. conservative publication" and because Noah Porter, the anthropologist, refers to Falun Gong primary source materials in his thesis). I stated how I don't think those reasons are adequate for excluding the material. I thought the NPOV board would be a good way of getting an outside opinion. The point is to mention two things (at least):
I believe both those points are clear from the material above, and that no real reason has been provided for excluding the material, despite the reams of discussion. Outside editors, please state your views about whether the above points would contravene NPOV by being on the page. (The previous discussions on this are here: [3] [4].)-- Asdfg 12345 02:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
scrap this, actually belongs at the RS noticeboard. the reason given for excluding the source was related to its reliability. -- Asdfg 12345 12:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
The article Monarchism in Canada currently reads like an advocacy of the canadian monarchism and lacks objectivity in both the partiality of the tone and the undue prominence of pro-monarchy content. The main author and contributor does not want to introduce statements which could be interpreted as anti-monarchy, even if they are relevant to the issue being discussed. I think it should instead describe the monarchism movement in the country, its history and talk about the various monarchists groups. Most of the article can be considered a POV fork, together with Republicanism in Canada. Shouldn't the arguments be incorporated, instead, in a more neutral way, in the common Debate on the monarchy in Canada? It is currently mostly a poll war, but I think it could be restructured to include the main arguments of the two parties. -- zorxd ( talk) 19:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Bjmullan inserted in
Gaza War and in
International Law and the Gaza War an opinion of
Sir John Stanley (see
here and
here respectively). Sir Stanley
argues that DIME weapons are illegal and using them violates the international law.
None of the sources cited in
DIME entry imply that it is illegal.
Global security says that it has not been "declared an illegal weapon";
neither Norwegian doctors in Gaza nor HRW military expert imply somehow it is illegal; Colonel Lane, military expert testifying in front of the fact-finding mission in July 2009, was asked about using DIME in Gaza. In
his reply, he never suggested that DIME is illegal; finally,
Goldstone report in para. 49 says that "DIME weapons and weapons armed with heavy metal are not prohibited under international law as it currently stands".
my concern - citing Sir Stanley on this issue violates
WP:UNDUE. --
Sceptic from Ashdod (
talk) 03:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
→The inquiry is not about proportions of legality issues per se in the section; it is not about the impact of the stuff on real people or excuses to use it. The inquiry is about one simple question. Does inclusion of the opinion that DIME is illegal violates the WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE or it does not. My rationale is presented above. I would like to see defenders of keeping the opinion bring arguments based on sources and wiki policies. -- Sceptic from Ashdod ( talk) 19:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
The article suffers from a distinctly pro-catholic bias... coatracked arguments with cherry picked sources. It does not treat the subject from a neutral POV. A bit of help from those with a history or political philosphy background is needed. Blueboar ( talk) 04:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I feel the title of the article John F. Kennedy assassination ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is extremely misleading, because readers (and some editors) are not aware of the "rules" that have been set by the active editors - that material added must not only agree with the government investigations, but it must also not challenge the simplified version of those findings that the editors have agreed upon, or digress into details about conflicting evidence. The average reader likely assumes, due to the title of the article, that this article is a wide-ranging examination of the JFK assassination, when it is actually, primarily, an account of the government's findings about the assassination. Items that don"t fit the litmus test are deleted, sometimes without comment. My referenced lines about the rifle found in the Dallas School Book Depository initially being identified as a 7.65 Mauser were deleted as "conspiracy theory", and then when moved to the "conspiracy theory" section of the article, way down in the article, they were deleted a second time, without comment. I had to get a debate going to find out what was going on. I quote one of the editors.
If you are going to call the article "JFK assassination" it should be a broad and inclusive article. The other editors feel this is unrealistic for the reasons given above. But I feel this results in an "official", simplified story that readers will assume is "the truth" as agreed upon by all serious researchers, which it is not (I have references I can supply if you doubt this). My suggested fix is to rename the article "John F. Kennedy assassination - U.S. government investigation findings". All of the editors participating in the debate oppose this, but the current article, as currently titled, seems clearly NOT NPOV to me, and definitely misleading to the readers, who have no idea about these "behind the scenes" restrictions on content. Ghostofnemo ( talk) 11:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
This person tried to gain consensus for changes to first the content then the title on the relevant page. There was never a "ban" of information that disputed the government investigations, indeed the disputes with the conclusions are mentioned in the lede, and a section briefly discusses them. At least six editors participated in a discussion and all disagreed with his proposal and disagreed with his contention there was a problem with the page. He next took it to Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests where he was a) told this smacks of forum shopping and b) his dispute had been adequately addressed. Three outside editors there all agreed that there was nothing to remedy. All the while I have suggested his material would help improve an existing page, on conspiracy theories related to the Kennedy assassination, and have offered some specific and concrete advice on how best to present the evidence of conspiracy. Canada Jack ( talk) 15:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I could have just engaged in an edit war with you, and reverted your edit without comment, as you did mine, but I thought it might be better to a) first discuss it on the talk page b) when that failed to resolve the issue, I took it to editor assistance c) they suggested discussing it further on the talk page, which I pointed out we had done and that Canada Jack said further discussion was pointless, so then, d) I've raised the issue here. Are you accusing me of misconduct? Ghostofnemo ( talk) 01:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Clinton-approved biography be excluded, restricted to one section, or moved to another article? Ghostofnemo ( talk) 00:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
If consensus is what you are looking for, then my 2 cents worth is in for keeping the title just as it is. If you want to do another article on "Conspiracy Theories Regarding the Kennedy Assassination", I would certainly think that that is notable. Oh, wait... John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories already exists. Leave it alone. Rapier1 ( talk) 00:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
AS an example of the intellectual dishonesty on display here, I chose to, as an example, discuss the claims made on one of those above sources, and showed how the Baltimore Sun article is, quite simply, bullshit when it asserts four people saw Oswald on the ground floor when JFK was shot. SO I posted what the Warren Commission and others actually reported in terms of those four, yet here we have Ghost posting this stuff AGAIN as if it is the unvarnished truth. It's a prime example of the nonsense which would invade the page if his suggestions were adopted, as each and every one of the assertions above is easily answered. It would turn the main assassination page into an endless shouting match. This despite the fact there already IS a page and other places where many of these alternate scenarios are to be found. Canada Jack ( talk) 01:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
The problem with your proposal is 1) wikipedia does not generally include disclaimers and you have repeatedly been told this; 2) the fact there are disputes with the WC etc is clearly noted in the lede; 3) much of the narrative is introduced as " The Warren Commission said..." thus there is little chance a casual reader will be unaware many issues are contentious; 4) there is already a section on the page which discusses the fact there are many alternate theories on the subject; 5) your proposed text implies there is new evidence which has emerged which renders the Warren Commission conclusions incorrect, but this is a POV assertion; 6) there is no competing narrative per se to include. IOW, there is no definitive counter-argument to the narrative which is agreed upon by critics. Which is why those counter-arguments have their own page; 7) a page is already dedicated to counter-arguments, which has several links, including in the lede. Canada Jack ( talk) 03:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
2) Yes, but despite this, the entire narrative is based on that source, which is NOT pointed out. 3) If parts of the narrative say "The WC said" why not describe the entire narrative that way?
This is the endless inanity we've had to put up with the past week. For one, Ghost has admitted HE'S NEVER READ THE REPORT. Yet he feels qualified to do roundly critique it. If he HAD read it, he'd realize that almost all the conspiracy critiques of the report COME FROM THE REPORT'S OWN EVIDENCE. SO it is entirely appropriate to link much of the material on the page to the Report. BECAUSE MOST OF THE CONSPIRACY COMMUNITY DOES SO TO. For example, the material on the sequence of shots, the nature of the wounds, the testimony etc., doesn't come from researchers asking questions decades later, it comes from the evidence gathered by the various official investigative bodies. Which is why it is quite clearly stated "The Warren Commission concluded..." etc. The other problem which Ghost, in his general ignorance on the subject as he seems blissfully unaware of this, the VAST majority of evidence to the assassination was carried out by those several government inquiries.
4) The alternative theory section comes long after the narrative, it is tightly restricted (you removed my material), and points in the narrative are not allowed to be challenged, so controversial statements cannot be challenged Ghost admits there indeed is a section on the page for the alternate scenarios, which links to a page which further explores the claims. It's been patiently explained to him that therefore his claims are moot. He tried to insert a lot of material which properly resides on the conspiracy page the section links too, minitua on aspects of the assassination. It was patiently explained that in the case of the Mauser rifle debate THERE IS ALREADY A PAGE DEDICATED TO THE RIFLE!!!! That's not good enough, it would seem.
5) There is new evidence! The HSCA uncovered some, many "secret" documents have been released, Gerald Ford admitted that he changed the description of the location of the bullet wound in Kennedy's neck!
The fact that the HSCA came to different conclusions is STATED IN THE LEDE. Various different interpretations of the HSCA IS IN THE BODY OF THE ARTICLE. While Ford changed "back" to "neck" as he noted THIS DID NOT ALTER IN ANY WAY THE HSCA'S CONCLUSIONS AS TO THE SHOTS FIRED BY OSWALD, therefore does not rise, in this relatively broad article, to being discussed. It is, I believe, on the autopsy page where these issues are more greatly explored.
6) You can't provide a complete narrative of events because there is not enough information, but we can see that the Warren Commission's attempt to do so was flawed because some historians and researchers have said so. The Warren Commission narrative is listed, along with the HSCA where it differs, and the fact that others don't agree is mentioned as well. The basic problem here, completely unaddressed by Ghost, is there is NO ALTERNATE NARRATIVE WITH ANY BROAD AGREEMENT. It suffices to say others differ, because there are literally HUNDREDS of alternate scenarios put forward by other authors. How the hell do we deal with that on one page? By putting these alternate scenarios on another page. WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE.
Further, virtually EACH AND EVERY point determined by the WC and the HSCA has some alternate scenario somewhere. AS I said earlier, attempting to incorporate these views (even if we could get a "representative" view, which is impossible) would turn the page into a shouting match.
7) The "assassination conspiracy" article is not under discussion here. The fact that it exists, that there are multiple links to it, including in the lede, renders much of your complaints moot, a point repeatedly made by outside editors. Canada Jack ( talk) 15:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
{{
Expert-subject-multiple|American History|John F. Kennedy}}
Ghostofnemo (
talk) 04:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
There is no evidence that these facilities have ever been net electricity generators. Moreover, all sources are industry sources.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.22.240 ( talk • contribs) 04:40, February 24, 2010
Over at “ Austrian School”, one or more editors has tried to have the article declared
However, mainstream theorists since then have shown that their results hold for all monotonic transformations of utility, and so also hold for ordinal preferences.
(underscore mine) citing a webpage as support. In 1959, it was demonstrated (in a peer-reviewed article) that some total-orderings do not correspond to any assignment of quantities (unique or otherwise), and in 1977 "The Austrian theory of the marginal use and of ordinal marginal utility", a peer-reviewed article by J Huston McCulloch in Zeitschrift für Nationalökonomie v37, used this result to demonstrate that the orthodox conjecture that a quantification could be fit to any economically rational ordering were false. The passage in question treated a false conjecture as a theorem, on the strength of a claim from a source that is not peer-reviewed.
When I attempted to remove this bald, false claim, BigK HeX restored it less baldly as
However, Bryan Caplan writes that mainstream theorists since then have shown that their results hold for all monotonic transformations of utility, and so also hold for ordinal preferences.
with the summary assertion
Never provided the requested verification for his claim. Treated as OR until such time as he completes the discussion.
though in fact McCulloch's article had been cited on this matter on the talk page. Caplan's claim as such was already in a “Criticism” section of the article (where McCulloch's article is also noted), so reïteration of the claim is redundant; and the source here is poor. None-the-less, BigK HeX asserts again on my talk page that I haven't provided an appropriate source, and preëmptively threatens to use WP:3RR. — SlamDiego ←T 18:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
And now BigK HeX has removed any reference to the peer-reviewed article by McCulloch. — SlamDiego ←T 19:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Collapsing discussion that is probably outside of the issues of NPOV |
---|
[outdent]
|
It looks as though much of my issue with the contentious topic would be more appropriate elsewhere, but I am of the opinion that the mention of a mainstream view in two different sentences is hardly a problem for neutrality. BigK HeX ( talk) 06:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Not sure if this is an appropriate request to post here, but I have an Rfc on a NPOV issue here. Unfortunately, being an Isreal-Palestine issue, most editors who have weighed in seem to have existing POVs which makes me question thier neutrality. Some fresh input would be most appreciated!
P.S. If this is not an appropriate area for this request, please let me know. I seek to learn!
Thanks NickCT ( talk) 18:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
This article is the recipient of continuous numerous biased personal attacks against Gavin Menzies by Dougweller. Despite many efforts to explain the concept non-POV and neutrality Dougweller, ClovisPt, Nickm57 and several other editors refuse to follow Wikipedia policy on academic neutrality and persist in their personal attacks against Gavin Menzies in an effort to discredit his discoveries.
The above is from 98.71.0.146 ( talk · contribs), who started off as 98.122.100.249 ( talk · contribs), already blocked 3 times this year and who evidently has also been using 68.222.236.154 ( talk · contribs) on other articles, is clearly also 74.243.205.109 ( talk · contribs). Way over 3RR. He's also complained at ANI and AIV. Dougweller ( talk) 06:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm looking for help choosing a neutral and fair category title to embrace mechanical, electronic, and other man-made (manufactured) devices such as the radionics device and the GT200 which are broadly pseudoscientific. Devices like these are:
The suggested test for this category would be whether there is a substantial consensus that the device cannot or would not operate under known scientific principles, or else whether the device is so clearly determined to be non-working and incapable of being made to perform the claimed function that reliable sources have used strong terms such as "fraudulent". It would also include other notable fraudulent devices made and sold in human history.
I think such a category would be useful, but I can't think how to title it appropriately - "fraudulent" and "pseudoscientific" are emotive and (if misused) pejorative terms.
FT2 ( Talk | email) 00:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
well, since your third point seems to limit the category to things that are express chicanery, 'fraudulent devices' might be best. you could go with 'duplicitous devices' instead - less harsh, and has a nice alliteration...
I would like to know the position of the Wikipedia community on whether the terms "propaganda" and "regime" are biased, in particular in reference to the activities of the Chinese Communist Party in its anti-Falun Gong campaign. The relevant section is here [5], and below is a small excerpt:
According to James Tong, Professor of Political Science at the University of California and Chief Editor of the journal Chinese Law and Government, in the wake of the official ban the regime aimed at not only coercive dissolution of the Falun Gong but also reform and rehabilitation of the practitioners. [1] This was accomplished through four program initiatives: a mass campaign of electronic and print propaganda; intensive individualized reeducation; special programmes for true believers that emphasised "internal transformation" rather than "external conformity"; and for the still defiant, punitive and rehabilitative labor reform. [1]
Tong's profile: [6]. The question is whether those terms should either be put inside direct quotes from the source whenever they appear, or should be changed to "Chinese government" and "statements" (instead of propaganda). My view is that the terms are not controversial or improper and can be used without needing to be modified or identified as quotes. They are commonly used terms in discussing the CCP/Falun Gong issue, and in China scholarship generally. If the source cited did not use such terms, however, then they should not be used. I am interested in the opinion of other Wikipedians.-- TheSoundAndTheFury ( talk) 03:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Propaganda seems to me to be a term which can be used as it requires less subjective interpretation. There also isn't another word which conveys the same meaning as propaganda. However, regime seems to be something which shouldn't be used as the word government will suffice in its place. Panyd The muffin is not subtle 16:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
a form of communication aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position. As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense, presents information primarily to influence an audience
NPOV doesn't mean finding "one true representation of reality", so much as representing the significant views and their balance neutrally. If there is a significant view that considers the topic in terms of "propaganda" and "regimes" then those may be appropriate terms to use in representing their viewpoint, with a clear neutral explanation for the reader of their stance and position and information to gain an understanding of how much WP:WEIGHT it carries.
It's when Wikipedia uses those terms to declare XYZ is "propaganda", that we veer into POV. Representing a significant viewpoint faithfully is very different. There will presumably be other significant viewpoints that do not hold this stance, and the article should show the various views, who holds them, and the backgrounds and reasons why they do so. NPOV implies representing the topic as a whole faithfully, including the significant views that exist about it.
In brief they would be POV if we asserted them as "the truth"; they are correct and appropriate words when representing a significant view if they accurately describe and faithfully represent the viewpoint's position. (SImilar to how we wouldn't say "X is a terrorist" but we would say "The United States Government and most other governments consider X a terrorist"). FT2 ( Talk | email) 18:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I consider FT2's response to have nailed the issue. I had the thought in mind, given the line of debate that had gone on earlier, to start asking about how far our "neutralisation" of terminology extends, and whether this is a Wikipedia-wide issue, and how certain terms are determined to be "biased," etc. It certainly raises a number of issues. Whatever the case, with regards to the Chinese Communist Party's use of propaganda and indoctrination, and its being termed a "regime," there is a wealth of literature. Scholars have written about it for decades, and these terms are par for the course. In particular, with regard to the propaganda and indoctrination campaign against the Falun Gong, these words are used most regularly. I will take away from this fruitful discussion that it is important to acknowledge the source in all cases, but that it is not individual editors who decide what is biased and neutral with regard to terminology, but the body of reliable sources writing on the particular topic. -- TheSoundAndTheFury ( talk) 02:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
In the article on Lama (martial art)the author has in many areas expressed a biased view on the differeing white crane schools and their masters. In one particular case the Author describes the outcome of a public fight on January 17th, 1954... "The result was somewhat embarrassing, but it still brought public attention to the style." There is no mention about the reason for the exposition and if memory serves me correctly it was to raise money. the fight was called off after a couple of bouts with no winner declared so there would be a) no deaths and b) no ill feeling between the 2 schools involved.
Chan Hak Fu, one of the 2 figheters is still alive and living in Macau today.
Much of the article is biased and in areas is a blatant attempt to discredit many of the white crane schools and their masters. Insinr8 ( talk) 02:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Insinr8 (
talk •
contribs) 02:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
There have been long running battles in this article between pro and anti-property libertarians which had settled down with compromises over last 6 months to a year. Comparing this February 1 version to this this March 3rd version, one can see a lot of material has been removed by one editor in an attempt to purge the anti-property libertarian views - bringing up all the old settled arguments yet again! (Meanwhile some question edits by anti-property people also have snuck in as well, causing more problems.) Anyway, the pro-gutting editor has an RFC up and comments on these two versions and how to deal with the issue welcome. Talk:Libertarianism#RfC:_Which_form_of_libertarianism.3F CarolMooreDC ( talk) 15:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I feel this article has been hijacked by left-wing critics of Richard Littlejohn who are using dubious sources such as left-wing newspapers, biased blogs and comments from clearly left-wing figures such as Johann Hari and Will Self. I feel there is a lot of POV and biased content in this article. It seems to be people trying to force negative material about Mr Littlejohn rather than a balanced biographical article. I would appreciate a neutral opinion. Christian1985 ( talk) 22:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I believe that the whaling-industry euphemisms "take" and "catch" are non-neutral in the context of illegal whaling (and especially in questionable "research whaling") and thus should not be used in an unqualified voice. These terms falsely imply that the whales are not killed -- disregarding the rare to nonexistent 'non-lethal research.'
In contrast to Japanese whaling, there is the legitimate research of wild animals which are caught, tagged and released for further study. This association is exactly why the terms "take" and "catch" are effective euphemisms by the whaling industry. Especially when our readers are not familiar with the controversies.
PrBeacon (
talk) 20:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Please, this is not the place to continue the dispute either. We're looking for fresh input. As far as the mix that HansAdler is describing, I'd say the intro for Whaling does a decent job though not ideal. I'd still like to qualify the contentious terms when they're used. PrBeacon ( talk) 09:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
And now PrBeacon is edit warring at fishing in an attempt to modify terminology in the lead. That seems inappropriate since there is an ongoing discussion and edit warring is bad. He has opened a report at the edit warring noticeboard against the other editor. [7] I am considering opening an edit warring report but feel that might be considered forum shopping, it could just as easily be done here or at the alert noticeboard due to inappropriate edit summaries and talk page incivility, and have a feeling he might already be digging his own grave. Things have become way to heated to the point that Cetamata is coming across upset like this and PrBeacon is opening multiple reports like this. I've tried to ask everyone to calm down but it doesn't look like it is happening Cptnono ( talk) 10:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:If_I_Can_Dream_(series) ... this article is written like an advertisement for the show. 'The series intends to harness new media equally, if not more so, than traditional broadcast, creating a truly cross media viewing experience.' ... 'Aside from introducing a new paradigm of reality based programming, If I Can Dream also represents a significant leap forward...' ... 'Accompanying the new technology platform is a state-of-the-art website built by a renown interactive design firm.' ... i would guess that the article has been written by the show's publicists. it needs to be flagged and rewritten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.132.112.255 ( talk) 15:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Notes by
Jaakobou (
talk ·
contribs)
Article:
Judaization of the Galilee (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
I'm having issues with 3 editors with a strong political perspective (read: who view Israel in bad light) -- mostly with Nableezy/Tiamut -- and are dominating the page in an article they've created about an Israeli policy. i.e. Judaization of the Galilee.
I request clarification in regards to the background of the Galilee. I've tried removing the old second paragraph as it makes no sense and I worked some chronological order into the first paragraph so that it won't sound like Israel "instead incorporated" the area without basic context. The third paragraph is by a disputed academic (read: criticized as a policital advocant) of no special notability - I've moved it to a 'reasoning' sub-section, which was tagged as POV for having only the perspecitve of this disputed fellow. As I'm unsure yet on how to work out the issue of 'reasoning', I'm leaving it out of the current discussion as it needs to be resolved at a later date once more mainstream perspectives are assembled.
Old | New |
---|---|
==Background==
{{main|1948 Palestine war]] The 1947 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine, which called for the establishment of Jewish state and an Arab state in Palestine, called for the Western Galilee region to be within the proposed Arab state. [3] The region was instead incorporated into Israel, following its Declaration of Independence and the armistice agreements that ended the official hostilities of the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. The Palestinian population, largely decimated by the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, still formed the majority of the population in that region. [4] Israel's independence meant that the priorities of the Zionist movement shifted from securing a safe territorial base for Jewish immigrants (many of whom were refugees of European persecution), to building viable Jewish communities of the newly created sovereign state and 'the ingathering and assimilation of exiles' (mizug galuyot). [5] According to Oren Yiftachel, Judaization is a statewide policy that aims at preventing the return of the 750,000 Palestinian refugees exiled by the 1948 war and at exerting Jewish control over Israeli territory which still included the 13-14% of the Palestinian population who remained there following the war. [5] Judaization has also entailed the transfer of lands expropriated from Arabs to Jews, the physical destruction of Arab villages, towns, and neighbourhoods whose inhabitants fled or were expelled in the 1948 and 1967 wars, restrictions on Arab settlement and development and the parallel development of Jewish urban and industrial centers, changing Arabic place names to Hebrew ones, and the redrawing of municipal boundaries to ensure Jewish dominance. [6] [7] Two main areas targeted by the Judaization strategy are the Negev and the Galilee. [5] |
==Background==
Following the establishment of Israel in may 1948, its Arab neighbours declared what was the first in a series of wars within the Arab-Israeli conflict. The war commenced upon the termination of the British Mandate of Palestine in mid-May 1948 following a previous phase of civil war in 1947–1948. After the Arab rejection of the 1947 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine (UN General Assembly Resolution 181) that would have created an Arab state and a Jewish state side by side, five Arab states invaded the territory of the former British Mandate of Palestine. Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria attacked the state of Israel, leading to fighting mostly on the former territory of the British Mandate and for a short time also on the Sinai Peninsula and southern Lebanon. The war concluded with the 1949 Armistice Agreements, but it did not mark the end of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The Western Galilee, originally proposed by the UN as Arab territory, was incorporated into Israel as a result of the war. The Palestinian population, largely decimated by the war, still formed the majority of the population there. [4] |
I am in full disagreement with Tiamut's argument that:
I tend to see this as WP:CENSOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:SOAP vios (per: tired Zionist propagnda) but it is up to the community to denote their opinions about the text.
With respect, Jaakobou Chalk Talk 16:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
@Okedem, the first paragrph for the background section prior to my adding more to try and appease Jaakobou, was simply,
"According to the 1947 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine, the Western Galilee region was to form part of the proposed Arab state.[4] Incorporated into Israel following its establishment in 1948, the Palestinian population, largely decimated by the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, still formed the majority of the population there.[5]"
It was sourced to David McDowall, and Dan Rabinowitz, both of whom discuss the Judaization of the Galilee and provided this historical background information. As I have said, including background info not included by sources discussing the subject is a bad idea, that leds to WP:SYNTH. Furthermore, as you are aware from previous discussion, the Arab rejection narrative as regrds the partition plan is a contested one. Including it here, without an extended presentation of all POVs on the issue would be POV. Tht issue is covered in the partition plan article itself. It is not the subject of this article, and is mentioned only in passing by RS who do discuss this topic. Per itsmejudith, I agree the background should be kept to a minimum (though I don't agree with deleting it altogether). As such, I will (continegent upon the feedback in this discussion) remove the information I added to please Jaakobou and stick only to what the sources say. Tiamut talk 20:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
@FT2, I appreciate the suggestion. A couple of comments and questions though: 1) Its not a "covert state policy", it was openly adopted and plans to pursue it were often published explicitly using citing the policy of Judization of the Galilee; 2) Should information not mentioned in reliable sources discussing this policy be included in the background section? For example, you write about the Arab armies invading Israel, but that's not covered in any texts discussing Judaization. I would also note that the 1948 Palestine war began long before the intervention of the Arab armies in May 1948. If we mention their invasion, shouldn't we also mention the fighting previous? And then, where do we draw the line as to how far back we go? 3) Is Asaf Romirowsky's critique of Oren Yiftachel in response to his work on Judaization? Or are you just adding a general critique of Yiftachel's work here, and then why would we do that? Shouldn't that just go in Oren Yiftachel's article itself, as its quite unrelated to the subject at hand and comes off as well poisoning? If however, it is directed specifically as response to his writing on the Judization of the Galilee, then I would see it as relevant, and would appreciate ref info, so that I can add it to the article. Tiamut talk 23:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Itsmejudith is right (see her opinion below) - both of these versions are trying to make a political point by introducing facts that are completely irrelevant to the matter at hand. The history of wars, and how Israel got sovereignty over this territory, is not germaine to the Judaization policy. Had Israel purchased the territory, rather than won it in war, would that make the policy better or worse? All of this stuff should be axed.
I also think that Yiftachel's presentation of Judaization has been misrepresented by both Tiamut and Jaakobou. The creation of a Jewish majority in the Galilee is only one of the objectives that he cites for the Judaization program, and not necessarily the main one. Others include the dispersion of the Jewish population of the country, which was and is heavily concentrated in the urban center of Israel, the resettlement of immigrants, and the provision of services to the rural settlements of the Galilee. The destruction of Arab villages is not actually Yiftachel's assertion, but a citation in his book from Benny Morris, and is not central to Yiftachel's arguments.
This is not to say that there is no place in the article for a review of Israel's development policies in the Galilee, which have, indeed, included destruction of abandoned villages, the mass acquisition of Arab-owned land by eminent domain, and the restriction of growth - physical, economic and cultural - of Palestinian villages in the Galilee. But a fair representation of Yiftachel's arguments, and of Israel's policies, should include the positive as well as the negative. -- Ravpapa ( talk) 03:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Both versions have too much background. People can use the wikilinks if they don't know the history of the area. I'd prefer to see no background section at all. So no more reason to argue.... Itsmejudith ( talk) 17:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
If we want to mention the partition plan, and the Western Galilee's designation in it, we have to explain why it didn't happen. Just saying that in the plan it was supposed to be in the Arab state, but "The region was instead incorporated into Israel" strongly implies that Israel disregarded the plan and conquered it. In reality, the Arabs were the ones who rejected the plan and opened war on the Jews of Palestine. Either discuss the issue in full, or leave it out completely - but don't selectively omit the parts you don't like. Now, I do think we can remove some details in Jaakobou's proposal, basically dropping the second paragraph, or incorporating it into the first as one sentence. Tiamut's comment shows total misunderstanding of the way articles are written, and deep ignorance regarding history, specifically of the partition plan. okedem ( talk) 19:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
The quote from Romirowsky is drawn from the article under his name, and cited there. If it turns out that it's about something completely different, then it would not have a place here. But if for example, Yiftachel is mainly known for his views on Israeli policy, including Judaization, etc, so that when Romirowsky says he is one sided he is clearly referring to him in his role as social critic or historian and his views on Israel-Palestine generally, then it's relevant.
To give an analogy in everyday life (don't take this too far) - suppose you will ask a lawyer's advice on ownership of a widget factory. You read in a book that someone prominent says "that lawyer is one sided and doesn't tell stuff like it is when it comes to widgets". Now, they didn't mention specifically "widget factories". Is the concern relevant when considering how much weight to place on the lawyer's opinion? If he meant "generally in his opinion-giving capacity on issues related to widgets" then probably yes.
In this case Yiftachel is prominent as a speaker on Judaization themes. Is it relevant that a second authority writes that he is one sided in I-P matters generally? Probably yes. It is needed so a reader can evaluate Yiftachel and understand that while he takes that stance, other prominent people may strongly criticize him as being unreliable on topics in the I-P field generally. You cannot quote Yiftachel at great length without mentioning other authorities exist who dissagree or hold other views. There are multiple views and proponents of each will have critics. Explaining simply the significant views and who holds them, and their counterviews and how strongly those are held, with cites, might make this a good article, if you let it. The aim is to explain the landscape of the topic, not to resolve "an answer" to the real-world dispute.
Is it neutral to begin the lead "The John Birch Society is a far right... group"? The Routledge companion to fascism and the far right defines the "far right" as "those anti-Communists and anti-socialists who, in the pursuit of their goals, are also either hostile to or indifferent to the values and practices of liberal democracy. However, their view, that the ends justify the means, even if the means include extra-legal violence, terror and dictatorship, often echo those of the far left." (p. 5) [9] However, Chip Berlet in "When alienation turns right" writes, the term is "sometimes used to describe all groups to the right of the electoral system". [10] Most academic literature appears to use the first definition. [11] The Four Deuces ( talk) 17:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
One problem with Routledge is that the title of the book is being used to give the label, Unfortunately, doing so ignores the fact that the same rationale can be used to call them "fascist." TFD has rightly called attention to the fact that assigning labels to any group is almost always a matter of opinion and not of demonstrable fact. We also cite the SPLC for calling JBS a "patriot group" and listing the definition SPLC uses which includes the possibility that a "patriot group" may support " extreme antigovernment doctrines ." [13] states "'The Tea Parties and similar groups that have sprung up in recent months cannot fairly be considered extremist groups, but they are shot through with rich veins of radical ideas, conspiracy theories and racism,' the report says." And "groups like the John Birch Society, which believes President Eisenhower was a communist agent." Problem is that while the notorious Welch letter is well-known, the claim about the specific belief of Ike being a Communist agent being associated with the JBS does not seem to have any RS sources using JBS official statements of any kind. Thus "JBS has been described as "far right" by (named sources)" would be far more proper than making what appears to be a "statement of fact" which is based on opinions. RS opinions remain ... opinions. Collect ( talk) 15:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Reliable sources overwhelmingly describe the Birchers as far right, and this is because of their extreme opposition to any form of collectivism or redistribution, and their systematic tendency to associate any form of collectivism with conspiracies by secret communist sympathizers to subvert the constitution. And I'm being very conservative in my characterization. -- TS 12:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
This article has a fictional account of AEI studies on global warming and the IPCC, and editors are edit-warring to (1) include the fictional account and (2) exclude the refutation of the fictional account. It's a BLP violation, too. THF ( talk) 01:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
What a shitty excuse and idea for a wikipedia article!-- 173.31.191.192 ( talk) 16:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
There is an on going dispute on the British National Party talk page about the use of phrases which some claim are non-NPOV the two phrases which have been reverted back and forth are
Can someone please provide some guidance DharmaDreamer ( talk) 11:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Go to the party's own home page and read its policies. This is an explicitly racist political party. Tasty monster ( TS on one of those new fangled telephone thingies) 18:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
The term "extreme" is not only in violation of the WP:EXTREMIST policy (a Freudo-Marxian dialetic tactic, devised by the Frankfurt School to "blacklist" intellectual opponents, by suggestively illiciting an emotive response) but it is inherently in violation of the WP:NPOV policy, which is central to Wikipedia. We don't "take sides" in the mainspace when it comes to politics, we are not a partisan project. The Four Deuces' hysterical presentation is selective to say the least and a comedic caricature at the most. If we can violate the NPOV policy to call the BNP "extremist", why couldn't we do the same on the article of the Labour Party or any given Government of the United States? Many people across the world consider killing hundreds of thousands of Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan an "extreme" act. We could easily find sources from the Muslim world describing the United States and its main political parties as "war criminals", "fascists" and all manner of bias epithets. - Yorkshirian ( talk) 19:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
There is a dispute at Human Rights Foundation about inserting a reference to a minor source of funding to an event organised by HRF. The reference is to a primary source, and there are questions too about the meaning of the source (see talk page, near bottom of Good Start section). The context for the dispute is the editor inserting it wishing to show that HRF is not a right-wing organisation; initial versions of the text included reference to Norway's government being left. There is a narrow (2:1) consensus against including the reference at HRF; it is already mentioned at the relevant event article ( Oslo Freedom Forum). Comments please. Rd232 talk 19:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
There has been an extreme amount of edit warring over the content and "POV" at The Invention of the Jewish People, in fact the article is now locked down (protected) due to disagreements among editors. I would like to request an uninvolved third party review the article for neutrality. Additionally, in somewhat of an odd request, I feel that whomever takes on the task of the POV-check should a) not be Jewish or Israeli and b) not be Muslim or Arab. I am not personally discounting the ability of such editors to remain non-bias in reviewing articles; however given the extremely controversial nature of the article, I am concerned that if an editor belonging to one of those categories performs the POV-check, his/her suggestions may be rejected by the "other side". -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! 10:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Nsaum75, Personaly I would prefer unbiased admin who can comprehensively review this article and the quality of its edits. I have no problem with any ethnicity or religion -only with POV. Of course, admins are less expected to give heavy weight to their own POV when edit or mediating and so forth-that's one reason to prefer admin. The second is that his/her advices would be usually heared louder. Also, I would strongly prefer someone who is not involved with any Israel-Palestine related articles. Not sure that this boared is the right place-maybe arbitration is a better option-- Gilisa ( talk) 22:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Frederic Raphael's review essentially acknowledges that it is propaganda at the site entitled Invention of the Jewish people dot com. "It may be that this book comes too late to help men arrive at a sane and rational compromise in the Middle East." John Rose (UK politician)'s review (at the same place) says "Shlomo Sand’s book, already a best seller in Israel and France, will accelerate the disintegration of the Zionist enterprise." Tony Greenstein of the Weekly Worker "has reviewed it as “an important book” which hammers another nail into the Zionist coffin." Surely we do not want to give a voice to anti-Jewish propaganda? There were all sorts of reliable sources that said that Joan of Arc was a witch as well. This is a thoroughly debunked concept, and while popular, we do not have to presume its veracity. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion are also highly popular, but we acknowledge that it is a hoax right away, even if we seem to have problems acknowledging that the hoax is antisemitic. We should not be pushing this perspective but letting people know right away that this book is fringy and to be taken with a large grain of salt! Stellarkid ( talk) 16:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Comment Conflating anti-zionism and anti-semitism is not at all helpful. Please desist. Unomi ( talk) 20:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I made a very simple request that people stop conflating Zionism and Jewish people. You then confronted me with arguments and appeals to authority for why they should be. Personally I hope that we can make progress with this, perhaps your problems with NPOV stem from a misconception. I find it troubling that you don't see the inherent problem of insisting on defining a nation purely on racial and sectarian basis, both without legitimacy as I alluded to above. Yes, we are all Africans. We are all brethren from primordial soup. We are all stardust and nothing. Why pick a random moment in time as an imaginary 'starting point' and lend it so much importance? Do you really believe in a literal interpretation of the Judaic tradition? And if you do how can you support Zionism? You may want to watch this. Unomi ( talk) 22:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
If you believe that to be a RS and you further believe that it contains arguments which have not been mentioned at Three_oaths#Zionist_arguments_that_consider_the_Three_Oaths I would suggest that you add them there. Generally speaking, I can tell you that I view the attempts at employing legalistic arguments to the Three Oaths as problematic for a number of reasons, but even if we entertain the thought: Zionism predates ww2 - Persecution of Jews unfortunately does not have as much detail as it should, but this was taken to be penance (from a religious perspective what happens after the start of Zionism should give pause); Compare the number of participants of the Balfour Declaration of 1917, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 to the participation in the torrent of resolutions condemning the actions of Israel, as an example: "Reiterates its determination that any actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the Holy City of Jerusalem are illegal and therefore null and void and have no validity whatsoever, and calls upon Israel to cease all such illegal and unilateral measures..." approved by 160 to 6 with 7 abstentions. It is quite frankly almost inconceivable to me that one can reasonably use a Judaic, religious justification for Zionism, but I welcome your thoughts on this matter. Going back to the discussion of Neturi Karta don't realy represent any present or past main stream views in Judaism, both secualr and religious then I still hold that this is a false statement. This should be abundantly clear to any one reading Jewish_beliefs_and_practices_in_the_reform_movement#Israel_and_Zionism further consider the Judaic tradition prior to the rise of Reform movement in Judaism. That the reform movement engendered alternate interpretations of the Talmud does not change historical fact, and it is truly ironic that some people call orthodox groups like NK names, while denying their own past. Unomi ( talk) 21:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I think I found a WP:Content fork regarding the legality of prostitution. Left prong: Legality of prostitution, right prong: Prostitution (criminology). Both articles are so huge though, I think any merge would be a significant undertaking. AzureFury ( talk | contribs) 22:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
An editor has been going around changing the name of specific types of Israeli settlements, moshav and kibbutz, to simply israeli settlement, calling the changes "More correct and neutral terms in accordance with international community".
Whereas the former terms are a more specific type of the latter, it would seem that they would convey more information to the reader, rather than the blanket term "settlement". However I was curious what other editors thought. -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! 17:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
The article Occupation of the Baltic states has two debates: a) Soviets as liberators or occupiers in 1944? b) Baltic states under soviet rule 1944-1991; occupation or annexation? Please give third party reviews. Peltimikko ( talk) 04:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion about NPOV over at Talk:Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)#2009_Brady_Campaign_State_Scorecard, and the editors there agree that it would be helpful to hear the opinion of third party editors. If someone here would like to drop in at that talk page and give us their opinion, that would be much appreciated. SaltyBoatr ( talk) 17:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd appreciate it if someone could provide some input on the appropriateness of Sam Harris being quoted in this article. Prezbo ( talk) 04:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
The pilot of the vessel was arrested for allegedly illegally boarding a Japanese vessel at sea. Another editor continues to insert that he was hooded as he was taken ashore in Japan for arrest. It is clear that there is something on his head [22] but one video (potentially day before) shows him with a similar colored windbreaker covering his head from the wind. [23] It is unclear if this is a standalone hood. As he was coming ashore, Japanese authorities put up tarps in accordance with Japanese privacy laws. So any hood could be similar to someone doing a perp walk with a newspaper or their hands over their faces. Hooding on the other hand is torture designed for sensory deprivation. A single source has made a mention that he looked like a terrorist with the hood [24] but it is appears to me that we are scandal mongering by asserting it is torture with its wording and the wikilink. Even without the wikilink we are alluding to it being because he is a terrorist and not for privacy. Is this appropriate? The edit in question: [25] Cptnono ( talk) 09:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Looks like this might take a while. The current edit says his wife was shocked by his arrest, but that's not what the reference says. The reference says she was shocked by the IMAGES of his arrest. I'm going to insert this for now, just to make the line in the article accurately reflect the source: "They called him a terrorist, and with his head covered by a black hood it looked like he was." I won't link to the hooding article for now. Ghostofnemo ( talk) 00:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
<- Is his wife a notable commentator on Ady Gil related issues ? If not, what is the policy based reason for including her views ? Perhaps the Japanese police were simply complying with Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks." I'm not sure any of the info is really pertinent, notable or encyclopedic. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Regarding edit-warring, I think we are making progress on improving the content. The link to the hooding article is gone. The remarks about Bethune's wife are gone. It seems like we are moving towards a consensus, but you seem to want to remove this information completely. Ghostofnemo ( talk) 00:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
The line does not state whether or not Bethune was hooded against his will. You want me to speculate? I would guess the Coast Guard did that. My personal suspicion is they were jerking him around, as cops in most countries do to suspects they don't care for. But I don't have a source, so I just stated the fact that his head was covered. It probably was a hooding, but I can't prove that, so I don't say that. I found another video from Australian TV showing Bethune's head covered by the hood, but it's very similar to the AP video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VpAXYNErHk&feature=related Cptnono and I have both stated we have no WP:Conflict of interest regarding this issue. Would the other editors care to address that? Ghostofnemo ( talk) 07:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User talk:Ghostofnemo reported by User:Cptnono since you refuse to delete the edit as suggested. Cptnono ( talk) 09:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Patriot movement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_movement —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.132.35 ( talk) 02:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I would like to mark this article for review on the basis of violation of neutrality. Tom of WikiTalk refused to allow me to edit this article myself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_movement —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.132.35 ( talk) 02:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Dear admins! I'm talking about two issues: 1. The page Tadeusz Kościuszko. 2. The collage at Poles.
The thing is, Tadeusz Kościuszko was at least partly ethnicaly Belarusian, which I referenced in the article about him (he was even baptised in an orthodox church). Now he was also born on the territory which is Belarus, so I entered him into categories like Belarusian nobility. I also deleted him from the collage at Poles, because the article talks about the Poles as an ethnic group, and Tadeusz Kościuszko was not ethnicaly Polish (I wrote it on the discussion board. I mean he was born in Belarus, he was ethnicaly Belarusian, he was born on a territory which was part of Lithuenia then, so he was Polish only by citizenship). Now the user User:Marekchelsea started reverting me on both pages, without writing anything, which is rude. I was warned before signing to Wikipedia that there are few Polish nationalists here that do those stuff, but tell me, can't you admins do anything about it? It's really discusting when referenced information gets deleted, and when someone wants to steal to his ethnicity someone who wasn't of his ethnicity. Free Belarus ( talk) 16:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello, here I have a little debate about the lead of the Diablada article where we have two positions, I won't say which one is mine to avoid polluting the results I'll say editors A and B. The debate is regarding the Spanish influence of this Andean dance, and basically there are two theories:
There are more sources explaining both theories, it's just a sample. But there are two opinions regarding the presentation of both theories:
Editor A's suggestion | Editor B's suggestion |
---|---|
The dance that was created in the Andean Altiplano as a result of the introduction of the Autos Sacramentales. | The dance is a mixture of the Spaniard's theatrical presentations introduced in the region during the colonial times in the form of Autos sacramentales or the Catalonian dance of Ball de diables and Andean rituals... |
Editor A considers that the Ball de diables shouldn't go in the lead because in these two sources say the following: [35]
Danzas folklóricas de la villa de los Santos
|
---|
The derivation of the devil dances or Diabladas constitute a topic of controversy in Ibero-America. Nowadays there are two theses about the emergence of the devil dances. The motive of the criterion divergence is based on the descent of the dance. Most authors affirm that it proceeds from the Autos Sacramentales of the Middle Ages which were represented in the atriums of the churches, where the presence of the speeches and other features identify it as an auto sacramental... |
And [36]:
Khana, Issues 35-38
|
---|
Regardless that in this order most authors agree in its derivation of a peninsular Auto Sacramental I consider that is a little bit risky to consi... ...a devils dance which characters are the same as in our Andean Diablada. Using the documents exhumed by Amadés in relationship to the Ball de diables'.... |
Editor A interpret those sources as an affirmation that the Autos Sacramentales constitute a majoritarian view and therefore the Ball de diables theory should not belong there.
Editor B considers that it's weasel terminology and that the snippet view of those two sources doesn't really allow to see the real intention of the authors, in the first case the author mentions two theories and here he also mentions the Ball de diables below. And the second author, according to editor B, sounds doubtful about that theory and also introduces the Ball de diables.
Editor A considers Editor B's criterion as original research.
Which way should we go? How can it be more neutral? Maybe it could be written differently, avoid saying Autos sacramentales or Ball de diables directly but use a general term like "Spanish traditions", I don't know what you people suggest? Thank you in advance Erebedhel - Talk 06:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
The Criticism of Judaism is missing some important content about war and violence, and so I drafted a new section that described how critics claim that Judaism is sometimes used to justify or motivate violence in modern times. (Note: the Criticism of Judaism article already has a small section on ancient violence but that only addresses ancient violence, whereas the deleted content addresses modern violence). I inserted the new content, but it was quickly deleted. Objections include: (1) the content is not notable; (2) the content give undue weight to the criticisms; (3) not neutral, and (4) the content is a synthesis. Addressing those concerns individually:
I tagged the article with a POV tag here, but that page has only a few editors that participate, so I'm also raising the issue here to get input from disinterested editors. -- Noleander ( talk) 16:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
i just want peace and suffer of killing people and i know israel is responsible for killing people cwho are unarmed and very poor and weak i accept israel but this country must and have to accept human and people who GOD creat theme freedom and money is just a tools the real reach is side of GOD . i hope GOD bless to jewish and every pepole who creat by GOD tanx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aria single ( talk • contribs) 00:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
The section still exists, the three paragraph subsection was out of line with WP:UNDUE, which is why it was removed. -- Avi ( talk) 20:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I am a Conservapedia sysop so cannot edit the mainspace. I have posted NPOV concerns on Talk and have only recieved a response from a red link editor who mischaracterizes and poo-poo's these concerns. Can an experienced Admin or editor review these concerns? Thank you. nobs ( talk) 07:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
The article History of Venezuela, apart for being long, is also full of cases of undue weight, bias and excessive personal views overall.
Here are some quotes:
"Guzmán Blanco probably got bored of ruling Venezuela and he decided to retire to Paris in 1887 at the age of 59. He died there in 1899."
"Delgado Chalbaud was twice a betrayer, but Venezuelan historians tend to speak well of him, analogously as they argue in America that John F. Kennedy would not have allowed the Vietnam war to escalate. But both positions are contrafactual, hence un-provable. What is often said is that Delgado Chalbaud was planning to restore Venezuelan democracy."
"The idea that Vallenilla Lanz and Pérez Jiménez had was to open the doors of the country to as many Europeans as wanted to come, with which they, and many non-pardo Venezuelans, believed that two flies would be killed with one swat: the country’s population would grow, but not with more ignorant pardos: with Europeans who brought with them, however lowly they might have been in their own countries, a higher average education than Venezuelans had. But this backfired for the immigrants were precisely from countries that had given rise to the existence of pardos—a euphemism for bastardy and ridiculous illiteracy." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuyvesant 1976 ( talk • contribs) 19:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I Agree, quoted material is not neutral and should be revised in my opinion. It looks like a narrative. If you want to write a narrative, try talking to a book publisher before just editing Wikipedia, yn?
Chad595 ( talk) 09:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Can some editors take a look at the Africa article at the arguement on the talk page please? I believe there is a quite a severe lack of WP:NPOV on the article. Personal views amongst some of its editors is getting in the way of NPOV. I'm interested to get users unassociated with the article involved. Yattum ( talk) 07:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I am trying to start a debate about defining what news organisations, as a reliable source, are good for and/or not good for. It is not as clearly defined as other similar reliable sources policies and it should be. Please see Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources#News_Organisations_section ~ R. T. G 19:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
The article on Jolina Magdangal needs to abide to to neutral point of view, and has been edited based loosely on fan edits, administrative help needed. Wiki pseud ( talk) 04:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
The Sexism in India article seems to keep having neutral point of view issues, with being the neutral point of view header being removed/changed without consensus or discussion in talk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.143.82 ( talk) 04:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
A new draft of the race and intelligence article is being edited into mainspace, based on discussion in mediation. It should be completed sometime on 4/1/2010. Since this is a highly contested article that has had numerous debates about neutrality and fringe theories, I am announcing this on the relevant noticeboards to get wider feedback on the draft. Interested editors may review and comment on the draft and suggest revisions at the mediation page, so long as they abide by the mediation rules listed here.
Please discuss changes at the mediation page rather than trying to correct issues in the article directly, at least for the time being. The topic is sensitive, and the best hope of achieving a stable article is to begin from this draft and talk through any revisions needed to create better balance and more complete coverage. -- Ludwigs2 18:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I was reading the Wiki on Assassination. While I'm not advocating the practice, I got the impression the article is approaching the issue from one particular side. Rather than challenge the page, I thought it best to seek second opinions. Maybe it's just me. I welcome any other opinions as to whether this page represents a neutral point of view. Zendell ( talk) 22:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
"Quote:"
In 2007, Office director Harry Forbes was sharply criticized by whom? for giving a too favorable rating on the Golden Compass movie, which strongly attacks the Church's teaching and Magisterium. [8]
"End Quote"
Is this a quote from a particular article or person? The way it is worded now states as a fact that The Golden Compass is anti-christian. From what I understand most people, including myself, believe that this statement is of an opinion, rather than fact - and that there are also many who would disagree. If this is a quote, it should be presented as such, with citations. Otherwise, it should be removed.
Also, I would recomend changing "the Golden Compass movie" to "the movie The Golden Compass," as it is a title and should be written and italicised properly.
I'm fairly unbiased on this (got brought in due to a WP:ANI post), but I figured it's a good idea to get some neutral eyes on it. Hutaree is have an ongoing edit war/content dispute where an IP insists that information regarding the leader of the Hutaree being a Ron Paul fanatic (term taken from an interview with his ex-fiancee) is somehow anti-Ron Paul. I don't see it, but I'd like outside opinion. The IP should have been warned and blocked for edit warring before this (myself and one other editor have reverted him four times between us, and he has reinserted five times), but I'd still prefer to do this the right way. — ShadowRanger ( talk| stalk) 14:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
In the Ohalo College a couple of editors on insisting on saying that the college is located in " Golan Heights, Israel". Nearly every country in the world and countless high quality sources explicitly say that the Golan is Syrian territory occupied by Israel, yet we have in this article, and others, a statement that the Golan is in Israel. The argument made in favor of saying it is in Israel is "If the local garbagemen, postmen, and policemen are paid by the Israeli government, it's in Israel". I would like to note that even Israel does not claim the Golan is within its territory. Is it acceptable for Wikipedia to present this extreme minority viewpoint as a fact? nableezy - 20:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
This is a highly offensive article. For example lines like "Mr principal by the time you realize you were wrong in your way of dealing things, the reputation of school will go off".
I've tried to update Legal Action topic with the text above, with a plenty of references, but another editor reverted:
On June 1st, 2007, the indictment in Brazil of the two pilots and four controllers made by the Federal Prosecutors' Office was accepted by the Court of Sinop city, state of Mato Grosso. They were charged under an article of Brazilian Criminal Code that foresees exposing to danger an embarkation or aircraft, one's own or another's, or practicing any act that tend to impede or hinder maritime, fluvial, or air navigation. [11] [12]
According to the charge, the first controller gave wrong instructions to the pilots, not telling them about Embraer's altitude changes. The second controller was responsible for monitoring the area in which the Embraer was flying, about one thousand feet above the altitude it should be. He was accused of not alerting the US pilots about their wrong altitude. Prosecutor said that second controller informed consciously and willfully the controller who took over from him that Embraer was at 36 thousand feet of altitude feet, when actually it was at 37 thousand feet. Therefore, on the wrong way, since the odd altitude is reserved for planes coming to Brasília and not going from Brasília as it was the case. The third controller who replaced second controller, was charged for taking too long to attempt a contact with the Legacy - about ten minutes after starting his shift - even though he was aware that Embraer's transponder wasn't working properly. The last air controller charged was third controller's assistant.
Pilots were charged mainly for their use of transponder and for not following the written flight plan. The prosecution says "For not knowing how to operate some items in the plane, they ended up deactivating by mistake the transponder. To this momentary active ineptitude followed a long omissive negligence."
On September 28, 2007, the judge of the 11th Military, in Brasilia, rejected the indictment by the Military Prosecutors' Office (MPM) against five air traffic controllers, among them the four indicted in Sinop, for involvement in the accident. [13]
On December 8, 2008, the magistrate in Sinop, Mato Grosso, absolved the pilots from accusations of negligence not taking emergency steps for communications loss, ruling that nothing suggested an emergency situation. He also dropped charges against two of the air traffic controllers involved, accepting as normal the fact that they weren’t alarmed by another failure of an ATC system characterized by poor functioning, and by repeated defects. A third controller was partially absolved of accusations of negligence in establishing communications with Embraer, but continues to answer for the accusation of omission in configuring radio frequencies on the control console. Federal criminal charges remain against another controller, and judge has asked that charges be considered against a fifth. All five controllers, who are Air Force sergeants in Brazil’s military-controlled ATC system, continue to face parallel criminal charges in Brazil’s independent military court system. [14] [15] [16]
On February 4, 2009, the Federal Prosecutors' Office appealed the decision of Federal judge of the Court of Sinop, in Mato Grosso, absolving the pilots. The Supreme Court in Brazil ruled that defendants can’t be jailed until all appeals are exhausted, a process that can take more than six years. [17]
On January 11, 2010, the Regional Federal Tribunal (TRF) of the 1st Region, located in Brasilia, decided to cancel the decision of the judge of Sinop in Mato Grosso that determined the absolution of the pilots. However, the appeal judges of the TRF maintained the absolution of two controllers. A third controller continues to answer for incompetence. With the suspension of the absolution, the case returns to the trial court. The pilots' lawyers can still appeal to the Superior Tribunal of Justice to try to revert the decision. [18] [19] [20]
He said: "Supplying references addresses just one requirement, WP:V. But WP requires articles to comply with other policies, such as WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP. The material you added is too one sided, favoring one side in the litigation and thus violating NPOV, and too detailed, violating UNDUE. Because living persons are involved and there are criminal and other negative allegations, this also violates BLP".
He was not able to say which side is favored. Does it violate NPOV? XX
Sdruvss 02:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
PS: I expect that people know "
Wikipedia:Don't revert due to 'no consensus'". XX
Sdruvss 12:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
My answers:
And as bottom line, a fact that Crum375 neglected to mention: I am the main contributor of Voo Gol Transportes Aéreos 1907 (Portuguese). Sdruvss ( talk) 18:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
And now, what matters:
WP:NPOV - If it violated NPOV, one must be able to point what point of view was favored, and then be balanced. The editor that reverted was not able to point which side was favored. He is not being bold.
WP:UNDUE - Only one source, a mainstream newspaper
Folha Online published 138 articles after Justice accepting indictment. Criminalization of aeronautical accidents was an important issue been debated. So, the text doesn't violate UNDUE.
WP:BLP - "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources" (
WP:BLP). The whole text is very well sourced and exactly quoted. Reporting that a group of persons were charged, reporting the main reasons to be charged, and saying that indictment was accepted is not criticism. Saying someone is suited is not criticism. "Criticism is the judgement (using analysis and evaluation) of the merits and faults of the actions or work of another individual" (
Criticism).
Sdruvss (
talk) 03:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
After reviewing the article primarily written by Myk60640, there are several causes for concerns, namely an appearance of a lack of Neutral Point of View. After reviewing the article primarily written by Myk60640, there are several causes for concerns, namely an appearance of a lack of Neutral Point of View.
Myk60640's juxtaposition of Credit Solutions' reported success rate and comments by the NY Attorney General and Better Business Bureau cases seems to be done to imply a falsehood on Credit Solutions' results. However, Myk60640 does not state that the statements by the NY Attorney General have not been found valid in court, nor does the author reveal that all but 6 of said BBB cases have been resolved with the customers. [38] Such omission of fact distorts Credit Solutions active resolution of customer concerns.
While listing the 2007 award from JD Powers and Associates (a well respected organization), Myk60640 does not list the over 20 other awards honored to Credit Solutions, many for customer service [39]. The author also fails to mention Credit Solutions' ISO9001:2008 certification.
Myk60640 fails to report that none of the claims made by any of the Attorneys General have been proven to be valid in court. Such an omission creates a negative implication.
While describing the ABC News Nightline piece on Credit Solutions, Myk60640 fails to mention many claims made in the report turned out to be grossly inaccurate. In fact, one of the main claims, that the customer in question did not receive any settlement offers, was proven to be irrefutably false. Credit Solutions made public a video highlighting the negative impact and false claims of the Nightline piece, complete with evidence. [40]
Myk60640's authorship fails to mention many of the substantial benefits and positive works done by Credit Solutions. Such work includes founding "Credit Solutions Cares" a charitable organization which, through Credit Solutions employees, friends and families, donated over 7,000 hours ad raised over $16,000 in 2009.
A summary of Myk60640's Talk Page reveals multiple examples of using sensational sources and POV postings.
I am writing as a member of the Credit Solutions organizations. While one editor made slight adjustments to the article regarding the BBB cases, the overall issues do not seem to have been resolved. Texasbiker02 ( talk) 16:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Hungary–Slovakia relations ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
An editor has posted a request at WP:EAR#Hungary–Slovakia_relations. POV tags have been placed on the article, but reverted by editors who seem to favour posting accusations about perceived Slovak racism, using un-encyclopaedic language and tone. Some of the referencing appears to be somewhat suspect. –– Jezhotwells ( talk) 19:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
This entry is about
The problem is that these articles list every single rocket and mortar attack, even attacks that cause no casualties and no damage and land in the middle of nowhere. Much of these articles read like the following excerpt:
July 12, 2008
A rocket lands in an open area in Sha'ar Hanegev regional council. Nobody claims responsibility for the attack.[52]
July 13, 2008
Two mortar shells are misfired and they land on the Gaza side of the border security fence in the Nahal Oz region. Nobody claims responsibility for the attack. Israel responds by only closing the Nahal Oz and Sufa crossings.[52]
July 15, 2008
A mortar hit is identified.[52]
July 25, 2008
A rocket misfires and lands in Gaza near the Kissufim crossing.[52]
July 29, 2008
Another rocket is launched from Gaza and mistakenly lands in Gaza.[52]
July 31, 2008
Again, a rocket misfires and lands in Gaza.[52]
Gripping stuff, eh? Most entries in these articles are pointless information that would not be notable enough to appear in a national newspaper, let alone a purported encyclopedia.
I get the impression that the point of these articles is not to list any useful encyclopedic information, but rather to make Israel appear to be the victim in this conflict by creating the impression that the rocket attacks are causing significant damage.
The solution is simple: there needs to be a notability threshold that each entry must meet or else it is removed. A simple, ungamable objective test such as actual human casualties.
The similarly focused but much superior article, List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2001 through 2007 only contains notable events and is an example to be followed. Factomancer ( talk) 13:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Rabinowitzp6
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check |url=
value (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)