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 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 20 |
I had posted that I observed that the articles on Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Osteopathy, Naturopathy, Chiropractic etc. are good and positive and there are forks to the articles on Christianity, Islam and Hinduism which contain all the criticism. The article on Homeopathy as well as its fork for criticism (' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Homeopathy/Criticism'), on the other hand, are both negative and bad; so can we make the article on Homeopathy good and positive like all the other articles and put all the criticism on its fork? If there's a rule that both articles should be full of criticism, then we must make the matter in the criticism fork available in the main article for Christianity, Islam and Hinduism also. I got these replies on the Talk:Homeopathy page:-
I somehow feel there is a bias in that article, so can we do something?- Dr.Vittal ( talk) 15:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Undent. Again I must invoke WP:PARENT. This commentary and these studies were already brought up elsewhere, and have already been commented on. Please centralize discussion in one location - chances are talk:homeopathy is the best place. Bringing up the same material in multiple locations wastes time. If need be, ask individual editors to direct their comments to a single page where the discussion is taking place. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 18:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
A discussion pertaining to NPOV is currently taking place here, please join. Unomi ( talk) 17:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I want to report what I believe are NPOV violations by the user UplinkAnsh at the article on PNS Ghazi, a Pakistani submarine that sank during the 1971 Indo-Pak War. Some Indian sources claim the Indian Navy definitely sank the submarine. Others state it is only "probable" that Indian depth charges sank the submarine (according to an interview with the then Indian Naval commander Admiral Nanda). Pakistani sources claim the submarine sank in an accident during mine-laying operations. UplinkAnsh keeps editing the article in such a way that it appears Indian sources contain the only truth, the Indian naval commander is wrong and Pakistani sources are merely propaganda or "face saving".
Diff of my edits:
Diff of reversion of my edits by UplinkAnsh:
In my edits I was separating the claims of India/Indian sources from those which both Pakistani and Indian sources agree on. Mainly the text on the Indian warship "hunting" the Pakistani submarine. Pakistani sources state several possibilities which would have caused the submarine to have been sunk without seeing combat with the Indian warship, but UplinkAnsh portrays the story as though the Indian version is the only version.
Please note also that in the Aftermath section, UplinkAnsh has used an Indian source in the "Pakistani version" sub-section to counter claims by Pakistani sources. My attempt to move this source to the "Indian version" sub-section was reverted by him.
On the talk page, UplinkAnsh states the following:
I believe he is implying that the Indian point of view is the only version worth showing while the Pakistani point of view is not worth mentioning. He also makes claims, both on the talk page and in his edits, that are not referenced (original research).
I first reported UplinkAnsh for his edits at the Wikiquette Alerts page (link), where the user User:Gerardw decided it was not a Wikiquette Alerts issue, gave a short block to myself and UplinkAnsh for edit-warring and directed me towards other noticeboards. He also made the following edits:
I believe that UplinkAnsh's continued non-neutral edits and reverting of my changes prove that he does not intend to edit the article according to the NPOV policy. Although he does offer to discuss the matter, he still refuses to acknowledge that the Indian version may not be the only true version. I feel that some kind of action should be taken against him but I'd rather seek help here first than be turned away at the administrators' noticeboard because it is a "mere content dispute". Should I take this to Requests For Comment, Dispute Resolution or Requests For Mediation? Thanks.
--
Hj108 (
talk) 13:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Hj108 you are the only one here who completely relies on his own origional research. You must realise that your views based on a private site(which might be your own or of some friend of yours) does not represent "a side". You can cite reliable Pakistani sources that back your claim to help improve the article but unless you do so do not disuss your own views and original research. You yourself have not proved any thing or cited any source and so do not be a hypocrite by asking for evidence rejecting all cited sources. The "accident theory" is defiantely a "fringe/minority" theory because only the private site supports it except your own thoughts and all other sources point otherwise.
Regarding Admiral Nanda's statement I would repeat what I said on the talk page. Admiral Nanda does not doubt that if the submarine was "sunk" or "lost in unknown circumstances". He clearly states "The blow-up was there". The use of word "probably" you are so keen on is used to show that he is unsure about the number of depth charges that damaged Ghazi as more than one were fired.
Also calling all the sources in the article to be biased and your own views to be correct only shows that you are the onle one who is biased. Now you have added another website "battleships-cruisers.co.uk" which you think to be biased and unreliable.-- UplinkAnsh ( talk) 19:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Network TwentyOne is an independent global training organisation for supporting Amway independent business owners. There are dozens of such companies. In 2006/2007 The UK Department of Trade and Industry instigated an investigation into Amway's operations in the UK and petitioned to wind up Amway and two associated training companies over which DTI had jurisdiction, Britt WorldWide and Network TwentyOne. At present we have just one RS source regarding BERRs allegations that mentions Network TwentyOne [3]. In 2008 the case against Amway was dismissed [4], and I sourced a copy of the court order confirming the dismissal of the case against Network 21. There are no other sources regarding the case against N21. In my opinion, with regards the article on Network TwentyOne the case is barely notable but when rewriting the article after an AfD submission I included it in the interest of achieving consensus with other editors such as FinanceGuy222, who appears to me to have a clear POV against the company. FG222 is now wishing to expand the section including details of the allegations against Amway (again, Amway won the case) and is stating allegations made by the plaintiffs as factual. Again, these aren't even allegation against N21, but against Amway. I am deleting them under WP:V however he persists. Third party opinions appreciated. Talk discussion is here [5]-- Insider201283 ( talk) 11:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Insider is renowned for having a ridiculously pro Amway/N21/MLM stance, runs a large number of pro Amway websites, and has been accused multiple times of being a paid shill/WP:COI, and has admitted to being a member. As mentioned Insider posted the source in the first place to establish notability, and now doesn't like that the court case has been put in context. He had inserted it into the article implying N21 was suing for libel over a movie showing "happy people clapping", which is plain ridiculous, and a laughable POV. The source above and article state the true reason for legal action. If the UK government tries to shut down Amway and Network 21, and investigates them for a year, that is a very major and serious legal undertaking, and deserves coverage in the article.
Amway section you questioned above I have removed. Financeguy222 ( talk) 12:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
The article is very confusing - I don't understand the leap the article makes to an documentary about Amway (yes I know the founders were also involved with amway) - is N21 mentioned in this documentary? -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 12:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Please point out what is not accurate, and unsourced and it obviously will be edited.
Yes you added the controversy section, with controversies and statements slanted in favour of amway/n21. With statements implying n21 were defamed for the movie showing "happy people clapping". The real controversy was that they were aligned with Hitler and communist rallies. The section needs that to put the controversy/court case in context, it is not being presented as fact. Financeguy222 ( talk) 01:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Insider is persistently removing whole sections of the article, including sourced statements that do not benefit his amway business, for which he supplied the source in the first place. Financeguy222 ( talk) 01:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
The Wikipedia articles on Human Terrain System and Human Terrain Teams have undergone much revision in the last several months. Sadly, many of these revisions reflect non-NPOV. Along with the non-NPOV problem, the revisions have inflicted the articles with much unverified and/or unreferenced information. These problems reflect badly on Wikipedia. I've posted my plea for more NPOV on the articles talk pages, but I fear that our "advocating" editors will overlook (or ignore) my plea. So, please assist. I invite you to help revise the pages to make them somewhat scholarly. At the very least, please refrain from letting your personal point of view infect the articles you write or contribute to. This plea is not just for the HTS and HTT articles -- it applies to all contributions you make. Thank you. -- Srich32977 ( talk) 07:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
This is hardly a critical subject, but there's been an ongoing issue with the TV series The Marriage Ref, where the article is mostly quotes of reviewers who don't like the show and criticism of its ratings and how its first episode postponed the very end of the Olympics closing ceremonies on the East Coast. There's not a whole lot about the actual show. 72.244.207.30 ( talk) 21:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Pope Benedict XVI has attracted a number of less experienced editors who are arguing over the amount of content (see Talk:Pope Benedict XVI) a recent news story deserves. I am doing my best to keep the talk page debate under control, but another experienced editor or two helping out would be great. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 18:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Does "The use of one of these words (scandal) in an article should be qualified by attributing it to the party that uses it." mean that the actual text of the article needs to identify who has called it a scandal or simply that the sentence must be sourced to a WP:RS by a footnote [10]. MM 207.69.139.142 ( talk) 20:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
This page is constantly being whitewashed by somebody to the point where some portions of it make little sense.
For example, the Animal Services section now reads: During the election, Villaraigosa appeared before a coalition of animal rights activists and pledged if elected he would implement a no-kill policy for Animal Services and fire General Manager Guerdon Stuckey, an appointee of former Mayor Hahn.
That is all it says. It means nothing. Why is it even there?
At one time, this section read:
During the election, Villaraigosa appeared before a coalition of animal rights activists and pledged if elected he would implement a no-kill policy for Animal Services and fire General Manager Guerdon Stuckey, an appointee of former Mayor Hahn. Stuckey earned the ire of animal rights activists for what they considered to be his lack of experience, a bungled city spay/neuter contract, refusal to cooperate with the Los Angeles Animal Commission and excessive euthanasia of animals held by Animal Services. Stuckey's supporters claimed that he had been reducing the number of animals killed in the city every year. After the animal community caused an onslaught of negative press about the mayor's failure to keep his promise, Villaraigosa fired Stuckey. Stuckey appealed the firing to the City Council and threatened a lawsuit. The council awarded Stuckey a $50,000 consulting fee with the agreement that there would be no lawsuit. Sympathy for Stuckey by some council members was partly in reaction to a campaign against Stuckey by some that included a smoke bomb and picketing. In addition, there was concern for racial discrimination because Stuckey is black. Villaraigosa then appointed Ed Boks to the General Manager position. [35] An August 12, 2008 Los Angeles Times article describes animal advocates' concern regarding staff cuts that will have a disproportionate impact on 154 animal technicians and the 2,400 animals they care for. "Although Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa planned to cut 767 jobs this year, the shelter workers may end up being the only people to lose jobs at City Hall. In other departments, workers whose jobs were eliminated could be moved to other departments where their skills could be used...[T]he cuts meant more than just lost jobs. Thousands of animals would suffer as well." [36] Ironically, City Controller Laura Chick notes that the City of Los Angeles "is losing out on millions of dollars by not enforcing existing laws and collecting fees and fines, such as with dog licenses." Further, after an audit, Chick claims that the Los Angeles Animal Services Department "has no plan to educate the public regarding mandatory sterilization and how they can comply. In fact, the City Council instituted a six-month grace period till the ordinance goes into effect this October to give the Department the opportunity to prepare the public. Now on the eve of its enactment, the Department has done little to promote awareness or compliance with the law,” said Chick.[2] April 24, 2009 Villaraigosa's appointed General Manager Ed Boks was forced to resign after City Council demanded that he be fired because of poor performance and legal scandals. [37] A New York City judge ruled that Ed Boks had racially discriminated against an African American man whom he fired when he was the General Manager of New York City Animal Care and Control. [38] The City of LA then settled a sexual harassment claim against Boks and the City by Mary Cummins a female employee and volunteer. [39]
Perhaps some of the above text is not proper for the page, but to yank all of it to the point that it becomes nonsense? That is not proper at all, and contrary to the spirit of wikipedia, not only as an unbiased source, but as an information resource.
I also verified a "failed verification" tag after finding the quoted statement in the refered document. Disputed verification referred to the sentence "The mayor also campaigned last fall for two education bond measures that will increase the size of property tax bills over the next decade." Referring document found at http://articles.latimes.com/2009/apr/23/local/me-fees23 states, "The mayor also campaigned last fall for two education bond measures that will increase the size of property tax bills over the next decade."
There are similar examples. I have placed a POV flag on the page until the matter is resolved.
thank you
wikigratia
Wikigratia ( talk) 05:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I would like this thread to stay open until comments are received by uninvolved editors. It has been a long wait, but certainly someone will help out with this. All these boards have long waits, but eventually things get taken care of. Zlykinskyja ( talk) 15:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Another week has gone by without anybody intervening; it's now been a fortnight since I first opened this thread, which I think now qualifies for non-admin closure by thread starter. Please do not reopen; let's try to work this out on the MoMK talk page. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 11:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I have re-opened the thread, to allow for more time for editors to comment in this very important issue. This type of NPOV issue permeates the entire article, and comment and advice is greatly needed. Zlykinskyja ( talk) 14:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Non-admin closure by thread starter as no uninvolved editor commented. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 13:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I need your help; there's a POV issue, related to this article. I think that another user is pushing POV ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher&diff=next&oldid=351990679). I tried discussing it on the talk page, but obtained nothing; i tried editing the article, she undid my edit. Now I'd like your opinion.
My suggestion | Her suggestion |
---|---|
In March of 2010, Knox won a lawsuit against Fiorenza Sarzanini, director of Corriere della Sera Paolo Mieli, RCS Quotidiani S.p.A. and RCS Libri S.p.A. magazines, for violation of her privacy and illegal publication of Court documents. Sarzanini had written and Mieli published the book "Amanda e gli altri" ("Amanda and the Others") , that contains long excerpts from Knox's diary as well as from questionings of witnesses, that were not in the public domain; the book also included intimate details, professing to be about Knox's sex life.
[11] Knox's lawyers had asked for $677.000 in damages, but were awarded only $55.000 plus $ 6.200 in legal costs. [12] |
THIS IS NOT CORRECT. According to her lawyers, there was extensive prejudicial pretrial publicity against Knox, which included a book and some magazine articles published just prior to her trial that contained purported excerpts from her private diary and notebooks.
[13] These materials had originally been seized by the police.
[14]
[15] Copies of the diary and notebooks were somehow acquired by the journalist from the government. The book included lurid details purporting to be about Knox's alleged sex life.
[16][www.komonews.com/news/local/35260544.html] At the time of the publication of the book, the Knox family stated: "This seems to be yet another example of the continued leaks designed to harm Amanda's character as there is no evidence to tie her to the brutal and senseless murder of Meredith Kercher. She is innocent." [www.komonews.com/news/local/35260544.html] In January 2009, just as her trial was getting underway, Knox filed a lawsuit against the author, Fiorenza Sarzanini, director of Corriere della Sera Paolo Mieli, RCS Quotidiani S.p.A. and RCS Libri S.p.A. magazines, claiming that allegations in the book and magazines were false and that he had no right of access to her private diary and notebooks. [17] According to her lawyers, the book was part of a "smear campaign' against Knox, focusing on her alleged sexual obsessions. [http:www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5509951.ece] [18] The lawyers for Knox claimed information from Knox's notebooks and diary had been "reported in a prurient manner, aimed solely at arousing the morbid imagination of readers." [19] Her lawyers claimed: "This crosses the limits of legitimate exercise of the rights of the press." [20] They contended that Knox had suffered from "incredible and misleading" media coverage that was "in violation of the general principles safeguarding personal information and dignity." [21] The Knox lawyers also objected to the way their client had been depicted in the press in general, claiming the media had done "everything in its power" to create "an absolutely negative portrayal" of their client. [22] The lawyers filed complaints with a Milan court and with Italy's privacy watchdog. [23] In March of 2010, Knox won her lawsuit against the Italian author for invading her privacy and defaming her. [24] According to Knox's Italian lawyer, Carlo dalla Vedova, the verdict in Knox's favor is further proof that the jury in the criminal case--in which she was convicted of sexual assault and other charges--was negatively influenced by prejudicial publicity against her, and that the prosecution's characterization of her was "completely wrong". [25] |
Thanks for your help.
You can call me Salvio (
talk) 17:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
The table is accurate, the diffs prove it. And I did not warn you on your user page, because you usually call it harassment and wikihounding and tend to erase everything there that does not agree with your ideas; I wrote it on the talk page of the article, though, where you have been very active, certain you would read. Anyway, if I have erred, I apologise. You can call me Salvio ( talk) 20:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Just wondering what are you trying to do here...
{{User:Erebedhel/Templates/TxtA |title1 = His censored version |title2 = My new section |pos1 =
Anyway, this diff proves you wrong: [27] And this explains my concerns: [28]
That said, from now onwards, I'll only respond to uninvolved editors. You can call me Salvio ( talk) 23:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
You interfered with my edits when you added characters that stopped me from going forward with my attempt to prepare my own version of the chart. Zlykinskyja ( talk) 15:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Salvio's censored version | Zylinskyja's new section |
---|---|
In March of 2010, Knox won a lawsuit against Fiorenza Sarzanini, director of Corriere della Sera Paolo Mieli, RCS Quotidiani S.p.A. and RCS Libri S.p.A. magazines, for violation of her privacy and illegal publication of Court documents. Sarzanini had written and Mieli published the book "Amanda e gli altri" ("Amanda and the Others") , that contains long excerpts from Knox's diary as well as from questionings of witnesses, that were not in the public domain; the book also included intimate details, professing to be about Knox's sex life.
[29] Knox's lawyers had asked for $677.000 in damages, but were awarded only $55.000 plus $ 6.200 in legal costs. [30] |
Title of new Section: Issue of prejudicial pretrial publicity and trial impact
According to her lawyers, family and some media, there was extensive prejudicial pretrial publicity against Knox which tainted the public perception of her. [3] [4] Knox's mother complained that bloggers and newspapers had been free to "assassinate her daughter's character." [5] Simon Hattenstone of the Guardian newspaper described the situation as: "This is not simply trial by media, it is trial by Facebook and blog." [6] This negative publicity also included a book and some magazine articles published just prior to her trial that contained purported excerpts from her private diary and notebooks. [7] These materials had originally been seized by the police. [8] [9] Copies of the diary and notebooks were somehow acquired by the journalist from the government. The book included lurid details purporting to be about Knox's alleged sex life. [10] [11] At the time of the publication of the book, the Knox family stated: "This seems to be yet another example of the continued leaks designed to harm Amanda's character as there is no evidence to tie her to the brutal and senseless murder of Meredith Kercher. She is innocent." [12] In January 2009, just as her trial was getting underway, Knox filed a lawsuit against the author, Fiorenza Sarzanini, director of Corriere della Sera Paolo Mieli, RCS Quotidiani S.p.A. and RCS Libri S.p.A. magazines, claiming that allegations in the book and magazines were false and that he had no right of access to her private diary and notebooks. [13]According to her lawyers, the book was part of a "smear campaign' against Knox, focusing on her alleged sexual obsessions. [14] [15] The lawyers for Knox claimed information from Knox's notebooks and diary had been "reported in a prurient manner, aimed solely at arousing the morbid imagination of readers." [16] Her lawyers claimed: "This crosses the limits of legitimate exercise of the rights of the press." [17] They contended that Knox had suffered from "incredible and misleading" media coverage that was "in violation of the general principles safeguarding personal information and dignity." [18] The Knox lawyers also objected to the way their client had been depicted in the press in general, claiming the media had done "everything in its power" to create "an absolutely negative portrayal" of their client. [19] The lawyers filed complaints with a Milan court and with Italy's privacy watchdog. [20] In March of 2010, Knox won her lawsuit against the Italian author for invading her privacy and defaming her. [21] According to Knox's Italian lawyer, Carlo dalla Vedova, the verdict in Knox's favor is further proof that the jury in the criminal case--in which she was convicted of sexual assault and other charges--was negatively influenced by prejudicial publicity against her, and that the prosecution's characterization of her was "completely wrong". [22] [23] |
Kwenchin ( talk) 09:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Zlykinskyja talks of censorship but in a article about a book does not name the book. Kwenchin ( talk) 09:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I have suggested that the title of the article Great Pacific Garbage Patch may not be totally inline with Wikipedia:NPOV. I made this suggestion on the Talk page four days ago, and tagged the article
{{ POV-title}}<!-- See talk page to discuss. Added by User:N2e -->
in order to encourage a discussion. Less than a day later, one of the regular editors of that page removed the {{ POV}} tag, although s/he then did add comments to the Talk page. A second regular editor of that page has supported removal of the tag. I believe that the removal of that POV tag will short-circuit a full and open discussion of the merits of the proposal, by not inviting other editors who read or work on the article to look at the Talk page and weigh in.
I would appreciate a few additional editor-eyes on the topic.
Thanks for reading this and considering participating. Cheers, N2e ( talk) 19:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
An editor Captain Occam ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has claimed that this article is not written from a neutral point of view. I am unable to see why he thinks that is so, so am asking for some kind of discussion on that here. The article in particular covers two historical events, in the early seventies and mid-nineties, where two groups of scientists came into conflict. The subject has been fairly well documented by historians of psychology and I have attempted to use sources that discuss the specific topic in some depth (i.e. several consecutive pages devoted to this sole topic). I can't see what's not neutral about the article; I have summarised the sources, trying not to omit anthing. I have never before been accused of not writing neutrally. As far as I'm aware, I don't have any particular personal view on either side. ere
There does also seem to be a WP:TAG TEAM in action, coordinated by Captain Occam. A team of editors, active on Race and intelligence, mainly WP:SPAs, who edit very little else. One editor Distributivejustice ( talk · contribs) posted on the talk page of the article, for the first time following a message from Captain Occam on his talk page. He tagged the page for neutrality without giving any cogent reason, so I removed the tag. I have in fact privately informed a member of ArbCom about Captain Occam's campaign of disruption and might have to post a report, independent of this request, on WP:ANI if this tag teaming continues. Mathsci ( talk) 06:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Please look at this diff: [31]
Smatprt keeps inserting fringe material into the article and deleting the sourced scholarly consensus, as well as other details. The source he cites, Elizabeth Appleton, An Anatomy of the Marprelate Controversy 1588-1596: Retracing Shakespeare's Identity and that of Martin Marprelate was published by The Edwin Mellen Press, which is a publisher of non-peer reviewed books unedited from camera-ready copy supplied by the author and is even described by the owner as a "publisher of last resort."
In addition, its associated "university", Mellen University (from which the author of this source received a PhD), is a diploma mill where you can get a BA, MA, or PhD based on "life experience" after paying $995 in "tuition" and a one-hour telephone consultation: [33]
From Lingua Franca archives:
While this content dispute is part of a larger dispute (see above), I think this case of POV is so clear-cut it needs to be addressed quickly. No amount of discussion with him seems to penetrate. Tom Reedy ( talk) 17:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
The article is much closer to a self-promotional pamphlet than an encyclopaedia article. I would have to quote the whole article to reveal the tone, but these are two examples (note especially the invitations to contact their admissions department).
Officially recognized by the Ministry of Education and Culture of the Community of Madrid, the Madrid campus offers education of the highest quality at an affordable price. It works with a cloister of the best universities in Europe and the United States and has students from more than 65 different nations.
Application Deadlines:
For Spring Semester:
October 15 (Non-EU students) December 15 (Spanish and EU students)
For Summer I Session:
March 30
For Summer II Session:
April 30
For Fall Semester:
April 30 (Non-EU students) August 1 (Spanish and EU students)
Deadline extensions may be granted. Contact the Office of Admissions (admissions@madrid.slu.edu) for further details. Application requirements:
Secondary school transcript and one of the following:
SAT / ACT score report I.B. diploma University entrance exam (email admissions@madrid.slu.edu for more information)
In fact, most of the article repeats word for word whole passages from the university's own webpage [34], and contains a great deal of irrelevant information, such as the whole listing of their academic trips and application deadlines. Swfwtwlf0909 ( talk) 00:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I have also asked on RSN for input as to two references given in the Platine War article, but there do appear to be fundamental differences between editors on this article. It would be helpful to have input from uninvolved editors to go over the article for PoV. An editor has made recent edits here citing works by Pacho O'Donnell and Diego Abad de Santillán. The most troubling to me is the use of the former to justify a lowering of the number killed by the dictator Juan Manuel de Rosas from a figure of between 2,000 and 20,000 to "80". As this seems to be quite a radical departure from the sources I've read, I'm wondering whether this author/source is pushing a fringe view that needs to be included?
The discussion on Talk:Platine War seems to be turning into Platine War II. • Astynax talk 03:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
First, if this is not the correct noticeboard, please direct me to it.
I've been involved in disputes with Smatprt on more than one occasion because differences of opinion in editing the Shakespeare authorship question article. I have been educating myself on Wikipedia policies and I believe that his strategy of wedging references to the Shakespeare authorship question (particularly Oxfordism) into other articles violates WP:ONEWAY, in particular the first sentence, “Fringe theories should be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way (my emphasis).” The only sources that mention the Shakespeare authorship question in connection to these topics are questionable sources that promote the fringe theory that someone besides Shakespeare wrote the works attributed to him.
I have been following the "what links here" on the SAQ page and deleting the mentions of the topic from articles about mainstream subjects into which he and other anti-Stratfordians have inserted them. He has been following my edits and reverting them. I've reverted a few of them back, which were promptly reverted by him. I don't want to get in a revert war and would appreciate the perspectives of some uninvolved editors. I asked three other editors who have acted as referees between us before, but their patience has worn thin and one of them directed us to follow dispute resolution.
Here are the diffs to my edits:
Here are the diffs of Smatprt’s reversions of my edits:
Here are the discussions between us about this on on his talk page and on on my talk page.
I would like to get this settled because it wastes both of our time. Tom Reedy ( talk) 18:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
This has been discussed at considerable length in several places, and I don't suppose that a few more words will persuade Smatprt to change their attitude, but for what it's worth as I see it the issues are (1) Smatprt tries to present fringe views as though they were far more mainstream than they are (2) no matter how much discussion takes place Smatprt will not accept that consensus is against him/her (3) a lot of argument about side issues have to some extent obscured the fact that those are the essential issues. JamesBWatson ( talk) 10:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
From my standpoint, we have a POV warrior who is intent on deleting mentions of minority viewpoints'. Smatprt
The College of the Humanities page reads in large parts like promotional materials for this particular school at Carleton University, and furthermore the editing history shows that it was mostly written by a professor (Gregory MacIsaac) at said school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Terrible tony ( talk • contribs) 17:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Political tendency discussion I have had a little discussion as regards this whole article, it is in my opinion very POV and with multiple issues. I brought up for discussion this section on the talkpage, its content is supported by a couple of editors there, I removed this comment which is nothing more than a tabloid insult
The Daily Mirror has described the party's MEPs as "vile prophets who preach a Nazi-style doctrine of racial hatred". reference...James Lyons and Tom Parry, "The truth about fascist National Front past of Britain's two new BNP members in Europe", Daily Mirror, 9 July 2009..
it was very quickly replaced by an editor with the edit summary of reliable source making a valid political point.
The daily mirror is a very tabloid paper, a valid political point? Its a name calling insult, the british daily mirror's political opinions are not of any notable value at all, it is just an insult, is this content of any value? Off2riorob ( talk) 15:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
The Daily Mirror has described the party's MEPs as "vile prophets who preach a Nazi-style doctrine of racial hatred". reference...James Lyons and Tom Parry, "The truth about fascist National Front past of Britain's two new BNP members in Europe", Daily Mirror, 9 July 2009..
I have removed it and it has been replaced. Is this content to be kept? Is the Daily Mirror's opinionated tabloid commentary to be considered as a reliable source making a valid political point can I quote this and insert the political opinions of the daily mirror at other locations? I don't think any neutral person would claim such a thing. Off2riorob ( talk) 20:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
The Daily Mirror has described the party's MEPs as "vile prophets who preach a Nazi-style doctrine of racial hatred". I think that people think that by making a topic that they dislike reflect badly it is a good thing, but it is not, it weakens the whole wikipedia and diminishes our general respect as a neutral resource. Off2riorob ( talk) 11:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
The Daily Mirror has described the party's MEPs as "vile prophets who preach a Nazi-style of racial hatred". [24] An editorial in The Guardian characterises the BNP as "a racist organisation with a fascist pedigree that rightfully belongs under a stone". [25] Liberal Democrats leader Nick Clegg has described the BNP as "a party of thugs, fascists". [26] Conservative Party leader David Cameron said of the BNP "If you vote for the BNP you are voting for a bunch of fascists... They dress up in a suit and knock on your door in a nice way but they are still Nazi thugs." [27] Home Secretary Alan Johnson, speaking on BBC's Question Time (15 October 2009) said, "These people believe in the things that the fascists believed in the second world war, they believe in what the National Front believe in. They believe in the purity of the Aryan race. It is a foul and despicable party and however they change their constitution they will remain foul and despicable." [28] [29] Peter Hain describes the BNP as "a racist organisation with known fascist roots and values" and wrote about its "racist and fascist agenda". [30]
Thanks for commenting Stephen, your editing on the article has been some of the most neutral and attempting to improve it that I have seen, and this comment is not about you. Improving the article has got nothing to do with the election, we can and should do it now..this is one of the misconceptions that POV editors have , that if they keep an article reflective of their POV it will affect the real world that is the biggest destructive misconception to the article and to the whole wikipedia, creating a poor biased article that reflects your own point of view does nothing apart from reducing the respect that neutral people have for our articles and reduces our reputation and actually defeats the original objective of demeaning the subject, all it actually does is demean the whole respect for wikipedia. Off2riorob ( talk) 19:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Would it be too much to ask for the offended party to quote which Wikipedia policy has been violated? Tom Reedy ( talk) 20:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Would it be too much to ask for the offended party to quote which Wikipedia policy has been violated? Tom Reedy ( talk) 21:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
There is an interesting min POV dispute going on at Temple Mount and Eretz Yisrael Faithful Movement I think it could really use the input of some more editors. 71.237.210.137 ( talk) 00:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello,
this article doesn't seem very neutral. It is likely written by the person itself. Poppy ( talk) 13:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
There has been an on-going discussion regarding which units of measure – imperial or metric - should be given precedence in the Falkland Islands set of articles. For the record the islands are claimed by both the United Kingdom and by Argentina, but are under de facto British control.
I have recently asserted that choice of units of measure can reflect a POV, in the same way that language does and therefore that giving precedence to imperial units of measure as a matter of course in the Falkland Islands set of article falls foul of NPOV. My reasoning is that in most circumstance either metric or imperial units are acceptable in the United Kingdom but the Argentine only uses metric units. Furthermore, in spite of the Argentine occupation of 1982, the Falkland Islands Government uses metric units on all of its websites. Is the assertion regarding NPOV justified? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinvl ( talk • contribs) 13:45, 19 April 2010
If this series of articles concerns the Falkland Islands then I would expect it to follow Falkland Island conventions, whatever they might be.
UK conventions (which despite a large number historical exceptions are often metric due to the adoption of the system in British schools) should probably have little or no influence on the usage in those articles, which are not part of the UK.
If Islanders commonly use one or the other system, then I would expect the article to defer to that usage unless there is an overriding reason not to do so.
I think the argument that metric is unacceptable because a certain geopolitical entity with a claim on the Islands uses metric is probably a red herring. If as somebody claims the Falkland Islands government uses mostly metric units in its own publications, then that would seem to be a fairly good refutation of the latter argument.
We should really look to see what is commonly used by Islanders, and I couldn't predict what that might be. Tasty monster (= TS ) 18:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I am also annoyed by Michael Glass continually bringing these things up at WP:MOSNUM, but here we seem to be close to the underlying problem, so I am not opposed to discussing things here once more.
The general guidance for the UK may or may not be applicable to the Falkland Islands. Some islands that belong to one culture but lie close to another have special features in their weights and measures practices. What dominates? Trade and travel with nearby islands and the continent, which are all metric, or trade and travel with the UK? I guess a lot of the food will come from the continent (and be packaged metrically). On the other hand, there is no strong pressure to metricate road distances or things like body height, and the island with a population of 3,000 has a British military force of 500, who are no doubt bringing mainland UK preferences with them.
There isn't much by way of Falkland Island newspapers. I found only one Falklands-related story there that used any measure at all, and it talked about "40ft articulated lorries". There is also this evidence that Falklanders use miles on their street signs (as I guess they are obliged to do by law, although there might be special local exceptions, or they might just ignore the law as unpractical; but it seems they are not doing this). Thus it seems to be clear that for road traffic purposes, the Falkland Islands use the UK system.
On the other hand, I searched for certain terms on [48] and found the following:
Two particularly interesting documents are the Road Traffic Bill 2008
and the brochure Falkland Islands – ... sustaining a secure future:
Taking all this together, I think metric first for everything except road distances might be the most reasonable consistent choice for the islands. Hans Adler 09:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
First of all I would like to pay tribute to Hans Adler for all the work he has put into finding out what Falkland Islanders so. Secondly, I feel that "metric first for everything except road distances might be the most reasonable consistent choice for the islands" might be the position that is most likely to meet with general approval. I think the sticking points in [60] are in the following clauses:
If this was changed to something like this:
I think it would answer most of the concerns that have been expressed. It would certainly be more flexible than a rule that forces a "miles first" rule. Remember that MOSNUM says:
MOSNUM does not say:
I don't claim that this is the last word on the topic, but I hope that this suggestion will help us towards a decision that will be generally acceptable. Michael Glass ( talk) 12:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
NOTE: This noticeboard is intended for advice concerning specific NPOV issues. Please be concise.
Which part of the above don't people understand?
Pls take note. This is not the forum for yet more tendentious debate on units. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 12:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
This section of the article discusses the various factual inaccuracies of the show, which do seem to appear. However, none of the content in this section has been collected from a resource discussing the show's inaccuracy. The section was written by an editor who has assembled various resources to support their own opinion of the show, despite that not being the original intention of those resources; WP:SYNTHESIS.
I'd like to help clean up this article, especially since it seems as though there's going to be a lot of contributors to it (as a new season is starting tonight), and it has a number of problems. Other editors don't seem to understand the problem with this particular section though, as they continue to add to its content despite the cleanup tags. Discussing the problem on the talk page also isn't going very well, as the only other editor discussing the issue doesn't seem to get the concept behind WP:NPOV. More time could just be required for more people to weight in though.
Due to a lack of any reliable third party sources providing criticism on the show's historical inaccuracy, I don't know what kind of solution could be found other than removing the section. It would be helpful if someone else could take a look, weigh in, or provide an idea for a solution. - Hooliganb ( talk) 00:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
In the introductory para the statement 'With his recent sex scandal whole nation is angry and burning like any thing', reflects a more personal point of view. The para on Sex Scandal again contains statements that are non-neutral. Requesting a check on this.
Two users (primarily Mani but also Alefbe) have been tag-teaming to make counter-consensus changes that push a certain point of view on the Iran article [A glance at the history [61] reveals the edit warring over languages in the info-box]. A 'discussion' is taking place at [62]. Mani proposed the changes (and unilaterally engaged in an edit war) in the fall of 2008. However, not one person supported the changes. Please take a look at [63] and [64] where you will see that seven users supported the inclusion of regional languages in the info box and only Mani supported the removal of that info. Recently, Mani has been making the unilateral changes in the same fashion as the fall of 2008. One of the problems of Wikipedia, which the readers of this noticeboard are all too familiar with, is the lack of neutrality on some articles. On the Iran-related articles a balance of powers between POV pushers has achieved neutrality (albeit transient). With the (judicious) banning of user Babakxorramdin, Mani's foe ["Look Mani. It was you who challeneged me to come to the Hague Station and I suspect the suspicious person who came to my adress was you or was connected to you. It is shamefull how far you go for a disagreement in wikipedia. It is not healthy --Babakexorramdin (talk) 09:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)] the balance of powers has been disrupted, leaving Mani to rejoice in Babakexorramdin's banning ["User Babakxorramdin which is now banned because of rude behaviour and edit wars added that wrong section to it and messed up with the form which enjoyed concensus."-???? a.k.a. User:Mani1 (talk) 09:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)] and to resume the edit wars he once fought with Babakexorramdin. In the past I struggled to keep articles neutral (Persian Gulf, for instance, where the term Arabian Gulf is mentioned in the lead because of WP:LEAD and because of my tireless efforts and despite the fact that I personally reject the use of the term Arabian Gulf), and by helping to ban notorious POV pushers (Patchouli, for instance). However, I no longer have the energy or time to constantly fight against POV pushers. Do not feel a need to post a reply here, because I am not going to watch this page. In fact, I turn over the responsibility of restoring the consensus and neutral version of the Iran article (by reverting Mani and Alefbe's edits) to those who have administrator tools. Agha Nader ( talk) 22:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
In the introductory para the statement 'With his recent sex scandal whole nation is angry and burning like any thing', reflects a more personal point of view. The para on Sex Scandal again contains statements that are non-neutral. Requesting a check on this.
Two users (primarily Mani but also Alefbe) have been tag-teaming to make counter-consensus changes that push a certain point of view on the Iran article [A glance at the history [65] reveals the edit warring over languages in the info-box]. A 'discussion' is taking place at [66]. Mani proposed the changes (and unilaterally engaged in an edit war) in the fall of 2008. However, not one person supported the changes. Please take a look at [67] and [68] where you will see that seven users supported the inclusion of regional languages in the info box and only Mani supported the removal of that info. Recently, Mani has been making the unilateral changes in the same fashion as the fall of 2008. One of the problems of Wikipedia, which the readers of this noticeboard are all too familiar with, is the lack of neutrality on some articles. On the Iran-related articles a balance of powers between POV pushers has achieved neutrality (albeit transient). With the (judicious) banning of user Babakxorramdin, Mani's foe ["Look Mani. It was you who challeneged me to come to the Hague Station and I suspect the suspicious person who came to my adress was you or was connected to you. It is shamefull how far you go for a disagreement in wikipedia. It is not healthy --Babakexorramdin (talk) 09:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)] the balance of powers has been disrupted, leaving Mani to rejoice in Babakexorramdin's banning ["User Babakxorramdin which is now banned because of rude behaviour and edit wars added that wrong section to it and messed up with the form which enjoyed concensus."-???? a.k.a. User:Mani1 (talk) 09:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)] and to resume the edit wars he once fought with Babakexorramdin. In the past I struggled to keep articles neutral (Persian Gulf, for instance, where the term Arabian Gulf is mentioned in the lead because of WP:LEAD and because of my tireless efforts and despite the fact that I personally reject the use of the term Arabian Gulf), and by helping to ban notorious POV pushers (Patchouli, for instance). However, I no longer have the energy or time to constantly fight against POV pushers. Do not feel a need to post a reply here, because I am not going to watch this page. In fact, I turn over the responsibility of restoring the consensus and neutral version of the Iran article (by reverting Mani and Alefbe's edits) to those who have administrator tools. Agha Nader ( talk) 22:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
In the introductory para the statement 'With his recent sex scandal whole nation is angry and burning like any thing', reflects a more personal point of view. The para on Sex Scandal again contains statements that are non-neutral. Requesting a check on this.
Two users (primarily Mani but also Alefbe) have been tag-teaming to make counter-consensus changes that push a certain point of view on the Iran article [A glance at the history [69] reveals the edit warring over languages in the info-box]. A 'discussion' is taking place at [70]. Mani proposed the changes (and unilaterally engaged in an edit war) in the fall of 2008. However, not one person supported the changes. Please take a look at [71] and [72] where you will see that seven users supported the inclusion of regional languages in the info box and only Mani supported the removal of that info. Recently, Mani has been making the unilateral changes in the same fashion as the fall of 2008. One of the problems of Wikipedia, which the readers of this noticeboard are all too familiar with, is the lack of neutrality on some articles. On the Iran-related articles a balance of powers between POV pushers has achieved neutrality (albeit transient). With the (judicious) banning of user Babakxorramdin, Mani's foe ["Look Mani. It was you who challeneged me to come to the Hague Station and I suspect the suspicious person who came to my adress was you or was connected to you. It is shamefull how far you go for a disagreement in wikipedia. It is not healthy --Babakexorramdin (talk) 09:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)] the balance of powers has been disrupted, leaving Mani to rejoice in Babakexorramdin's banning ["User Babakxorramdin which is now banned because of rude behaviour and edit wars added that wrong section to it and messed up with the form which enjoyed concensus."-???? a.k.a. User:Mani1 (talk) 09:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)] and to resume the edit wars he once fought with Babakexorramdin. In the past I struggled to keep articles neutral (Persian Gulf, for instance, where the term Arabian Gulf is mentioned in the lead because of WP:LEAD and because of my tireless efforts and despite the fact that I personally reject the use of the term Arabian Gulf), and by helping to ban notorious POV pushers (Patchouli, for instance). However, I no longer have the energy or time to constantly fight against POV pushers. Do not feel a need to post a reply here, because I am not going to watch this page. In fact, I turn over the responsibility of restoring the consensus and neutral version of the Iran article (by reverting Mani and Alefbe's edits) to those who have administrator tools. Agha Nader ( talk) 22:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
In the introductory para the statement 'With his recent sex scandal whole nation is angry and burning like any thing', reflects a more personal point of view. The para on Sex Scandal again contains statements that are non-neutral. Requesting a check on this.
I am currently working on a new draft of Shakespeare authorship question, a problematic article about a minority view, and would appreciate input from some uninvolved editors with specific areas of expertise (like NPOV). Here is the latest draft that I am requesting comments on: [ [73]]. Can some of you give me input on any NPOV issues that jump out at you? Please leave comments here or on my talk page. Thanks. Smatprt ( talk) 21:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I come across this article several days ago. An ip was adding several negative statements on this stub. Although they are adequately sourced and did not violate BLP, I am not sure if that violates NPOV. Can someone take a look, thanks— Chris! c/ t 22:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
The "negative" statements added were intended to provide neutrality and were sourced appropriately before someone edited the page to change the language. If those edits were intended to get the references deleted then that is simply disappointing and disingenuous.
I believe there are vested interests abusively editing this page in order to strictly portray Chris Cohan in a positive manner. Chris Cohan's efficacy in the pending sale of his NBA team is partially dependent on his public image, and therefore the rabid censoring of his wikipedia page constitutes a conflict of interest as well as a violation of wikipedia's neutrality policy.
See "just wait until he gets fired" comment from Zagalejo in the edits. Implying that once Chris Cohan is not involved with the NBA Zagalejo will not protect his image. Note that he simply deletes rather than attempting to make constructive edits.
This is called astroturfing. It is illegal to manipulate the public perceptions via anonymous means for the purposes of making money. I hope that Wikipedia will not be complicit with this behavior. -Nuck
Well then you had better watch your boy because what he is doing could be in the gray area of legality, and could potentially compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Whether he makes constructive edits is just one aspect of my grievance. I'm saying he is the problem. That is all I'm saying. -Nuck
Ok, Continued there. No threat to wikipedia whatsoever, other than the threat Zagalejo's behavior represents to wikipedia's integrity. I apologize for giving you that impression. My hope is that wikipedia will stop the questionable PR behaviors of its users.
I'm saying that Zagalejo's involvement in the Chris Cohan page constitutes astroturfing, which COULD be illegal depending on how it is being done. I've not passed any personal or legal judgment on Wikipedia at all. My hope is that they will not allow Zagalejo's behavior and I am attempting to pursue the correct avenues by posting on the notice boards. I'll stop posting here now, as it appears most of the issue has been resolved on the page. Thanks for the time and consideration.
67.180.72.59 ( talk) 00:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Tom. The editor was being heavy handed in his edits (simply deleting rather than altering language) and made poor choice of his words to suggest a possible implication of COI. My suspicion is based on precedent of astroturfing practiced by Warriors PR staff in several venues (and subsequently getting caught). I think the edit war is over and some resolution has been met in that the page is neither strictly positive or negative now. With Cohan's history, a page censored to be purely positive display of his public image would be unrepresentative of his track record and would indirectly affect his efficacy in the sale of his team. Here's a link to one of MANY incidents where Warriors PR attempted to influence the public discourse anonymously: [ [74]]
Two users (primarily Mani but also Alefbe) have been tag-teaming to make counter-consensus changes that push a certain point of view on the Iran article [A glance at the history [75] reveals the edit warring over languages in the info-box]. A 'discussion' is taking place at [76]. Mani proposed the changes (and unilaterally engaged in an edit war) in the fall of 2008. However, not one person supported the changes. Please take a look at [77] and [78] where you will see that seven users supported the inclusion of regional languages in the info box and only Mani supported the removal of that info. Recently, Mani has been making the unilateral changes in the same fashion as the fall of 2008. One of the problems of Wikipedia, which the readers of this noticeboard are all too familiar with, is the lack of neutrality on some articles. On the Iran-related articles a balance of powers between POV pushers has achieved neutrality (albeit transient). With the (judicious) banning of user Babakxorramdin, Mani's foe ["Look Mani. It was you who challeneged me to come to the Hague Station and I suspect the suspicious person who came to my adress was you or was connected to you. It is shamefull how far you go for a disagreement in wikipedia. It is not healthy --Babakexorramdin (talk) 09:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)] the balance of powers has been disrupted, leaving Mani to rejoice in Babakexorramdin's banning ["User Babakxorramdin which is now banned because of rude behaviour and edit wars added that wrong section to it and messed up with the form which enjoyed concensus."-???? a.k.a. User:Mani1 (talk) 09:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)] and to resume the edit wars he once fought with Babakexorramdin. In the past I struggled to keep articles neutral (Persian Gulf, for instance, where the term Arabian Gulf is mentioned in the lead because of WP:LEAD and because of my tireless efforts and despite the fact that I personally reject the use of the term Arabian Gulf), and by helping to ban notorious POV pushers (Patchouli, for instance). However, I no longer have the energy or time to constantly fight against POV pushers. Do not feel a need to post a reply here, because I am not going to watch this page. In fact, I turn over the responsibility of restoring the consensus and neutral version of the Iran article (by reverting Mani and Alefbe's edits) to those who have administrator tools. Agha Nader ( talk) 22:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
The article Assyrianization is correctly mentioning the assimilation by people in ancient Assyria. But user:ܥܝܪܐܩ is adding the pro-Chaldean/pro-Aramean argument that todays day Assyrians (or Syriac Christians) were "assyrianized". Non of the so called sources are stating this. This word is only used when it comes to describe the assimilation in Assyria. This is strong POV. User:ܥܝܪܐܩ is no longer discussing properly in the article's talk page, he's talking about other things and going off-topic. I've now report it because this is strong POV which shouldn't be on Wikipedia. My version 1. Shmayo ( talk) 14:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Please read the page which is used as source [79]. I can't understand what that has to do with a so called "assyrianization on Syriac Christians". I think that the "RAF's levies" that book is talking about is the Iraq Levies. Now if they were deliberating an assyrianization of the levies (which means increase the number of Assyrians in the levies?), what has that do do with what's written in the article? The truth is that this is just POV used by a part of a people that have a big naming dispute. Also it should be noted that the person who started this article wrote this to the creator of the article "Assyrian Fascism" (an article which of course was deleted): "If Assyrian Fascism is deleted, don't worry, the same ground can be covered in the Assyrianization article.". Shmayo ( talk) 16:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
As previously stated there has been creations of some very biased and in some cases even discriminating articles as "Assyrian Fascism" which was deleted shortly after though, and there is a ongoing war against Assyrian related articles on Wikipedia.
When it comes to the Assyrianization article it is correct to academically say that there was a Assyrianization of the people in ancient Assyria. However there has been no Assyrianization of Syriac Christians and there are no academical works supporting this theory. I've asked the user supporting this article two times to provide works that support this theory, yet none works are provided. -- Yohanun ( talk) 16:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Please note the other four references regarding this, and the talk page. User:Shmayo is just adamantly dismissing everything as POV. ܥܝܪܐܩ ( talk) 18:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I read what's here yes. Itsmejudith agreed with you about one source, so I have added a verification tag to that source. It is just an opinion though, just as Tisqupnaia2010's opinion; which was in agreement with mine. It doesn't qualify you to do a revert and erase everything as you did. Your English is broken today and your comment doesn't read very well. ܥܝܪܐܩ ( talk) 20:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
No that is not what she said there Shmayo. I'd discussed this already with you at length on the talk page. What more do I need say. ܥܝܪܐܩ ( talk) 23:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Two users (primarily Mani but also Alefbe) have been tag-teaming to make counter-consensus changes that push a certain point of view on the Iran article [A glance at the history [80] reveals the edit warring over languages in the info-box]. A 'discussion' is taking place at [81]. Mani proposed the changes (and unilaterally engaged in an edit war) in the fall of 2008. However, not one person supported the changes. Please take a look at [82] and [83] where you will see that seven users supported the inclusion of regional languages in the info box and only Mani supported the removal of that info. Recently, Mani has been making the unilateral changes in the same fashion as the fall of 2008. One of the problems of Wikipedia, which the readers of this noticeboard are all too familiar with, is the lack of neutrality on some articles. On the Iran-related articles a balance of powers between POV pushers has achieved neutrality (albeit transient). With the (judicious) banning of user Babakxorramdin, Mani's foe ["Look Mani. It was you who challeneged me to come to the Hague Station and I suspect the suspicious person who came to my adress was you or was connected to you. It is shamefull how far you go for a disagreement in wikipedia. It is not healthy --Babakexorramdin (talk) 09:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)] the balance of powers has been disrupted, leaving Mani to rejoice in Babakexorramdin's banning ["User Babakxorramdin which is now banned because of rude behaviour and edit wars added that wrong section to it and messed up with the form which enjoyed concensus."-???? a.k.a. User:Mani1 (talk) 09:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)] and to resume the edit wars he once fought with Babakexorramdin. In the past I struggled to keep articles neutral (Persian Gulf, for instance, where the term Arabian Gulf is mentioned in the lead because of WP:LEAD and because of my tireless efforts and despite the fact that I personally reject the use of the term Arabian Gulf), and by helping to ban notorious POV pushers (Patchouli, for instance). However, I no longer have the energy or time to constantly fight against POV pushers. Do not feel a need to post a reply here, because I am not going to watch this page. In fact, I turn over the responsibility of restoring the consensus and neutral version of the Iran article (by reverting Mani and Alefbe's edits) to those who have administrator tools. Agha Nader ( talk) 22:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I need your help. I recently created this page after I learned a page with the same name had recently been removed as an "attack page." I tried to be as balanced and accurate in my short bio, including references from several third parties. But when I finished the edit a notice of possible violation of neutral point of view was placed at the top of this page. How can I arrange to have this notice removed from this page? Hplotkin ( talk) 03:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. But as a newbe it appears my choice is between an attack bio (which was removed) and a bio that appears with a sort of "asterisk" as being suspect in some way, even though it is accurate. Would it have been smarter for me to have asked someone else, say a friend or relative, to create the bio -- with the same copy -- rather than to have openly done it myself? Thanks for your continued advice/forbearance...but under wikipedia practices, will this disclaimer always appear on my bio? Hplotkin ( talk) 04:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Okay, first I will answer your questions (and thank you for being so helpful, really). No, I can't get the President to visit your wife's school. But you might be able to. Have her send him an invitation. I understand he personally reads 10 letters a day from the public. Make a good case, and he may be able to respond. On tests and such, I promise to spend more time working on that problem once I no longer have to worry about Wikipedia containing either 1) an attack bio supposedly about me, or 2) an accurate, balanced, bio with an ugly tag, as you put it.
But here is my question, which is perhaps technical: you mentioned that if my bio generates more editors, the ugly tag will not matter, as much. But does that mean that the "ugly tag" will always be on the top of that bio? (In which case, my inclination would be to just remove the bio entirely, wouldn't you?)...
Again, it's a kind and patient soul whose willing to teach others. Believe me, I know. So thank you again for your patient help and guidance. Hplotkin ( talk) 04:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Now, if you want to know something about the problems we've had (note that I removed wife and daughter) and are still working out on Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons should offer some insight into the issues related to what we abbreviate as BLPs. Allowing such biographies goes to the heart of what Wikipedia's strong and weak points are, and there are great opportunities there for abuse (as you noticed, to your and my dismay) and misinformation, besides what is called POV-pushing ( WP:NPOV). So I hope you don't mind that I put the tag on there and won't remove it (I'm in English, but I still try to be morally consistent), and it's nothing personal (you seem a pretty balanced editor here), believe me. Good luck building a bridge to the 22nd century, and drop me a line if I can be of any assistance. In the meantime, I got a letter to write. ;) Drmies ( talk) 04:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
The article Assyrianization is correctly mentioning the assimilation by people in ancient Assyria. But user:ܥܝܪܐܩ is adding the pro-Chaldean/pro-Aramean argument that todays day Assyrians (or Syriac Christians) were "assyrianized". Non of the so called sources are stating this. This word is only used when it comes to describe the assimilation in Assyria. This is strong POV. User:ܥܝܪܐܩ is no longer discussing properly in the article's talk page, he's talking about other things and going off-topic. I've now report it because this is strong POV which shouldn't be on Wikipedia. My version 1. Shmayo ( talk) 14:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Please read the page which is used as source [84]. I can't understand what that has to do with a so called "assyrianization on Syriac Christians". I think that the "RAF's levies" that book is talking about is the Iraq Levies. Now if they were deliberating an assyrianization of the levies (which means increase the number of Assyrians in the levies?), what has that do do with what's written in the article? The truth is that this is just POV used by a part of a people that have a big naming dispute. Also it should be noted that the person who started this article wrote this to the creator of the article "Assyrian Fascism" (an article which of course was deleted): "If Assyrian Fascism is deleted, don't worry, the same ground can be covered in the Assyrianization article.". Shmayo ( talk) 16:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
As previously stated there has been creations of some very biased and in some cases even discriminating articles as "Assyrian Fascism" which was deleted shortly after though, and there is a ongoing war against Assyrian related articles on Wikipedia.
When it comes to the Assyrianization article it is correct to academically say that there was a Assyrianization of the people in ancient Assyria. However there has been no Assyrianization of Syriac Christians and there are no academical works supporting this theory. I've asked the user supporting this article two times to provide works that support this theory, yet none works are provided. -- Yohanun ( talk) 16:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Please note the other four references regarding this, and the talk page. User:Shmayo is just adamantly dismissing everything as POV. ܥܝܪܐܩ ( talk) 18:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I read what's here yes. Itsmejudith agreed with you about one source, so I have added a verification tag to that source. It is just an opinion though, just as Tisqupnaia2010's opinion; which was in agreement with mine. It doesn't qualify you to do a revert and erase everything as you did. Your English is broken today and your comment doesn't read very well. ܥܝܪܐܩ ( talk) 20:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
No that is not what she said there Shmayo. I'd discussed this already with you at length on the talk page. What more do I need say. ܥܝܪܐܩ ( talk) 23:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I was wondering if this section of the article "Ryerson University" is written in a neutral point of view.
Ryerson University is a public research university located in downtown Toronto, Canada. Its urban campus surrounds Yonge and Dundas Square, with the majority of its buildings in the blocks northeast of the square in Toronto's Garden District. The university offers many specialized programs which are unique in Canada across its five faculties, including the largest undergraduate business program in Canada by enrolment.
In addition to offering full-time and part-time undergraduate and graduate programs leading to Bachelor's, Master's and Doctoral degrees, the university also offers part time degrees, distance education and certificates through its The G. Raymond Chang School of Continuing Education, which has annual enrollment of over 65,400 students.[4]Nonetheless, their entering class average is extremely low compared to other universities. In 2009, for Business and Commerce, Ryerson University had an entrance average of 79.9%[5], whereas the University of Toronto St. George, the University of Toronto Scarborough, and York University had entrance averages of 88.5%, 88.1%, and 86.9%, respectively[6][7].
Esousa constantly deletes the part regarding entering class averages even though it is valid information. However, he/she is willing to include information, such as "the university offers many specialized programs which are unique in Canada across its five faculties", which is a subjective interpretation of "specialized" without references.
Also, in the following passage:
Ryerson is known for its programs that emphasize applicable skills. As a result, the university has established a reputation for producing graduates who are career-ready in their related fields, such as child and youth care, fashion, photography, engineering, business administration and nursing[24]. The part-time study option offered in many of Ryerson's graduate programs, such as the MBA and the M.A. in Public Policy and Administration, have made the school a choice for professionals working in business and government in the Greater Toronto Area; however, many world renowned institutions, such as the University of Toronto and McGill University have a strong status in the United States and abroad[25]. In 2009, the university ranked second in Ontario for first-choice applications from graduating high school students receiving 11 percent of Ontario's total 84,300 admission requests.[20][26]
Esousa repeatedly removes "many world renowned institutions, such as the University of Toronto and McGill University have a strong status in the United States and abroad[25]," yet keeps subjective information such as "Ryerson is known for its programs that emphasize applicable skills," "producing graduates who are career-ready in their related fields," and "The part-time study option offered in many of Ryerson's graduate programs, such as the MBA and the M.A. in Public Policy and Administration, have made the school a choice for professionals working in business and government in the Greater Toronto Area." This information, unreferenced and biased, remains in the article, but the objective and sourced information that I have included is being removed.
What can be done about the lack of neutral point of view in the article? Objectivity is Essential ( talk) 01:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Editor Ivananderson ( talk · contribs) has been making a series of obviously slanted modifications to various articles concerning The Fellowship (Christian organization). For some reason, I have Douglas Coe on my watchlist which is why I noticed but he's been causing problems for a while now. See User talk:Ivananderson, Talk:Abraham Vereide, etc. This diff is also typical. Pichpich ( talk) 18:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I have tried to eliminate what I perceive to be POV by changing " Like all of creation science, baraminology is pseudoscience and biological facts and evidence shows that all life has common ancestry" to "Like all of creation science, baraminology is considered pseudoscience by the scientific establishment and biological facts and evidence is commonly taken to show that all life has common ancestry" by consensus on the talk page, but none developed for or against. Bettering the Wiki ( talk) 04:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I have an issue with some of the above templates on BLP/NPOV grounds, and have initiated discussion on two of them. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 22:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Please see this section of Wikipedia talk:NPOV. The NPOV policy currently contains two sections on specific topics: a 534-word section on pseudoscience and a 267-word section on religion. These sections were removed last month as being too specific after an RfC was posted on April 3. [85] The pseudoscience section was moved to WP:FRINGE, [86] and the religion section removed entirely. The sections have now been restored by others on the grounds that consensus was not established, or has changed. Fresh eyes would therefore be appreciated here on talk to decide whether to restore or remove the sections. SlimVirgin talk contribs 00:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia’s article on Che Guevara, in my opinion, falls well short of Wikipedia's policy of having a neutral point of view. Writing is not just about words and facts, it’s also about how these words and facts can carefully constructed by excluded or manipulating information to convey a specific message. For example, in the entire article, there is little or no mention of opposing points of view that are supported by facts and first-hand accounts of atrocities committed by Guevara and the Cuban Revolution. For example, the Cuban Archive is a database that documents many first-hand accounts of these atrocities. That is further evidence outlined in numerous articles and books written by authors such as Humberto Fontova. The general tone of the article is positive and one can even argue that the words paint Guevara as a force of good by describing Guevara as “”…an Argentine Marxist revolutionary, physician, author, intellectual, guerrilla leader, diplomat, military theorist, and major figure of the Cuban Revolution. Since his death, his stylized visage has become a ubiquitous countercultural symbol and global insignia within popular culture.” The article continues documenting Guevara’s life in such a manner to portray him as a romantic, swashbuckling, Errol Flynn sort of character; a tireless fighter of the have-nots. Indeed, Wikipedia’s article stretches the limits of the phrase “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.”
Not surprisingly, historical figures with opposing political views are not exactly described such a sprightly manner. Take for example Wikipedia’s own article on Luis Posada Carriles. This Wikipedia article begins be describing Posada as simply “a Cuban-born Venezuelan anti-communist militant.” The article then immediately continues to document Posada’s so-called “terrorist” activities which ultimately accounts for the vast majority of the content in the article. There are little or no inspiring anecdotes about Posada’s past, his experiences as a youth or the ornate language as was the case in the Guevara article. While many of the facts concerning Posada’s “terrorist” activities are largely accurate, it is how these two articles convey vastly different messages – Guevara as a romantic “freedom fighter” and Posada as simply a CIA-backed “terrorist”. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abarreras ( talk • contribs) 05:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Are articles in the simple english wikipedia under the same rules as articles in the regular WP in terms of NPOV? Thanks Becritical ( talk) 19:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
If NPOV is the same in the simple english wikipedia, do we not need to do something about this theory? Here is the article on WP. Looks to me that someone has been using the SEW to spread their POV. Becritical ( talk) 15:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you that statements such as this
In 2004, President George Bush gave not eight but sixteen years for a manned return to the Moon, even though the technologies for it should have already been developed forty years earlier.
are easy to find on the simple Wikipedia article and not in the Wikipedia article for moon landing conspiracies. I also agree with you that that statements of this sort are not NPOV and need to be corrected. WP:Be Bold in changing these things; work with editors there on discussion boards, and please return here for help if anyone gives you trouble about the changes you are making. Blue Rasberry 17:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
context). But "Moon conspiracy theorists say that even though the technologies for it should have already been developed 40 years earlier, in 2004 President George Bush gave not eight but 16 years for a manned return to the Moon." is more NPOV. Tom Reedy ( talk) 12:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
First, in the interest of full disclosure, let me say that I am an employee of Home Depot, but do not hold any kind of executive or management position, and I am not acting as a representive of the company in any way.
Now then, I'm concerned about the above linked section. I don't dispute the factual accuracy of the text, as it does seem to be supported by reliable sources, but it seems to give undue weight to a single court case. My thought is that it might be best to condense the current section to a shorter summary and add it to a new section with information on other Home Depot-related court cases, but I'd like advice and input from other editors before proceeding.-- Fyre2387 ( talk • contribs) 18:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I never thought such literal-mindedness existed before I began editing at Wikipedia. I was trying to make a serous point about a problem that I see is endemic at Wikipedia, namely that a lot of individuals, groups, and companies see it as free Web space for their purposes. Sooner or later this is going to have to be addressed if it is to move beyond being a punch line. There are some good articles on Wikipedia, but most that I've seen are wretched due to the democratic nature of the editing process. People who are knowledgeable about a subject don't want to spend the majority of their time defending their edits against uninformed POV editors who manipulate the system to push their agenda. And who wants to spend the time rewriting an article about Home Depot, for Christ's sake? Not I. Tom Reedy ( talk) 21:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
There are a particular couple of lines in this article about a painting by Italian Renaissance artist Caravaggio. "This is not a pallid faith. Caravaggio has exterminated all the cherubim that infest the Virgin like flies in Carracci's adjacent Assumption." Infest the Virgin like flies? I wouldn't know how to fix this, but this doesn't read like an encyclopedic article. 75.84.184.44 ( talk) 06:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
For those not already involved in the question at the Media Matters for America article and Talk, please evaluate the following for neutral point of view:
The sources are as follows:
I can provide excerpts from the sources if needed.-- Drrll ( talk) 17:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I thought you people wanted some outside opinions from disinterested editors about whether a statement complied with WP:NPOV, but I see you merely wanted another place to squabble. Pardon my intrusion; carry on. Tom Reedy ( talk) 03:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
The first source listed above (the book by Gerth and Van Natta) is neither primary nor reliable secondary. See Gene Lyons' book "Fools for Scandal: How the Media Invented Whitewater" in which Gerth and Van Natta are the main antagonists, discussed in-depth at PBS:Frontline (excerpted from Harper's) -- starting with Gerth's pieces for the NYT which were "not particularly fair or balanced stories that combine a prosecutorial bias and the art of tactical omission.." PrBeacon ( talk) 01:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi! I notice that a user posted a message on the article's talk page stating his belief that parts of the page are not NPOV towards immigrants. As a note the article passed good article standards in 2008 ([ the passed version) WhisperToMe ( talk) 13:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
That article is a war zone. The critique section and the article's history should make it obvious why. Lots of wp:spas and IPs editing it both ways. Pcap ping 14:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Historical information about Saint Joseph, the father of Jesus, is being systematically excluded from the page by two editors.
Here's the latest of many deletions. [89]
Here's information suggested on Talk and turned down by the same editors.
He was a Jewish builder from Nazareth in Galilee, living some two thousand years ago. At that time, Galilee was a backwater exploited by Romans and far from the Holy City of Jerusalem. Nazareth itself was a tiny, poor village, excluded from the nearby wealthy Hellenic city of Sepphoris. Joseph was a builder, working in wood and stone. He was married to Mary and was the father of the famous Jesus. He also fathered four other sons (James, Judas, Joses/Joseph, and Simon) and some daughters. Unlike Mary and James, Joseph played no role in Jesus' ministry or in the Christian church in Jerusalem. Scholars offer various explanations for why Mark refers to Jesus as Mary's son rather than as Joseph's, such as that Joseph had died or that Jesus was illegitimate. Most historians consider Joseph to be Jesus' biological father, though some contend that Mary may have been seduced or raped by another man. In any event, in Joseph's culture a son's legitimacy was defined by the father's acceptance of the boy, not by biological paternity.
The other editors say this information is not relevant to the topic and is covered in other articles. It looks to me like people not giving the historical perspective a fair shake because it's a religious topic. Leadwind ( talk) 23:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
There is currently a disagreement on neutrality that is hindering improvement to the East Africa page. It centres around whether or not to mention an unrecognised state within the outline of this geographic region's composition.
The bulleted part (see top) of this outline is based on the United Nations geoscheme for Africa, which is a geographical grouping of countries for statistical purposes. Because the UN does not recognise the existence of Somaliland as a separate state of its own, its name will not be mentioned in this source. No editor is proposing tampering with this definition, which is strictly a reflection of the source. The second part of the outline (see directly underneath) defines the region in a purely geographic sense, and uses multiple sources. Inclusion of the red text is disputed on the grounds that it doesn't belong on a list of countries:
East Africa is often used to specifically refer to the area now comprising the countries of Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda, and (in a wider sense) also Rwanda, Burundi, Somalia (including the breakaway republic of Somaliland), Djibouti, Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Sudan. [citations omitted]
Inclusion was proposed initially because neutral policy would normally dictate that all sides to a dispute be represented. Sovereignty over Somaliland is a prominent dispute in current affairs. It is listed in the List of states with limited recognition and List of sovereign states.
Sources used will also need to be checked for neutrality.
No discussion has taken place on the talk page because an identical (and rather lengthy) argument surrounding the inclusion of the same name on a template took place here and concluded here, and involved the same editors. Night w ( talk) 05:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
"The Government does not recognize Somaliland as an independent state, neither does the rest of the international community. The UK has signed up to a common EU position and to many UN Security Council Presidential Statements, which refer to the territorial integrity and unity of Somalia."
The above by Midday clears up any confusion as to what the definition of East Africa is in mainstream literature, several wikipedia lists or templates where the inclusion of Somaliland is systematically pushed from a biased perspective through sheer weight of numbers(which is wrongfully portrayed as being 'concensus') does not equal 'a new mainstream definition' that is used by 'neutral sources' -- Scoobycentric ( talk) 14:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with everything stated above by Night w regarding the circumstances in this case. I would direct commenting editors to the List of states with limited recognition page for some background in this area of International Politics and very strongly encourage a reading of the prev. discussion here and here as noted above also. The treatment of disputes from an objective perceptive is key for any encyclopedia. I strongly believe we should not take sides in international disputes. Treating states with limited recognition as equal to one another is therefore very important. Those who take sides in these conflicts should really try to check their POV at the door when they come to improve the project; in this case, that has not happened. Wikipedians are people, and people can be very nationalistic sometimes leading them to become very combative in their editing. Taking sides in international disputes on wikipedia is rarely productive.
In regards to pages that have to do with this state I have had been told/called so many things and quoted so many WP policies guidelines (though often incorrectly). Some times I am spreading propaganda, sometimes I am the 'separatists' themselves, sometimes I am soap-boxing, sometimes when I use sources provided by others arguing - those sources are no longer valid, sometimes I am an advocate, and on and on. I really want this issue settled, because there are many pages across the project that need to be rendered neutral. Hopefully in this discussion, excessively long repetitive comments will not rule the day. I do not want to find consensus on a subject, only to move on to another page and have the same edits challenged by the same few editors.
Be wary, this discussion is NOT about Somaliland's international status. No one disputes the fact that no state recognizes it currently. No one disputes the fact that no international organization recognizes it currently. Somaliland exists as a de facto state only, and is defined as such by outside observers. The best article on the subject that I have found is here: http://yalejournal.org/article/de-facto-statehood-strange-case-somaliland [90]
As far as edits of mine above are concerned as quoted by Midday; the first is me adding a redirect on the list of sovereign states page. I do not understand how that is relevant. The second confirms only that I am involved with this dispute. I did not add Somaliland to Wikipedia, it was on those lists long before I came along. Please do not break up my comment. To all editors here, feel free to talk to me on my talk page. Thanks. Outback the koala ( talk) 02:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
To Middayexpress:
I sympathise with Outback's frustration over this. I always try to assume good faith when disagreeing with editors, but on rare occasions you come across certain users who will persist again and again, no matter how many instances occur in which they're forced to concede to policy and consensus. In this case, there are editors involved who are incredibly knowledgable on the subject, and have the potential to make great improvements to the site, but their ability to make unbiased, encyclopædic edits is thwarted by a conflict of interest with their subject. Night w ( talk) 06:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
1) The part of the article the sentence occupies is not the UN list, but the secondary definition: "East Africa is often used to specifically refer to the area now comprising the countries of . . ."
2) The second ref given states "Somaliland located in the north part of Somalia in East Africa is a small country . . ."
3) I am constantly amazed at Wikipedeans failure to find and use up-to-date sources. A simple search on Amazon and using the "Search inside this book" feature turned up Understanding Somalia and Somaliland: Culture, History and Society (2008), which refers to Somaliland as a republic while discussing its lack of diplomatic recognition, and even uses the term "breakaway republic" on p. 121.
3) This article concerns a geographical designation, not a political demarcation. In geography, the term " country" is used to designate a geographical region. The geographical region in question is generally designated by the name "Somaliland," whether it is or isn't an independent nation.
4) The sentence doesn't say Somaliland is a sovereign nation, so any objections based on that reason do not apply. In fact, it states that Somaliland is part of Somolia with the status of a "breakaway republic", which appears to be a correct description. Somaliland appears to engage in informal diplomatic activities; it has been autonomous since 1991 with no effort on the part of Somalia to force it back into the state of Somalia that I have been able to discover; it has its own army; and the people don't pay taxes to Somalia. But it's not recognised by other countries, so its status is a kind of twilight zone of sovereignty. It's not a matter of urgency to other countries because it is small and poor.
5) The purpose of Wikipedia is to convey information to as many people as possible. Some of those people, obviously, consider Somaliland to be an independent, sovereign nation. Others don't, so it is a matter of dispute. Most people don't care and haven't thought about it. The purpose of the sentence is to convey what geographical regions are included in the term "East Africa." Those who consider Somaliland an independent nation would wonder why it wasn't on the list if it were left off; those who don't consider it an independent nation would note that it is designated as part of Somalia.
The sentence as quoted would satisfy everyone except those who are active partisans on either side. Wikipedia is not written to settle scores, succor either side in a dispute, or declare which side is correct; Wikipedia is written to convey correct information to the largest number of people. By doing so in no way does it portray a slanted point of view by using the language in the sentence, in my opinion.
To recap, the sentence does not state Somaliland is an independent nation; Somaliland is the term used to describe the geographical area in question as evidenced by the ref in 2) above, and the article is about the definition of a geographical area. Tom Reedy ( talk) 04:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
The part of the article the sentence occupies is not the UN list, but the secondary definition: "East Africa is often used to specifically refer to the area now comprising the countries of . . ."
The second ref given states "Somaliland located in the north part of Somalia in East Africa is a small country . . ."
I am constantly amazed at Wikipedeans failure to find and use up-to-date sources. A simple search on Amazon and using the "Search inside this book" feature turned up Understanding Somalia and Somaliland: Culture, History and Society (2008), which refers to Somaliland as a republic while discussing its lack of diplomatic recognition, and even uses the term "breakaway republic" on p. 121.
"Thus when the union was formed, its precise legal effects had not been laid down in any instrument having binding force in both parts of the State. As explained below, the matter was clarified seven months later by the adoption of a new Act of Union with retroactive effect from July 1, 1960 for the whole territory of the Republic ...To dispel any uncertainties, it was thought desirable, as a first step, to enact a law applicable to the whole territory of the Republic, defining the legal effects of the union with as much precision as possible. This was done on January 31, 1961, six months after unification, when the National Assembly adopted by acclamation a new Act of Union, which repealed the Union of Somaliland and Somalia Law, and which was made retroactive as from July 1, 1960."
Middayexpress ( talk) 05:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)"One component of the structural defects of this vigorous campaign for "Somaliland" administration within the geographical confines of Hargeisa and its vicinities is the infringement of the Act of Union, a fundamental error emanating from an arbitrary means of dissolving the union of Somalia."
Middayexpress ( talk) 04:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)"It is not sufficient to discuss an opinion as fact merely by stating "some people believe...", a practice referred to as "mass attribution". [31] A reliable source supporting a statement that a group holds an opinion must accurately describe how large this group is."
An observation ( objective) expresses a fact. An interpretation ( subjective) expresses an opinion. A fact can be asserted without simon-says inline-text phrasing. An opinion must be attributed to so-and-so said.
This article concerns a geographical designation, not a political demarcation. In geography, the term " country" is used to designate a geographical region. The geographical region in question is generally designated by the name "Somaliland," whether it is or isn't an independent nation.
The sentence doesn't say Somaliland is a sovereign nation, so any objections based on that reason do not apply. In fact, it states that Somaliland is part of Somolia with the status of a "breakaway republic", which appears to be a correct description. Somaliland appears to engage in informal diplomatic activities; it has been autonomous since 1991 with no effort on the part of Somalia to force it back into the state of Somalia that I have been able to discover; it has its own army; and the people don't pay taxes to Somalia. But it's not recognised by other countries, so its status is a kind of twilight zone of sovereignty. It's not a matter of urgency to other countries because it is small and poor.
"While the United States does not recognize Somaliland as an independent state, we continue regularly to engage with Somaliland as a regional administration and to support programs that encourage democratization and economic development in the Somaliland region. We have consistently voted for United Nations Security Council resolutions reaffirming respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity, political independence, and unity of Somalia.
"The Somaliland president, Dahir Rayale Kahin, is regarded more as a governor by other nations, even though he considers himself to be as much a president as, say, Thabo Mbeki of South Africa, Mwai Kibaki of Kenya or Olusegun Obasanjo of Nigeria, three prominent presidents on this continent."
"The Somaliland passport — which bears the region's logo and looks as official as any other nation's — is not recognized by any country in the world, although the neighboring countries of Ethiopia and Djibouti do allow people to travel with it while still not officially recognizing Somaliland as a country."
"Independence does not rely solely on whether it is deserved, but on the existing realpolitik. Sadly for Somaliland, they fall between the cracks in international law and cannot win the argument for de jure recognition while Somalia remains without a viable government, so they must instead push for de facto recognition – which no one is willing to offer."
The purpose of Wikipedia is to convey information to as many people as possible. Some of those people, obviously, consider Somaliland to be an independent, sovereign nation. Others don't, so it is a matter of dispute. Most people don't care and haven't thought about it. The purpose of the sentence is to convey what geographical regions are included in the term "East Africa." Those who consider Somaliland an independent nation would wonder why it wasn't on the list if it were left off; those who don't consider it an independent nation would note that it is designated as part of Somalia.
The sentence as quoted would satisfy everyone except those who are active partisans on either side. Wikipedia is not written to settle scores, succor either side in a dispute, or declare which side is correct; Wikipedia is written to convey correct information to the largest number of people. By doing so in no way does it portray a slanted point of view by using the language in the sentence, in my opinion.
"...if an extradition treaty exists with Ethiopia, which like the rest of the world does not recognize Somaliland's independence and therefore cannot enter into any treaty with it." -- Human Rights Watch, July 2009
How about we stopped focusing on Middayexpress as a person and started processing the information he has posted here, instead of trying to bully him into pariah status? It's laughable that we have individuals attacking Middayexpress for being elaborate and posting verifiable information, when they themselves were the ones who were blatantly using wrong sources on the East Africa article in question to support their edits, even in this very discussion a very lengthy case for Somaliland was made through multiple points and sources proven to be directly/in-directly connected to the seccessionist cause, and used to nicely synthesize a sentence that is never proclaimed in the original sources, when these points were addressed and refuted through the use of sources not connected to the Somali government, suddenly nobody wants to continue the discussion? Interesting. -- Scoobycentric ( talk) 00:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 20 |
I had posted that I observed that the articles on Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Osteopathy, Naturopathy, Chiropractic etc. are good and positive and there are forks to the articles on Christianity, Islam and Hinduism which contain all the criticism. The article on Homeopathy as well as its fork for criticism (' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Homeopathy/Criticism'), on the other hand, are both negative and bad; so can we make the article on Homeopathy good and positive like all the other articles and put all the criticism on its fork? If there's a rule that both articles should be full of criticism, then we must make the matter in the criticism fork available in the main article for Christianity, Islam and Hinduism also. I got these replies on the Talk:Homeopathy page:-
I somehow feel there is a bias in that article, so can we do something?- Dr.Vittal ( talk) 15:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Undent. Again I must invoke WP:PARENT. This commentary and these studies were already brought up elsewhere, and have already been commented on. Please centralize discussion in one location - chances are talk:homeopathy is the best place. Bringing up the same material in multiple locations wastes time. If need be, ask individual editors to direct their comments to a single page where the discussion is taking place. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 18:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
A discussion pertaining to NPOV is currently taking place here, please join. Unomi ( talk) 17:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I want to report what I believe are NPOV violations by the user UplinkAnsh at the article on PNS Ghazi, a Pakistani submarine that sank during the 1971 Indo-Pak War. Some Indian sources claim the Indian Navy definitely sank the submarine. Others state it is only "probable" that Indian depth charges sank the submarine (according to an interview with the then Indian Naval commander Admiral Nanda). Pakistani sources claim the submarine sank in an accident during mine-laying operations. UplinkAnsh keeps editing the article in such a way that it appears Indian sources contain the only truth, the Indian naval commander is wrong and Pakistani sources are merely propaganda or "face saving".
Diff of my edits:
Diff of reversion of my edits by UplinkAnsh:
In my edits I was separating the claims of India/Indian sources from those which both Pakistani and Indian sources agree on. Mainly the text on the Indian warship "hunting" the Pakistani submarine. Pakistani sources state several possibilities which would have caused the submarine to have been sunk without seeing combat with the Indian warship, but UplinkAnsh portrays the story as though the Indian version is the only version.
Please note also that in the Aftermath section, UplinkAnsh has used an Indian source in the "Pakistani version" sub-section to counter claims by Pakistani sources. My attempt to move this source to the "Indian version" sub-section was reverted by him.
On the talk page, UplinkAnsh states the following:
I believe he is implying that the Indian point of view is the only version worth showing while the Pakistani point of view is not worth mentioning. He also makes claims, both on the talk page and in his edits, that are not referenced (original research).
I first reported UplinkAnsh for his edits at the Wikiquette Alerts page (link), where the user User:Gerardw decided it was not a Wikiquette Alerts issue, gave a short block to myself and UplinkAnsh for edit-warring and directed me towards other noticeboards. He also made the following edits:
I believe that UplinkAnsh's continued non-neutral edits and reverting of my changes prove that he does not intend to edit the article according to the NPOV policy. Although he does offer to discuss the matter, he still refuses to acknowledge that the Indian version may not be the only true version. I feel that some kind of action should be taken against him but I'd rather seek help here first than be turned away at the administrators' noticeboard because it is a "mere content dispute". Should I take this to Requests For Comment, Dispute Resolution or Requests For Mediation? Thanks.
--
Hj108 (
talk) 13:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Hj108 you are the only one here who completely relies on his own origional research. You must realise that your views based on a private site(which might be your own or of some friend of yours) does not represent "a side". You can cite reliable Pakistani sources that back your claim to help improve the article but unless you do so do not disuss your own views and original research. You yourself have not proved any thing or cited any source and so do not be a hypocrite by asking for evidence rejecting all cited sources. The "accident theory" is defiantely a "fringe/minority" theory because only the private site supports it except your own thoughts and all other sources point otherwise.
Regarding Admiral Nanda's statement I would repeat what I said on the talk page. Admiral Nanda does not doubt that if the submarine was "sunk" or "lost in unknown circumstances". He clearly states "The blow-up was there". The use of word "probably" you are so keen on is used to show that he is unsure about the number of depth charges that damaged Ghazi as more than one were fired.
Also calling all the sources in the article to be biased and your own views to be correct only shows that you are the onle one who is biased. Now you have added another website "battleships-cruisers.co.uk" which you think to be biased and unreliable.-- UplinkAnsh ( talk) 19:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Network TwentyOne is an independent global training organisation for supporting Amway independent business owners. There are dozens of such companies. In 2006/2007 The UK Department of Trade and Industry instigated an investigation into Amway's operations in the UK and petitioned to wind up Amway and two associated training companies over which DTI had jurisdiction, Britt WorldWide and Network TwentyOne. At present we have just one RS source regarding BERRs allegations that mentions Network TwentyOne [3]. In 2008 the case against Amway was dismissed [4], and I sourced a copy of the court order confirming the dismissal of the case against Network 21. There are no other sources regarding the case against N21. In my opinion, with regards the article on Network TwentyOne the case is barely notable but when rewriting the article after an AfD submission I included it in the interest of achieving consensus with other editors such as FinanceGuy222, who appears to me to have a clear POV against the company. FG222 is now wishing to expand the section including details of the allegations against Amway (again, Amway won the case) and is stating allegations made by the plaintiffs as factual. Again, these aren't even allegation against N21, but against Amway. I am deleting them under WP:V however he persists. Third party opinions appreciated. Talk discussion is here [5]-- Insider201283 ( talk) 11:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Insider is renowned for having a ridiculously pro Amway/N21/MLM stance, runs a large number of pro Amway websites, and has been accused multiple times of being a paid shill/WP:COI, and has admitted to being a member. As mentioned Insider posted the source in the first place to establish notability, and now doesn't like that the court case has been put in context. He had inserted it into the article implying N21 was suing for libel over a movie showing "happy people clapping", which is plain ridiculous, and a laughable POV. The source above and article state the true reason for legal action. If the UK government tries to shut down Amway and Network 21, and investigates them for a year, that is a very major and serious legal undertaking, and deserves coverage in the article.
Amway section you questioned above I have removed. Financeguy222 ( talk) 12:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
The article is very confusing - I don't understand the leap the article makes to an documentary about Amway (yes I know the founders were also involved with amway) - is N21 mentioned in this documentary? -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 12:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Please point out what is not accurate, and unsourced and it obviously will be edited.
Yes you added the controversy section, with controversies and statements slanted in favour of amway/n21. With statements implying n21 were defamed for the movie showing "happy people clapping". The real controversy was that they were aligned with Hitler and communist rallies. The section needs that to put the controversy/court case in context, it is not being presented as fact. Financeguy222 ( talk) 01:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Insider is persistently removing whole sections of the article, including sourced statements that do not benefit his amway business, for which he supplied the source in the first place. Financeguy222 ( talk) 01:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
The Wikipedia articles on Human Terrain System and Human Terrain Teams have undergone much revision in the last several months. Sadly, many of these revisions reflect non-NPOV. Along with the non-NPOV problem, the revisions have inflicted the articles with much unverified and/or unreferenced information. These problems reflect badly on Wikipedia. I've posted my plea for more NPOV on the articles talk pages, but I fear that our "advocating" editors will overlook (or ignore) my plea. So, please assist. I invite you to help revise the pages to make them somewhat scholarly. At the very least, please refrain from letting your personal point of view infect the articles you write or contribute to. This plea is not just for the HTS and HTT articles -- it applies to all contributions you make. Thank you. -- Srich32977 ( talk) 07:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
This is hardly a critical subject, but there's been an ongoing issue with the TV series The Marriage Ref, where the article is mostly quotes of reviewers who don't like the show and criticism of its ratings and how its first episode postponed the very end of the Olympics closing ceremonies on the East Coast. There's not a whole lot about the actual show. 72.244.207.30 ( talk) 21:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Pope Benedict XVI has attracted a number of less experienced editors who are arguing over the amount of content (see Talk:Pope Benedict XVI) a recent news story deserves. I am doing my best to keep the talk page debate under control, but another experienced editor or two helping out would be great. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 18:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Does "The use of one of these words (scandal) in an article should be qualified by attributing it to the party that uses it." mean that the actual text of the article needs to identify who has called it a scandal or simply that the sentence must be sourced to a WP:RS by a footnote [10]. MM 207.69.139.142 ( talk) 20:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
This page is constantly being whitewashed by somebody to the point where some portions of it make little sense.
For example, the Animal Services section now reads: During the election, Villaraigosa appeared before a coalition of animal rights activists and pledged if elected he would implement a no-kill policy for Animal Services and fire General Manager Guerdon Stuckey, an appointee of former Mayor Hahn.
That is all it says. It means nothing. Why is it even there?
At one time, this section read:
During the election, Villaraigosa appeared before a coalition of animal rights activists and pledged if elected he would implement a no-kill policy for Animal Services and fire General Manager Guerdon Stuckey, an appointee of former Mayor Hahn. Stuckey earned the ire of animal rights activists for what they considered to be his lack of experience, a bungled city spay/neuter contract, refusal to cooperate with the Los Angeles Animal Commission and excessive euthanasia of animals held by Animal Services. Stuckey's supporters claimed that he had been reducing the number of animals killed in the city every year. After the animal community caused an onslaught of negative press about the mayor's failure to keep his promise, Villaraigosa fired Stuckey. Stuckey appealed the firing to the City Council and threatened a lawsuit. The council awarded Stuckey a $50,000 consulting fee with the agreement that there would be no lawsuit. Sympathy for Stuckey by some council members was partly in reaction to a campaign against Stuckey by some that included a smoke bomb and picketing. In addition, there was concern for racial discrimination because Stuckey is black. Villaraigosa then appointed Ed Boks to the General Manager position. [35] An August 12, 2008 Los Angeles Times article describes animal advocates' concern regarding staff cuts that will have a disproportionate impact on 154 animal technicians and the 2,400 animals they care for. "Although Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa planned to cut 767 jobs this year, the shelter workers may end up being the only people to lose jobs at City Hall. In other departments, workers whose jobs were eliminated could be moved to other departments where their skills could be used...[T]he cuts meant more than just lost jobs. Thousands of animals would suffer as well." [36] Ironically, City Controller Laura Chick notes that the City of Los Angeles "is losing out on millions of dollars by not enforcing existing laws and collecting fees and fines, such as with dog licenses." Further, after an audit, Chick claims that the Los Angeles Animal Services Department "has no plan to educate the public regarding mandatory sterilization and how they can comply. In fact, the City Council instituted a six-month grace period till the ordinance goes into effect this October to give the Department the opportunity to prepare the public. Now on the eve of its enactment, the Department has done little to promote awareness or compliance with the law,” said Chick.[2] April 24, 2009 Villaraigosa's appointed General Manager Ed Boks was forced to resign after City Council demanded that he be fired because of poor performance and legal scandals. [37] A New York City judge ruled that Ed Boks had racially discriminated against an African American man whom he fired when he was the General Manager of New York City Animal Care and Control. [38] The City of LA then settled a sexual harassment claim against Boks and the City by Mary Cummins a female employee and volunteer. [39]
Perhaps some of the above text is not proper for the page, but to yank all of it to the point that it becomes nonsense? That is not proper at all, and contrary to the spirit of wikipedia, not only as an unbiased source, but as an information resource.
I also verified a "failed verification" tag after finding the quoted statement in the refered document. Disputed verification referred to the sentence "The mayor also campaigned last fall for two education bond measures that will increase the size of property tax bills over the next decade." Referring document found at http://articles.latimes.com/2009/apr/23/local/me-fees23 states, "The mayor also campaigned last fall for two education bond measures that will increase the size of property tax bills over the next decade."
There are similar examples. I have placed a POV flag on the page until the matter is resolved.
thank you
wikigratia
Wikigratia ( talk) 05:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I would like this thread to stay open until comments are received by uninvolved editors. It has been a long wait, but certainly someone will help out with this. All these boards have long waits, but eventually things get taken care of. Zlykinskyja ( talk) 15:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Another week has gone by without anybody intervening; it's now been a fortnight since I first opened this thread, which I think now qualifies for non-admin closure by thread starter. Please do not reopen; let's try to work this out on the MoMK talk page. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 11:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I have re-opened the thread, to allow for more time for editors to comment in this very important issue. This type of NPOV issue permeates the entire article, and comment and advice is greatly needed. Zlykinskyja ( talk) 14:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Non-admin closure by thread starter as no uninvolved editor commented. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 13:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I need your help; there's a POV issue, related to this article. I think that another user is pushing POV ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher&diff=next&oldid=351990679). I tried discussing it on the talk page, but obtained nothing; i tried editing the article, she undid my edit. Now I'd like your opinion.
My suggestion | Her suggestion |
---|---|
In March of 2010, Knox won a lawsuit against Fiorenza Sarzanini, director of Corriere della Sera Paolo Mieli, RCS Quotidiani S.p.A. and RCS Libri S.p.A. magazines, for violation of her privacy and illegal publication of Court documents. Sarzanini had written and Mieli published the book "Amanda e gli altri" ("Amanda and the Others") , that contains long excerpts from Knox's diary as well as from questionings of witnesses, that were not in the public domain; the book also included intimate details, professing to be about Knox's sex life.
[11] Knox's lawyers had asked for $677.000 in damages, but were awarded only $55.000 plus $ 6.200 in legal costs. [12] |
THIS IS NOT CORRECT. According to her lawyers, there was extensive prejudicial pretrial publicity against Knox, which included a book and some magazine articles published just prior to her trial that contained purported excerpts from her private diary and notebooks.
[13] These materials had originally been seized by the police.
[14]
[15] Copies of the diary and notebooks were somehow acquired by the journalist from the government. The book included lurid details purporting to be about Knox's alleged sex life.
[16][www.komonews.com/news/local/35260544.html] At the time of the publication of the book, the Knox family stated: "This seems to be yet another example of the continued leaks designed to harm Amanda's character as there is no evidence to tie her to the brutal and senseless murder of Meredith Kercher. She is innocent." [www.komonews.com/news/local/35260544.html] In January 2009, just as her trial was getting underway, Knox filed a lawsuit against the author, Fiorenza Sarzanini, director of Corriere della Sera Paolo Mieli, RCS Quotidiani S.p.A. and RCS Libri S.p.A. magazines, claiming that allegations in the book and magazines were false and that he had no right of access to her private diary and notebooks. [17] According to her lawyers, the book was part of a "smear campaign' against Knox, focusing on her alleged sexual obsessions. [http:www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5509951.ece] [18] The lawyers for Knox claimed information from Knox's notebooks and diary had been "reported in a prurient manner, aimed solely at arousing the morbid imagination of readers." [19] Her lawyers claimed: "This crosses the limits of legitimate exercise of the rights of the press." [20] They contended that Knox had suffered from "incredible and misleading" media coverage that was "in violation of the general principles safeguarding personal information and dignity." [21] The Knox lawyers also objected to the way their client had been depicted in the press in general, claiming the media had done "everything in its power" to create "an absolutely negative portrayal" of their client. [22] The lawyers filed complaints with a Milan court and with Italy's privacy watchdog. [23] In March of 2010, Knox won her lawsuit against the Italian author for invading her privacy and defaming her. [24] According to Knox's Italian lawyer, Carlo dalla Vedova, the verdict in Knox's favor is further proof that the jury in the criminal case--in which she was convicted of sexual assault and other charges--was negatively influenced by prejudicial publicity against her, and that the prosecution's characterization of her was "completely wrong". [25] |
Thanks for your help.
You can call me Salvio (
talk) 17:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
The table is accurate, the diffs prove it. And I did not warn you on your user page, because you usually call it harassment and wikihounding and tend to erase everything there that does not agree with your ideas; I wrote it on the talk page of the article, though, where you have been very active, certain you would read. Anyway, if I have erred, I apologise. You can call me Salvio ( talk) 20:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Just wondering what are you trying to do here...
{{User:Erebedhel/Templates/TxtA |title1 = His censored version |title2 = My new section |pos1 =
Anyway, this diff proves you wrong: [27] And this explains my concerns: [28]
That said, from now onwards, I'll only respond to uninvolved editors. You can call me Salvio ( talk) 23:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
You interfered with my edits when you added characters that stopped me from going forward with my attempt to prepare my own version of the chart. Zlykinskyja ( talk) 15:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Salvio's censored version | Zylinskyja's new section |
---|---|
In March of 2010, Knox won a lawsuit against Fiorenza Sarzanini, director of Corriere della Sera Paolo Mieli, RCS Quotidiani S.p.A. and RCS Libri S.p.A. magazines, for violation of her privacy and illegal publication of Court documents. Sarzanini had written and Mieli published the book "Amanda e gli altri" ("Amanda and the Others") , that contains long excerpts from Knox's diary as well as from questionings of witnesses, that were not in the public domain; the book also included intimate details, professing to be about Knox's sex life.
[29] Knox's lawyers had asked for $677.000 in damages, but were awarded only $55.000 plus $ 6.200 in legal costs. [30] |
Title of new Section: Issue of prejudicial pretrial publicity and trial impact
According to her lawyers, family and some media, there was extensive prejudicial pretrial publicity against Knox which tainted the public perception of her. [3] [4] Knox's mother complained that bloggers and newspapers had been free to "assassinate her daughter's character." [5] Simon Hattenstone of the Guardian newspaper described the situation as: "This is not simply trial by media, it is trial by Facebook and blog." [6] This negative publicity also included a book and some magazine articles published just prior to her trial that contained purported excerpts from her private diary and notebooks. [7] These materials had originally been seized by the police. [8] [9] Copies of the diary and notebooks were somehow acquired by the journalist from the government. The book included lurid details purporting to be about Knox's alleged sex life. [10] [11] At the time of the publication of the book, the Knox family stated: "This seems to be yet another example of the continued leaks designed to harm Amanda's character as there is no evidence to tie her to the brutal and senseless murder of Meredith Kercher. She is innocent." [12] In January 2009, just as her trial was getting underway, Knox filed a lawsuit against the author, Fiorenza Sarzanini, director of Corriere della Sera Paolo Mieli, RCS Quotidiani S.p.A. and RCS Libri S.p.A. magazines, claiming that allegations in the book and magazines were false and that he had no right of access to her private diary and notebooks. [13]According to her lawyers, the book was part of a "smear campaign' against Knox, focusing on her alleged sexual obsessions. [14] [15] The lawyers for Knox claimed information from Knox's notebooks and diary had been "reported in a prurient manner, aimed solely at arousing the morbid imagination of readers." [16] Her lawyers claimed: "This crosses the limits of legitimate exercise of the rights of the press." [17] They contended that Knox had suffered from "incredible and misleading" media coverage that was "in violation of the general principles safeguarding personal information and dignity." [18] The Knox lawyers also objected to the way their client had been depicted in the press in general, claiming the media had done "everything in its power" to create "an absolutely negative portrayal" of their client. [19] The lawyers filed complaints with a Milan court and with Italy's privacy watchdog. [20] In March of 2010, Knox won her lawsuit against the Italian author for invading her privacy and defaming her. [21] According to Knox's Italian lawyer, Carlo dalla Vedova, the verdict in Knox's favor is further proof that the jury in the criminal case--in which she was convicted of sexual assault and other charges--was negatively influenced by prejudicial publicity against her, and that the prosecution's characterization of her was "completely wrong". [22] [23] |
Kwenchin ( talk) 09:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Zlykinskyja talks of censorship but in a article about a book does not name the book. Kwenchin ( talk) 09:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I have suggested that the title of the article Great Pacific Garbage Patch may not be totally inline with Wikipedia:NPOV. I made this suggestion on the Talk page four days ago, and tagged the article
{{ POV-title}}<!-- See talk page to discuss. Added by User:N2e -->
in order to encourage a discussion. Less than a day later, one of the regular editors of that page removed the {{ POV}} tag, although s/he then did add comments to the Talk page. A second regular editor of that page has supported removal of the tag. I believe that the removal of that POV tag will short-circuit a full and open discussion of the merits of the proposal, by not inviting other editors who read or work on the article to look at the Talk page and weigh in.
I would appreciate a few additional editor-eyes on the topic.
Thanks for reading this and considering participating. Cheers, N2e ( talk) 19:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
An editor Captain Occam ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has claimed that this article is not written from a neutral point of view. I am unable to see why he thinks that is so, so am asking for some kind of discussion on that here. The article in particular covers two historical events, in the early seventies and mid-nineties, where two groups of scientists came into conflict. The subject has been fairly well documented by historians of psychology and I have attempted to use sources that discuss the specific topic in some depth (i.e. several consecutive pages devoted to this sole topic). I can't see what's not neutral about the article; I have summarised the sources, trying not to omit anthing. I have never before been accused of not writing neutrally. As far as I'm aware, I don't have any particular personal view on either side. ere
There does also seem to be a WP:TAG TEAM in action, coordinated by Captain Occam. A team of editors, active on Race and intelligence, mainly WP:SPAs, who edit very little else. One editor Distributivejustice ( talk · contribs) posted on the talk page of the article, for the first time following a message from Captain Occam on his talk page. He tagged the page for neutrality without giving any cogent reason, so I removed the tag. I have in fact privately informed a member of ArbCom about Captain Occam's campaign of disruption and might have to post a report, independent of this request, on WP:ANI if this tag teaming continues. Mathsci ( talk) 06:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Please look at this diff: [31]
Smatprt keeps inserting fringe material into the article and deleting the sourced scholarly consensus, as well as other details. The source he cites, Elizabeth Appleton, An Anatomy of the Marprelate Controversy 1588-1596: Retracing Shakespeare's Identity and that of Martin Marprelate was published by The Edwin Mellen Press, which is a publisher of non-peer reviewed books unedited from camera-ready copy supplied by the author and is even described by the owner as a "publisher of last resort."
In addition, its associated "university", Mellen University (from which the author of this source received a PhD), is a diploma mill where you can get a BA, MA, or PhD based on "life experience" after paying $995 in "tuition" and a one-hour telephone consultation: [33]
From Lingua Franca archives:
While this content dispute is part of a larger dispute (see above), I think this case of POV is so clear-cut it needs to be addressed quickly. No amount of discussion with him seems to penetrate. Tom Reedy ( talk) 17:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
The article is much closer to a self-promotional pamphlet than an encyclopaedia article. I would have to quote the whole article to reveal the tone, but these are two examples (note especially the invitations to contact their admissions department).
Officially recognized by the Ministry of Education and Culture of the Community of Madrid, the Madrid campus offers education of the highest quality at an affordable price. It works with a cloister of the best universities in Europe and the United States and has students from more than 65 different nations.
Application Deadlines:
For Spring Semester:
October 15 (Non-EU students) December 15 (Spanish and EU students)
For Summer I Session:
March 30
For Summer II Session:
April 30
For Fall Semester:
April 30 (Non-EU students) August 1 (Spanish and EU students)
Deadline extensions may be granted. Contact the Office of Admissions (admissions@madrid.slu.edu) for further details. Application requirements:
Secondary school transcript and one of the following:
SAT / ACT score report I.B. diploma University entrance exam (email admissions@madrid.slu.edu for more information)
In fact, most of the article repeats word for word whole passages from the university's own webpage [34], and contains a great deal of irrelevant information, such as the whole listing of their academic trips and application deadlines. Swfwtwlf0909 ( talk) 00:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I have also asked on RSN for input as to two references given in the Platine War article, but there do appear to be fundamental differences between editors on this article. It would be helpful to have input from uninvolved editors to go over the article for PoV. An editor has made recent edits here citing works by Pacho O'Donnell and Diego Abad de Santillán. The most troubling to me is the use of the former to justify a lowering of the number killed by the dictator Juan Manuel de Rosas from a figure of between 2,000 and 20,000 to "80". As this seems to be quite a radical departure from the sources I've read, I'm wondering whether this author/source is pushing a fringe view that needs to be included?
The discussion on Talk:Platine War seems to be turning into Platine War II. • Astynax talk 03:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
First, if this is not the correct noticeboard, please direct me to it.
I've been involved in disputes with Smatprt on more than one occasion because differences of opinion in editing the Shakespeare authorship question article. I have been educating myself on Wikipedia policies and I believe that his strategy of wedging references to the Shakespeare authorship question (particularly Oxfordism) into other articles violates WP:ONEWAY, in particular the first sentence, “Fringe theories should be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way (my emphasis).” The only sources that mention the Shakespeare authorship question in connection to these topics are questionable sources that promote the fringe theory that someone besides Shakespeare wrote the works attributed to him.
I have been following the "what links here" on the SAQ page and deleting the mentions of the topic from articles about mainstream subjects into which he and other anti-Stratfordians have inserted them. He has been following my edits and reverting them. I've reverted a few of them back, which were promptly reverted by him. I don't want to get in a revert war and would appreciate the perspectives of some uninvolved editors. I asked three other editors who have acted as referees between us before, but their patience has worn thin and one of them directed us to follow dispute resolution.
Here are the diffs to my edits:
Here are the diffs of Smatprt’s reversions of my edits:
Here are the discussions between us about this on on his talk page and on on my talk page.
I would like to get this settled because it wastes both of our time. Tom Reedy ( talk) 18:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
This has been discussed at considerable length in several places, and I don't suppose that a few more words will persuade Smatprt to change their attitude, but for what it's worth as I see it the issues are (1) Smatprt tries to present fringe views as though they were far more mainstream than they are (2) no matter how much discussion takes place Smatprt will not accept that consensus is against him/her (3) a lot of argument about side issues have to some extent obscured the fact that those are the essential issues. JamesBWatson ( talk) 10:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
From my standpoint, we have a POV warrior who is intent on deleting mentions of minority viewpoints'. Smatprt
The College of the Humanities page reads in large parts like promotional materials for this particular school at Carleton University, and furthermore the editing history shows that it was mostly written by a professor (Gregory MacIsaac) at said school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Terrible tony ( talk • contribs) 17:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Political tendency discussion I have had a little discussion as regards this whole article, it is in my opinion very POV and with multiple issues. I brought up for discussion this section on the talkpage, its content is supported by a couple of editors there, I removed this comment which is nothing more than a tabloid insult
The Daily Mirror has described the party's MEPs as "vile prophets who preach a Nazi-style doctrine of racial hatred". reference...James Lyons and Tom Parry, "The truth about fascist National Front past of Britain's two new BNP members in Europe", Daily Mirror, 9 July 2009..
it was very quickly replaced by an editor with the edit summary of reliable source making a valid political point.
The daily mirror is a very tabloid paper, a valid political point? Its a name calling insult, the british daily mirror's political opinions are not of any notable value at all, it is just an insult, is this content of any value? Off2riorob ( talk) 15:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
The Daily Mirror has described the party's MEPs as "vile prophets who preach a Nazi-style doctrine of racial hatred". reference...James Lyons and Tom Parry, "The truth about fascist National Front past of Britain's two new BNP members in Europe", Daily Mirror, 9 July 2009..
I have removed it and it has been replaced. Is this content to be kept? Is the Daily Mirror's opinionated tabloid commentary to be considered as a reliable source making a valid political point can I quote this and insert the political opinions of the daily mirror at other locations? I don't think any neutral person would claim such a thing. Off2riorob ( talk) 20:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
The Daily Mirror has described the party's MEPs as "vile prophets who preach a Nazi-style doctrine of racial hatred". I think that people think that by making a topic that they dislike reflect badly it is a good thing, but it is not, it weakens the whole wikipedia and diminishes our general respect as a neutral resource. Off2riorob ( talk) 11:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
The Daily Mirror has described the party's MEPs as "vile prophets who preach a Nazi-style of racial hatred". [24] An editorial in The Guardian characterises the BNP as "a racist organisation with a fascist pedigree that rightfully belongs under a stone". [25] Liberal Democrats leader Nick Clegg has described the BNP as "a party of thugs, fascists". [26] Conservative Party leader David Cameron said of the BNP "If you vote for the BNP you are voting for a bunch of fascists... They dress up in a suit and knock on your door in a nice way but they are still Nazi thugs." [27] Home Secretary Alan Johnson, speaking on BBC's Question Time (15 October 2009) said, "These people believe in the things that the fascists believed in the second world war, they believe in what the National Front believe in. They believe in the purity of the Aryan race. It is a foul and despicable party and however they change their constitution they will remain foul and despicable." [28] [29] Peter Hain describes the BNP as "a racist organisation with known fascist roots and values" and wrote about its "racist and fascist agenda". [30]
Thanks for commenting Stephen, your editing on the article has been some of the most neutral and attempting to improve it that I have seen, and this comment is not about you. Improving the article has got nothing to do with the election, we can and should do it now..this is one of the misconceptions that POV editors have , that if they keep an article reflective of their POV it will affect the real world that is the biggest destructive misconception to the article and to the whole wikipedia, creating a poor biased article that reflects your own point of view does nothing apart from reducing the respect that neutral people have for our articles and reduces our reputation and actually defeats the original objective of demeaning the subject, all it actually does is demean the whole respect for wikipedia. Off2riorob ( talk) 19:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Would it be too much to ask for the offended party to quote which Wikipedia policy has been violated? Tom Reedy ( talk) 20:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Would it be too much to ask for the offended party to quote which Wikipedia policy has been violated? Tom Reedy ( talk) 21:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
There is an interesting min POV dispute going on at Temple Mount and Eretz Yisrael Faithful Movement I think it could really use the input of some more editors. 71.237.210.137 ( talk) 00:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello,
this article doesn't seem very neutral. It is likely written by the person itself. Poppy ( talk) 13:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
There has been an on-going discussion regarding which units of measure – imperial or metric - should be given precedence in the Falkland Islands set of articles. For the record the islands are claimed by both the United Kingdom and by Argentina, but are under de facto British control.
I have recently asserted that choice of units of measure can reflect a POV, in the same way that language does and therefore that giving precedence to imperial units of measure as a matter of course in the Falkland Islands set of article falls foul of NPOV. My reasoning is that in most circumstance either metric or imperial units are acceptable in the United Kingdom but the Argentine only uses metric units. Furthermore, in spite of the Argentine occupation of 1982, the Falkland Islands Government uses metric units on all of its websites. Is the assertion regarding NPOV justified? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinvl ( talk • contribs) 13:45, 19 April 2010
If this series of articles concerns the Falkland Islands then I would expect it to follow Falkland Island conventions, whatever they might be.
UK conventions (which despite a large number historical exceptions are often metric due to the adoption of the system in British schools) should probably have little or no influence on the usage in those articles, which are not part of the UK.
If Islanders commonly use one or the other system, then I would expect the article to defer to that usage unless there is an overriding reason not to do so.
I think the argument that metric is unacceptable because a certain geopolitical entity with a claim on the Islands uses metric is probably a red herring. If as somebody claims the Falkland Islands government uses mostly metric units in its own publications, then that would seem to be a fairly good refutation of the latter argument.
We should really look to see what is commonly used by Islanders, and I couldn't predict what that might be. Tasty monster (= TS ) 18:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I am also annoyed by Michael Glass continually bringing these things up at WP:MOSNUM, but here we seem to be close to the underlying problem, so I am not opposed to discussing things here once more.
The general guidance for the UK may or may not be applicable to the Falkland Islands. Some islands that belong to one culture but lie close to another have special features in their weights and measures practices. What dominates? Trade and travel with nearby islands and the continent, which are all metric, or trade and travel with the UK? I guess a lot of the food will come from the continent (and be packaged metrically). On the other hand, there is no strong pressure to metricate road distances or things like body height, and the island with a population of 3,000 has a British military force of 500, who are no doubt bringing mainland UK preferences with them.
There isn't much by way of Falkland Island newspapers. I found only one Falklands-related story there that used any measure at all, and it talked about "40ft articulated lorries". There is also this evidence that Falklanders use miles on their street signs (as I guess they are obliged to do by law, although there might be special local exceptions, or they might just ignore the law as unpractical; but it seems they are not doing this). Thus it seems to be clear that for road traffic purposes, the Falkland Islands use the UK system.
On the other hand, I searched for certain terms on [48] and found the following:
Two particularly interesting documents are the Road Traffic Bill 2008
and the brochure Falkland Islands – ... sustaining a secure future:
Taking all this together, I think metric first for everything except road distances might be the most reasonable consistent choice for the islands. Hans Adler 09:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
First of all I would like to pay tribute to Hans Adler for all the work he has put into finding out what Falkland Islanders so. Secondly, I feel that "metric first for everything except road distances might be the most reasonable consistent choice for the islands" might be the position that is most likely to meet with general approval. I think the sticking points in [60] are in the following clauses:
If this was changed to something like this:
I think it would answer most of the concerns that have been expressed. It would certainly be more flexible than a rule that forces a "miles first" rule. Remember that MOSNUM says:
MOSNUM does not say:
I don't claim that this is the last word on the topic, but I hope that this suggestion will help us towards a decision that will be generally acceptable. Michael Glass ( talk) 12:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
NOTE: This noticeboard is intended for advice concerning specific NPOV issues. Please be concise.
Which part of the above don't people understand?
Pls take note. This is not the forum for yet more tendentious debate on units. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 12:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
This section of the article discusses the various factual inaccuracies of the show, which do seem to appear. However, none of the content in this section has been collected from a resource discussing the show's inaccuracy. The section was written by an editor who has assembled various resources to support their own opinion of the show, despite that not being the original intention of those resources; WP:SYNTHESIS.
I'd like to help clean up this article, especially since it seems as though there's going to be a lot of contributors to it (as a new season is starting tonight), and it has a number of problems. Other editors don't seem to understand the problem with this particular section though, as they continue to add to its content despite the cleanup tags. Discussing the problem on the talk page also isn't going very well, as the only other editor discussing the issue doesn't seem to get the concept behind WP:NPOV. More time could just be required for more people to weight in though.
Due to a lack of any reliable third party sources providing criticism on the show's historical inaccuracy, I don't know what kind of solution could be found other than removing the section. It would be helpful if someone else could take a look, weigh in, or provide an idea for a solution. - Hooliganb ( talk) 00:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
In the introductory para the statement 'With his recent sex scandal whole nation is angry and burning like any thing', reflects a more personal point of view. The para on Sex Scandal again contains statements that are non-neutral. Requesting a check on this.
Two users (primarily Mani but also Alefbe) have been tag-teaming to make counter-consensus changes that push a certain point of view on the Iran article [A glance at the history [61] reveals the edit warring over languages in the info-box]. A 'discussion' is taking place at [62]. Mani proposed the changes (and unilaterally engaged in an edit war) in the fall of 2008. However, not one person supported the changes. Please take a look at [63] and [64] where you will see that seven users supported the inclusion of regional languages in the info box and only Mani supported the removal of that info. Recently, Mani has been making the unilateral changes in the same fashion as the fall of 2008. One of the problems of Wikipedia, which the readers of this noticeboard are all too familiar with, is the lack of neutrality on some articles. On the Iran-related articles a balance of powers between POV pushers has achieved neutrality (albeit transient). With the (judicious) banning of user Babakxorramdin, Mani's foe ["Look Mani. It was you who challeneged me to come to the Hague Station and I suspect the suspicious person who came to my adress was you or was connected to you. It is shamefull how far you go for a disagreement in wikipedia. It is not healthy --Babakexorramdin (talk) 09:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)] the balance of powers has been disrupted, leaving Mani to rejoice in Babakexorramdin's banning ["User Babakxorramdin which is now banned because of rude behaviour and edit wars added that wrong section to it and messed up with the form which enjoyed concensus."-???? a.k.a. User:Mani1 (talk) 09:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)] and to resume the edit wars he once fought with Babakexorramdin. In the past I struggled to keep articles neutral (Persian Gulf, for instance, where the term Arabian Gulf is mentioned in the lead because of WP:LEAD and because of my tireless efforts and despite the fact that I personally reject the use of the term Arabian Gulf), and by helping to ban notorious POV pushers (Patchouli, for instance). However, I no longer have the energy or time to constantly fight against POV pushers. Do not feel a need to post a reply here, because I am not going to watch this page. In fact, I turn over the responsibility of restoring the consensus and neutral version of the Iran article (by reverting Mani and Alefbe's edits) to those who have administrator tools. Agha Nader ( talk) 22:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
In the introductory para the statement 'With his recent sex scandal whole nation is angry and burning like any thing', reflects a more personal point of view. The para on Sex Scandal again contains statements that are non-neutral. Requesting a check on this.
Two users (primarily Mani but also Alefbe) have been tag-teaming to make counter-consensus changes that push a certain point of view on the Iran article [A glance at the history [65] reveals the edit warring over languages in the info-box]. A 'discussion' is taking place at [66]. Mani proposed the changes (and unilaterally engaged in an edit war) in the fall of 2008. However, not one person supported the changes. Please take a look at [67] and [68] where you will see that seven users supported the inclusion of regional languages in the info box and only Mani supported the removal of that info. Recently, Mani has been making the unilateral changes in the same fashion as the fall of 2008. One of the problems of Wikipedia, which the readers of this noticeboard are all too familiar with, is the lack of neutrality on some articles. On the Iran-related articles a balance of powers between POV pushers has achieved neutrality (albeit transient). With the (judicious) banning of user Babakxorramdin, Mani's foe ["Look Mani. It was you who challeneged me to come to the Hague Station and I suspect the suspicious person who came to my adress was you or was connected to you. It is shamefull how far you go for a disagreement in wikipedia. It is not healthy --Babakexorramdin (talk) 09:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)] the balance of powers has been disrupted, leaving Mani to rejoice in Babakexorramdin's banning ["User Babakxorramdin which is now banned because of rude behaviour and edit wars added that wrong section to it and messed up with the form which enjoyed concensus."-???? a.k.a. User:Mani1 (talk) 09:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)] and to resume the edit wars he once fought with Babakexorramdin. In the past I struggled to keep articles neutral (Persian Gulf, for instance, where the term Arabian Gulf is mentioned in the lead because of WP:LEAD and because of my tireless efforts and despite the fact that I personally reject the use of the term Arabian Gulf), and by helping to ban notorious POV pushers (Patchouli, for instance). However, I no longer have the energy or time to constantly fight against POV pushers. Do not feel a need to post a reply here, because I am not going to watch this page. In fact, I turn over the responsibility of restoring the consensus and neutral version of the Iran article (by reverting Mani and Alefbe's edits) to those who have administrator tools. Agha Nader ( talk) 22:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
In the introductory para the statement 'With his recent sex scandal whole nation is angry and burning like any thing', reflects a more personal point of view. The para on Sex Scandal again contains statements that are non-neutral. Requesting a check on this.
Two users (primarily Mani but also Alefbe) have been tag-teaming to make counter-consensus changes that push a certain point of view on the Iran article [A glance at the history [69] reveals the edit warring over languages in the info-box]. A 'discussion' is taking place at [70]. Mani proposed the changes (and unilaterally engaged in an edit war) in the fall of 2008. However, not one person supported the changes. Please take a look at [71] and [72] where you will see that seven users supported the inclusion of regional languages in the info box and only Mani supported the removal of that info. Recently, Mani has been making the unilateral changes in the same fashion as the fall of 2008. One of the problems of Wikipedia, which the readers of this noticeboard are all too familiar with, is the lack of neutrality on some articles. On the Iran-related articles a balance of powers between POV pushers has achieved neutrality (albeit transient). With the (judicious) banning of user Babakxorramdin, Mani's foe ["Look Mani. It was you who challeneged me to come to the Hague Station and I suspect the suspicious person who came to my adress was you or was connected to you. It is shamefull how far you go for a disagreement in wikipedia. It is not healthy --Babakexorramdin (talk) 09:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)] the balance of powers has been disrupted, leaving Mani to rejoice in Babakexorramdin's banning ["User Babakxorramdin which is now banned because of rude behaviour and edit wars added that wrong section to it and messed up with the form which enjoyed concensus."-???? a.k.a. User:Mani1 (talk) 09:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)] and to resume the edit wars he once fought with Babakexorramdin. In the past I struggled to keep articles neutral (Persian Gulf, for instance, where the term Arabian Gulf is mentioned in the lead because of WP:LEAD and because of my tireless efforts and despite the fact that I personally reject the use of the term Arabian Gulf), and by helping to ban notorious POV pushers (Patchouli, for instance). However, I no longer have the energy or time to constantly fight against POV pushers. Do not feel a need to post a reply here, because I am not going to watch this page. In fact, I turn over the responsibility of restoring the consensus and neutral version of the Iran article (by reverting Mani and Alefbe's edits) to those who have administrator tools. Agha Nader ( talk) 22:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
In the introductory para the statement 'With his recent sex scandal whole nation is angry and burning like any thing', reflects a more personal point of view. The para on Sex Scandal again contains statements that are non-neutral. Requesting a check on this.
I am currently working on a new draft of Shakespeare authorship question, a problematic article about a minority view, and would appreciate input from some uninvolved editors with specific areas of expertise (like NPOV). Here is the latest draft that I am requesting comments on: [ [73]]. Can some of you give me input on any NPOV issues that jump out at you? Please leave comments here or on my talk page. Thanks. Smatprt ( talk) 21:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I come across this article several days ago. An ip was adding several negative statements on this stub. Although they are adequately sourced and did not violate BLP, I am not sure if that violates NPOV. Can someone take a look, thanks— Chris! c/ t 22:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
The "negative" statements added were intended to provide neutrality and were sourced appropriately before someone edited the page to change the language. If those edits were intended to get the references deleted then that is simply disappointing and disingenuous.
I believe there are vested interests abusively editing this page in order to strictly portray Chris Cohan in a positive manner. Chris Cohan's efficacy in the pending sale of his NBA team is partially dependent on his public image, and therefore the rabid censoring of his wikipedia page constitutes a conflict of interest as well as a violation of wikipedia's neutrality policy.
See "just wait until he gets fired" comment from Zagalejo in the edits. Implying that once Chris Cohan is not involved with the NBA Zagalejo will not protect his image. Note that he simply deletes rather than attempting to make constructive edits.
This is called astroturfing. It is illegal to manipulate the public perceptions via anonymous means for the purposes of making money. I hope that Wikipedia will not be complicit with this behavior. -Nuck
Well then you had better watch your boy because what he is doing could be in the gray area of legality, and could potentially compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Whether he makes constructive edits is just one aspect of my grievance. I'm saying he is the problem. That is all I'm saying. -Nuck
Ok, Continued there. No threat to wikipedia whatsoever, other than the threat Zagalejo's behavior represents to wikipedia's integrity. I apologize for giving you that impression. My hope is that wikipedia will stop the questionable PR behaviors of its users.
I'm saying that Zagalejo's involvement in the Chris Cohan page constitutes astroturfing, which COULD be illegal depending on how it is being done. I've not passed any personal or legal judgment on Wikipedia at all. My hope is that they will not allow Zagalejo's behavior and I am attempting to pursue the correct avenues by posting on the notice boards. I'll stop posting here now, as it appears most of the issue has been resolved on the page. Thanks for the time and consideration.
67.180.72.59 ( talk) 00:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Tom. The editor was being heavy handed in his edits (simply deleting rather than altering language) and made poor choice of his words to suggest a possible implication of COI. My suspicion is based on precedent of astroturfing practiced by Warriors PR staff in several venues (and subsequently getting caught). I think the edit war is over and some resolution has been met in that the page is neither strictly positive or negative now. With Cohan's history, a page censored to be purely positive display of his public image would be unrepresentative of his track record and would indirectly affect his efficacy in the sale of his team. Here's a link to one of MANY incidents where Warriors PR attempted to influence the public discourse anonymously: [ [74]]
Two users (primarily Mani but also Alefbe) have been tag-teaming to make counter-consensus changes that push a certain point of view on the Iran article [A glance at the history [75] reveals the edit warring over languages in the info-box]. A 'discussion' is taking place at [76]. Mani proposed the changes (and unilaterally engaged in an edit war) in the fall of 2008. However, not one person supported the changes. Please take a look at [77] and [78] where you will see that seven users supported the inclusion of regional languages in the info box and only Mani supported the removal of that info. Recently, Mani has been making the unilateral changes in the same fashion as the fall of 2008. One of the problems of Wikipedia, which the readers of this noticeboard are all too familiar with, is the lack of neutrality on some articles. On the Iran-related articles a balance of powers between POV pushers has achieved neutrality (albeit transient). With the (judicious) banning of user Babakxorramdin, Mani's foe ["Look Mani. It was you who challeneged me to come to the Hague Station and I suspect the suspicious person who came to my adress was you or was connected to you. It is shamefull how far you go for a disagreement in wikipedia. It is not healthy --Babakexorramdin (talk) 09:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)] the balance of powers has been disrupted, leaving Mani to rejoice in Babakexorramdin's banning ["User Babakxorramdin which is now banned because of rude behaviour and edit wars added that wrong section to it and messed up with the form which enjoyed concensus."-???? a.k.a. User:Mani1 (talk) 09:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)] and to resume the edit wars he once fought with Babakexorramdin. In the past I struggled to keep articles neutral (Persian Gulf, for instance, where the term Arabian Gulf is mentioned in the lead because of WP:LEAD and because of my tireless efforts and despite the fact that I personally reject the use of the term Arabian Gulf), and by helping to ban notorious POV pushers (Patchouli, for instance). However, I no longer have the energy or time to constantly fight against POV pushers. Do not feel a need to post a reply here, because I am not going to watch this page. In fact, I turn over the responsibility of restoring the consensus and neutral version of the Iran article (by reverting Mani and Alefbe's edits) to those who have administrator tools. Agha Nader ( talk) 22:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
The article Assyrianization is correctly mentioning the assimilation by people in ancient Assyria. But user:ܥܝܪܐܩ is adding the pro-Chaldean/pro-Aramean argument that todays day Assyrians (or Syriac Christians) were "assyrianized". Non of the so called sources are stating this. This word is only used when it comes to describe the assimilation in Assyria. This is strong POV. User:ܥܝܪܐܩ is no longer discussing properly in the article's talk page, he's talking about other things and going off-topic. I've now report it because this is strong POV which shouldn't be on Wikipedia. My version 1. Shmayo ( talk) 14:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Please read the page which is used as source [79]. I can't understand what that has to do with a so called "assyrianization on Syriac Christians". I think that the "RAF's levies" that book is talking about is the Iraq Levies. Now if they were deliberating an assyrianization of the levies (which means increase the number of Assyrians in the levies?), what has that do do with what's written in the article? The truth is that this is just POV used by a part of a people that have a big naming dispute. Also it should be noted that the person who started this article wrote this to the creator of the article "Assyrian Fascism" (an article which of course was deleted): "If Assyrian Fascism is deleted, don't worry, the same ground can be covered in the Assyrianization article.". Shmayo ( talk) 16:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
As previously stated there has been creations of some very biased and in some cases even discriminating articles as "Assyrian Fascism" which was deleted shortly after though, and there is a ongoing war against Assyrian related articles on Wikipedia.
When it comes to the Assyrianization article it is correct to academically say that there was a Assyrianization of the people in ancient Assyria. However there has been no Assyrianization of Syriac Christians and there are no academical works supporting this theory. I've asked the user supporting this article two times to provide works that support this theory, yet none works are provided. -- Yohanun ( talk) 16:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Please note the other four references regarding this, and the talk page. User:Shmayo is just adamantly dismissing everything as POV. ܥܝܪܐܩ ( talk) 18:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I read what's here yes. Itsmejudith agreed with you about one source, so I have added a verification tag to that source. It is just an opinion though, just as Tisqupnaia2010's opinion; which was in agreement with mine. It doesn't qualify you to do a revert and erase everything as you did. Your English is broken today and your comment doesn't read very well. ܥܝܪܐܩ ( talk) 20:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
No that is not what she said there Shmayo. I'd discussed this already with you at length on the talk page. What more do I need say. ܥܝܪܐܩ ( talk) 23:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Two users (primarily Mani but also Alefbe) have been tag-teaming to make counter-consensus changes that push a certain point of view on the Iran article [A glance at the history [80] reveals the edit warring over languages in the info-box]. A 'discussion' is taking place at [81]. Mani proposed the changes (and unilaterally engaged in an edit war) in the fall of 2008. However, not one person supported the changes. Please take a look at [82] and [83] where you will see that seven users supported the inclusion of regional languages in the info box and only Mani supported the removal of that info. Recently, Mani has been making the unilateral changes in the same fashion as the fall of 2008. One of the problems of Wikipedia, which the readers of this noticeboard are all too familiar with, is the lack of neutrality on some articles. On the Iran-related articles a balance of powers between POV pushers has achieved neutrality (albeit transient). With the (judicious) banning of user Babakxorramdin, Mani's foe ["Look Mani. It was you who challeneged me to come to the Hague Station and I suspect the suspicious person who came to my adress was you or was connected to you. It is shamefull how far you go for a disagreement in wikipedia. It is not healthy --Babakexorramdin (talk) 09:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)] the balance of powers has been disrupted, leaving Mani to rejoice in Babakexorramdin's banning ["User Babakxorramdin which is now banned because of rude behaviour and edit wars added that wrong section to it and messed up with the form which enjoyed concensus."-???? a.k.a. User:Mani1 (talk) 09:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)] and to resume the edit wars he once fought with Babakexorramdin. In the past I struggled to keep articles neutral (Persian Gulf, for instance, where the term Arabian Gulf is mentioned in the lead because of WP:LEAD and because of my tireless efforts and despite the fact that I personally reject the use of the term Arabian Gulf), and by helping to ban notorious POV pushers (Patchouli, for instance). However, I no longer have the energy or time to constantly fight against POV pushers. Do not feel a need to post a reply here, because I am not going to watch this page. In fact, I turn over the responsibility of restoring the consensus and neutral version of the Iran article (by reverting Mani and Alefbe's edits) to those who have administrator tools. Agha Nader ( talk) 22:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I need your help. I recently created this page after I learned a page with the same name had recently been removed as an "attack page." I tried to be as balanced and accurate in my short bio, including references from several third parties. But when I finished the edit a notice of possible violation of neutral point of view was placed at the top of this page. How can I arrange to have this notice removed from this page? Hplotkin ( talk) 03:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. But as a newbe it appears my choice is between an attack bio (which was removed) and a bio that appears with a sort of "asterisk" as being suspect in some way, even though it is accurate. Would it have been smarter for me to have asked someone else, say a friend or relative, to create the bio -- with the same copy -- rather than to have openly done it myself? Thanks for your continued advice/forbearance...but under wikipedia practices, will this disclaimer always appear on my bio? Hplotkin ( talk) 04:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Okay, first I will answer your questions (and thank you for being so helpful, really). No, I can't get the President to visit your wife's school. But you might be able to. Have her send him an invitation. I understand he personally reads 10 letters a day from the public. Make a good case, and he may be able to respond. On tests and such, I promise to spend more time working on that problem once I no longer have to worry about Wikipedia containing either 1) an attack bio supposedly about me, or 2) an accurate, balanced, bio with an ugly tag, as you put it.
But here is my question, which is perhaps technical: you mentioned that if my bio generates more editors, the ugly tag will not matter, as much. But does that mean that the "ugly tag" will always be on the top of that bio? (In which case, my inclination would be to just remove the bio entirely, wouldn't you?)...
Again, it's a kind and patient soul whose willing to teach others. Believe me, I know. So thank you again for your patient help and guidance. Hplotkin ( talk) 04:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Now, if you want to know something about the problems we've had (note that I removed wife and daughter) and are still working out on Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons should offer some insight into the issues related to what we abbreviate as BLPs. Allowing such biographies goes to the heart of what Wikipedia's strong and weak points are, and there are great opportunities there for abuse (as you noticed, to your and my dismay) and misinformation, besides what is called POV-pushing ( WP:NPOV). So I hope you don't mind that I put the tag on there and won't remove it (I'm in English, but I still try to be morally consistent), and it's nothing personal (you seem a pretty balanced editor here), believe me. Good luck building a bridge to the 22nd century, and drop me a line if I can be of any assistance. In the meantime, I got a letter to write. ;) Drmies ( talk) 04:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
The article Assyrianization is correctly mentioning the assimilation by people in ancient Assyria. But user:ܥܝܪܐܩ is adding the pro-Chaldean/pro-Aramean argument that todays day Assyrians (or Syriac Christians) were "assyrianized". Non of the so called sources are stating this. This word is only used when it comes to describe the assimilation in Assyria. This is strong POV. User:ܥܝܪܐܩ is no longer discussing properly in the article's talk page, he's talking about other things and going off-topic. I've now report it because this is strong POV which shouldn't be on Wikipedia. My version 1. Shmayo ( talk) 14:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Please read the page which is used as source [84]. I can't understand what that has to do with a so called "assyrianization on Syriac Christians". I think that the "RAF's levies" that book is talking about is the Iraq Levies. Now if they were deliberating an assyrianization of the levies (which means increase the number of Assyrians in the levies?), what has that do do with what's written in the article? The truth is that this is just POV used by a part of a people that have a big naming dispute. Also it should be noted that the person who started this article wrote this to the creator of the article "Assyrian Fascism" (an article which of course was deleted): "If Assyrian Fascism is deleted, don't worry, the same ground can be covered in the Assyrianization article.". Shmayo ( talk) 16:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
As previously stated there has been creations of some very biased and in some cases even discriminating articles as "Assyrian Fascism" which was deleted shortly after though, and there is a ongoing war against Assyrian related articles on Wikipedia.
When it comes to the Assyrianization article it is correct to academically say that there was a Assyrianization of the people in ancient Assyria. However there has been no Assyrianization of Syriac Christians and there are no academical works supporting this theory. I've asked the user supporting this article two times to provide works that support this theory, yet none works are provided. -- Yohanun ( talk) 16:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Please note the other four references regarding this, and the talk page. User:Shmayo is just adamantly dismissing everything as POV. ܥܝܪܐܩ ( talk) 18:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I read what's here yes. Itsmejudith agreed with you about one source, so I have added a verification tag to that source. It is just an opinion though, just as Tisqupnaia2010's opinion; which was in agreement with mine. It doesn't qualify you to do a revert and erase everything as you did. Your English is broken today and your comment doesn't read very well. ܥܝܪܐܩ ( talk) 20:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
No that is not what she said there Shmayo. I'd discussed this already with you at length on the talk page. What more do I need say. ܥܝܪܐܩ ( talk) 23:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I was wondering if this section of the article "Ryerson University" is written in a neutral point of view.
Ryerson University is a public research university located in downtown Toronto, Canada. Its urban campus surrounds Yonge and Dundas Square, with the majority of its buildings in the blocks northeast of the square in Toronto's Garden District. The university offers many specialized programs which are unique in Canada across its five faculties, including the largest undergraduate business program in Canada by enrolment.
In addition to offering full-time and part-time undergraduate and graduate programs leading to Bachelor's, Master's and Doctoral degrees, the university also offers part time degrees, distance education and certificates through its The G. Raymond Chang School of Continuing Education, which has annual enrollment of over 65,400 students.[4]Nonetheless, their entering class average is extremely low compared to other universities. In 2009, for Business and Commerce, Ryerson University had an entrance average of 79.9%[5], whereas the University of Toronto St. George, the University of Toronto Scarborough, and York University had entrance averages of 88.5%, 88.1%, and 86.9%, respectively[6][7].
Esousa constantly deletes the part regarding entering class averages even though it is valid information. However, he/she is willing to include information, such as "the university offers many specialized programs which are unique in Canada across its five faculties", which is a subjective interpretation of "specialized" without references.
Also, in the following passage:
Ryerson is known for its programs that emphasize applicable skills. As a result, the university has established a reputation for producing graduates who are career-ready in their related fields, such as child and youth care, fashion, photography, engineering, business administration and nursing[24]. The part-time study option offered in many of Ryerson's graduate programs, such as the MBA and the M.A. in Public Policy and Administration, have made the school a choice for professionals working in business and government in the Greater Toronto Area; however, many world renowned institutions, such as the University of Toronto and McGill University have a strong status in the United States and abroad[25]. In 2009, the university ranked second in Ontario for first-choice applications from graduating high school students receiving 11 percent of Ontario's total 84,300 admission requests.[20][26]
Esousa repeatedly removes "many world renowned institutions, such as the University of Toronto and McGill University have a strong status in the United States and abroad[25]," yet keeps subjective information such as "Ryerson is known for its programs that emphasize applicable skills," "producing graduates who are career-ready in their related fields," and "The part-time study option offered in many of Ryerson's graduate programs, such as the MBA and the M.A. in Public Policy and Administration, have made the school a choice for professionals working in business and government in the Greater Toronto Area." This information, unreferenced and biased, remains in the article, but the objective and sourced information that I have included is being removed.
What can be done about the lack of neutral point of view in the article? Objectivity is Essential ( talk) 01:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Editor Ivananderson ( talk · contribs) has been making a series of obviously slanted modifications to various articles concerning The Fellowship (Christian organization). For some reason, I have Douglas Coe on my watchlist which is why I noticed but he's been causing problems for a while now. See User talk:Ivananderson, Talk:Abraham Vereide, etc. This diff is also typical. Pichpich ( talk) 18:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I have tried to eliminate what I perceive to be POV by changing " Like all of creation science, baraminology is pseudoscience and biological facts and evidence shows that all life has common ancestry" to "Like all of creation science, baraminology is considered pseudoscience by the scientific establishment and biological facts and evidence is commonly taken to show that all life has common ancestry" by consensus on the talk page, but none developed for or against. Bettering the Wiki ( talk) 04:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I have an issue with some of the above templates on BLP/NPOV grounds, and have initiated discussion on two of them. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 22:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Please see this section of Wikipedia talk:NPOV. The NPOV policy currently contains two sections on specific topics: a 534-word section on pseudoscience and a 267-word section on religion. These sections were removed last month as being too specific after an RfC was posted on April 3. [85] The pseudoscience section was moved to WP:FRINGE, [86] and the religion section removed entirely. The sections have now been restored by others on the grounds that consensus was not established, or has changed. Fresh eyes would therefore be appreciated here on talk to decide whether to restore or remove the sections. SlimVirgin talk contribs 00:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia’s article on Che Guevara, in my opinion, falls well short of Wikipedia's policy of having a neutral point of view. Writing is not just about words and facts, it’s also about how these words and facts can carefully constructed by excluded or manipulating information to convey a specific message. For example, in the entire article, there is little or no mention of opposing points of view that are supported by facts and first-hand accounts of atrocities committed by Guevara and the Cuban Revolution. For example, the Cuban Archive is a database that documents many first-hand accounts of these atrocities. That is further evidence outlined in numerous articles and books written by authors such as Humberto Fontova. The general tone of the article is positive and one can even argue that the words paint Guevara as a force of good by describing Guevara as “”…an Argentine Marxist revolutionary, physician, author, intellectual, guerrilla leader, diplomat, military theorist, and major figure of the Cuban Revolution. Since his death, his stylized visage has become a ubiquitous countercultural symbol and global insignia within popular culture.” The article continues documenting Guevara’s life in such a manner to portray him as a romantic, swashbuckling, Errol Flynn sort of character; a tireless fighter of the have-nots. Indeed, Wikipedia’s article stretches the limits of the phrase “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.”
Not surprisingly, historical figures with opposing political views are not exactly described such a sprightly manner. Take for example Wikipedia’s own article on Luis Posada Carriles. This Wikipedia article begins be describing Posada as simply “a Cuban-born Venezuelan anti-communist militant.” The article then immediately continues to document Posada’s so-called “terrorist” activities which ultimately accounts for the vast majority of the content in the article. There are little or no inspiring anecdotes about Posada’s past, his experiences as a youth or the ornate language as was the case in the Guevara article. While many of the facts concerning Posada’s “terrorist” activities are largely accurate, it is how these two articles convey vastly different messages – Guevara as a romantic “freedom fighter” and Posada as simply a CIA-backed “terrorist”. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abarreras ( talk • contribs) 05:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Are articles in the simple english wikipedia under the same rules as articles in the regular WP in terms of NPOV? Thanks Becritical ( talk) 19:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
If NPOV is the same in the simple english wikipedia, do we not need to do something about this theory? Here is the article on WP. Looks to me that someone has been using the SEW to spread their POV. Becritical ( talk) 15:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you that statements such as this
In 2004, President George Bush gave not eight but sixteen years for a manned return to the Moon, even though the technologies for it should have already been developed forty years earlier.
are easy to find on the simple Wikipedia article and not in the Wikipedia article for moon landing conspiracies. I also agree with you that that statements of this sort are not NPOV and need to be corrected. WP:Be Bold in changing these things; work with editors there on discussion boards, and please return here for help if anyone gives you trouble about the changes you are making. Blue Rasberry 17:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
context). But "Moon conspiracy theorists say that even though the technologies for it should have already been developed 40 years earlier, in 2004 President George Bush gave not eight but 16 years for a manned return to the Moon." is more NPOV. Tom Reedy ( talk) 12:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
First, in the interest of full disclosure, let me say that I am an employee of Home Depot, but do not hold any kind of executive or management position, and I am not acting as a representive of the company in any way.
Now then, I'm concerned about the above linked section. I don't dispute the factual accuracy of the text, as it does seem to be supported by reliable sources, but it seems to give undue weight to a single court case. My thought is that it might be best to condense the current section to a shorter summary and add it to a new section with information on other Home Depot-related court cases, but I'd like advice and input from other editors before proceeding.-- Fyre2387 ( talk • contribs) 18:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I never thought such literal-mindedness existed before I began editing at Wikipedia. I was trying to make a serous point about a problem that I see is endemic at Wikipedia, namely that a lot of individuals, groups, and companies see it as free Web space for their purposes. Sooner or later this is going to have to be addressed if it is to move beyond being a punch line. There are some good articles on Wikipedia, but most that I've seen are wretched due to the democratic nature of the editing process. People who are knowledgeable about a subject don't want to spend the majority of their time defending their edits against uninformed POV editors who manipulate the system to push their agenda. And who wants to spend the time rewriting an article about Home Depot, for Christ's sake? Not I. Tom Reedy ( talk) 21:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
There are a particular couple of lines in this article about a painting by Italian Renaissance artist Caravaggio. "This is not a pallid faith. Caravaggio has exterminated all the cherubim that infest the Virgin like flies in Carracci's adjacent Assumption." Infest the Virgin like flies? I wouldn't know how to fix this, but this doesn't read like an encyclopedic article. 75.84.184.44 ( talk) 06:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
For those not already involved in the question at the Media Matters for America article and Talk, please evaluate the following for neutral point of view:
The sources are as follows:
I can provide excerpts from the sources if needed.-- Drrll ( talk) 17:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I thought you people wanted some outside opinions from disinterested editors about whether a statement complied with WP:NPOV, but I see you merely wanted another place to squabble. Pardon my intrusion; carry on. Tom Reedy ( talk) 03:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
The first source listed above (the book by Gerth and Van Natta) is neither primary nor reliable secondary. See Gene Lyons' book "Fools for Scandal: How the Media Invented Whitewater" in which Gerth and Van Natta are the main antagonists, discussed in-depth at PBS:Frontline (excerpted from Harper's) -- starting with Gerth's pieces for the NYT which were "not particularly fair or balanced stories that combine a prosecutorial bias and the art of tactical omission.." PrBeacon ( talk) 01:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi! I notice that a user posted a message on the article's talk page stating his belief that parts of the page are not NPOV towards immigrants. As a note the article passed good article standards in 2008 ([ the passed version) WhisperToMe ( talk) 13:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
That article is a war zone. The critique section and the article's history should make it obvious why. Lots of wp:spas and IPs editing it both ways. Pcap ping 14:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Historical information about Saint Joseph, the father of Jesus, is being systematically excluded from the page by two editors.
Here's the latest of many deletions. [89]
Here's information suggested on Talk and turned down by the same editors.
He was a Jewish builder from Nazareth in Galilee, living some two thousand years ago. At that time, Galilee was a backwater exploited by Romans and far from the Holy City of Jerusalem. Nazareth itself was a tiny, poor village, excluded from the nearby wealthy Hellenic city of Sepphoris. Joseph was a builder, working in wood and stone. He was married to Mary and was the father of the famous Jesus. He also fathered four other sons (James, Judas, Joses/Joseph, and Simon) and some daughters. Unlike Mary and James, Joseph played no role in Jesus' ministry or in the Christian church in Jerusalem. Scholars offer various explanations for why Mark refers to Jesus as Mary's son rather than as Joseph's, such as that Joseph had died or that Jesus was illegitimate. Most historians consider Joseph to be Jesus' biological father, though some contend that Mary may have been seduced or raped by another man. In any event, in Joseph's culture a son's legitimacy was defined by the father's acceptance of the boy, not by biological paternity.
The other editors say this information is not relevant to the topic and is covered in other articles. It looks to me like people not giving the historical perspective a fair shake because it's a religious topic. Leadwind ( talk) 23:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
There is currently a disagreement on neutrality that is hindering improvement to the East Africa page. It centres around whether or not to mention an unrecognised state within the outline of this geographic region's composition.
The bulleted part (see top) of this outline is based on the United Nations geoscheme for Africa, which is a geographical grouping of countries for statistical purposes. Because the UN does not recognise the existence of Somaliland as a separate state of its own, its name will not be mentioned in this source. No editor is proposing tampering with this definition, which is strictly a reflection of the source. The second part of the outline (see directly underneath) defines the region in a purely geographic sense, and uses multiple sources. Inclusion of the red text is disputed on the grounds that it doesn't belong on a list of countries:
East Africa is often used to specifically refer to the area now comprising the countries of Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda, and (in a wider sense) also Rwanda, Burundi, Somalia (including the breakaway republic of Somaliland), Djibouti, Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Sudan. [citations omitted]
Inclusion was proposed initially because neutral policy would normally dictate that all sides to a dispute be represented. Sovereignty over Somaliland is a prominent dispute in current affairs. It is listed in the List of states with limited recognition and List of sovereign states.
Sources used will also need to be checked for neutrality.
No discussion has taken place on the talk page because an identical (and rather lengthy) argument surrounding the inclusion of the same name on a template took place here and concluded here, and involved the same editors. Night w ( talk) 05:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
"The Government does not recognize Somaliland as an independent state, neither does the rest of the international community. The UK has signed up to a common EU position and to many UN Security Council Presidential Statements, which refer to the territorial integrity and unity of Somalia."
The above by Midday clears up any confusion as to what the definition of East Africa is in mainstream literature, several wikipedia lists or templates where the inclusion of Somaliland is systematically pushed from a biased perspective through sheer weight of numbers(which is wrongfully portrayed as being 'concensus') does not equal 'a new mainstream definition' that is used by 'neutral sources' -- Scoobycentric ( talk) 14:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with everything stated above by Night w regarding the circumstances in this case. I would direct commenting editors to the List of states with limited recognition page for some background in this area of International Politics and very strongly encourage a reading of the prev. discussion here and here as noted above also. The treatment of disputes from an objective perceptive is key for any encyclopedia. I strongly believe we should not take sides in international disputes. Treating states with limited recognition as equal to one another is therefore very important. Those who take sides in these conflicts should really try to check their POV at the door when they come to improve the project; in this case, that has not happened. Wikipedians are people, and people can be very nationalistic sometimes leading them to become very combative in their editing. Taking sides in international disputes on wikipedia is rarely productive.
In regards to pages that have to do with this state I have had been told/called so many things and quoted so many WP policies guidelines (though often incorrectly). Some times I am spreading propaganda, sometimes I am the 'separatists' themselves, sometimes I am soap-boxing, sometimes when I use sources provided by others arguing - those sources are no longer valid, sometimes I am an advocate, and on and on. I really want this issue settled, because there are many pages across the project that need to be rendered neutral. Hopefully in this discussion, excessively long repetitive comments will not rule the day. I do not want to find consensus on a subject, only to move on to another page and have the same edits challenged by the same few editors.
Be wary, this discussion is NOT about Somaliland's international status. No one disputes the fact that no state recognizes it currently. No one disputes the fact that no international organization recognizes it currently. Somaliland exists as a de facto state only, and is defined as such by outside observers. The best article on the subject that I have found is here: http://yalejournal.org/article/de-facto-statehood-strange-case-somaliland [90]
As far as edits of mine above are concerned as quoted by Midday; the first is me adding a redirect on the list of sovereign states page. I do not understand how that is relevant. The second confirms only that I am involved with this dispute. I did not add Somaliland to Wikipedia, it was on those lists long before I came along. Please do not break up my comment. To all editors here, feel free to talk to me on my talk page. Thanks. Outback the koala ( talk) 02:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
To Middayexpress:
I sympathise with Outback's frustration over this. I always try to assume good faith when disagreeing with editors, but on rare occasions you come across certain users who will persist again and again, no matter how many instances occur in which they're forced to concede to policy and consensus. In this case, there are editors involved who are incredibly knowledgable on the subject, and have the potential to make great improvements to the site, but their ability to make unbiased, encyclopædic edits is thwarted by a conflict of interest with their subject. Night w ( talk) 06:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
1) The part of the article the sentence occupies is not the UN list, but the secondary definition: "East Africa is often used to specifically refer to the area now comprising the countries of . . ."
2) The second ref given states "Somaliland located in the north part of Somalia in East Africa is a small country . . ."
3) I am constantly amazed at Wikipedeans failure to find and use up-to-date sources. A simple search on Amazon and using the "Search inside this book" feature turned up Understanding Somalia and Somaliland: Culture, History and Society (2008), which refers to Somaliland as a republic while discussing its lack of diplomatic recognition, and even uses the term "breakaway republic" on p. 121.
3) This article concerns a geographical designation, not a political demarcation. In geography, the term " country" is used to designate a geographical region. The geographical region in question is generally designated by the name "Somaliland," whether it is or isn't an independent nation.
4) The sentence doesn't say Somaliland is a sovereign nation, so any objections based on that reason do not apply. In fact, it states that Somaliland is part of Somolia with the status of a "breakaway republic", which appears to be a correct description. Somaliland appears to engage in informal diplomatic activities; it has been autonomous since 1991 with no effort on the part of Somalia to force it back into the state of Somalia that I have been able to discover; it has its own army; and the people don't pay taxes to Somalia. But it's not recognised by other countries, so its status is a kind of twilight zone of sovereignty. It's not a matter of urgency to other countries because it is small and poor.
5) The purpose of Wikipedia is to convey information to as many people as possible. Some of those people, obviously, consider Somaliland to be an independent, sovereign nation. Others don't, so it is a matter of dispute. Most people don't care and haven't thought about it. The purpose of the sentence is to convey what geographical regions are included in the term "East Africa." Those who consider Somaliland an independent nation would wonder why it wasn't on the list if it were left off; those who don't consider it an independent nation would note that it is designated as part of Somalia.
The sentence as quoted would satisfy everyone except those who are active partisans on either side. Wikipedia is not written to settle scores, succor either side in a dispute, or declare which side is correct; Wikipedia is written to convey correct information to the largest number of people. By doing so in no way does it portray a slanted point of view by using the language in the sentence, in my opinion.
To recap, the sentence does not state Somaliland is an independent nation; Somaliland is the term used to describe the geographical area in question as evidenced by the ref in 2) above, and the article is about the definition of a geographical area. Tom Reedy ( talk) 04:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
The part of the article the sentence occupies is not the UN list, but the secondary definition: "East Africa is often used to specifically refer to the area now comprising the countries of . . ."
The second ref given states "Somaliland located in the north part of Somalia in East Africa is a small country . . ."
I am constantly amazed at Wikipedeans failure to find and use up-to-date sources. A simple search on Amazon and using the "Search inside this book" feature turned up Understanding Somalia and Somaliland: Culture, History and Society (2008), which refers to Somaliland as a republic while discussing its lack of diplomatic recognition, and even uses the term "breakaway republic" on p. 121.
"Thus when the union was formed, its precise legal effects had not been laid down in any instrument having binding force in both parts of the State. As explained below, the matter was clarified seven months later by the adoption of a new Act of Union with retroactive effect from July 1, 1960 for the whole territory of the Republic ...To dispel any uncertainties, it was thought desirable, as a first step, to enact a law applicable to the whole territory of the Republic, defining the legal effects of the union with as much precision as possible. This was done on January 31, 1961, six months after unification, when the National Assembly adopted by acclamation a new Act of Union, which repealed the Union of Somaliland and Somalia Law, and which was made retroactive as from July 1, 1960."
Middayexpress ( talk) 05:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)"One component of the structural defects of this vigorous campaign for "Somaliland" administration within the geographical confines of Hargeisa and its vicinities is the infringement of the Act of Union, a fundamental error emanating from an arbitrary means of dissolving the union of Somalia."
Middayexpress ( talk) 04:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)"It is not sufficient to discuss an opinion as fact merely by stating "some people believe...", a practice referred to as "mass attribution". [31] A reliable source supporting a statement that a group holds an opinion must accurately describe how large this group is."
An observation ( objective) expresses a fact. An interpretation ( subjective) expresses an opinion. A fact can be asserted without simon-says inline-text phrasing. An opinion must be attributed to so-and-so said.
This article concerns a geographical designation, not a political demarcation. In geography, the term " country" is used to designate a geographical region. The geographical region in question is generally designated by the name "Somaliland," whether it is or isn't an independent nation.
The sentence doesn't say Somaliland is a sovereign nation, so any objections based on that reason do not apply. In fact, it states that Somaliland is part of Somolia with the status of a "breakaway republic", which appears to be a correct description. Somaliland appears to engage in informal diplomatic activities; it has been autonomous since 1991 with no effort on the part of Somalia to force it back into the state of Somalia that I have been able to discover; it has its own army; and the people don't pay taxes to Somalia. But it's not recognised by other countries, so its status is a kind of twilight zone of sovereignty. It's not a matter of urgency to other countries because it is small and poor.
"While the United States does not recognize Somaliland as an independent state, we continue regularly to engage with Somaliland as a regional administration and to support programs that encourage democratization and economic development in the Somaliland region. We have consistently voted for United Nations Security Council resolutions reaffirming respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity, political independence, and unity of Somalia.
"The Somaliland president, Dahir Rayale Kahin, is regarded more as a governor by other nations, even though he considers himself to be as much a president as, say, Thabo Mbeki of South Africa, Mwai Kibaki of Kenya or Olusegun Obasanjo of Nigeria, three prominent presidents on this continent."
"The Somaliland passport — which bears the region's logo and looks as official as any other nation's — is not recognized by any country in the world, although the neighboring countries of Ethiopia and Djibouti do allow people to travel with it while still not officially recognizing Somaliland as a country."
"Independence does not rely solely on whether it is deserved, but on the existing realpolitik. Sadly for Somaliland, they fall between the cracks in international law and cannot win the argument for de jure recognition while Somalia remains without a viable government, so they must instead push for de facto recognition – which no one is willing to offer."
The purpose of Wikipedia is to convey information to as many people as possible. Some of those people, obviously, consider Somaliland to be an independent, sovereign nation. Others don't, so it is a matter of dispute. Most people don't care and haven't thought about it. The purpose of the sentence is to convey what geographical regions are included in the term "East Africa." Those who consider Somaliland an independent nation would wonder why it wasn't on the list if it were left off; those who don't consider it an independent nation would note that it is designated as part of Somalia.
The sentence as quoted would satisfy everyone except those who are active partisans on either side. Wikipedia is not written to settle scores, succor either side in a dispute, or declare which side is correct; Wikipedia is written to convey correct information to the largest number of people. By doing so in no way does it portray a slanted point of view by using the language in the sentence, in my opinion.
"...if an extradition treaty exists with Ethiopia, which like the rest of the world does not recognize Somaliland's independence and therefore cannot enter into any treaty with it." -- Human Rights Watch, July 2009
How about we stopped focusing on Middayexpress as a person and started processing the information he has posted here, instead of trying to bully him into pariah status? It's laughable that we have individuals attacking Middayexpress for being elaborate and posting verifiable information, when they themselves were the ones who were blatantly using wrong sources on the East Africa article in question to support their edits, even in this very discussion a very lengthy case for Somaliland was made through multiple points and sources proven to be directly/in-directly connected to the seccessionist cause, and used to nicely synthesize a sentence that is never proclaimed in the original sources, when these points were addressed and refuted through the use of sources not connected to the Somali government, suddenly nobody wants to continue the discussion? Interesting. -- Scoobycentric ( talk) 00:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)